MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs

 

Seventy-First Session

April 7, 2001

 

 

The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:05 a.m., on Saturday, April 7, 2001.  Chairman Douglas Bache presided in Room 4401 of the Grant Sawyer Building, Las Vegas, 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

Ms.                     Merle Berman

Mr.                     David Brown

Mrs.                     Vivian Freeman

Mrs.                     Dawn Gibbons

Mr.                     David Humke

Mr.                     Roy Neighbors

Ms.                     Bonnie Parnell

Mr.                     Bob Price

Mrs.                     Debbie Smith

Mr.                     Wendell Williams

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:

 

Mr.                     John J. Lee, Vice Chairman

Mr.                     Harry Mortenson

Ms.                     Kathy Von Tobel

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

Jon C. Porter, Sr., Senator, Clark County, District No. 1

Chris R. Giunchigliani, Assemblywoman, Clark County, District No. 9

Mark A. Manendo, Assemblyman, Clark County, District No. 18

David R. Parks, Assemblyman, Clark County, District No. 41

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel

Dave Ziegler, Committee Policy Analyst

Cheryl Meyers, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Commissioner Bruce Woodbury, Chairman, Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada, Clark County, Nevada

Jo Elle Hurns, Executive Director, Chamber of Commerce, Laughlin, Nevada

Susan G. Murphy, President and General Manager, Ramada Express, Inc., Laughlin, Nevada

Samuel W. Tso, P.E., Vice President and Area Manager, Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas, Inc., Las Vegas, Nevada

Thomas Skancke, Representative, Las Vegas Convention and Visitor’s Authority, Las Vegas, Nevada

Daniel Grimmer, Legislative Affairs Manager, MGM/Mirage, Carson City, Nevada

Rebecca Valentine, Councilwoman, City of Needles, Needles, California

Jeff Williams, Councilman, City of Needles, Needles, California

James Chacas, Hobbs, Ong and Associates, Las Vegas, Nevada

Steven Horsford, Representative, Nevada Resort Association, Las Vegas, Nevada

Gerald J. Shlesinger, President, Las Vegas Helicopters, Las Vegas, Nevada

John Sande, Representative, Las Vegas Helicopters, Las Vegas, Nevada

Kris Saylors, Citizen, Las Vegas, Nevada

Dr. Edson Parker, Citizen, Las Vegas, Nevada

Dennis Mewshaw, Planning Manager, Clark County Department of Aviation, Clark County, Nevada

Alex and Kerry Hyt, Citizens, Las Vegas, Nevada

John Sullivan, CEO, Sundance Helicopters, Las Vegas, Nevada

Rick Eisenreich, CEO, Sundance Helicopters, Las Vegas, Nevada

Thomas Shaus, Director of Operations, Sundance Helicopters, Las Vegas, Nevada

Tod J. Story, District Director, The Honorable Shelley Berkley, U.S. House of Representatives, First District, Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada

Keith L. Lee, Representative, Southwest Airlines, State of Nevada

Peter F. Gariano, Chief Deputy Constable, Las Vegas Township, Las Vegas, Nevada

James Foreman, Manager, Public Response Office, Clark County, Nevada

James Spinello, Representative, Clark County, Nevada

Charles Pulsipher, Zoning Administrator, Clark County, Nevada

 

Assembly Bill 465:  Authorizes use of proceeds of certain taxes for certain highway improvement projects located wholly or partially outside boundaries of this state. (BDR 20-831)

 

Assemblyman David Brown, District 22, presented A.B. 465 to the committee.  The bill spawned out of the Needles Highway, a 28-mile stretch of highway, half in Nevada and half in California.  The highway was a major arterial for visitors from California to Laughlin, Nevada.  The highway was in a seriously dilapidated state and Clark County had committed funds to building and restoring the Nevada portion of the highway.  The bill would seek a change in the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) whereby county funds specified for county projects including construction and maintenance of sidewalks, streets, avenues, bridges, etc., could be used outside of the transportation district, the county and the state of Nevada.  Currently there were provisions that permitted those county funds to be spent within one mile outside of the transportation district.  The bill sought to amend that provision so that the funds could be spent 30 miles outside the boundary of the district, county or state.  The provisions were the improvement must be to a highway that was located wholly or partially outside the boundary of the state and connected the state to an interstate highway.  In this case the highway would connect to Interstate 40 (I-40).  Another provision of A.B. 465 was the governing body found such a project would provide a significant economic benefit to the district, county or state.  

 

Commissioner Bruce Woodbury, Clark County, stated the bill addressed what the county believed was a critical need for the town of Laughlin.  Needles Highway was the primary highway used by 2 million tourists per year who came from Southern California to Laughlin, Nevada.  The highway extended from Interstate 40 in Needles to State Route 163 in Laughlin.  Over the last six years the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) in Clark County had improved and widened the first 10 miles of this 28-mile road, mostly in the town of Laughlin, at a cost of approximately $14 million.  Commissioner Woodbury stated the highway was important because Laughlin was primarily a drive-in destination.  Ninety-eight percent of all tourists arrived by highway.  It was imperative, he stated, for the roads leading into Laughlin to be safe, convenient, and attractive to those who might want to visit.  Unfortunately Needles Highway on the 28-mile stretch did not fit any of those descriptions but rather was poor, dangerous and had an incredible mix of different types of vehicles that made the situation even worse.  Last summer the highway was closed twice because summer rains flooded and eroded parts of the road.  Because of the poor road conditions more and more tourists were staying on I-40 longer and were detouring into the Arizona side further east where there was a newly improved highway.  The tourists would then come back through the Fort Mohave Indian reservation, with one casino and three others in the planning stages, making economic implications of the significance of the Needles Highway restoration.

 

Commissioner Woodbury stated Laughlin was the major employer for the local tri-state area.  Tourism brought in $1.2 billion in economic activity to the area.  The resorts in Laughlin employed 11,000 people, 25 percent of the entire area workforce.  A critical factor for the state of Nevada was the fact Laughlin was a source of approximately $34 to $38 million per year in net tax revenue.  As the committee could imagine, studies had shown the value of the services received by Laughlin from the state was not close to the net tax revenue.  The state of Nevada, as well as the community itself, had a real stake in the economic viability of the area and the condition of the road contributed to the economic viability. 

 

The highway project proposed was a fully redesigned, reengineered road with passing lanes and flood control measures.  Numerous agencies were involved including Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), the RTC, Clark County, the town of Laughlin and the Laughlin Chamber of Commerce, San Bernardino County, the city of Needles and numerous other agencies including the Fort Mohave Indian reservation.  The combined group had involved Assemblyman Brown, former Assemblywoman Segerblom, Senator Porter and Governor Guinn.  Representatives from the city of Needles and the county of San Bernardino were part of the working group and he had tried to have Clark County participate in a major way.  S.B. 558 of the Seventieth Session mandated a feasibility study and the firm of Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas had completed the study.  NDOT was the project manager and each impacted entity had agreed to approve funding toward the proposed highway improvements.  What was required now was the support of the Legislature to allow the monies to be used for the highway not only in Nevada, but also in California.

 

Commissioner Woodbury stated some people had objected to spending Nevada dollars in California.  In the past, California officials had considered Needles Highway to be a “gambler’s highway” that benefited Nevada only.  The attitude had changed to some extent, not completely, but certainly with the people that had worked with his office from Needles and San Bernardino County who had come to realize that California benefited as well.  However, Laughlin and the state of Nevada had the most to gain from the project.  With $35 to $38 million in net annual revenues going into the state’s treasury, the state was decidedly a beneficiary.  Without the completion of this project in California, as well as on the Nevada side, there was a feeling that the economy of Laughlin and its ability to generate the level of resources it had in the past for the state and other governmental agencies would be in jeopardy.  Although less than four miles needed improvement in Nevada, he asked the committee to consider the improvements to be an investment in the future of the area and a protection of the state’s existing assets.  As the southern-most area of the state received greater competition because of the rapid expansion of tribal gaming, each stakeholder had to lend his or her support if Laughlin was to continue to be a viable growing area.  He asked the committee to support the bill to keep Laughlin strong and viable.

 

Jo Elle Hurns, Executive Director, Chamber of Commerce, Laughlin, indicated she was a 15-year resident of the Colorado River region.  Joining her was Susan Murphy, the President of the Ramada Express, Laughlin, and Samuel W. Tso, P.E., Vice President and Area Manager, Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas, Inc., the engineer for the feasibility study.  She presented a slide show to the committee (Exhibit C) that included a map showing Laughlin was 90 miles south of Las Vegas at the southern most tip of the silver state.  Ms. Hurns stated Arizona State Route 95 on the Arizona side of the Colorado River ran parallel to the Needles Highway.  State Route 95 had been recently improved, but was almost at capacity.  The other highway involved was US 95, which was almost parallel to Needles Highway and was similar because it was in disrepair.  US 95 was about 15 miles longer for tourists exiting I-40 coming into the Laughlin area.  Needles Highway was delivering 2 million tourists a year to the community of Laughlin and even though the road was in disrepair it was the shortest route to Laughlin with over 6000 cars each day. 

 

Susan Murphy, President and General Manager, Ramada Express, stated Laughlin was a regional gaming destination and the majority of the 4.5 million customers came to Laughlin from either Arizona or California.  Ninety-eight percent of the travelers came to Laughlin by car, bus or recreational vehicle.  Laughlin was a two-night, three-day getaway destination for a driving customer.  At least half of the visitors to Laughlin traveled on a road that they called poor and dangerous.  Needles Highway was Laughlin’s link to nearly 300 employees from Needles, California.  Considering the competition Laughlin was facing in California, it did not make good business sense to make a customer travel their last 19 miles on a road called “poor and dangerous.”  Ms. Murphy stated even though part of the Needles Highway was in Nevada and had been improved, the customer had no idea when driving whether they were in Nevada or California. 

 

Ms. Murphy indicated over the past four years local civic leaders and the chamber board had hired transportation consultants to study both the Needles Highway and US 95 to outline what opportunities could exist to improve the roads.  Laughlin opted to pursue the Needles Highway improvements as it was preferred by the city of Needles and San Bernardino County and allowed for the pooling of many funding sources and the development of partnerships.  Ms. Murphy stated more than $1 billion of private capital had been invested in Laughlin and in the last three years the city had made over $100 million in expansions in the form of remodeling and hotel additions.  Laughlin had an obligation to protect these investments and that was why the committee was being asked to support community efforts to improve the Needles Highway. 

 

Ms. Hurns stated in 1998, at the request of Governor Guinn, and again in 2001, Hobbs, Ong and Associates were hired to help Laughlin understand what it contributed to the county and state in taxes and what the Laughlin community received in return in services.  The Governor asked the town to figure out what they were worth.  In 1996-97, one of Laughlin’s worst years economically, the town added $34.3 million to the state’s treasury.  During the exercise, Ms. Hurns stated they found out in 1998 the ten Laughlin casinos netted less than the state made from the town.  In the fiscal year of 1999-2000 the state received $37.8 million.

 

Ms. Hurns related the project team had been relentless in identifying funding sources.  They had gone to every state and county agency to achieve the goal and one of the most promising achievements was to bring San Bernardino County into the project.  San Bernardino had finally committed nearly $3 million towards the project.  It was because of the outcry of Needles and because of the unique partnership that was being built that they were willing to contribute $3 million.  Three million dollars was worth ten years of transportation money for the tiny community of Needles with 6000 residents.  The town of Laughlin was not before the committee to ask for money or funding.  They had found the funding necessary to make the project a reality.  Ms. Hurns commented she had not told the committee the town of Laughlin was worth $38 million to the state in order to receive $38 million in services.  She wanted to tell the Legislature to support the need the town had so they could remain an asset to the state. 

 

Ms. Hurns indicated the improvements to Needles Highway would cost from $5 million to $36 million depending on what kind of roadway they would build.  A simple overlay to the surface of the road would cost the $5 million; however, it would not improve safety, capacity or drainage issues and could not be recommended as a remedy.  Solutions that were acceptable and would be adequate for Laughlin cost from $17 to $21 million for a two-lane, 70 mph designed road with flood control and passing lanes.  They could spend up to $31 million to $36 million for a four-lane highway, but they had adequate money to do the two-lane road and that would serve the needs.  The funds obligated to the project were indicated in Exhibit C, page 7.  NDOT had obligated $7 million to the project and currently the funds could not be used outside the state of Nevada per the state constitution.  Clark County funds of $7 million could be available pending the approval of the 2001 Nevada Legislature.  San Bernardino had committed $2.5 million, the Fort Mohave Indian Tribe, $1 million and the city of Needles, $300,000 towards the project.  The Fort Mohave Indian Tribe had pledged right-of-way services and was also seeking Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) funding.  The tribe had offered to write the environmental papers for the project. 

 

Ms. Murphy stated Laughlin resort operators, the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority (LVCVA), the Laughlin Chamber of Commerce and Laughlin town officials had worked hard to recover from declining visitor volumes, hotel occupancies and gaming revenues which began in 1994 with the expansion of Indian gaming in southern California and Arizona.  Nine casinos had formed a resort operator’s group called the Laughlin Tourism Committee.  The group, with strong support from the LVCVA, had focused on strengthening Laughlin’s reputation to the customer base in southern California and Arizona by portraying Laughlin as a much more entertaining and unique destination experience than a day trip to an Indian casino.  LVCVA had provided the majority of funding for eight community-wide special events for Laughlin in addition to the marketing dollars they spent annually to advertise and promote Laughlin.  The combination of efforts by the LVCVA, the Laughlin Tourism Committee and the individual resort operators had been productive and Laughlin reversed a four-year gaming revenue decline.  There was hope that final reports for 2000 would exceed the gaming revenue levels in the best year, 1993.  Laughlin had prevailed as a gambler’s destination of choice despite the $1.5 billion dollar gaming industry in Arizona and California. 

 

Convenient transportation to Laughlin was one basic asset it must have to continue to compete for revenues.  The Needles Highway, called unsafe and dangerous by Laughlin’s own customers, must be fixed.  Ms. Murphy stated the city of Laughlin rarely came before the Legislature and considered Laughlin to be a good neighbor and a willing contributor to the prosperity of the state.  Ms. Murphy commented the town wanted to remain an asset for the state, but needed the help of the Legislature.  She asked the committee to allow Laughlin to improve the Needles Highway.

 

Ms. Hurns stated part of the plans for economic development included capturing some of the tourism dollars.  Arizona’s and Nevada’s universities conducted a study in 1998 on the economic interactions between Bullhead City and Laughlin, how money was raised in one city and spent in another.  The study said $1.2 billion was created in economic activity from the tourists, and $440 million of that base was spent on the Arizona side of the Colorado River.  Arizona State Route 95, one mile from Needles, was a very rural area where in 1993, 11,000 cars traveled every day on the road.  In that same year there were 8,000 cars a day on Needles Highway.  The statistics showed now the customers for Laughlin were going to the Arizona side of the highway to get to Laughlin.  The Arizona side of the river was now at 18,500 cars per day and the Laughlin side was at 6,000 cars per day.  What that meant to Nevada was a loss in gas tax and loss of development.  On the Arizona side there was an increase in development in the form of grocery stores, two Indian gaming casinos, homes being built and Nevada was giving Arizona economic development opportunities because the state had not been attentive to the Needles Highway.

 

Ms. Hurns stated she did not want the committee to look at US 95 in Arizona and think it was a solution.  The highway was almost at capacity and took 20 to 25 minutes longer to get to Laughlin. 

 

Samuel W. Tso, Parson, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas, Inc., represented the engineering firm that conducted the feasibility study on Needles Highway.  The feasibility study had begun in January 2000 and had since been completed.  He referred to a map in Exhibit C that showed the tri-state area where the Needles Highway served as a major artery.  Four miles of the Nevada section needed improvement, Mr. Tso indicated, and 14 miles of the California section.  The study was focused on identification of the engineering barriers for the road and some of the economic factors.  Why there was a 25 percent decline in traffic into Laughlin from 1993 until the present was a question posed.

 

Mr. Tso indicated the study also looked at what other improvements could be made to the Needles Highway to improve signage.  It was currently a county highway called the Needles Highway on both the California and Nevada side.  There were no signs coming from I-40, the preferred route, onto the Needles Highway.  Mr. Tso described the right-of-way problems shown in Exhibit C and spoke to the project alternatives in the choices between a 2-lane, 3-lane, and 4‑lane highway solution.  He explained the alternative cost estimates of the choices.  He emphasized the highway had a tremendous mix of traffic currently, including passenger vehicles, motorcycles, RVs, trucks pulling recreational vehicles, buses and very limited opportunity on the existing two-lane highway for vehicles to pass safely.  Sight distance was poor on the highway and even if there were not many vehicles on the road there was congestion.  Mr. Tso continued through the slide presentation, outlining the area of the highway that needed repair.  He showed the committee why the highway was deluged with water at certain times of the year and outlined the geography of the highway.  He believed a solution to most of the problems would be in the range of $16 to $18 million that would provide for a redesign of the roadway, 70 mph design speeds, improved the tight horizontal conditions, improved the vertical profile and took care of the drainage problems, provided for safe passing lanes and turnout areas for RVs to pull off and allow faster traffic to continue through. 

 

Mr. Tso stated the feasibility study had looked at the financial support from the partners.  The financial plan needed to be completed and would determine the true alternative adopted based on the alternatives ranging from $5 million to $36 million.  The partners were before the committee to obtain the authorization to use the previously allocated funds in California, and the next phases would entail environmental studies on the California side, development of a phasing and staging plan on the construction and ultimately development of the construction plans.  Exhibit C included a long list of resource documents compiled over the last ten years that had helped formulate the plans.

 

Mr. Price stated he had traveled the highway in the past and agreed there was a tremendous need for signs and improvement on the road.  Ms. Parnell asked if there would be a correction of the up and down roller coaster effect of the highway that she had noticed in driving the roadway.  Mr. Tso stated that was one of the deficiencies of the highway that contributed to the flood problems.  One of the key ingredients in the ultimate solution would be to improve the profiles of the road.  The up and down created the flooding problems as well as the sight problems of the motor vehicles.  Part of the alternative was to design the road to a 70 mph design speed, which meant all of the humps and bumps would be flattened to a comfortable level. 

 

Senator Jon C. Porter, Sr., Clark County, District No. 1, stated Clark County and the partnership of Laughlin’s associates had completed exactly what the Legislature had asked them to do two years ago:  find funding, build partnerships, and create a community that was working together with southern Nevada.  He indicated the committee was not present to ask for money although they had in the past, this time they heeded the advice of the Legislature.  They had completed the funding, created partnerships; the community did exist and had serious challenges not unlike other communities in Nevada.  Above and beyond the community of Laughlin, the project was for the state of Nevada.  His friends and constituents from Laughlin had talked about the facts of the project and had spoken about the future.  The future of the state depended on the $38 to $40 million per year going into the net tax revenues from the community of Laughlin.  Laughlin needed to insure they could continue the growth and as they continued funding the projects across the state, Nevada needed to be sure it would reap the benefits.  He appreciated the committee being in southern Nevada.  He indicated the Senate was hearing a companion bill, S.B. 363, and he looked forward to combining the bills as the session moved on.

 

Assemblyman Humke commented there was a reference to the sales tax leakage study and he wondered if there was sufficient capacity in Laughlin to make sales.  Having been in the Laughlin area he noticed all of the commercial opportunities, aside from gaming, seemed to be on the Bullhead City side of the border.  He asked if there was a greater commercial capacity now existing in the area.  Ms. Hurns stated currently there were two sections of land owned by the BLM that were in the process of a land swap and she hoped those would be earmarked for residential/commercial development.  There was limited land for Laughlin to expand, but residential/commercial opportunities still existed.  There were two or three other projects planned for Laughlin that had a direct relationship to the Needles Highway.  The LVCVA was contemplating the feasibility of an equestrian center and, in addition, the Bureau of Reclamation had visited both Laughlin and Bullhead City to offer 3,000 acres for commercial recreational opportunities.  The bureau was currently working with both cities on a fast-track feasibility study.  Additionally, the city had just started an airline with service on 737s daily to Laughlin from four major markets.  Combining all of those development possibilities indicated that Laughlin was ready to turn the corner towards becoming a bigger asset to Nevada.

 

Mr. Price complimented the partnership of Laughlin representatives for the outstanding presentation.

 

Thomas Skancke, Representative, Las Vegas Convention and Visitor’s Authority (LVCVA), mentioned he had worked on transportation projects in southern Nevada for the past 11 years.  He had been involved with the Needles Highway project for a number of years and stated, as Senator Porter had pointed out, the funding mechanisms were currently in place.  On the California side the Needles Highway was a county road and did not receive the amount of funding that was required to upgrade the road.  For 29 of the 30 miles on the highway there was no paint, no shoulder and it was probably one of the most treacherous stretches of highway in the country.  Needles, California, did not receive the necessary funding but competed with the inland empire and communities such as San Bernardino and Ontario.  Needles was far away from metropolitan areas and therefore could not receive the necessary funding.  Politics were played in the funding mechanisms and Needles had been trying for 11 years to receive the funding.  For the first time in 11 years the San Bernardino Associated Government gave $2.5 million in committed funds to the city of Needles.  Nevada needed to contribute to the fund for a couple of reasons.  Mr. Skancke stated for the past ten years transportation had been working on the widening of I-15 from Las Vegas to Los Angeles.  They had received, for a 30-mile stretch of road, $725 million.  As I-15 was improved there would be an increase in the number of people that took I-15 to I-40 and then took the Needles Highway.  The shortest route was the Needles Highway, he indicated, and the road must be fixed.  Nevada had set a precedent of contributing funds to I-15 in the past of $14 million and it would be shortsighted on the state’s part not to contribute to the highway repair.  He strongly encouraged the committee to support the bill. 

 

Daniel Grimmer, Legislative Affairs Manager, MGM/Mirage, referenced a letter from André Carrier, COO of the Golden Nugget in Laughlin (Exhibit D), prepared for the committee.  Mr. Grimmer stated there was tremendous support for A.B. 465 and he thanked the committee.

 

Rebecca Valentine, Councilwoman, city of Needles, thanked the committee for the opportunity to speak and stated she was personally ashamed of the highway.  She was a new councilwoman and had been very busy trying to get the funding for the road.  She reiterated Needles was looked at like the stepchild and they had begun to shout very loudly they were not going to be overlooked.  The funding was secure with papers signed (Exhibit E).  The county had already been active in filing papers.  There was a concern in regard to the maintenance of the road after it was brought up to standards.  She asked who would take care of the road since it was obvious the county had not in the past.  No one would want to have the amount of money considered invested in the road and then see the road start to disintegrate in the future.  She had spoken with Dan Hoag of CalTrans about the maintenance.  Mr. Hoag had told Ms. Valentine when the road was brought up to standards, CalTrans would be interested in making the Needles Highway a state highway and they would then maintain it.  She stated Nevada’s tourists were Needles’ tourists as well.  The tourists came through her community before they went to Laughlin. 

 

Jeff Williams, Councilman, city of Needles, also thanked the committee for the opportunity to testify.  He had only been in office since last April and could not understand what the problem had been for ten years in the consideration of fixing the road.  He had worked with San Bernardino to obtain the joint funding of up to $2.8 million that represented approximately ten years of their local allotment for road maintenance and improvement.  His community, Laughlin and Bullhead City actually formed an economic development partnership and when each city survived they all survived.  Needles had not been a very good economic partner with Laughlin as of yet; however, he hoped they could be a better partner in the future.  Laughlin provided jobs for 300 citizens of Needles and most residents went to Laughlin for their shopping, restaurants and recreational activities.  Mr. Williams stated the road was needed for all of the tourists but also for the residents that traveled to work everyday.

 

Chairman Bache stated Needles’ financial commitment to this project seemed significant considering the size of the city.

 

James Chacas, Hobbs, Ong and Associates, stated his support of the Laughlin community in their endeavors and asked for support of the bill.

 

Steven Horsford, Representative, Nevada Resort Association (NRA), was present to support A.B. 465.  He indicated everyone had stated the reasons for the highway restoration; however, several members of the NRA had all made significant contributions in the Laughlin community and realized in order to protect their investments definite improvements needed to be made to the highway.  As the bill clearly stated, there had to be a significant economic benefit that ensured the investment was protected.  He believed once the improvements to the Needles Highway were made there would be a significant benefit not only to the Laughlin community but also to the county and state as well.  He thanked the committee for the opportunity to voice his support.

 

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 465 and opened the hearing on A.B. 490.

 

Assembly Bill 490:  Requires certain counties to establish advisory committees and enact ordinances concerning abatement of noise attributable to flight of helicopters and other aircraft. (BDR 44-154)

 

Assemblywoman Chris R. Giunchigliani stated A.B. 490 was the result of approximately three years of complaints from constituents.  The sponsors were trying to get at the issue of the growing valley of Las Vegas and the impact of new businesses on the quality of life for citizens of Las Vegas.  Not every citizen would be impacted by the legislation; however, there may be some amendments that could give a broader input to the constituency base.  A.B. 490 applied to a district or jurisdiction over 400,000 people.  The reason the bill did not apply to Washoe County was because the airport there had an airport authority board that was appointed by the local government to take input from the constituents.  The bill attempted to deal with the problem of private sector business helicopter flights going to and from for sightseeing trips that had consistently, in her opinion, cut across neighborhoods instead of staying on the pathways, flown lower than the altitude they were permitted by the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) and had no enforcement of the problem.  She related her neighbor had sent her a communication (Exhibit F) that had calculated in one week in January 2000 multiple helicopters flying over her house sometimes one right after another instead of staying on the Charleston strip pathway.  The problem was in many instances the flights were within seconds or a minute or two of each other. 

 

She noted Senator Bob Coffin was not able to appear before committee today, but he wanted to lend his support for the bill as well as Senator Dina Titus and Assemblyman Oceguera.  In researching the issue she had found there were multiple agencies constituents looked to for answers.  Congress, the FAA, the county, the state and local government all claimed they had no authority.  She believed that situation tended to add frustration for the constituents she represented.  At some point in time there needed to be closure on what part the local government could handle, where the state could enter as a partner, or whether Congress should be lobbied to effect some changes.  She stated through correspondence with her constituents, local government and the FAA she found there were certain things that the local government had some control over.  She indicated the pathways for the flights were suggested by the local governments.  The FAA would oversee the flights to make sure they complied with safety and to see if there was a negative impact on other flights coming in and then they approved the flights.  It was her understanding the hours of flight operation could be recommended by the local government and then FAA would approve.  Those were two areas she believed could be impacted and why she had sponsored A.B. 490. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani stated the bill could not change the altitudes; however, she wished she had suggested amendments from the committee bill drafting to put in the language so at least it could be discussed.  Helicopters were supposed to fly at 800 feet in the community and could lower to 300 feet if it was in a noncongested area.  The whole area surrounding the community was a congested area and she felt there should be no excuse for a helicopter to go below the 800-foot level.  The FAA did have restriction over the altitude of flights.  She would also submit to the committee a petition that had been sent to Congress from her neighborhood.  Commissioner Myrna Williams had a town hall meeting the previous Saturday with over 100 people in attendance that wanted some resolution.  She had attached the Clark County resolution for the committee’s perusal (Exhibit G) outlining to the FAA a resolution asking the agency to implement changes in the helicopter flights.  Congress had recently asked the FAA to complete a noise impact study on helicopters and other types of aircrafts and the county commission felt it was appropriate for them to make some recommendations regarding altitudes.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani stated the environment was another area of concern.  She had spoken about quality of life issues and environmental impact concerns were recognized by the federal government.  The areas where the flight paths were occurring were over seven out of nine designated impoverished areas in Clark County.  She indicated the paths were negatively impacting the poorer neighborhoods.  Further studies to look at the suggested flight paths would take place soon.  She also stated some area of control could be the county’s approval of business licenses.  Business licenses could contain stipulations for certain things such as hours of work, location, employee qualifications, etc.  Some of the suggestions from the town hall meeting included the county’s refusal to issue a business license if there was not compliance.  There could be some ways to work with the local government to assure their business licenses had some qualifications relating to the impacts the businesses had been having. 

 

She stated the committee suggested in A.B. 490 should be more than advisory, it should be a voting board, have constituent input, look beyond noise abatement and examine airport expansion, pathways, etc., and have input to the local government from the citizens.  She believed the county was correct in moving toward the additional airport that had been approved.  She stated the timing might be right to force dialogue with the county in regard to the planned expansion of the airport at a cost of $1.1 billion over the next five to six years.  She thought the right thing to do would be to build the new airport away from the city where the problems of environmental impact, eminent domain and noise could be solved.  There was a need, she indicated, to start the debate and the discussions.  If the county had to use federal dollars to increase the airport there would have been an environmental impact study required, but the county had it’s own money to pay for the expansion to the airport so the study was not required. 

 

A.B. 490 called for the creation of a steering committee or an advisory committee and she again recommended that it should be more than a standing committee but rather have some “teeth” and authority.  She indicated the committee should have more than two constituents as members.  Section 3 of the bill, on page 2, outlined the pathways and curfews for the helicopters and she felt an amendment should include other housing impacts, environmental impacts, buffer zones, and relocation of the airport facilities.  As other plans came into effect, congressional delegation changes could be made and passed on to the local government and the FAA as well as to Congress.  She summarized she would like to broaden the scope of A.B. 490.  Ms. Giunchigliani wanted to specify the helicopters had large enough letters so as to be read from the ground.  If people were complaining about a certain helicopter it would be more appropriate to see the letters of the business on the bottom of the helicopter.  Not all helicopter businesses were in violation of pathways and altitude problems so they did not want to implicate the pilots that were obeying the rules.  As Clark County had grown there also had been an increase of blimps flying over homes with some complaints observed.  The steering committee could be a very good sounding board and buffer for people to be able to express their concerns.  The FAA had a copy of A.B. 490 and she had asked for their review of the draft.  There could be areas drafted in the bill that were not in the control of local government but were federal responsibility.  There could also be some additions to areas they were not aware of where a steering committee could have some controls. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani mentioned a letter she had received from McCarran International airport (Exhibit H) that indicated there was a helicopter noise study that had been done and 65 decibels was the recommended maximum noise level.  The study team had chosen five streets and set up noise registers on the flight paths that tracked for a period of time.  The overall average of noise did not exceed the recommended maximum of 65 decibels; however, in single event levels every one was over 70 to 85 percent on decibels.  She concluded there was a negative impact regardless of whether the average was debated versus actual.  The helicopter noise was impacting the committee’s constituents with a typical day of 93 flyovers.  She understood the impact of mandating to local governments, but she hoped A.B. 490 would be viewed as more of a partnership where there would be support and direction and the steering committee could assist the county in dealing with the same constituent complaints. 

 

Assemblyman Neighbors stated the exhibits presented helped to understand the level of flights that were passing over neighborhoods.  He stated Ms. Giunchigliani had mentioned quality of life being affected but he would also be concerned about property values.  He asked if research had indicated how other large cities had handled problems such as these.  Ms. Giunchigliani stated she had research as to what was in statute; however, she would be happy to look back and do an analysis to check on what other local governments had done.  Many did have some form of a constituent-based committee to give recommendations and input.  Many would be wise to do that as cities were trying to deal with expansions and airport needs.  She recognized the city of Las Vegas was hosting 36 million visitors and expansions were planned to accommodate 55 million.  She recognized the need for revenue and the need for visitors to fly in and land in Las Vegas.  She did not debate the issue of the need for adequate airport facilities; however, she wondered about the location.  Some of the suggestions included diverting larger jets to a new airport.  Senator Coffin had made the suggestion that the committees could look at the pathways and in the interim have helicopters locate at North Las Vegas airport where the pathways would go over the expressways and not impact neighborhoods. 

 

Assemblywoman Berman asked Ms. Giunchigliani if she could pinpoint the neighborhoods impacted, how large it was in miles, perhaps some streets and how many people were affected by the helicopters.  Ms. Giunchigliani did not have a number of people and perhaps the county could help with that.  If she looked at the neighborhoods by zip codes, the numbers affected would be 89106, 89101, 89102, and 89104.  The street names would be anything from Charleston to Boulder Highway, the “Strip” and a large impact on Tropicana.  Basically anything heading from Charleston Boulevard to the south of the airport and out to the Grand Canyon.  The helicopters were supposed to be going out Tropicana and come back up Charleston and down the “Strip” and back out to the airport. 

 

Ms. Berman asked approximately how many complaints had been made.  Ms. Giunchigliani stated there had been 494 complaints in 2000 for the first few months, 678 in 1999, 1300 in 1998, and 800 in 1992 and 1997.  The complaints had started with 41 in 1991.  Because there had been so many helicopters added in the last ten years the complaints had escalated.  She believed there were five helicopter companies that would be impacted by the bill.  She was not aware of how many helicopters each company owned, but to have 93 flyovers on a busy day, on average, she believed there were quite a few.

 

Ms. Berman wanted to clarify if Ms. Giunchigliani was suggesting rerouting the helicopters only or the planes as well.  Ms. Giunchigliani stated if there was an expansion of the authority of the community input board there should be studies made of the airport expansion as well as the helicopter issue.  Helicopter noise and noise abatement was the issue that had generated the bill; however, since that time there were questions from town hall meetings in regard to the $1.1 billion expansion at the airport.  Ms. Berman asked if it was the responsibility of the county commissioners to take on the project of the expansion.  Ms. Giunchigliani stated the county was the board because the airport was a department within the county and they were the board of managers.  There was no community or constituency input and that was the request she wanted contained in the bill.  She wanted to make sure as the issues were debated the county looked at more long-term issues instead of taking care of the current problems.  She stated Mr. Parks could illustrate if expansion was the way the county went there would be hugely impacted neighborhoods.  The county was recently sued and lost the case for property values the county took under eminent domain.  The county should be very careful when eminent domain was used for the purposes of expanding anything.  The time had come to view the airport as everyone’s business.  She stated she was not criticizing the county commissioners but wanted to act as a partner to try to bring in additional input and possibly to remove some of the criticism toward the board.  Perhaps there were ways the state could assist and then the county and the state could go together to Congress and show other impacts.  Ms. Giunchigliani cited Exhibit H from Randall Walker of McCarran International Airport that noted in the 106^th Congress there was a bill submitted to the House of Representatives to examine altitudes and pathways that were impacting neighborhoods across the country in cities with populations of over 500,000. 

 

Ms. Berman asked if she had consulted with the county commissioners so they were aware of what she wanted to do and were they in support of the bill.  Ms. Giunchigliani had not personally spoken to all of them.  She had spoken to Myrna Williams and Yvonne Atkinson Gates.  These commissioners were representatives of neighborhoods most impacted by the helicopters.  The other commissioners were not as impacted; however, she felt they would be willing to listen to the concerns. 

 

Assemblyman Brown wanted clarification on the 65 decibel rule and if it meant the mean could not exceed 65 decibels, but the single event issue was not clear to him.  Ms. Giunchigliani stated for example the Lewis Family Park, on the north side of town, measured 62.1 for the first flyover, 74.6 for the second, and 71.1, 67.9, 71.7, 66.9, 73.6 commensurately.  If she examined near the residence halls at University of Nevada Las Vegas, southeast of Thomas Street and Mack Street, the measurements were in August of last year, 77.9, 77.1,78.1, 78.4, 79.3 and 81.3, 79.2, 81.2, 80.2, 77.3.  The noise indicator tracked the single event noise for every flight over the locations with the noise equipment.  While some would look at the average and 65 decibels was the recommendation, the single event drove the constituents to the complaints.  Mr. Brown asked if the 65 decibel average was over all locations measured or was that per individual site.  Ms. Giunchigliani stated the measurements were by site at 300 feet, 800 feet and at 1000 feet.  Mr. Brown asked if there was a map with an overlay of the flight paths for the helicopters.  Additionally she had stated Myra Williams was involved and he wondered if her town hall meeting dealt strictly with the helicopter issue.  Ms. Giunchigliani stated that was correct; however, other discussions arose as they usually did in town hall meetings.  Commissioner Williams had been advised by Randall Walker of McCarran International Airport the county had no jurisdiction over any of the helicopter issues.  She believed, however, in regard to the correspondences she had received from the FAA that perhaps the county was not aware there was some jurisdiction over the pathways and the times. 

 

Mr. Brown asked about the bill’s requirements for identification numbers on the right, left and underside of the helicopters.  He could not envision how the numbers could be placed so they would be visible from the 800-foot level.  Ms. Giunchigliani stated the aircraft already carried an identification number and it was definitely not readable from the ground even flying low.  The thought was the size of the letters could be done by regulation working with the businesses to see what would be best for the complaints and the business.  The bill did not state specifically what size the print would be for the reasons outlined above and she knew there were experts in the field that could advise them.  The complaint penalty portion of the bill was not on the first complaint, but rather on a pattern of behavior and the fines were not issued until after the fifth non-compliance.  Mr. Brown asked if she were currently working on some amendments for the bill.  Ms. Giunchigliani stated that was correct and the committee would have them the following week. 

 

Assemblywoman Parnell wanted to speak as a tourist to Las Vegas would.  She was in Las Vegas approximately one year ago for an event and stayed in a hotel on the “Strip.”  She had heard multiple helicopters from her hotel room and thought there was a major problem.  She related there might be some effect on tourists as there was for her.  The people staying in hotels could definitely hear the noise in the hotel. 

 

Chairman Bache believed in Ms. Giunchigliani’s discussions she had mentioned a more formal board to take action and authority.  He hoped she was not considering a board such as the Airport Authority of Washoe County.  Chairman Bache stated he believed it was better for the elected board of county commissioners to be in control of the airport than a nonelected entity. 

 

Mark A. Manendo, Assemblyman, Clark County, District 18, stated A.B. 490 was really a quality of life issue, specifically in southern Nevada.  He indicated that Ms. Giunchigliani had given the committee the number of complaints; however, it was difficult to track complaints to other elected officials.  Individuals wishing to make complaints had not known where to turn and since there had recently been articles and news stories, people were voicing their complaints to appropriate sources and becoming more active.  His district was impacted as well and he had received numerous phone calls over the last year from constituents that were very concerned.  The helicopters flew within one-tenth of a mile from his house and he was almost able to read the letters on the aircraft because of low flying.  Obviously members of the committee had heard the problems with the decibels of noise on the freeways and he believed the bill was moving in the right direction to provide dialogue to reduce the noise in the air.  Constituents in his district had put their houses up for sale because of the noise and one individual had a prospective buyer that noticed the helicopters overhead and walked out on the potential sale.  As Mr. Neighbors had mentioned, the property value had decreased as a result of the noise in some areas.  He stated his support of A.B. 490 and commended the sponsor of the bill.

 

Chairman Bache stated the 65-decibel rule was the standard decibel figure the federal government used for sound walls and noise mitigation of any type.  Mr. Bache shared the 89101 area with Ms. Giunchigliani and Mr. Williams.  He was aware of the impact of the noise from helicopters and other aircraft.

 

Assemblyman David Parks, Clark County, District 41, spoke in support of A.B. 490.  Mr. Parks lived within 1000 feet north of Tropicana and he saw the daily flights of helicopters heading east and west toward Hoover Dam and the Grand Canyon.  Some years ago, due to complaints in regard to airport noise, and since part of his district was included in the McCarran area, the airport put out a listing of contact individuals for airport noise.  The list included elected officials, county commissioners, and his name.  For every other name they had listed office numbers and for his name they inadvertently listed his home number.  Needless to say when the aircraft noise was excessive at 10:00 p.m. at night he received phone calls.  He mentioned one individual that had lived in a manufactured housing area on the north side of Tropicana that constantly called to ask if Mr. Parks could hear helicopter noise over his house through the phone.  The one helicopter he complained about the most was Channel 3 news.  The helicopters would be going to the airport for refueling and before they had approval to move on to the airport proper they had to hover somewhere and they would hover at approximately 200 feet over the manufactured homes.  Mr. Parks had received numerous calls regarding that situation.

 

In his representation of the area just north of the airport, in regard to the airport expansion, his constituents definitely had a need to be heard with regard to the concerns they had.  They had been told terminal three was to be greatly expanded and the county would have to relocate Russell Road in order to accommodate that expansion.  Mr. Parks had attended a first hearing last November and it was presented the expansion would take as few homes as necessary and in his district that amounted to 52 homes.  At that time he complained the plan would not leave any kind of a buffer zone between the airport and the homes to the north.  In the months since the airport had taken another look and proposed to remove approximately 400 homes, many were condominiums, but his district had single-family homes that would be affected.  The proposal now was an additional 72 homes.  His main concern was for the individuals left after the relocation and the expansion of terminal three.  He stated a possible park development was being proposed as a buffer zone and he felt that was a move in the right direction. 

 

Mr. Parks would support the bill and also supported the idea of amendments to expand the concerns to more than just noise level.  The aviation fuel that most of the neighborhoods could smell was a problem as well as the surface noise in and around the airport. 

 

Gerald J. Shlesinger, President, Las Vegas Helicopters, had owned and operated helicopters in Las Vegas valley for nine years.  He was representing the Nevada Commercial Aviation Council for Tourism and wanted to state the helicopter community had not been advised or notified of any town meetings and had not been spoken to on any of the issues.  The complaints seemed one-sided, he indicated, and the helicopter community did not have any opportunity to interject their side.  The companies were responsible business people and citizens of the community that lived, worked and played with everyone else.  He insisted the companies were not for disruption of the communities in any manner, shape or form.  There were issues the helicopter companies had as well as the citizens.  The council would like to form a formal committee.  The council would be happy to mitigate any issues or problems and did not see any reason to pass a law.  He felt the problems could be solved at a community level and solved satisfactorily for everyone.

 

Mr. Shlesinger stated some of the complaints brought up in testimony seemed vague and general.  He stated there needed to be very specific complaints so every issue could be addressed.  If there was an operator or pilot that violated something against community standards, they would like to take the issue and resolve it.  There were occasions where there were police or news helicopters in an area and the council’s helicopters would get the blame.  If the complaints were general there could be no resolution.  Additionally, the airport had facilities to track each helicopter flight specifically by pilot, by helicopter and by company.  If there was a complaint they could be contacted and within a 24‑hour period they would have the name.  There would be no need to have large numbers on the aircraft because the tracking technology was already available.  He felt everyone should understand it was unfair to single out helicopters specifically in A.B. 490.  He believed all aviation should be grouped together including jet liners.  There was general aviation noise and activity over the valley, not just helicopter noise.  The bill should be entitled aviation noise, he indicated.  The helicopter community had attended the town hall meetings, but they were not given the opportunity to present their side.  He stated the council would be happy to meet in a formal committee with residents, airport personnel, and local government to try to solve the problems. 

 

Mr. Shlesinger addressed Ms. Parnell’s personal experience with the helicopter noise level outside her hotel.  As responsible helicopter operators they had made an agreement to fly over the freeway or industrial areas to circumvent any hotels when they returned from the Grand Canyon flights.  Again, he stated, there were no specifics so the problem could be addressed. 

 

Mr. Shlesinger addressed the property values question that was discussed earlier and stated there were building codes in Clark County that stated homes were built specifically for noise decibels and the requirements close to the runway were more stringent to allow for higher decibels.  Whether the property values decreased because there was a helicopter flying over a house or not, he did not think the industry should be blamed for something without representation.  He stated Las Vegas was a 24-hour town, was driven by tourism trade and the helicopter industry was a viable part of the tourist business.  That fact did not give them the right to upset the community; however, they would like the forum to resolve any problems. 

 

Mr. Shlesinger stated A.B. 490 set a very dangerous precedent in the business community, to single out a very specific industry and make a designer law for the convenience of setting law and tone.  He recommended the bill be tabled and before any law was discussed on a state level start with the community to resolve the problems.  If the results were not satisfactory then the problem could be taken to the legislators. 

 

Assemblyman Williams pointed out A.B. 490 addressed more than helicopters, “noise attributable to flight of helicopters and other aircraft.”  He would agree a portion of the complaints he received in the 89106 zip code area were about the small airplanes.  The planes flew so low he stated the noise level was very high.  Mr. Williams asked Mr. Shlesinger to describe what type of a committee he had in mind to form.  Mr. Shlesinger proposed the helicopter community and commercial aviation community pick two or three persons from that sector, the public at large and the governmental agencies, either the airport or the county commissioners and obviously the FAA would have to be invited.  With those members from each sector of the community there would be an opportunity to sit down, find out what the issues were and solve them.  He was sure as responsible business people in the community the issues could and would be resolved.  Mr. Williams asked what it took to organize a committee such as he was proposing.  He also asked if there had been any dialogue between the people Mr. Shlesinger had suggested at town meetings or otherwise.  Mr. Shlesinger stated the issue was not specifically helicopter noise but rather communication.  If there was a means of communication established between the different sectors the problems could be resolved.  Everyone needed to be involved, however, or the problems would not resolved.  He was told that day there was a tentative meeting on May 5, 2001, and the helicopter community was invited to speak to Assembly members, people in the community and government agencies in a round-table discussion.

 

Assemblywoman Parnell stated she would imagine that if Assembly representatives and state Senators had received calls from constituents that he had as well.  She would like to have an explanation of his company’s current procedure for resolution of a complaint.  Mr. Shlesinger did not currently have a formal system for complaints, but felt it could be time to establish one.  He felt the citizenry in the town hall meetings were more frustrated over the lack of communication with anyone that would listen more than with the helicopter noise.  He commented if someone had a complaint and someone listened and went over it with the person, whether the complaint was solved or not, half of the problem and the frustration was solved just in being heard.  He did not know, aside from complaining to the county or the airport and not getting direct results, if anything was appeased.  After the town hall meeting the previous Saturday he had a chance to speak to people and offered to go to their homes to listen to them.  He found that half of the frustration was gone just by his listening.  Ms. Parnell asked what had happened to complaints in the nine years he had been in the area.  She wondered if someone from his company had met with groups of people in neighborhoods to see how the problem could be solved.  She asked what type of resolution his company had tried to come to on their own.  Mr. Shlesinger stated he had never been confronted with groups of people until the last three town meetings.  On an individual basis, if there was a complaint, more than 95 percent of the time, because the helicopter tour business was high profile in the city, anything that flew in the air was perceived to be their company.  For example, there was a complaint about a helicopter buzzing over a house at 9:00 p.m. on a Saturday night from the Sunrise Mountain area.  He asked the woman if the helicopter was there at that moment and she had stated yes it was and she could not sleep.  The fact was their helicopter was on the ground and not flying.  The helicopter she was complaining about was the metropolitan police department on a police call.  This type of thing happened constantly he indicated.  There were complaints to his office that turned out to be ambulance helicopters, news helicopters, etc., that would hover in the air for long periods of time.  In the public’s estimation, however, every helicopter belonged to his company and they were blamed for everything that went in the air.  That was the reason he wanted to be very specific with complaints and if there was something his company was not doing right he would surely correct it immediately. 

 

Assemblywoman Berman stated from the testimony she had heard the problem had been escalating from 1998 and surely he would have known about it and made some movement towards a situation where complaints were heard and answered.  She understood his want to organize a committee and asked how many companies were represented by the Nevada Commercial Aviation Council for Tourism.  Mr. Shlesinger stated there were five.  Ms. Berman asked who Mr. Shlesinger thought would coordinate the committee he proposed, finalize whatever the committee decided to do and who would be the enforcer of the actions decided by the committee.  Mr. Shlesinger stated he did not know who had the authority to enforce, although it could be discussed and he was very anxious to form the committee.  Ms. Berman asked if the five companies were the only ones involved in the council.  Mr. Shlesinger stated the bill was given to the companies about a week ago.  Ms. Berman stated again there had been testimony that the complaints had been going on since 1998 so it really did not matter when the bill was given to him.  She wanted to know how to go forward with what he proposed.  Mr. Shlesinger stated he would submit very specific ideas to her at a later date.  Ms. Berman stated the committee would appreciate the effort and he should talk to Ms. Giunchigliani.  Ms. Berman asked the Chairman how many weeks were left to pass bills out of the Assembly.  The Chairman stated the committee had until April 16 to take action on bills.  Ms. Berman indicated to Mr. Shlesinger he had a very short time to work on his proposed actions. 

 

Mr. Shlesinger wanted to further address the issue of solving complaints.  There was a very strong letter from Commissioner Gates to the airport about helicopter noise over her community.  He had received a copy of the letter and made an appointment to see her personally to see what he could do to mitigate the problems.  Ms. Gates met with him and told him the issues were being dealt with and everything was running smoothly right now.  He stated if there were ever any problems in the same area again he asked that she call him.

 

Assemblyman Brown stated there had been allegations of departures from the recommended or required flight paths as well as altitudes.  He asked Mr. Shlesinger if he had an idea of the percentage of flights where he thought that might be occurring.  Mr. Shlesinger knew that the airport had a color radar printout of each and every flight.  He was not qualified to give Mr. Brown a percentage, but the reality of a pilot flying everyday, unless he was reminded or specifically instructed, he could cut a corner or might do something different.  If a pilot did it one day and no one said anything over a period of time the action became accepted.  Mr. Brown could look at the radar printout and would see the highest percentage was compliance.  If there was not compliance the helicopter industry would like to know about it because as an industry they wanted to comply with no exceptions.  Mr. Brown asked how often Mr. Shlesinger received the printouts.  Mr. Shlesinger stated they were available after a 24-hour period every day.  Mr. Brown asked if he requested them or was there a weekly conveyance to him.  Mr. Shlesinger stated they were just made aware of the reports recently.  The technology was here now and the flights could be identified.  Mr. Brown queried if Mr. Shlesinger had intimated that perhaps media helicopters and metropolitan police helicopters could have different altitude allowances.  Mr. Shlesinger stated that was correct.  Mr. Brown asked if he knew what those levels were.  Mr. Shlesinger stated the police department had different parameters than they did for law enforcement.  The news media did not do what their helicopters did but flew under different federal aviation sections than his helicopters.  If a news helicopter had a story and hovered in an area for a while for an accident or whatever the situation, it would create noise and the tourism helicopters would be blamed.  Mr. Brown asked if when Mr. Shlesinger stated the other helicopters had different latitudes was he meaning different in the generic sense.  Mr. Shlesinger stated he meant the other helicopters had different latitudes, altitudes, etc. 

 

Assemblyman Neighbors stated Mr. Shlesinger had denied he knew there was a problem, yet the exhibits that had been given to the committee included news articles that mentioned the problem.  He could not believe that Mr. Shlesinger had no knowledge of the problem.  He asked if the casinos had complained about the helicopter noise and if Mr. Shlesinger had meetings with them regarding the noise.  Mr. Shlesinger stated he had not received any complaints from any casino for any helicopter activity that had been done.  Mr. Neighbors asked if the helicopters flew near the casinos.  Mr. Shlesinger stated he “lived” on MGM property.  They had agreements with the hotels they flew from to avoid any hotels.  They flew out to the west over industrial space.  Mr. Neighbors clarified Mr. Shlesinger had an agreement to avoid the hotels.  Mr. Shlesinger complied with the community rules and did not bother the hotels. 

 

Assemblywoman Smith asked if as an independent operator or whether as an association Mr. Shlesinger received feedback from the airport on the number of complaints they received.  She assumed there was a central complaint line or system.  The number of complaints talked about in testimony was very large and she wondered if the information was fed back to him.  Mr. Shlesinger stated he was aware of the information over time.  He was told there was a representative from the airport in the audience that could testify specifically about the complaints they received.

 

Assemblyman Price asked if everyone operating helicopters participated in Mr. Shlesinger’s association mentioned earlier.  Mr. Shlesinger stated that was correct.  Mr. Price presumed when a helicopter flew from a hotel site the aircraft was under the guidance of the control tower at McCarran airport.  Mr. Shlesinger stated that was correct.  Mr. Price asked if there was any particular flight problem if the pilot wanted to fly higher.  If it was a scenic tour he understood they would fly lower.  He wondered if the helicopters were restricted from flying too high because of the flight paths of larger aircraft.  Mr. Shlesinger indicated that was correct also.  The helicopters flew at 3000 feet when they flew from the Grand Canyon and could not go higher because of the incoming planes.  Mr. Price asked when they took off did they try to get to the 3000 foot level as quickly as possible.  Mr. Shlesinger stated they tried to get to 3000 as quickly as possible and maintained that level until their descent. 

 

Chairman Bache stated Mr. Shlesinger had indicated he did not think there was a necessity for the bill and yet he spoke about having an informal committee.  In Section 2 of the bill it mentioned setting up a formal process committee that the county could enter into and one of his concerns was the informal process could lead to the “back room” deals with the “good ol’ boys.”  By setting up a formal procedure in statute, because it did not seem to be so different than what Mr. Shlesinger had been talking about, the public would be involved in the light of day where everyone would be involved.  Mr. Bache stated Mr. Shlesinger voiced an opinion the language should include all aircraft and not exclusively helicopters.  He agreed it should include all aviation.  Mr. Shlesinger’s testimony had strong opposition to the numbering on the helicopters because it frequently was not their helicopter and related the airport could give a 24-hour radar report.  Mr. Bache stated having the airport issue a report did not help the person in their backyard who did not have access to the technology to know which aircraft was above them.  If they were able to identify the particular aircraft with the numbering plainly seen, there would not be as many problems.  The problems would be handled at the local level because the bill authorized the county to hear formal complaints and handle the problems.

 

Mr. Shlesinger answered the first issue in regard to the informal committee.  He stated they were not thinking of doing “back room deals.”  The parts of the committee would be comprised of the government, the commissioners or aviation department and the public at large invited in a public forum.  He indicated because it was suggested to be informal did not mean it would not be public just as the town meetings were public.  He had not intended by creating an informal committee to hold private meetings but rather felt the informal should come first and if it was not successful, then there should be a formal committee.  If the formal committee could not resolve issues then he felt there should be a law but felt the start should be in the community where all the problems were, not at the state level to mitigate the issues. 

 

Mr. Shlesinger stated the second issue mentioned was in regard to the numbers on the helicopter.  He commented the Chairman might find the helicopters did not have a large enough surface area to put identification numbers on to comply with the proposed law.  The tracking system he felt would be more specific than trying to read a number on the helicopter.  He believed it to be more scientific then using binoculars to read the numbers and hope that they were correct.

 

Assemblyman Williams wanted to return to the issue of the committee that the bill stated was advisory in capacity.  The way the makeup of the committee was suggested in the bill it would represent all of the people that Mr. Shlesinger had mentioned.  There were two members from the neighborhood, the helicopter operators, the airport, as well as one member from the FAA.  It seemed to him the language indicated a fair representation of the people involved and there would be a law addressed to all of the people and that tended to make them more committed to addressing the problems.  The county commissioner had the responsibility of appointing the chairperson from the committee.  He understood Mr. Shlesinger’s position as well, but felt the witness should consider the appointed advisory committee would be more attentive if the law bound them together to stay on task and they had the benefit of the information and research necessary.  The committee was not statewide and only affected cities with populations of 400,000 or more.  He believed in the long run the committee setup stated in the bill would have more vision and could solve the problems faster.  Mr. Shlesinger responded whatever committee was formed, informal or formal, as a result of any action, he asked for equal representation from all sectors.  He stated the issue was one his association recognized and would welcome dealing with and should be given the opportunity of trying to resolve the problem without a law unless the assessment in the future showed it could not be solved any other way.  He believed there was enough regulation and did not feel there should be additional burdensome regulation unless it could not be resolved.  Mr. Williams stated he assumed in reference to the last statement of the witness the sponsor would entertain the idea or the notion of considering a “sunset” on the bill.  The “sunset” would mean if the goals were met after a certain period of time the law went away.  There would be a guarantee the problems would be solved in an efficient and timely manner and the law would disappear which would make Mr. Shlesinger happy.  Mr. Williams did not feel the disparity in representation was present but rather the committee was well balanced. 

 

Mr. Shlesinger believed the law should not be enacted; the problem should be handled on a grass roots basis until it could not be solved instead of “subject to.” 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani indicated to Mr. Williams she would be happy to entertain the notion of a “sunset” on the bill.  She appreciated Mr. Shlesinger’s time and his presence at the town hall and before the committee; however, the problem had been going on for years.  She stated some issues could be resolved, but there had to be a committee that was recognized in statute otherwise it would not get done.

 

Assemblyman Neighbors indicated he agreed with the Chairman and Mr. Williams that the committee had to be in a statute.  If the informal or formal committee broke down it would be two years before the problem could be brought before the Legislature again.  He did not think anyone should feel threatened but felt the idea of a “sunset” on the bill should be encouraging to everyone to move forward quickly.

 

Assemblywoman Berman reminded Mr. Shlesinger that perhaps he came to the committee too late to have his ideas concerning resolution of the problems entered into the equation.  She suggested Mr. Shlesinger work with Ms. Giunchigliani in regard to the language or amendments pertaining to the advisory committee that would be compatible with the needs of the neighborhood and his association. 

 

Assemblyman Humke asked the Chair to recognize John Sande in Carson City who represented Las Vegas Helicopter, Inc., in a legal capacity.  He wanted to help the committee from a legal standpoint as to the discussion.  Mr. Sande pointed out Las Vegas Helicopter, Inc., recognized the concerns of Clark County and was eager to participate in any resolution of the matters.  He thanked Ms. Giunchigliani for bringing the issue to everyone’s attention and trying to resolve the matter.

 

Mr. Sande stated the issues were legal issues not new ones, and they had been litigated all over the country.  He commented places such as Los Angeles and Burbank, California, had a population that was vast compared to Las Vegas and the issues had reached there.  The verbiage regarding noise abatement was clearly under the control of the federal government.  The United States Constitution, federal law 49 USC §47501, and regulations 14 CFR 161 and 14 CFR 150 regulated the area of noise abatement.  There were also numerous lawsuits involving the regulations.  He pointed out the Supreme Court decision in City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal, Inc. [411 U.S. 624, 93 S.Ct. 1854 (1973)], the best known case in the area.  The 1973 case basically said in the area of noise abatement the FAA controlled.  The federal government had preemptive rights because there were not only noise concerns but also safety concerns.  Even the issue of numbers on the aircraft would violate the FAA requirements that numbers be on the tail and not elsewhere.  He indicated it would probably be unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause because the law would impose the rules on all helicopters and they could cross state lines.  He commented there would be litigation.  Mr. Sande referred to A.B. 490 in regard to the mandates in Section 3.  He stated the mandates were preempted by federal law.  At the town meetings the airport officials indicated they did not have the ability to control things such as curfew, height limitations or paths of the aircrafts because they were regulated by the FAA.

 

Mr. Sande then referred to Section 2 in regard to the mandate to create a noise abatement committee to examine the issues and make recommendations to the Clark County commission.  He noted the language was mandatory language, “you shall” and could be a very dangerous precedent for the state.  The only reason he noted that was the Supreme Court case he referred to earlier.  The decision clearly asserted if a person was a proprietor of an airport and had liability for controlling airport noise, the proprietor was responsible and if there were any “takings,” if anyone claimed their property value had been “taken” because of airport noise, the proprietor was the appropriate party to be sued.  If the state mandated the committee suggested in A.B. 490 and mandated what the committee should do, the committee could be putting the state in jeopardy as a co-proprietor with Clark County because the state would be trying to regulate noise in Clark County and the state would be liable.  He felt the state should look carefully at that situation before taking any action.

 

Mr. Sande commented the state could not discriminate between classes of aircraft, a fact that was backed up by case law.  There could be no favoring one over the other.  If there was a committee then they should be discussing noise that was created by aircraft and not just helicopters.  He realized some might not think the Washoe County Airport Authority was the best organization in the state; however, there was a noise abatement committee formed by the Washoe County Airport Authority and he had provided the bylaws and articles to Ms. Giunchigliani.  The noise abatement committee had been very effective in addressing issues in Reno, Nevada, obviously different issues than in Clark County; however, they had worked with the FAA and were working on a change in departure path to help noise problems in some areas.  He was not suggesting there should not be a formal committee but rather it should be created by the proprietor of the airport, which was Clark County or the Clark County Airport and not the state of Nevada. 

 

Assemblyman Neighbors wanted clarification on the issue of whether local-based helicopter services would come under the same federal laws as the interstate airlines.  Mr. Sande stated all aircraft was interstate in nature.  He wondered if the state passed the bill and a helicopter flew in from Arizona, without the numbers visible as requested by the bill on their aircraft, would they be subject to a $10,000 fine if the bill passed.  The aircraft would have a valid claim against the state and he believed the FAA would have a claim also.  The FAA would not want additional signage required on aircraft that they already regulated and required to have numbers.  Mr. Neighbors stated he could understand if an aircraft was flying between the states but could understand the need if the aircraft was locally based.

 

Assemblyman Price mentioned to Mr. Shlesinger as a public body the legislators were regulated by the open meeting law.  The legislators had a concept that by law if there was a group of elected officials the meetings had to be open to the public with proper notices.  Mr. Price stated if we have a formal or informal committee with some authority the action should take place now.  With a biannual legislative function it would be two years before any statute changes could take place.  When the legislative body received complaints from constituents they felt compelled to act on the complaints.  He preferred a legal or formal meeting at this point.  Mr. Price added he did not feel the state could mandate the extra large numbers on the bottom of the helicopters.  He believed the helicopter companies should agree to have some type of identification in order to help the neighborhoods identify the helicopters.

 

Mr. Sande addressed Mr. Price’s points from the perspective of how Washoe County Airport Authority handled the issues.  He stated he had received the resolution the committee had presented from the airport recommending additional control measures for noise.  The resolution had been sent to the FAA.  He believed the newly formed committee in Clark County could be formal or informal and have bylaws such as the one in Washoe County but not necessarily be formed by statute.  He mentioned any committee would want to have the FAA involved so any discussions could be covered by the FAA immediately.  The meetings should all be subject to the open meeting laws.  

 

Chairman Bache remarked to Mr. Sande he believed the Washoe County Airport Authority was set up statutorily so there was statutory basis for this bill in northern Nevada.  Clark County stated if they were not specifically authorized to be able to do something with regard to the issue they could not.  The theme had been common throughout the years in Government Affairs.  Without statutory authority Clark County could not handle what Mr. Sande suggested.  Mr. Sande stated he believed they did have the authority, as there was nothing in the statutes that directed Washoe County in enabling legislation to create a noise committee.  Washoe County created the committee under their general powers in operating an airport and similarly the Clark County airport on a daily basis made determinations and had committees they set up to look at various issues.  He believed the authority was present just as they would to set up a construction committee or handle airport problems as far as landing, etc.  He stated the only reason he mentioned the state should look carefully at mandating noise solutions by the Legislature was because of the Supreme Court case he referenced.  He did not think the state would want to risk the possibility the state would be liable for someone in Clark County that claimed because of noise the state of Nevada was a co-proprietor of the airport. 

 

Chairman Bache suggested Eileen O’Grady, Legal Counsel, should research the case mentioned.  He also suggested because the state was set up statutorily she could look at the Washoe County Airport Authority and see if the state was considered a co-proprietor of that airport.

 

Mr. Shlesinger stated his organization would support the open meeting law and an informal committee and would abide by the laws enacted.

 

Kris Saylors, Citizen, Las Vegas, Nevada, lived along the Tropicana route of helicopters and was convinced an informal committee would not work.  She stated the problem had been ongoing for four years.  Since 1996 helicopter complaints had increased over 1000 percent.  She indicated those that had called helicopter companies and complained about isolated or single incidences of helicopters veering from their designated routes over their homes had not received responses.  She made a phone call last Monday to the owner of Sundance Helicopters.  She had given him the exact location of the helicopter, the color of the helicopter and the exact time of day.  He returned the phone call and said without additional information he could not confirm that it was his helicopter and there was more than one red helicopter flying in the sky.  She never heard another response or about any further investigation he might have done. 

 

Ms. Saylors indicated Las Vegas had the worst helicopter problem in America.  A recent Las Vegas Review-Journal story quoted an FAA spokesman as saying only Hawaii had a similar problem.  Hawaii was protected by a special federal regulation that governed the air tourist industry; no helicopter or tour airplane could fly lower than 1500 feet from the ground.  She commented it was measured in real feet, not as the helicopters in Las Vegas were measured by mean sea level.  When Mr. Shlesinger represented to the committee the helicopters flew at 3000 feet mean sea level over the homes, it did not take into account where the ground was.  Hawaii’s code of federal regulations said 1500 feet and in Las Vegas they were flying at 800 feet or less over the homes.  She stated there was a need for statutory support for the committee.  The problem she indicated would not be solved without it.  The routes currently established negatively impacted and unfairly discriminated against Las Vegas’ poorest neighborhoods.  There were nine neighborhoods in Las Vegas that were identified as impoverished according to their median household income.  Seven of those neighborhoods had helicopter routes designated through them.  Only one neighborhood described as affluent was anywhere near a helicopter route.  Unfortunately she believed helicopter routes were designated through neighborhoods that offered the least resistance.  She stated there was a need to protect the “core” neighborhoods of Las Vegas.  She stated the committee should not be threatened by a lawsuit from someone who opposed the bill.  She did not believe it would be against the law for the state to empower Clark County to start the process.  McCarran Airport was the seventh busiest airport in the world and there were hundreds of advisory airport committees across the country.  She commented if Hot Springs, Arkansas, Denton, Texas and Las Cruces, New Mexico, could support an airport advisory committee, the city of Las Vegas and Clark County could. 

 

Mr. Price stated he was glad Ms. Saylor had mentioned the altitude with regard to the pressure.  It was possible there was a correlation and perhaps the committee should clarify with Mr. Shlesinger.  If he recalled correctly Las Vegas was around 2200 to 2500 feet in elevation.  Chairman Bache said he believed Las Vegas did range from those distances above sea level.  Mr. Bache asked Ms. Saylor to clarify what company she had called.  Ms. Saylor related it was Sundance.  Mr. Bache stated Mr. Shlesinger indicated a company could check with the airport for verification and apparently the owner of Sundance did not call the airport to check.  Ms. Saylor was unaware of what efforts the man had made, if any, to verify her complaint or to determine if it was his red helicopter company because he had never returned the call. 

 

Dr. Edson Parker, citizen, Las Vegas, lived near Charleston and I-15.  He was a concerned citizen and also a pilot with over 2500 hours of flying helicopters.  In reference to Mr. Price’s question as far as flying over the ground, there was a device called a radar altimeter which aircraft could have to determine exactly how high they were over the ground.  For normal FAA procedures in air traffic control it would normally direct an aircraft to file a certain altitude or descent or climb so the aircraft could use its own altimeter to do that for an air traffic control reason.

 

Dr. Parker stated a number of years ago the county had poorly conceived an illogical, shortsighted arrival and departure plan at low-level routes for helicopters going to and from the Grand Canyon and to Lake Mead.  The reason they were conceived he did not know because there was no coordination with any residents.  Although the FAA did have the ultimate authority on where the routes would be, in Clark County they were supposed to be concurred with and agreed upon by the Department of Aviation.  The Department of Aviation did in fact have a great deal of authority on where those routes were.  They could agree to them and could also agree against them.  If the Department of Aviation wanted a different route the FAA could either agree or not as to the safety of the route.

 

Dr. Parker stated a main problem in the whole issue was everyone was pointing a finger.  As was mentioned several times, the helicopter companies had been contacted and there had been attempts to resolve the issue with them and the helicopter companies had stated they were operating within compliance of the FAA.  The Department of Aviation had stated the FAA was responsible and the FAA stated all they were concerned with was safety not the quality of life.  There had been no resolution and he stated A.B. 490 must be passed to give some formal format in which to address the issues and receive input from all interested parties.  Mr. Shlesinger did make statements Dr. Parker agreed with concerning grouping all aviation together.  Some people were probably not aware that helicopters had been exempted from the normal noise abatement procedures and power plant noise reduction restrictions required by all other commercial aircraft.  Aircraft under 75,000 pounds were exempted from the regulation.  Dr. Parker stated the helicopters would not be exempted from the regulation if Mr. Shlesinger’s proposal was followed.  The regulation would have to be changed on a federal level and letters had been sent to federal representatives to pass the law currently pending to eliminate the exemption for light aircraft, including helicopters, and include them in all other commercial aviation and make them follow the restrictions of all other commercial aviation concerning noise abatement procedures and power plant noise restrictions. 

 

Dr. Parker stated there was no doubt the helicopters had a right to operate in Clark County, but there needed to be a distinction.  Las Vegas Helicopters worked off of the “Strip.”  They flew from private property and therefore came under the control and authority of Clark County.  Most of the other helicopters that flew to and from the Grand Canyon or Lake Mead, flew from the airport and therefore came under the control and authority of FAA and the airport.  The helicopters had to have the ability to fly from the airport by federal law; however, there was no mandate as to where they flew in their flight routes.  There was an immediate solution if the Department of Aviation would call the FAA and change the routes to have the helicopters, instead of the current flight west or east out Tropicana and west on Charleston and south on the freeway, depart south down I-15, turn west in the southern valley and travel to the Grand Canyon or Lake Mead and return the same way.  Dr. Parker stated the procedure did not violate any federal statute, FAA or government regulation and could be accomplished immediately.  The Department of Aviation might not agree; however, they did have the authority to disagree with the flight routes and suggest the changes because the helicopters had become a public nuisance.  He stated the routes should be eliminated and there would be no need to try to enforce solutions such as larger numbers or following the freeway lines.

 

Dr. Parker responded that moving the helicopters to North Las Vegas or another public airport could be done but would require the consent of the helicopter companies.  They could not be forced to go to the other airports; however, the dictation of the flight routes, the main issue, could be changed very quickly.  Dr. Parker agreed with Ms. Saylor and asked the committee to not be afraid of a lawsuit.  He had agreed with Mr. Sande in regard to the FAA having the ultimate authority on flight routes; however, routes in general must be agreed upon by the local government authorities.

 

Dr. Parker informed the committee there were some key words to use when writing local, state, and national representatives in regard to the bill pending in Congress.  Dr. Parker stated that the words “public nuisance” eliminated the helicopter and lightweight exemption from noise abatement procedures and power plant restrictions, “destructive,” “disturbing,” “penetrating noise that was destroying the quality of life,” and “destroying the property values” should be included in the letters.  The helicopters were a commercial enterprise that had a right to be there; however, they were a tourist attraction and that was all they were.  For the benefit of 700 passengers a day, a negligible economic impact on the community, there was a negative impact on thousands of local residents. 

 

Assemblyman Brown clarified Dr. Parker had asked to remove the objectionable flight paths altogether and he wanted to know what the alternative would be.  Dr. Parker stated regulations could not deny commercial aircraft the ability to use a public airport, but there was no federal regulation that specified what the flight route should be.  The FAA required only that the routes be safe and would normally defer to local governing authorities, in this case the Clark County Department of Aviation, as to where the routes should be.  When the current routes were established a number of years ago, to his knowledge there was no coordination with any local public group to see if the routes were acceptable to all concerned.

 

Dr. Parker stated with the increased volume of helicopter traffic and the obvious negative impact on the residential areas, the flight routes were no longer acceptable.  The routes needed to be more favorable to the community now that demographics had changed.  For example, the Maverick Helicopter operation was on the southwest side of the airport and if the helicopter operations could be moved in that area they could take off and fly south down I-15 and fly east toward their destination.  That was just one alternative.  If the Lake Mead and Grand Canyon helicopter flights could be redirected to another route away from the residential areas it would allow the Las Vegas Helicopter operation to fly specifically over the “Strip” and not fly over residential areas.  The flight route issue was very critical and that was where he believed the committee proposed could advise the local agencies to tell Clark County Department of Aviation to contact the FAA and tell them the current routes were not acceptable any more because of the increase in volume. 

 

Mr. Brown asked how high a helicopter could fly over the “Strip” corridor.  Dr. Parker did not know and had been told 300 feet was the lowest they could fly; however, if the FAA regulation was reviewed he felt that altitude was never intended for a return route to an airport for a long distance over residential areas.  When the dirigibles were flying the helicopters had to fly under them and the helicopter companies had used the rules to fly lower than they should over major populated areas.  Dr. Parker stated there was now a precedent from the current special federal regulation for Hawaii that stated there was authority to tell the tourist helicopters to fly at 1500 feet above ground level (agl).  In his opinion there was no reason the state of Nevada could not request the same statute.  He would be asking representatives in Washington, D.C., to include that stipulation as part of the federal bill under consideration. 

 

Mr. Brown asked if Dr. Parker would know what the average decibels might be at a 1500-foot level.  Dr. Parker stated he did not; however, the decibels decreased significantly as distance was increased away from the noise generator.  Although the FAA would not allow average decibels over 65, the single event level over someone’s house at 75 to 84 decibels exceeded all acceptable noise levels for environmental protection agency standards.  The Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) had spent millions of dollars to protect neighborhoods from undesirable traffic noise by erecting noise walls and then the helicopters flew over with noise far in excess of the traffic noise.  Dr. Parker stated in effect there was one governmental agency allowing something that was defeating the efforts of another.  Mr. Brown asked if 1500 feet would be acceptable to the commercial airline flight patterns.  Dr. Parker stated commercial aircraft took off at rapid rate to attain their cruise altitude.  He stated by the time the jet was over Charleston they had attained 10,000 feet altitude.  It made no logical sense why the helicopters were allowed to fly at 800 feet for long distances over Tropicana and Charleston.  He recommended they stay at 5000 feet altitude in an in-route altitude until they approached the airport just as all other aircraft had to do.  Over urban areas 1500 feet was a good start and there was precedence with the situation in Hawaii.  If the last letter to the Department of Aviation from the FAA was examined closely it mentioned noise levels with regard to in-state laws.  He believed there was some room in the regulations for the state to adopt a law.  He did not think it was unreasonable, with the precedence in Hawaii, for the state to adopt a law saying the minimum was 1500 feet.  The FAA might say there was no room over the residential areas for the helicopters to fly at 1500 feet.  He indicated if the helicopters could not comply with a proposed 1500 feet altitude then they would not be allowed to fly over the city.

 

Ms. Saylor stated if it was not safe to fly over the homes at 1500 feet then the helicopters did not belong over the homes at all.  Dr. Parker commented if the state enacted a law that had a 1500 feet minimum such as Hawaii, the FAA would say they could not allow helicopters to fly at that altitude over the residential area in Las Vegas because it would conflict with air traffic control coming from North Las Vegas and McCarran.  Then the helicopters would have to move to another airport to comply with the regulation. 

 

Ms. Saylor stated another reason for the statutory advisory committee was the different commission districts in Las Vegas and Clark County responded by different degrees of attention to the matter.  As an example, last Saturday, Clark County Commissioner Williams hosted a neighborhood meeting on helicopters.  All of her constituents had been informed of the meeting.  Ms. Saylors’ commissioner had not supported any meetings.  Her neighborhood was not informed there was a meeting.  Her county commissioner had apparently given up on the issue and that fact indicated the concerned parties needed a voice on an advisory committee so the problems could be solved. 

 

Chairman Bache stated he believed Dr. Parker had raised some issues in his discussion about the federal government’s involvement.  Possibly one of the types of legislation that could be used and would be exempt from deadlines would be a resolution where the Legislature could ask the federal government to do certain things.  There could be some issues mentioned that the state could ask the federal government to resolve.  He asked Dr. Parker if he saw that as a possibility in a companion piece of legislation.  Dr. Parker stated he thought the idea was sound.  Chairman Bache asked if he had been working with Ms. Giunchigliani on the particular piece of legislation.  Dr. Parker indicated he had given her recommendations that had been included in the bill.  Mr. Bache stated she was coordinating amendments to the bill to take care of the some of the problems and he suggested Dr. Parker could provide her information on some of the things the state could ask the federal government to do in a companion bill.  He would be happy to request the resolution.

 

Ms. Saylors wanted to introduce Exhibit I into the record.  The article from the Las Vegas Review Journal identified Las Vegas’ impoverished neighborhoods.  She had drawn the helicopter routes on the exhibit. 

 

Mr. Neighbors asked what the rate of climb on the helicopters would be to get to 1500 feet.  Dr. Parker stated the helicopters were capable of reaching a cruising altitude of 1500 feet within several miles after departure.  They could do a normal sustained climb until they reached the altitude.  Mr. Neighbors wondered what the rate of climb was for a helicopter.  Dr. Parker stated the rate of climb depended on the load and the temperature of the air; however, it was approximately 500 to 1500 feet per minute.  Mr. Neighbors asked if anyone had ever discussed the change in routes of the helicopters.  Dr. Parker stated he had talked with Randall Walker, Director of Aviation for McCarran International Airport.  Mr. Walker had stated he was adamantly opposed and added their agency had no controls and the FAA would sue them if they tried to change routes.  Dr. Parker stated it was clear in the documents even from the FAA that the FAA had ultimate determination for safety; however, the routes had to be agreed upon by local governing representatives, the Clark County Department of Aviation. 

 

Dennis Mewshaw, Planning Manager, Clark County Department of Aviation, Clark County, Nevada, spoke on behalf of Randall Walker, Director of Department of Aviation in regard to A.B. 490.  Mr. Mewshaw submitted his testimony, Exhibit J, in support of the citizen advisory panel that would provide an opportunity to openly explore all sides of the issue.  He explained to the committee the process would not necessarily provide an easy and quick solution.  Local and state government options for reducing helicopter noise were limited and preempted by federal statue and regulation.  The most beneficial product of the panel would be a strong and united voice to request Congress enact legislation addressing helicopter noise in urbanized areas and possibly return to local government, at least in regard to the issue, some ability to control their own destiny.

 

Mr. Mewshaw suggested the intent of A.B. 490 appeared to be directed toward achieving some reduction in helicopter-related noise impacts and the impacts arising from the noise produced by commercial air tour or sightseeing operations.  The department suggested the bill should be limited to only helicopter noise.  Helicopter noise was a significant issue and to broaden the scope of the advisory panel to address issues of fixed-wing aviation and airport development would only dilute the ability of the panel to focus on the helicopter noise issue and lose the intent of the sponsors of the bill.

 

Mr. Mewshaw suggested the panel’s makeup should increase in size to include at least three citizen members and a like number of helicopter operators.  The FAA should be asked to provide representation from both its air traffic and flight standards divisions.  The department believed there should be broader representation from the citizens and from the helicopter businesses.  He suggested the committee require the citizens’ advisory panel to make a report to the committee at the next legislative session.  Chairman Bache reminded the witness to write proposed amendments and e-mail or mail them to the Chairman. 

 

Alex and Kerry Hyt, Citizens, Las Vegas, reported they lived in the east Charleston area.  She stated they never had a noise problem before and now the noise was unbearable.  Her husband had counted 120 small airplanes and helicopters that flew over their house in one day the previous week.  She had noticed the last three or four years the noise level had increased to the point where she could not open the windows and her house would shake. 

 

John Sullivan, CEO, Sundance Helicopters, Rick Eisenreich, CEO, and Tom Shaus, Director of Operations, Sundance Helicopters, Las Vegas, appreciated the opportunity to speak on the importance of the issues.  Mr. Sullivan commented A.B. 490 was a bad bill in his opinion.  He felt there was a right way and a wrong way to deal with a local noise issue and he suggested getting people together on an advisory committee basis would be the right way to take care of the problem.  The heavy hand of legislation was unnecessary at this point and he opposed the bill. 

 

Mr. Sullivan related Sundance Helicopters had been in Las Vegas for 16 years.  The company employed over 70 full-time employees.  One-half of their employees were licensed pilots and mechanics, very skilled labor.  The company was licensed under FAA and was considered part of the transportation sector of the state.  The company’s major market was tourism and in addition to tourism they performed wildland fire fighting for the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service.  They had two helicopters pulled from their tourism business last year to fight fires all summer.  They had helicopters fighting fires every summer in Reno and Las Vegas.  He did not remember complaints about the low level flying when they were dropping water on fires to save homes.  In addition, the company helped construction companies with air conditioners on buildings and had some military contracts.  He reiterated the employees were members of the community, lived in Las Vegas and together the five helicopter companies employed approximately 200 to 300 people.  The total revenues for the helicopters companies were $40 to $50 million dollars and the economic impact on southern Nevada was approximately $120 to $150 million dollars per year.  It was vitally important for the company to be a good neighbor.

 

Mr. Sullivan personally lived under the Charleston corridor, 89110 zip code, in the Sunrise Mountain vicinity.  Every helicopter flew down Tropicana and flew over his house.  He stated he believed the impact was overstated.  He spent time in his backyard, could see the helicopters fly over, had talked with his neighbors and from his perspective there was a small number of people his operations affected a great deal.  He empathized with the people because they were annoyed and that would not go away.  When the jets at Nellis Air Force went to the high-powered run-ups early in the morning that was an impact where the ground rumbled.  The helicopter over-flights where he lived were a minor impact compared to other aviation impacts in his neighborhood.

 

Mr. Sullivan agreed with Dr. Parker there were some practical things that could be done quite easily to mitigate the problem.  There was testimony that suggested the helicopter pilots were opposed to flying higher.  Mr. Sullivan stated they would fly higher if they could but they were not allowed to by the air traffic control and the FAA for safety considerations.  Sundance Helicopters would be happy to look at any and all alternatives to the problem including altitude changes and route changes; however, they were directed to fly down Tropicana Boulevard at 3000 feet above sea level, which was 800 feet in altitude, towards the airport and as the valley’s elevation lessened going east it became about 1200 feet above the ground.  He strongly supported the idea of a committee to discuss routes, altitudes, etc. 

 

Mr. Sullivan stated in regard to the issue of handling complaints, he had never received a complaint in his years of business in Las Vegas.  He felt blind-sided by the issue and the activity associated with the issue.  He did not feel the helicopter companies had been given much of a chance to deal with the problems.  He felt there was a rush to legislation, punitive measures, limitations, curfews, etc., and as community members they had not been given a chance to work with the problems.

 

Ms. Parnell stated Mr. Sullivan had said he personally had not received any phone calls with complaints and she asked if any of his employees had received a phone call at work in regard to a noise complaint.  Mr. Sullivan stated he was not relating any of his employees had or had not received calls and perhaps they had.  The company received calls from customers and the employees had to be nice to the people that called because most were people that wanted to book helicopter flights.  He had never been told by one of his employees there was a noise complaint or an angry citizen on the phone and the employees would direct that type of complaint to him or the director of operations.  The company had canvassed a survey in neighborhoods because they had heard there were complaints and found the impact was not there.  Some of the people on Tropicana their chief pilot had talked to said, “What helicopter noise?” and others stated they heard the noise every now and then but it did not bother them.  They had not talked to anyone that stated it was excessive and could not live with the noise.

 

Ms. Parnell stated no one needed to become argumentative and people deserved to have the quality of life they were asking for.  She stated she was confused by his willingness to discuss the issues with people when in the past he had not been proactive.  She was also confused as to why he was so resistant to the proposed legislation when the bill would create a vehicle in which the community could come together and have the discussions.

 

Mr. Neighbors stated everyone was grateful for the public service Mr. Sullivan’s company had supplied.  Mr. Neighbors stated as legislators they did not necessarily invite bills to be introduced, but at least there were people together on this day to discuss issues.  The problem had been going on for a long time and if there had been no committee studying A.B. 490 the problem would exist without resolution.  If the problem were not put into statute he was sure it would continue.

 

Assemblyman Price stated politically it was unwise for Mr. Sullivan to come before a legislative committee and begin to talk about heavy-handed legislation.  In politics the legislators responded to the citizenry and Mr. Sullivan should feel some appreciation that he had an arena in which to speak on what quite a few people felt was a problem.  He was pleased to hear Sundance employees knocked on doors to canvas answers and complaints. 

 

Mr. Sullivan stated it was difficult in his business knowing the amount of organization and work involved to know there were studies and brochures handed out in the communities with the name and addresses of the companies and every aspect of their businesses spelled out to people.  Yet, he indicated, there had been little or no attempt to work with them directly.  It was very frustrating to be in that position and he wanted to suggest items that could help.  He believed the process was good in helping to identify the problem in a very open way.  The involvement of the state and the committee had been very helpful in this case.  He had wanted to share with the committee his commitment to do everything they could to help, attend and represent their business at the committee level. 

 

Chairman Bache stated there was a problem with Section 3 and the original outlines.  Section 2 related to the advisory committee and the comments had been to let the county form it by themselves.  As he had related earlier, the county could not do it themselves because they were a creature of state government and had to be specifically authorized to be able to set up the committee.  Without legislation they could not have the committee in the county.  If the intent by the helicopter industry was not to do anything he supposed that would be one argument to kill the bill.

 

Rick Eisenreich, CEO, Sundance Helicopters, Las Vegas, wanted to address two issues.  There seemed to be a perception the magnitude of the problem was much larger than they had understood it to be.  There was also a perception the company was not responsive to the issue.  Mr. Eisenreich had fielded some telephone calls himself including the one from Ms. Saylors on the previous Monday.  She called and stated two of their aircraft were flying side-by-side down Tropicana.  Flying side-by-side was against their policy and against their letter of agreement and his response was first to explain that they were bound by the letter of agreement; however, it did not prevent them from deviating from the letter of agreement.  The company was under air traffic control when they operated the helicopters and if there was a reason to deviate normally they would be allowed to do that.  In the past there had been some operators including themselves that had passed one helicopter going slower than another on the route.  After the call he had spoken to the Director of Aviation, Tom Shallis, and he could not confirm that it had happened.  He called Ms. Saylors back to ask for further information because there was another company that flew another similar color of helicopter and he thought if he could confirm the side number he could call the other company and discuss the matter.  He stated it was not a matter of lack of interest in dealing with the issue; instead he did not have anything further to report to her at the time. 

 

Chairman Bache asked if he had contacted the Department of Aviation as Mr. Shlesinger had testified there was radar tracking of the various helicopters flying and they could confirm or not confirm if a particular helicopter was flying.  Mr. Eisenreich stated he did not contact them and had looked at the schedule that showed they had eight helicopters flying at that time and it could have been any one of the eight.  He was perhaps remiss in not contacting the tower and had attempted to handle it internally.  It was something he would do in the future.  The system of radar tracking was relatively new and they had not gotten in the practice of using the feature.  He had a report produced by the Clark County Aviation Authority, entitled “1991 through 2000 Noise Complaint Analysis” and in the report there was a graph showing complaints received by the Clark County Aviation Authority.  The report showed helicopter complaints in 1991 totaled 10, 1992, 1, 1993, 8, 1994, 6, 1995,16, 1996, 18, 1997, 64, 1998, 47 and then in 1999, 89 and in 2000, 211 complaints.  He personally had some concerns that the totals had increased dramatically.  The magnitude, however, was still far less than what had been reported to the committee.

 

His company had worked with the Clark County Aviation Department and the FAA on issues as they had arisen.  The company had changed their routes, their altitudes and other things over the years in response to requests from the air traffic control agency working in concert with the Clark County Aviation Department.  From their point of view the magnitude was not great.  He personally had received approximately three phone calls and his director of operations had received a few and in all cases they had addressed them directly with explanations, limitations they had and in some cases went out and talked with the citizens.  More than anything else his company objected to the mandates in the bill and they wanted the opportunity to solve the problems without the mandates.  He recognized there were people in the community that had issues with their company and he asked the committee to allow them to be a part of the solution without mandating legislation that was unworkable for them or others. 

 

Thomas Shaus, Director of Operations, Sundance Helicopters, Las Vegas, was a long-term resident of Las Vegas.  He was also a helicopter pilot and commented on his personal background of service to Las Vegas.  He knew, understood and recognized the value of helicopters to the community.  Two of his children had been air lifted by helicopters.  He was very concerned about the mandates in the legislation and the severe financial impact that could occur to the helicopter operators and the potential danger to his job and the jobs of many employees.  He believed some of the mandates were radical and could endanger the ability of the company to survive financially.  He indicated this was his biggest concern.  The company was more than willing to work with a committee and had worked with the county noise department and the FAA to move helicopters.  They had received complaints from Calico Ridge where they could not move the route and Mead View, which was not under controlled air space, and they had moved the routes.  The company did not want the complaints and wanted to do what they could.  If air traffic control allowed them to, they would fly at 1500 feet.

 

There were financial restrictions obviously in how far they could move their routes but where they could they would.  He was very concerned about the mandate part of the bill that enforced curfews.  He participated with the industry in trying to bring Las Vegas different types of businesses, for example, the movie industry.  His company flew for the different movie businesses.  Mandating no-fly zones over certain areas and mandating curfews could severely damage those types of enterprises for his company.  He asked for caution in the mandated portions of the bill that could severely impact the financial stability of the company.

 

Assemblyman Williams reiterated the idea of a possible “sunset” on the legislation.  The fears expressed by the operators and others combined with the obvious concerns of the citizens would allow both sides to explore items and issues that both sides may not be aware existed.  The only way to solve the problems was to formulate the committee and solve the problems for both sides.  As Mr. Neighbors had mentioned the problem had existed for some time and had not been resolved by committee and it was up to the Legislature to give the opportunity for all parties to be heard.  The “sunset” allowed the owners and operators to know that once issues were resolved the bill and the mandate would be defunct.  He felt it was a fair and equitable solution to give assurances to both the residences and the operators.  Mr. Neighbors stated Ms. Giunchigliani would help with the makeup of the committee.

 

Assemblywoman Smith wanted to encourage the owner/operators to work with the sponsor of the bill, express their concerns, and offer amendments to make the bill workable.  During testimony they had heard a variety of problems and solutions and the issue had been enough of a problem to generate three town hall meetings.  She stated as the owners it was incumbent upon them to take the lead and be the leaders in the issue to try to bring the community together.  Certainly if the bill went forward they needed to be involved to help make the bill a workable solution for them as well as everyone else. 

 

Tod J. Story, District Director, The Honorable Shelley Berkley, stated there was awareness at the federal level.  They had been monitoring the situation and responding to constituent complaints and calls.  Mr. Story submitted a letter (Exhibit K) submitted to The Honorable Shelley Berkley from the FAA in response to a letter written regarding helicopter noise. 

 

Keith L. Lee, Representative, Southwest Airlines, noted for the state of Nevada they were the largest single carrier in both Las Vegas and Reno with more than 150 daily departures from McCarran International Airport.  Southwest stated the proposed legislation should not include them because they were a certificated interstate commercial carrier.  In fact the legislation could not apply to them based on federal regulations.  He was assuming there would be some amendments and possibly a work session next week that he would be happy to help the committee or sponsor with explanations of federal regulations.  Southwest’s position was to support the Department of Aviation’s first proposed amendment to restrict A.B. 490 in its application to helicopters.  He was prepared to suggest how that might be done from Southwest’s perspective and would further commit to work with members of the committee and staff at a work session to further develop the language.  The language on line 6, page 1, needed to delete the term “and other aircraft” and on line 10 and line 17 on page 2, he suggested the same change.  This would allow the committee to address the issues that had been discussed in testimony.  Southwest was always prepared to work with the committee and other legislators to help resolve issues and problems.

 

Chairman Bache asked Mr. Lee to write the proposed amendments and send them to his office.  Seeing no other witnesses Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 490.

 

 

Assembly Bill 557:  Authorizes constables, upon request of sheriff, to execute certain process, writs and warrants. (BDR 20-246)

 

Peter Gariano, Las Vegas Chief Deputy Constable, stated for the record that Lt. Stan Olsen of the Metropolitan Police Department had been present at the committee meeting earlier and had to leave.  Lt. Olsen wanted the record to reflect that he, Sheriff Keller of Las Vegas and the civil section were in support of A.B. 557.  Constable Gronauer was in Washington, D.C., and asked Mr. Gariano to testify that the bill as written would give sheriffs statewide the authority to authorize the constables of the appropriate townships to receive and execute certain processes such as writs and warrants.  The Constable’s Office, Las Vegas Township, was ready and equipped to handle these requests if the bill passed into law.  The office had an efficient office staff able to handle a high volume workload and 13 uniform deputies that were well trained, armed and Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) certified.  These types of qualities were crucial in assisting the sheriff or any other law enforcement agency and would be a benefit to the bill when passed.  The office had already established a favorable working relationship with law enforcement agencies within the county, including regular meetings with the sheriff and members of different agencies.  Constable Robert Gronauer was in favor of the bill and felt it would have a positive impact on the sheriff’s office by freeing up manpower so they could concentrate on life saving issues.  The Las Vegas Township Constable Office, its deputies and office staff supported the passage of A.B. 557 and submitted Exhibit L for the committee’s information. 

 

Assemblyman Brown commented in the last year through his work he had to serve a writ of attachment and it had to be done within a few hours.  He had called the sheriff’s office and they related they could handle it sometime within the following week.  He then called the constable’s office and the job was handled within a few hours.  There was a huge workload for the sheriff and he stated A.B. 557 was a worthy addition to the service of the constable and was an advantage to the sheriff’s office.

 

Assemblywoman Smith was curious about the difference statewide in regard to the workload of constables.  She asked if all were trained peace officers and stated if a constable was elected they could be a banker, etc.  Mr. Gariano stated that was correct but he could only speak for the Las Vegas Township.  In Las Vegas they required all of the officers to be POST certified.  Ms. Smith asked if the constable in Las Vegas was elected and then hired deputies.  Mr. Gariano stated that was correct.  Ms. Smith related the constable did not have to be a peace officer but would hire deputies.  Mr. Gariano stated the majority of people that applied for jobs in their office were former law enforcement lieutenants, captains, etc.  They required people to be certified before they even applied for a job.  Ms. Smith asked if he was aware of the situation in a city where there was just one person that was elected and yet not a peace officer, and how the bill would effect that situation.  Mr. Gariano was not sure how the bill would affect that situation.  He was aware in Laughlin there was one constable and he believed the constable there had to go through the POST training.  Ms. Smith stated the bill appeared to enable the sheriff the opportunity to designate but was not mandatory.

 

Chairman Bache asked Mr. Humke if Captain Nadeau had indicated any concern with A.B. 557.  Assemblyman Humke stated Captain Nadeau had imparted to him that his sheriff and he were in favor of the bill.

 

Chairman Bache, seeing no other witness for A.B. 557, closed the hearing on the bill and opened the hearing on A.B. 571.

 

 Assembly Bill 571:  Authorizes board of county commissioners to provide by ordinance for the covering or removal of certain graffiti on private property at county expense. (BDR 20-389)

 

James Foreman, Manager, Public Response Office, Clark County, indicated A.B. 571 was a part of the Clark County bill package.  Clark County offered a free graffiti removal service for residential property owners.  The program had been in effect for nine years.  There was a dilemma, however, that was pointed out by staff lawyers.  The lawyers had asked his office if there was permission for all of the removals.  He stated the office tried, but did not always get approvals.  They were for the most part dealing with external block walls along thoroughfares and did not enter onto someone’s property.  They were, however, right on the edge where the street met the private property.  The new language in A.B. 571 would firm up the legal standpoint of removing the graffiti and would help them with the problem of finding landowners.  The mechanism in the new language would allow them to send a mailing out and all of the property owners in a given area would know they were coming to remove the graffiti and would then give them permission.  He had found one mistake in the bill that he had missed.  He had stated in the bill they were going to send certified mail to all the property owners and he realized when anyone certified mail today it could be weeks before the return to the department and the citizens they were trying to help would have to wait weeks or perhaps longer.  He wanted to add to line four on the last page “posted on property.”  The owner would receive their notice quicker and his department could remove the graffiti quicker.

 

Assemblywoman Berman asked how many citizens were affected on private property per year.  Mr. Foreman stated there were thousands of graffiti removals done each year.  The office had three full-time painters that painted all day long everyday except for Saturday or Sunday.  On Saturday and Sunday they were very often out helping with community cleanups where large groups of people got together to clean up large areas.  It was an epidemic they were dealing with and unfortunately the examples were everywhere.  Ms. Berman asked what it cost to paint thousands of places every year.  Mr. Foreman stated with the three full-time painters, paint supplies, and gasoline it was approximately $400,000 per year just for the employees under his management at the Public Response Office and did not include all of the parks and recreation painters, the painters for other government agencies and for the police department officers that enforced the laws that went along with the graffiti.

 

Ms. Berman asked how much more the new designation in the bill on page 2, lines 7 and 8, would cost, in addition to the $400,000, notifying by certified mail, how many more would his office be cleaning up, and how much more would the postage cost.  Mr. Foreman stated there would probably not be more painting because they have been taking care of the problem by working very hard to get personal approvals from the people at the properties.  This was a mechanism that would work only in those instances when they could not contact the owner.  The postage would be expensive and would cost over a $1 from their office and obviously was not an effective way to solve the problem.  The lawyers had suggested the mechanism because under the NRS it was a good way to prove the people were notified.  He preferred personal service, talking to them in person and getting them to sign the application on the spot.  His second choice would be to post a note on the property saying if the owner did not want them to come back in three days please call them and let them know.  People loved the service and he had not had many ask his department not to remove graffiti.  Ms. Berman asked if his department would call before they sent the certified mail.  Mr. Foreman stated they went to the doors currently and asked the property owners and they had a high level of success.  They left the application for the people that were not home.  Where the problem existed would be where they left the application and the owners did not get back to the office in a timely manner and there was a question about what color to paint the wall or if they even wanted them to enter onto the edge of the property.  That number was not high at this point because most people did get back to the office with a response. 

 

Ms. Berman asked why was there a need for the bill.  Mr. Foreman stated what he had been told was because it was private property there was no official permission under the law that allowed them to stand on the edge of the property and paint over what was the owner’s wall because it was built by their subdivision developer.  Legally it was the homeowner’s property.  Ms. Berman thanked him for the clarification.

 

Ms. Smith stated she appreciated the efforts and the program.  She indicated there had been other testimony on other bills about enabling legislation and they had specifically talked about graffiti.  She wondered why this issue could not be covered in those bills assuming one or some were passed.  She had a concern about the private property issue.  She asked if someone was on vacation or did not live in the area all of the year did that in any way violate their personal rights.

 

James Spinello, Representative, Clark County, stated the issues of the general authority of the county to be able to provide and engage in such activities were related in some of the language in A.B. 92; however, there was some broadness that did not apply.  An article of A.B. 92 that could address the issues in A.B. 571 was in jeopardy of being removed in order to gain the support of some legislators.  A.B. 571 addressed issues that a city could pass in an ordinance and handle the problem.  The dilemma from the county’s point of view was if there was no permission from a homeowner, the county could not legally handle the graffiti.  At the Clark County Commissioner’s board meeting the chairman asked specifically that he convey his personal desire and direction to Mr. Spinello to not allow A.B. 571 to be sacrificed to another bill in case there was no passage.  Graffiti was a real concern to the county commissioners and they wanted to see that specifically the county had the means to deal with the property. 

 

Mr. Spinello stated they were envisioning door hangers to hang on private property owners’ doors to inform them of the graffiti removal.  He indicated it would be a dilemma for those homeowners that were on vacation.  The same dilemma existed right now, for instance if a utility wanted to put a box in someone’s front yard.  The level of notice a utility had to give was less than what the county was required to do.  The certified mail could cover those problems; however, it would add expense and be an inconvenience to the homeowner to have to go to the post office to pick up the certified letter.  He believed a door hanging that was prominent was the solution. 

 

Assemblywoman Parnell asked if Mr. Spinello could look at page 2, line 5, and stated perhaps “enter his property” was too strong language and that caused some concern.  The county was really referencing the exterior of the property and not the interior of the home.  She stated when the term “enter the property” was used it sent the wrong signals.  She asked the language be addressed and then she could support the bill.  Mr. Brown asked if there had been any incidences where they had painted without approval.  Mr. Foreman stated yes they had, especially when a commissioner had called and stated there was profanity on a wall, had been there for two or three days and the owner could not be notified.  They had not had any adverse situations arise from the action.  Mr. Brown was concerned about the one citizen that could complain about the paint not matching the rest of the wall.  The citizen in that case could have a legitimate complaint and the county could be required to paint the whole wall.  He wondered if that issue had been contemplated or discussed.  Mr. Foreman stated it had happened about once or twice a year and the attorneys were trying to find a workable solution to those types of problems.  Mr. Brown did have a problem with entering private property because he could envision entering, seeing something illegal and what were the ramifications.  He suggested working on the language and felt the 72 hours was brief notification, someone could be on vacation; however, the intent was to solve the problem very quickly. 

 

Assemblyman Humke stated Mr. Brown had covered some of the concerns Ms. Parnell had raised.  He believed “enter the property” was a term of art under the law and literally meant to set foot on or, for example, a retaining wall that was wholly on private property, the statement could mean something as little as placing one finger on that wall.  He believed the record should show there was no intent under the bill for any public officer to enter into an improvement, house or dwelling for the purpose of graffiti removal.  He believed Mr. Brown’s suggestion of limiting the entry onto the property was a sound one.

 

Mr. Spinello stated they would prepare amendments reflecting the committee’s intent and would submit them as soon as possible. 

 

Kerry Hyt wanted to speak about the graffiti on commercial properties the county could not touch because of regulations.  She had a property that was surrounded by a commercial property and there was graffiti painted on all of the walls surrounding the property.  She had spoken to Commissioner Williams and attended every other meeting she could attend to ask someone to paint the walls.  Everyone told her the state did not allow the county to paint the wall.  If she had been in a city she could have petitioned to have the walls painted.  She and her neighbors had been trying to create a beautiful location near their houses and the graffiti was undermining all of their hard work.  She implored the state to allow the county to paint the graffiti on the commercial properties and charge them for the job.  She was told the county gave one of the commercial property owners five gallons of paint.  The owner of the building painted 50 feet of wall and the rest was left unpainted.  It had been over ten months and she was very frustrated.  If there were a way to force the commercial properties to have their graffiti covered it would mean a great deal to communities.  Ms. Berman asked for a county member to return to the witness table to address Ms. Hyt’s complaints.

 

Mr. Foreman stated in the city of Las Vegas, under the nuisance section of the law, if there was a privately owned piece of property, commercial or residential, the law stated the owner must remove the graffiti and if they did not the city would remove it and charge the owner.  In the county there was no ordinance that stated an owner must remove their graffiti.  The state law that was pending a change in A.B. 571 stated the county must remove the graffiti but did not state the private citizen must remove graffiti.  There was no way the code enforcement officers could go to the commercial properties next door to Ms. Hyt and state they must remove the graffiti.  Mr. Spinello stated one of the provisions in A.B. 92 asked the state law to reflect the county be empowered to be able to adopt ordinances that abated nuisances.  The particular part of the bill was one of the items he had been asked by some legislators to remove from the bill.

 

Ms. Berman asked if there was any way there could be an amendment added to include commercial properties in A.B. 571 and remove it from A.B. 92 so that it was specific to graffiti.  Mr. Spinello stated that was a possible amendment.  Ms. Smith wanted to comment on A.B. 92 and her concern over the nuisance issue was to just define the issue.  She wondered if the graffiti issue was covered in some of the preservation of neighborhood issues that had been discussed or was that debatable.  Mr. Spinello felt it was debatable. 

 

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 571 and opened the hearing on A.B. 553.

 

Assembly Bill 553:  Revises provisions regarding notification of certain proposed planning and zoning changes. (BDR 22-197)

 

Chairman Bache had worked with Clark County on sponsoring A.B. 553.  Chairman Bache appointed Mr. Neighbors chair of the committee so that he could present the bill.

 

Assemblyman Bache had A.B. 553 drafted to reorganize the notices sent out for zoning changes in a more practical manner than was currently used.  There were no changes in distances of notification for expanding or reducing zones.  Mr. Bache stated an example of the change needed would include a variance to have a block wall extended to 8 foot from 6 foot and currently there had to be notification within 300 feet of the property.  This would be an instance of something that would affect only the immediate neighbors of the property.  There were other changes to other zoning areas in statute that needed more notifications.  The core of the bill was on page 7 where the deleting language affected NRS 278.315 and added a new subsection stating “except as otherwise provided in subsection 6, in a county whose population is 100,000 or more, a notice setting forth the time, place and purpose of the hearing must be sent at least 10 days before the hearing.”  Chairman Bache read through the sections of the bill that changed the statute.  Subsection 6 dealt with establishments that served alcoholic beverages and required them to notice 1500 feet from the place of business.  Because there were no witnesses signed in to testify against A.B. 553 he did not believe it had generated any controversy. 

 

Charles Pulsipher, Zoning Administrator for Clark County, had worked with Chairman Bache to develop the legislation and was in complete support.  They were particularly enthusiastic about the provisions dealing with vacating government patent easements and a simplified procedure for that action.  He believed the changes to notification would appropriately provide for a notice based on the impact of the use.  There was a way to look at the tier of notification in the bill and the notification radius required, as observation would show, as the intensity of the request increased, the notification radius increased also.  He believed the language to be appropriate. 

 

Mr. Brown wanted clarification on the language carried throughout the bill that dealt with the 30 separately owned parcels and in Section 1 the bill talked about the notification sent to each owner or tentative real property located within 1000 feet of the property in question.  If there were perhaps only five people within the 1000-foot radius, did the county still need to go to the 30 closest properties?  Was the limit the 1000 feet or the 30 closest properties?  Mr. Bache stated this issue had come up before in Government Affairs.  The previous sessions had addressed areas where there were more rural settings and the county wanted people to receive zoning notifications; however, within the 300-, 500-, 1000-, and 1500-foot requirement there were very few residences.  There was a guarantee that the notice went to the nearest affected people.  This was already in statute and was parallel with A.B. 553.  Mr. Brown stated the county would then notice the 30 closest people and he knew in high-density areas there would be more than 30 owners.

 

Mr. Brown asked for clarification on the alcohol vendor provision as to whether it increased the distance.  Mr. Pulsipher stated it was an increase of 1200 feet.  Mr. Brown asked about the deviation from a standard for development and wanted to know if it was a simple thing to determine, the 10 to 30 percent more.  Mr. Pulsipher stated most standards were self-explanatory.  There were some that were not so easy to quantify; however, he believed it would be relatively easy to identify a standard or a set of alternative standards and allow them “subject to” a minor deviation or “subject to” whatever the governing body felt was appropriate.  He did not believe the language change would hinder the establishment of standards based on regulations.  Mr. Brown stated it was something that still remained objective rather than subjective and Mr. Pulsipher stated he believed so.

 

Mr. Brown asked about the definition of a government patent easement.  Mr. Pulsipher stated that these were easements placed on properties when released by the federal government.  In some cases the easements were utilized for road and other public purposes, but in most cases at least part of the easement was extraneous.  If the government released a two-and-a-half-acre piece of property and put a 33-foot government patent easement around it, the county only required roads every 660 feet so there would be roads on 2 sides of the parcel but not on the other 2 sides.  Therefore the 33 feet on the 2 sides for which roads would not be required would be extraneous.  His office spent hours in public hearings vacating these easements when no one had a real interest in them.

 

Vice Chairman Neighbors closed the hearing on A.B. 553 and Chairman Bache seeing no other business before the committee adjourned the meeting at 12:55 p.m. 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Cheryl Meyers

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman

 

 

DATE: