ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs

Seventy-First Session

April 25, 2001

The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:08 a.m. on Wednesday, April 25, 2001. Chairman Douglas Bache presided in Room 3143 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:

Mr. Douglas Bache, Chairman

Mr. John J. Lee, Vice Chairman

Ms. Merle Berman

Mr. David Brown

Mr. David Humke

Mr. Harry Mortenson

Mr. Roy Neighbors

Ms. Bonnie Parnell

Mr. Bob Price

Mrs. Debbie Smith

Ms. Kathy Von Tobel

Mr. Wendell Williams

COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:

Mrs. Vivian Freeman

Mrs. Dawn Gibbons

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblyman Joe Dini, Assembly District 38

Mark Amodei, Capitol Senatorial District

Assemblyman Tom Collins, Assembly District 1

Senator Mike McGinness, Central Nevada Senatorial District

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel

Dave Ziegler, Committee Policy Analyst

Virginia Letts, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

LeRoy Goodman, Lyon County Commissioner

David Stix Jr., Newly Elected Mayor, city of Fernley

Bill Isaeff, Special Assistant to the Sparks City Manager

Tom Grady Nevada League of Cities

Henry Neth, Nye County Commissioner

Jim Spinello, Clark County

Jane Wisdom, Member, Pahrump town board

Mark Fiorentino, Attorney, representing HHH Investments

Sandra Mischo, Resident of Roger’s Estates, Pahrump, Nevada

Vicki Paulbick, Resident of Roger’s Estates, Pahrump, Nevada

Danny Thompson, Nevada State AFL-CIO

Assembly Bill 663: Revises provisions governing cities. (BDR 21-1507)

Assemblyman Joe Dini, Assembly District 38, testified Fernley was a newly incorporated city so they had no access to the bill draft process. They had asked Mr. Dini to intervene with an emergency request on their behalf. One problem the city had was in providing fire protection. It would be very costly, so it was felt the present fire protection district should be left as currently structured. The second problem the city had was in setting salaries. The proposed language would set the salaries of the officers first elected or appointed for the city by ordinance. The compensation would be fixed by ordinance unless it was otherwise provided in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 266.041.

LeRoy Goodman, Lyon County Commissioner, District 4, stated Fernley was in Lyon County and the county commissioners were in full support of A.B. 663. There were four separate fire districts in Lyon County: Central Lyon, North Lyon, Mason Valley, and Smith Valley. With the incorporation of Fernley general law mandated a fire district must be established for the city of Fernley. The problem was no tax rate had been allowed for a fire district. It was felt the fire district should remain the same until Fernley could afford to establish their own department.

David Stix Jr., newly elected Mayor for the city of Fernley, stated he would address the salary issue. NRS Chapter 266 had not established salaries for elected officials in newly established cities. There was a comparison of salaries in other rural area towns with those proposed for Fernley (Exhibit C). Fernley was proposing monthly compensation in the amount of $700 for the Mayor and $600 for council members. These figures were below the average for other towns, which was $998 for Mayors and $707 for council members.

Mark Amodei, Capitol Senatorial District, testified he was in favor of the bill and felt that the people of Fernley would be in a better position to know what the compensation should be. He was also in favor of keeping the fire department in a “status quo” position.

Ms. Parnell commented she wanted to congratulate the new mayor and thought the entire story on business diversification in Fernley had been interesting to watch.

ASSEMBLYMAN LEE MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS A.B. 663.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED, WITH ASSEMBLYWOMEN FREEMAN AND GIBBONS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.

Senate Bill 155: Authorizes change in boundaries of certain cities to become effective in certain circumstances within specified period before certain elections. (BDR 21-650)

Bill Isaeff, Special Assistant to the Sparks City Manager, stated S.B. 155 had been introduced by Senator Washington in the Senate. The bill related to cities and they would like a small amendment dealing with annexation. NRS 268.666, as currently written, prohibited annexation of any property into a city if that annexation occurred within 90 days immediately proceeding any general election in which officers are chosen or issues determined for that city. They did not want to change the basic premise of existing laws, but allow a city to annex totally vacant land at any time without regard to a coming election. A situation arose in the city of Sparks where the city was in the process of annexing land when they were suddenly confronted with the upcoming general election in November of 2000 and had to really hurry to complete the annexation within 91 days so the city would be in compliance with current statute. Current language allowed entirely vacant land to be annexed into the city and “must not become effective within the 90 days immediately preceding an election.” The purpose of the amendment was not to change the basic premise of the law as it exists, but merely carve out an exception allowing orderly annexation of vacant land at any time during the calendar year.

Mr. Price said in the description it stated, “authorizing a change in boundaries of certain cities,” and questioned if that language indicated all cities would not be affected. Mr. Isaeff replied the statute was clearly written to cover all cities. The only difference was if a city charter provided contrary provisions, which he was not aware of, so it was his belief it covered all cities in Nevada.

Tom Grady, representing the Nevada League of Cities stated they were in full support.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN SMITH MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS S.B. 155.

ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYWOMEN FREEMAN AND GIBBONS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.

Senate Bill 395: Transfers certain territory from Clark County to Nye County. (BDR 20-1220)

Mike McGinness, Central Senatorial District, testified his district included White Pine, Churchill, Lincoln, Nye, Esmeralda, Mineral, part of Lander, and part of Eureka counties. He and Mr. Neighbors cosponsored S.B. 395, which transferred certain territory from Clark County to Nye County. There was about 23,361 acres of BLM land and 3,866 acres of private land totaling 47.2 square miles. For many years Nye County and Clark County had an inter-local agreement to provide services. The area was so close to Pahrump it was geographically part of the Pahrump Valley. The Clark County line came almost to the edge of Pahrump with the inter-local agreement providing law enforcement, ambulance, and fire protection, schools and similar services. Discussions in the past year between Clark and Nye County brought unanimous support from both counties.

Assemblyman Roy Neighbors, Assembly District 36, indicated there was a handout (Exhibit D), which was a resolution signed by the majority of county commissioners in support of transferring the land. He understood there might be some effort to amend the bill, and he wished to go on record that both counties opposed any amendments to the bill. The handout also included a map of the proposed Nye and Clark County boundary relocation.

Commissioner Henry Neth, District 5, Nye County, read a letter had had received into the record:

Dear Chairman Bache,

The make-up of Nye County and its government have progressively changed over the past few years. The once small town of Pahrump is now a thriving and growing community with plans that reach well into the future. For several years Nye County has had the benefit of its rich mining and natural resources. Over the years due to the price of ore and the depletion of those resources we have had to look in other areas for our economic development future. The community of Pahrump has been a focal point of that future due to its current growth and potential. The proposed county line change between Clark and Nye is a part of that future and offers Nye County the opportunity to serve the residents who live in that area. As you are aware, Nye County currently provides services to the residents of that area at no charge. This includes, but is not limited to, fire, ambulance, police and education. Also, much of the growth of Pahrump is in the southern part of the community where major developers are investing. The county has also had road concerns because of the boundaries currently in place. A boundary line change at this time would be beneficial to both counties. Nye would assume the service responsibilities for the current residents who live there. Nye would assume the current road issues and the need for an inter-local agreement would be unnecessary. This would alleviate the time and confusion that residents and developers would have in determining any jurisdictional issues. At this time the town of Pahrump, the Nye County Board of Commissioners, the Clark County Board of Commissioners, the Senate Government Affairs Committee and the full Senate have given S.B. 395 a unanimous vote. We sincerely hope and request that S.B. 395 be allowed the opportunity to be heard in the Assembly and perhaps make that final walk to the Governor’s office for consideration. Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter.

Sincerely, Jeffrey Taguchi, Chairman of the Board, Nye County.

Jim Spinello, representing Clark County, testified the board of county commissioners adopted a resolution fully supporting S.B. 395 on April 17. Clark County, Nye County, and Pahrump had worked on the legislation for the past two years. The charter approved by the Clark County Commission and subsequent amendment proposals had shown the counties and the township of Pahrump had been cooperative.

Jane Wisdom, member of Pahrump town board, stated there had been negotiations with Clark County on an inter-local agreement, and subsequently it was decided the best solution was to change the county line and settle the matter once and for all. It was a unique situation geographically and socially not duplicated at any other border area of Clark County. The area was geographically part of Pahrump Valley and should be governed by the same county government body as the rest of the area. Mount Charleston, BLM land and Toiyabe National Forest were natural barriers separating the area from the rest of Clark County, leaving no expectation of any large-scale future development in the Clark County portion of the valley. Hundreds of thousands of surrounding acres of BLM and national forest did not warrant economically provided services. Police, fire and medical emergency services would be difficult, time consuming, and expensive to service from Clark County. Heavy highway traffic required frequent emergency services. The area had no water rights so any development or building in that area would have to obtain water rights before anything could start. Major traffic roadways in the southern part of Pahrump needed to be extended through to State Highway 160 and it would not be cost effective to build the three-eights of a mile of roadway through the valley to connect it to the highway. The area was a homogenous part of Pahrump and the few people living there considered themselves Pahrump residents; their children attended Pahrump schools, most worked and shopped in Pahrump. Even though they lived in Clark County, they voted in Pahrump as their post office box had a Pahrump address. Current revenue from taxes was $38,388 for only 3,866.6 acres of privately owned land so the services provided would always exceed revenues for a long time in the future. Twenty percent of landowners in the area live outside the state and had not responded to a survey on whether to join Nye County and the majority of the others were in agreement. The Pahrump Town Board and the Nye County Commissioners had passed resolutions supporting the change and Nye County was willing to take on the services of the area knowing tax revenues did not currently equal the cost of providing services.

Ms. Parnell asked why there was some objection to the change. Ms. Wisdom replied there was a small group of people living in the area who were now being charged on a rural tax basis from Clark County. If they became part of Nye County they would become a residential community and their taxes could be raised about $30 a year. However their property would be increased in value as a result, but sometimes people dislike change.

Ms. Von Tobel stated the area in contention fell in her legislative district and was disappointed that the makers of the bill did not have the courtesy to contact her before submitting the legislation. She had received complaints from the residents of Roger’s Estates and found it interesting that even though it was a minority of residents they did not seem to have a voice. They had built their homes to the demanding standards of Clark County and felt that the building and zoning codes of Nye County would lead to the devaluation of their homes and property. One main concern was the inevitable highway shortcut that would be established for access to Mr. Hafen’s subdivision as well as the brothels just east of the subdivision. The majority of residents in the affected area were never notified of the proposed changes, nor were they able to get any response from their county commissioner. She questioned what services Pahrump and Nye County had provided that had not been paid for, as Trout Canyon and Sandy Valley were much closer and yet did not receive services from Nye County. She had not be able to speak to Senator Porter’s office and wanted to strongly object to the bill on behalf of the property owners opposed to the legislation.

Ms. Wisdom apologized for not contacting Ms. Von Tobel, but stated she felt she could contact Ms. Von Tobel when she came to testify before the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs. The board was interested in assuring that the nine families in the Roger’s Subdivision had services if someone needed either medical or fire assistance. There was at least an hour delay for emergency services from Clark County and Pahrump could be there in 15 to 20 minutes, and possibly save someone’s life.

Ms. Von Tobel indicated she also represented the area of Mesquite. She had never heard anyone from St. George complain that Mesquite residents had to be airlifted to St. George because there was no hospital in Mesquite. Not one person had stated they were tired of providing services to Mesquite and wanted the borders moved. Ms. Wisdom responded they were not unhappy about providing the services, only that they were not being paid for those services.

Mr. Brown questioned if there were water rights in the Clark County area. Ms. Wisdom responded she could not find water rights, but many residents did sink wells.

Mr. Brown wondered if sinking a well was inconsistent with not having water rights. Mr. Neth interjected there was a unique situation in the Pahrump Valley regarding water. If a person owns a piece of property in the valley they were allowed to sink a well and pump up to eighteen hundred gallons of water a day. The term was referred to as a “residential well,” and if a person owned five acres they could sink five wells, but only one well per parcel. If a person was going to farm a large parcel, they would have to acquire water rights, but if that was later subdivided for development those rights would have to be converted to residential or commercial. As there were no water or sewer systems in that area any water had to be obtained from a private individual when development was contemplated and those water rights would come out of Nye County.

As a county commissioner he would support the boundary change as in the future the 3,800 acres was going to become an extremely valuable piece of property in Pahrump Valley because of the proposed development at the south end. He felt he would not be fiscally responsible to taxpayers in his district if he based his budget on monies coming into the county based on revenue received from property governed by an inter-local agreement.

Senator Mike McGinness, Central Nevada Senatorial District, stated he wanted to apologize to Ms. Von Tobel for not contacting her concerning S.B. 395. Things moved rather quickly with the shortened 120-day session. He wished she had brought the matter to his attention a few days ago when they sat next to each other at dinner.

Roy Neighbors said he also wanted to apologize to Ms. Von Tobel. He added there had been resolutions regarding the change and both county commissioners were in 100 percent support and was surprised that she was not aware of the situation. He felt that because they had been sitting on the same committee if she felt there was a problem she would have contacted him.

Mr. Neff stated the county commissioners would make sure there was no disruption in service and they would step forward and assume responsibility for their residents.

Mark Fiorentino, representing HHH Investments, stated they were one of the private property owners that would be affected by the boundary change, and supported the bill. They were part of a coalition of private owners and were willing to work with other owners in the area to solve any problems that might arise.

Mr. Humke questioned if there were any precedents in statute where county boundaries had been changed.

Ms. Wisdom interjected she believed there had been a line change in 1986.

Mr. Neighbors stated approximately 60 to 80 years ago the boundary had to be changed in southern Nevada as part of downtown Las Vegas was in Lincoln County. He thought there might have been other adjustments but he would check with the legal division.

Mr. Spinello thought the most significant change was in 1909 when Clark County was created. Clark County had been a triangle in Lincoln County and was subsequently carved out.

Mr. Bache believed the line between Esmeralda and Nye Counties had been shifted at some point in time.

Mr. Humke asked the legislative staff to research a historical analysis of county boundary line shifts throughout the state. He wondered if they had been moved to facilitate development, which could possibly be the case with the present request for realignment. He could not vote on the bill until they could assess more historical background on the issue. Mr. Bache replied he had no intention of bringing the measure to a vote, and had requested Mr. Ziegler to research the issue and provide that information to the committee.

Sandra Mischo, resident of Roger’s Estates in Pahrump Valley, stated although her mailing address was Pahrump she actually lived in Clark County. Roger’s Estates was approximately two miles inside the Clark County line and there were approximately ten homes currently in the subdivision with more property owners who had not yet begun construction. The community was 100 percent opposed to any boundary line change and if it was going to be done, it should have happened long before the property was developed. A ten-year inter-local agreement between Nye and Clark Counties had expired in 1999. In the more than 15 years she had been a resident, she called the police one time. She was informed on their arrival the residents lived in “no man’s land” and the police left. Since that time the community accepted the fact that services were not available to them. Another reason the community was against the legislation was that one of the landowners suddenly turned out to be a developer and they felt he wanted the change to Nye County for his own benefit. The developer wanted a continuation of the road through the valley so he could construct a store and gas station right next to Roger’s Estates. With extension of the road there would be an increase of major traffic not only for the locals, but those who wanted to participate in casino and brothel activities. When Roger started Roger’s Estates he realized Clark County would continue to grow and the community could not understand why Clark County was willing to relinquish the tax dollars to Nye County. Another issue was the zoning and building code standards, as Pahrump had none and no areas in Nye County were required to conform to any codes, which could involve a large devaluation of the Roger’s Estates property. When residences were constructed, Nye County inspectors were sent to check the construction and willingly overlooked several items until it was mentioned that the homes were actually in Clark County. Clark County was subsequently contacted and many items had to be brought up to county code. Ms. Mischo did not feel Highway 160 was a problem, as it was a state highway, funded by the state and patrolled by the Nevada Highway Patrol. Although the community voted in Pahrump the county commissioner who represented them had never supported them, nor had she tried to contact any of the residents when the border change was being contemplated. The commissioner was approached a year ago after articles came out in the paper and stated the land development idea was only rumor. Later it was learned there had been discussions between the Nye and Clark Counties Commissions since 1999. Roger found out about the proposal in the previous few months and that was when the community was notified. Their commissioner, when finally contacted, told the community she would back Nye County in the matter with no explanation forthcoming. Also, when they became aware of the legislation it had already passed the state Senate so it seemed that it was a “done deal” between the counties without any consideration for the community involved. It was quite obvious that one land developer had the ear of the two counties. The Senate also had the ear of the counties. They obviously had been working on the plan for quite some time, while the community only had a very short time to fight the change, so they would ask that the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs not vote S.B. 395 out of committee.

Mr. Neighbors said that currently the community paid taxes in Clark County, which was a lesser rate as it was considered rural. Although taxes were paid to Clark County, Pahrump was providing the ambulance service, fire and police protection. He wondered if Ms. Mischo felt it was fair for the residents to have free services provided when they did not pay taxes to Pahrump. Ms. Mischo felt the problem was between the counties, not the residents. She thought they were caught in a “catch 22” situation as they did provide the services when required because it was impossible for Clark County to respond in a timely manner. The counties were the ones that set up the arrangements for the services provided to the community.

Mr. Neighbors understood they were paying Clark County; his question was because Pahrump was providing all those services, why did she feel that the county should not receive any compensation with all the projected growth in the area, including roads. He had a call from a constituent that one of the big issues in the area dealt with a road that could become a court issue.

Ms. Mischo responded she knew nothing about a court case. The proposed development would be a road that would run into a smaller road adjoining the Roger’s Estate property.

Ms. Von Tobel wanted to clarify that she was not given any information until April 20, when she received the first phone call at 9:50 a.m. She had sat next to Senator McGinness at a dinner held on April 19 and the proposed legislation was never brought up. She felt the whole process had moved too quickly without any notification to her that the legislation had been proposed. When she had contacted Senator Porter’s office, he had indicated there were calls in opposition and she had to assume it was because the bill was moved so quickly through the Senate. She understood there was an inter-local agreement, and those were done all the time, so that procedure was not unusual, but what was unusual were changes in county boundary lines.

Mr. Spinello testified the current inter-local agreement had expired. Clark County was always willing to provide services. When looking at a map, Pahrump Valley was split between two counties with part of Clark County on one side of the mountain and the other part on the Pahrump side. When the maps were established in 1909, the county line was placed where it was for some reason, but no one alive knew the reason. When looking at Pahrump Valley and the growth in the area, it seemed logical to have one community. The only way that could be achieved was to move the boundary to include the entire valley; otherwise inter-local agreements would have to keep being renewed, with taxes going to a county that was not providing the services.

Mr. Mortenson questioned if Nye County was providing services up to Mountain Springs. Ms. Mischo believed that was part of the agreement that expired in 1999.

Mr. Humke asked if it was a neighborhood issue. Ms. Mischo thought it probably was, in many respects. Mr. Humke questioned how many people lived in the area. Ms. Mischo replied there were ten homes with probably two people to a home. Mr. Humke asked if Ms. Mischo knew Curly and May Taylor. Ms. Mischo indicated she knew of them, but did not know them personally.

Mr. Humke questioned if they lived in Roger’s Estate. Ms. Mischo replied they did not live there “per se.” Mr. Humke queried if she had heard of HHH Investments, Bill Kassam & Associates, Mountain Falls Commercial Bank, or the Bowman and Caruthers families. Ms. Mischo responded she had heard of them, but none of them lived in Roger’s Estates. She had heard at one point the boundary went through the Bowman’s property, but she did not know if that was a fact.

Mr. Humke said there was also the Hafen Ranch, Bill Goeff and Associates, Frontside Firearms Fireside Facility, and the Wylie Family Estate and wondered if they resided in the area. Ms. Mischo had heard of the Hafen Ranch but none of the others, and as far as she knew, none actually lived on their property.

Mr. Humke indicated he wanted to make a point, because it had been indicated that 61.5 percent of the property owners were in favor of the boundary change, and it seemed what was being defined was acres rather than actual residents.

Ms. Mischo stated the answer they kept getting was “everyone’s in agreement,” and they were trying to find out who “everyone” was. No names were ever mentioned, even in a previous commission meeting.

Mr. Humke understood that there appeared to be a resolution from Clark County dated April 17, 2001, that recommended the boundary changes. The resolution had been rushed to the Legislature with a blank signature page. The resolution from Nye County was dated March 6, 2001 and he realized it was hard to defend oneself and property when democracy treated its citizens in such a way.

Ms. Mischo said the matter had been brought up to their commissioner a year previously and she never heard anything more. The issue seemed to just move along. Since that time she had seen articles in the local papers and nothing much seemed to be happening until mid-March and all of a sudden it was a “done deal.” She had only found out in the past week about the meeting that was presently being held.

Mr. Brown stated the committee members had received information indicating the private property considered for annexation was situated within 2,080 acres in the northern portion of the valley. He understood that area was transected by State Route 160, and believed Roger’s Estates was located close to that road.

Ms. Mischo responded that road had become a common joke in the area as it originally ran north and south and had been changed to east and west. When coming from Las Vegas, Roger’s Estates would be on the left side, so the community was located west of Highway 160.

Mr. Brown questioned if the community was close to Thousand-Aire Boulevard. Ms. Mischo indicated that presently they were not, but if the street were extended to connect to Highway 160, it would be very close.

Mr. Brown questioned if Manse Road was closer to the community. Ms. Mischo responded the closest road was Caas, which currently connected to Manse, which lead to other areas such as Homestead and Thousand-Aire.

Mr. Brown wondered what the lot sizes were as his brother lives in Pahrump were most lot sizes were one and one-quarter. Ms. Mischo said the lots in the estates were one and one-quarter, probably because that was the norm when Roger divided up the parcels. Mr. Brown asked if Roger’s Estates was the only residential area across the Clark County line. Ms. Mischo related the next community was Trout Canyon.

Mr. Brown understood a vote was taken at one of the county commissioners meeting and wondered if the vote was unanimous. Mr. Spinello replied he believed the vote on April 17 was unanimous, and he would provide information in terms of any absent members for that vote.

Mr. Brown observed a fairly large community could be built upon the 2,080 private acres in the northern section. He found it a little unusual that a county would be willing to give up a portion of that county, because at some point in the future it could become a self-sustaining community; especially through inter-local agreements, services could be provided rather than surrendering that type of potential to another county.

Mr. Spinello stated a county never liked to surrender territory; however, county staff felt if the proposed change was approved, the concerns would be mitigated because with growth, liability to Clark County would be diminished because services would be provided by Nye County. The issue of a self-sustaining community was questionable because of the remoteness of the area so there would probably only be growth in rural pockets. It made more sense to the county to let Nye County have that area because of the distance, separation by the mountains, and the services that needed to be provided.

Mr. Bache interjected he was surprised to see a change in position from Commissioner Kenny, because he had remembered a little more than a year ago he had heard about the county line being moved dealing with big box stores. He wondered if the commissioner had changed her position. Mr. Spinello replied Mr. Bache would have to consult the commissioner.

Mr. Price inquired if the town board was responsible for the bill. Ms. Wisdom replied there were several people involved. Mr. Price indicated he was a little disappointed in the entire project, as there were different remarks made about the acreage involved. He felt the presentation had been a little misleading because the indication seemed to be that over 50 percent of the people were in favor of the change while statements indicated that out of a group of 17 people in that area, nine were not in favor of the legislation. He thought that perhaps the information they had received was not accurate.

Ms. Wisdom explained there was a development called Roger’s Estate and there were ten families who lived in the area. That was only one corner of the area and 61 percent of the entire area approved of the realignment. She wished to clarify that there were 20 to 30 families in the entire area, other than right in Roger’s Estates.

Mr. Price wondered if those families were landowners or actual residents. Ms. Wisdom indicated there were both. The approving percentages were figured by inclusion of all landowners. One projected area went to the California state line, and the other up to Highway 160, so the estates were only one small corner of the area under consideration.

Ms. Von Tobel interjected she felt the residents had been taken advantage of, as the entire bill was rushed through. She was merely trying to get some consideration for the residents in the estates. She felt she was “blind-sided” on the entire issue and apologized to the area residents as she was usually on top of anything happening in her district. She wanted it on record that while Pahrump was adamantly opposed to being redistricted in Clark County, they were more than happy to be able to pull an area from the valley into Nye County.

Ms. Wisdom said she wanted to clarify a misconception. Commissioner Kenny had not contacted the board or talked to them and no town meeting had been held.

Vickie Paulbick, a resident of the community, explained they were not aware of the proposed legislation until her father read an article in the newspaper on April 18. The last page of her handout (Exhibit E) indicated where their property was located and where the new proposed county lines would be. The handout included a proposed amendment that excluded one stretch of land. Her family had been residents in the area for 40 years and received no services from Clark County. Their property would be affected because Clark County would have no reason to continue maintenance of the road that accessed their property. Currently there was a non-exclusive easement that guaranteed access to their property, which they had worked hard to obtain. Most of the property on the Clark Canyon Road was BLM and even developers in Pahrump suggested that the bill be amended to remove a certain section in Township 20 South in which their property resided. She felt perhaps there were logical reasons to include Township 20 South in the boundary move, but without the requested amendment she could not support the bill.

Mr. Humke questioned when the land was purchased. Ms. Paulbick replied the land was purchased from a group of individuals in 1963 or 1964. Mr. Humke asked if any notice was given by the sellers that there was no access to the property. Ms. Paulbick responded they did have access for the first ten years.

Ms. Von Tobel stated that since the Clark County Commission had determined the road would be maintained, why did they decide to support the bill, which would remove the road. Mr. Spinello indicated he did not know what the individual thinking was, in terms of a general consensus there was no desire to shirk any responsibilities by the county. They had always provided payment for the services received by the Clark County residents in that area.

Ms. Von Tobel wondered if Clark County would continue to provide services if the bill failed. Mr. Spinello indicated the county was always ready to assist their residents and constituents.

Danny Thompson, representing the Nevada State AFL-CIO and speaking on behalf of the deputy sheriffs in Clark County, testified the group was responsible for patrolling every boundary in the county. His organization also represented all of the fire fighters and workers in both Nye and Clark Counties. When the bill was heard in the Senate, they took no position. Because of the passage of the motor vehicle privilege tax he requested the committee not process the bill until they found out what the impact would be on the employees of the county and city. Once they determined what the financial impact would be, they would be able to relay to the committee whether they were in favor or against passage.

Mr. Neighbors felt there would be an impact on Pahrump. As the area grew there would be more calls for emergency responses. He asked if Clark County responded in a timely manner, or would the response be left to Pahrump? Mr. Thompson asserted there had been a bill in the early 1980s that created Bull Frog County and impacted Nye County. He used to represent the city of Mesquite, which became an incorporated city because it was so far removed from any services. They were the latest city to incorporate and had survived very well. He indicated they were still neutral on the bill and would just like to have the opportunity to assess the impact on Clark County so there would be no surprises if the bill passed.

Mr. Neighbors understood Mr. Thompson’s concerns but he had never seen an emergency vehicle patrolling the area, only the highway patrol. He added he had been the county manager when the bill that established Bull Frog County passed. That particular issue was reversed by the Supreme Court in about 15 minutes.

Assemblyman Tom Collins, District 1, testified that he felt S.B. 395 should be amended because of the impact on the ranch in Clark Canyon and some of the people in Roger’s Estates. He had only become aware of the legislation the previous weekend after it passed the Senate. He felt it would have a detrimental impact on people, and if there was a development problem he wondered why those areas could not be amended out of the bill. There was a problem for the developer because of zoning and building codes in two different counties, and moving the boundaries would solve that problem. He did not see where it would harm anyone if the boundary was moved with the changes suggested in excluding certain areas in Township 20 South. It would have no impact on the development and provide access to the property of the owners who did not want their land included. One issue he wanted to discuss was that of services. He believed there had been many inter-local agreements, including the “Flight-for-Life Helicopter” that was kept in Sandy Valley for use in the rural portions of the state that worked very well. He believed 51 percent of the residents, not land owners, had to approve annexation or boundary changes. He appreciated that Mr. Neighbors and Senator McGinness were trying to develop and improve their districts, but would also ask that they take into consideration those residents of Clark County who wish to remain within Clark County boundaries.

Mr. Humke asked Mr. Collins if, in his opinion, no one should be transferred from Clark to Nye Counties against his or her wishes.

Mr. Collins indicated that was the general intent of the amendment. He felt it was a citizen’s right to be heard, and the people from Roger’s Estates and Clark Canyon had taken the time to appear before the committee. He believed that Township 20 South should be deleted from the agreement. They should take into consideration the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in allowing access to Clark Canyon and let the annexation proceed without that property. Clark County had already agreed to grade and maintain that road, and the parcels around that property could still be developed.

As there was no further testimony the hearing on S.B. 395 closed. The meeting was adjourned at 10:02 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Virginia Letts

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman

DATE: