MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
Sixty-seventh Session
March 31, 1993
The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:00 p.m., on Wednesday, March 31, 1993, in Room 227 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
Senator Sue Lowden, Vice Chairman
Senator William J. Raggio
Senator Dean A. Rhoads
Senator Thomas J. Hickey
Senator Leonard V. Nevin
Senator Matthew Q. Callister
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Fred Welden, Chief Deputy Research Director
Caren Jenkins, Senior Research Analyst
Ricka Benum, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Robert L. Seale, State Treasurer
Marvin Leavitt, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas
Tom Grady, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities
John Richardson, Administrator, Division of State Parks
Linda Eissmann, Park and Recreation Planning Specialist,
Division of State Parks
Richard Hill, President, Open Steamboat Trail Association,
Attorney at Law
Susan Schraeder, Member of Open Steamboat Trail Association
Stacy Piro, representing the Steamboat Ditch Private Property
Rights Association
Debra Horton, Reno, Nevada
Bill Bertelson, Reno Realtor and former Chairman, Washoe County
Regional Planning Commission
Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau
Dean Holmes, Washoe County, Resident
Mark Kimbrough, Park Supervisor, Lake Tahoe Nevada
State Park
Mary Sanata, Chief Accounting Manager, Office of the
State Controller
Chairman O'Connell called the meeting to order and opened the meeting to testimony on Senate Bill (S.B.) 286.
SENATE BILL 286: Establishes local government pooled long-term investment fund. (BDR 31-745)
Robert L. Seale, State Treasurer, spoke in favor of S.B. 286. Mr. Seale stated the measure would create another pool to be administered by the treasurer's office. Mr. Seale explained further:
There is an existing local government pool that accumulates money from the local governments...we invest the money on their behalf. It is termed short-term pool, meaning the duration or average maturity is approximately 90 days. There are many funds available that are longer-term, if we had a pool to invest on behalf of the local entities we could make...significant improvements in the ability to create new revenue...this pool would have an average maturity of about 1 year.
To demonstrate...in the last...2 years we have increased the local government investment pool by over $155 million...with the increased revenue we have been able to achieve for the local governments, we have given them...approximately $1.2 million in additional revenues...this reduces the pressure... of having to raise taxes or get additional funds from the state...there are significant amounts of money that the local governments would be willing to put into this pool and accordingly increase their revenues very significantly.
Chairman O'Connell questioned definition of long-term contained in statutes. She clarified in a brief discussion with Mr. Seale that 1 year to 10 years is considered a long-term investment.
Senator Hickey questioned Mr. Seale as to whether or not Clark County or the City of Las Vegas are involved in the investments.
Responding to Senator Hickey, Mr. Seale said Clark County is the only county that does not participate in the investment pool. However, it was his belief the county did not oppose S.B. 286.
Senator Nevin questioned if language should be added to define long-term investment in the statutes.
A definition was not necessary according to Mr. Seale. He explained further:
...I think that you start to get too narrow when you to make those definitions. The pool will either succeed or not succeed, based on the marketplace, people will voluntarily invest or not, as it fits them...and that is what has happened with the local governments...we will end up presenting the potential investors with yet another option...if it does not work for them they do not use it...
Marvin Leavitt, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, stated the city has not invested in the pool to date, it was in the future the city would use the option. Mr. Leavitt indicated support for S.B. 286 and added that this mechanism for investing provides a real service, especially for the smaller governments.
Tom Grady, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities, indicated he did not know of anyone that was not in agreement with the measure.
It was noted by Mr. Seale, that at the suggestion of controller's office the bill should be amended to change the word "fund" to "account" in each instance throughout S.B. 286.
Chairman O'Connell asked if S.B. 286 should also be amended to become effective upon passage and approval. Mr. Seale indicated his agreement.
The hearing was closed S.B. 286 and Chairman O'Connell opened the meeting to testimony on S.B. 319.
SENATE BILL 319: Creates account for division of state parks and authorizes expenditures to repair and maintain state parks, monuments and recreational areas. (BDR 35-267)
Fred Welden, Chief Deputy Research Director, gave the committee members an overview of S.B. 319 and the resolutions that were a product of the interim study on state parks.
Mr. Welden explained the purpose of the measure was to create an account for the Division of State Parks. He said S.B. 319 provides that fees, in excess of what they are authorized to spend, be deposited in this account rather that the state General Fund. Mr. Welden indicated the money in the account can then be used for repair and maintenance of projects in the state parks, these funds would not revert back into the account after the normal time frame. Continuing, Mr. Welden related that the language in S.B. 319 authorizes the Division of State Parks to use the funds for maintenance projects with approval of the Interim Finance Committee. He explained the language in the bill provides that the administrator may authorize emergency repairs without obtaining prior approval from the committee.
According to Mr. Welden, section 1, subsection 4, provides that before the administrator may expend money from the account for
emergency purposes, he must first receive approval of the Director of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, or for other than emergency repairs he must receive the approval of the director and the Interim Finance Committee.
Mr. Welden's testimony included a brief background of the measure. He explained that prior to 1989, if the division's fee collections exceeded estimated levels as approved in its budget, the excess reverted to the state General Fund. The legislature added a provision in 1989 which permitted the division to use the excess fees for maintenance projects. Continuing, Mr. Welden said the provision was extended for an additional biennium by the 1991 legislature. At the request of the division, the interim subcommittee adopted as a recommendation that the provision be made a permanent part of its the division's program. S.B. 319 would make the practice fixed by statute, rather than having to come up every 2 years, he concluded.
Senator O'Connell questioned the status of the bonds issued as a result of S.B. 189 of the Sixty-fifth Session, she requested an update if possible.
John Richardson, Administrator, Division of State Parks, told Chairman O'Connell the bonds have been issued for state park planning, and he said these were specific from feasibility studies and planning for new units. Also, there was funding to initiate planning for all of the projects that were listed in S.B. 189 of the Sixty-sixth Session.
SENATE BILL 189 OF THE
SIXTY-FIFTH SESSION: Directs submission of proposal to issue bonds for acquisition of property and water rights to protect and preserve natural resources of state. (BDR S-613)
The second phase of the bonds, for the capital constructions of those projects, have not been sold, Mr. Richardson explained. It was his understanding that the Department of Administration is to sell them in April, 1993. Therefore, the division could initiate construction on most of those projects.
Chairman O'Connell commented she would like to compare how the parks bills being heard this session fall in line with the monies previously allotted.
Mr. Richardson indicated the presentations were made on specific projects, so it was clear where the money would be spent. He indicated there has been no deviation from that plan, although, it may be necessary to reduce the scope of some of the projects, due to time factors. This session's measures would address routine maintenance projects, and he added that project list numbers over 300 items. Please see Exhibit C.
Senator Hickey called the parks of the Lake Tahoe area the systems "flag ship" and noted the tremendous amount deterioration of the facility was particularly distressing.
At the request of Senator Hickey, Mark Kimbrough, Park Supervisor, Lake Tahoe Nevada State Park, gave a slide presentation of the Sand Harbor State Park, to illustrate the current maintenance problems, where the requested funds would be applied.
Mr. Kimbrough told the committee Lake Tahoe is considered one of the top destinations in the world, with the primary use area located at Sand Harbor State Park, which receives approximately 350,000 visitors a year. He informed the committee members the park has five management areas, but is only 12 acres in size.
The slides shown by Mr. Kimbrough pictured areas where repairs were desperately needed, but the budget does not provide the funds. He noted the ever increasing costs to maintain the facilities and cited a variety of causes.
Chairman O'Connell asked Mr. Richardson if any volunteer programs had ever been initiated, similar to groups that adopt highways. Mr. Richardson indicted they did have what were termed "park hosts," but the level of volunteers was currently very low. Also, they use inmate services whenever possible, however, he added, much of the maintenance needed at this point will require contracting out for specialized areas of work.
Mr. Kimbrough stated he has been fortunate to have the honor crew he has, and utilizes them full time on tree work. He informed the committee members that in past years he has cut over 5,000 trees that have died in the Sand Harbor area.
Senator Callister asked Mr. Richardson the amount he anticipated could be added to this fund.
Mr. Richardson in the past 2-year time span there were shortfalls so there would have been nothing going to the fund. In the previous 2 years there were excess funds of approximately $60,0000 and $90,000.
Senator Callister clarified that S.B. 319 does not allocate new money, but rather allows the division to use the interest and income earned on the money put into the fund throughout the year.
He shared Senator Hickey's concern to what he termed as the "massive chronic deterioration in maintenance" of our state parks. Senator Callister stated the disintegration of the parks can be blamed on inadequate funding and he added:
I am glad we can help you find a bank account, I just wish we could help find some money to actually put in the account, so you could generate some interest...this is the kind of bill that makes us all feel a lot better but, does not necessarily get the dollars out there to do the job...
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 319 and opened the meeting to testimony on Senate Concurrent Resolution (S.C.R.) 13.
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 13: Directs Division of State Parks of State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources to take certain actions concerning use and improvement of Steamboat Ditch Trail in Washoe County. (BDR R-266)
In his explanation of S.C.R. 13, Mr. Welden stated testimony heard during the interim study indicated that money would be made available for trail development through the Symms National Recreational Trails Act. According to Mr. Welden, the Parks Division is in the process of forming an advisory committee to prioritize the funds Nevada will receive.
Mr. Welden indicated the resolution was a product of the interim study when advocates for use of the Steamboat Ditch Trail requested support in their in efforts to preserve access to the trail.
Chairman O'Connell asked if the resolution was setting any kind of precedent in regard to access roads in Nevada.
Mr. Welden answered the resolution would only serve to direct the Division of State Parks to work with the people to try and maintain access to the Steamboat Ditch Trail. During the study, representatives from the City of Reno and the Washoe County had expressed support for the activity, but lacked the funds. In answer to another question from Chairman O'Connell, Mr. Welden said there was not much testimony during the interim study from property owners from the area of the proposed trail.
Senator Raggio offered a brief history of the Steamboat Ditch Trail for the benefit of the southern senators. He explained there is an ongoing argument as to whether or not the private property ownership should prevail or if there are rights that prevail by
prescriptive easement. He added there has been no definitive court ruling, which accounts for the controversy.
Mr. Richardson clarified that the Division of State Parks was requested by the Parks Commission to make available technical services to assist any entity or group interested in trail planning and development. He stated his position was to assist any group that requested help, but the division did not want their help misconstrued as an attempt to infringe on any city, county or political subdivision. (Please refer to Mr. Richardson's comments, submitted in memo form referenced as Exhibit D.)
Linda Eissmann, Park and Recreation Planning Specialist, Division of State Parks, indicated she would answer questions regarding the Symms Act. She explained her duties include managing the grant application program for the division.
Senator Callister questioned Ms. Eissmann as to when funds from the Symms Act would be available to the state.
Ms. Eissmann outlined the process of obtaining funds. She informed the committee the State of Nevada has been allocated $83,224 for the federal fiscal year 1993. She explained Nevada has not yet formed a State Recreations Trails Advisory Board, which is required under the Symms Act. However, an interim ad hoc advisory committee, consisting of trail users from around the state, has been established and has met twice. Those meetings have resulted in decisions on project selection criteria, the formation of a draft application handbook and application form which are ready for printing. The application period will run for 60 days, May 1 through the end of June. After review, a condensed package of selected projects will be submitted to the Federal Highway Administration for final approval. The funds should be expended before the end of the federal fiscal year in September.
Senator Callister asked if the money would be a one-time allocation or if more funds would be available.
Ms. Eissmann indicated the possibility that in the next fiscal year the amount could increase to as much as $300,000, to be funneled by the parks division to the different trail projects. She clarified there are a number of requirements the state must meet by December 18, 1994, in order to maintain eligibility for the federal funds.
Richard Hill, President, Open Steamboat Trail Association, also a Reno attorney, spoke in support of S.C.R. 13. Mr. Hill explained the association is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the purpose of preserving the public's non-motorized access to portions of the Steamboat Trail. He explained the trail is approximately 45 miles long, runs from west of Verdi, Nevada, along Interstate 80, winds through Hunter Canyon, and ends at the Mt. Rose Highway junction with Highway 395, known as Steamboat Springs.
Mr. Hill stated:
As Senator Raggio related there are portions of this trail that have very long standing historic uses...as a native Nevadan, I remember riding my horse with my father when I was 5 to 6 years old. We have community individuals who relate histories of personal use going back 50 to 60 years...it has been a failure of planning at the county level that the trail has been encroached upon and in portions has been now choked-off...
Mr. Hill displayed a map of the area and pointed out its relation to United States (U.S.) Forest Service land and Caughlin Ranch, a new subdivision in the area. He explained the Caughlin Ranch allowed portions of the trail through the subdivision to be used by the public. According to Mr. Hill his organization would like to link the portions for public use and a prime project is to establish design criteria for the trail. He explained in discussions with staff of the Reno City Council and Washoe County a main concern is liability, which they indicated is the function of trail design.
The Open Steamboat Trail Association has raised an excess of $25,000 in the last year. The funds would be applied to working out agreements on access with willing property owners and avoiding any litigation. The association in a petition drive, accumulated over 5,000 signatures from residents of southwest Reno, the area of the trail.
Mr. Hill spoke to the issue of liability covered in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 41.510. He stated it is commonly referred to as the "sightseer statute" and basically states a property owner is not liable for someone using property for recreational use as long as no deliberate acts have taken place, such as setting traps, etc.
In conclusion, Mr. Hill stated:
...it has been referenced that this is regarded...as a 'taking'. That is simply not true...what has gone on is as we have called attention to this issue in Washoe County, there have been a number of good citizens that have come forward and said...they like this...this is one of the reasons we moved here...we would like to see it stay opened...there are others who have said no...we do not want you going through our back yard, that is a very reasonable position, and to those people we are trying to work on detours...to go around...it is our hope...and you can see what a tremendous length we have to work with...and we are not talking about all 45 miles...but it is our hope that this is going to provide the kind of response and fulfill the goals of the Symms Act...the Steamboat Trail has the potential to be the backbone of a trail system in Washoe County...
Senator Callister indicated he did not see the need for unique legislation that focuses on one particular trail. He understood that the Division of State Parks is more than willing to offer technical assistance to any group requesting it. Senator Callister further commented he did not see this as the proper forum to raise issues of local land use disputes.
Senator Raggio offered as an observation, in regard to Mr. Hill's reference to NRS 41.510, the "sightseer statute" that:
...even if that liability is recognized...it does not protect anyone from...litigation...it does not prevent anyone from filing a suit and there would be some costs involved, even if ultimately proven to have no liability...that is a concern... and that has to be mentioned...I think that your are probably right...but it does not protect anyone from getting sued...
A lengthy discussion followed between several committee members and Mr. Hill. He expounded further on comments received by his association, pro and con. A portion of the discussion focused on the substantiated lower crime rates, the obvious lack of litter, increased property values, and the future aspirations of the organization, its relation to people interested in biking, hiking and horseback riding.
Chairman O'Connell asked Mr. Hill of the 40 property owners along the Steamboat Ditch Trail, how many belong to his organization. Mr. Hill answered he believed three or four were property owners.
Susan Schraeder, Member, Open Steamboat Trail Association, testified in favor of S.C.R. 13, but more importantly stated that trails were becoming the a real issue across the nation. Ms. Schraeder described the research done by the Steamboat Trail Association, and explained that cities have hired consultants to develop trails through private property of entire subdivisions and commercial areas. She gave Atlanta, Georgia, as one example of a city that contracted to have a trail designed to aid its olympic athletes.
Ms. Schraeder indicated the importance of developing the Steamboat Trail in portions where the property owners are in support of the trail. She stated there are many property owners that favor the trail, that unfortunately could not miss work to attend the hearing. Concluding, Ms. Schraeder said it would not be a problem to detour around property where people do not want the trail.
Stacy Piro, representing the Steamboat Ditch Private Property Rights Association, testified from a prepared booklet, distributed to each committee member. (Due to the bulk of the exhibit it has not been included herein, but the original will remain on file in the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau and referenced as Exhibit E.)
Ms. Piro read a statement from the property rights group:
We are adamantly opposed to any use of private property public use, without the express consent of the property owner, and therefore are opposed to development of the Steamboat Easement and Canal for public use.
It is the association's opinion that this resolution is inappropriate at this time as it attempts to supersede the procedure established by the Ad Hod State Trails Advisory Board. As such, the request for funds should be directed to the State Trails Advisory Board and the application process followed.
Chairman O'Connell asked Ms. Piro how many property owners she was representing as a part of her association, and if they all were in concurrence with her testimony.
According to Ms. Piro, there are 700 parcels of land along the Steamboat Ditch Trail, she estimated this to be 400 to 450 actual property owners. She stated all but one property owner, who has donated his property to a trust fund, agrees with her comments.
Comments from Ms. Piro included facts she had compiled on the Steamboat easement and canal and information on the Symms Act in relation to the easement (Exhibit E).
Senator Callister clarified the entire trail is owned privately with the exception of Horseman's Park. Mr. Piro indicated that is correct.
In response to further questions from Senator Callister, Ms. Piro stated there is no actual "trail" only an easement, that goes through private property.
Senator Raggio clarified:
...it is a dirt levy bank that goes along the edge of the canal...generally on one side...that would accommodate a vehicle, but it is not designed for a vehicle...
Senator Callister asked if the ditch was used for irrigation part time or year round.
Ms. Piro indicated the water runs from April until the water runs out. However, she added a portion of the ditch has water year round, due to the fact that it is the source for Hunter Creek Reservoir.
Senator Callister asked if the property owners along the trail utilize it for recreational purposes as it currently exists.
Ms. Piro answered it was not an actual trail and that no one was using her back yard. She was unable to say if anyone uses the portion near Horseman's Park.
Senator Callister stated:
I understand...now...I think...your argument largely rests with...you bought it, you own it...and it is a clear takings kind of an issue to you...is that correct?
Ms. Piro replied:
Absolutely...I know where my surveyors markers are...and...
Senator Callister asked if the easement still exists in favor of the Irrigation and Canal Company and if they own the property subject to the easement.
Ms. Piro stated that was correct.
Senator Hickey asked if the easement contains any restrictions. He compared this to a railroad easement and commented he saw a problem with the property owners disagreeing with a right-of-way easement that the property was previously subject to, without a violation of the easement.
Ms. Piro said any improvement that is made to the easement area has to be approved by the canal company.
Senator Hickey stated his assumption was correct in that the canal company was in control of the easement, and Ms. Piro agreed.
Mr. Hill clarified:
We have researched this point...it is our understanding that the Steamboat Canal and Irrigation Company, which is a Wyoming corporation, enjoys a prescriptive easement... as far as we have been able to tell...there is no dedication of an easement...this is strictly prescriptive...if you reference it to railroads...they were give specific, exclusive rights, this is not of that stature.
Debra Horton, Reno, Nevada spoke in opposition to S.C.R. 13. According to Ms. Horton, the Steamboat Ditch controversy was flared by six Reno attorneys claiming a "mission to take" the ditch. She continued by saying:
Originally, they tried the tactic of prescriptive rights... [they] have used it for an amount of years and now it's mine [theory]...the next step was to involve the Reno City and Washoe County governments to do their dirty work and hopefully condemn private property for their selfish recreational pursuits in order that they could use our easement...my feeling is that S.C.R. 13 is yet another tack of proponents who will do anything to steal the Steamboat Ditch Easement that they call their trail, from good, honest, taxpaying property owners...I believe the Open Steamboat Ditch group is dedicated to doing whatever will potentially work to get what they want...I purposefully bought a parcel that backs up to forest land which also allows me to irrigate in order to feed my livestock. I have had my parcel surveyed to verify boundaries, which I have fenced to retain my livestock and keep out predators, animal and human...a portion of the... ditch traverses my parcel...the irrigation company alone is granted an easement to maintain the ditch...
The remainder of Ms. Horton's testimony echoed that of Ms. Piro's.
Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau, spoke in opposition to S.C.R. 13 from prepared testimony (Exhibit F). Mr. Busselman urged the committee members to voice support for private property rights by not adopting the resolution.
Dean Holmes, Washoe County Resident, testified he owns property which the Steamboat easement affects and has constructed gates at each end of his property. In speaking against S.C.R. 13, Mr. Holmes stated he does not want the public allowed on his personal property.
Bill Bertelson, Reno Realtor and former Chairman, Washoe County Regional Planning Commission, delivered a letter to Senator Raggio from retired Reno attorney Fran Breen. Mr. Bertelson then read the letter and requested it be entered and made a part of the meeting minutes:
It was brought to my attention last evening that there is to be a hearing today on the referenced concurrent resolution. I and many other owners of property along the Steamboat Ditch, strongly object to its approval for the following reasons:
1. This is really a fight between the property owners and non-property owners. By approval of resolution it puts the state on the side of the non-property owners, against the property owners. There is absolutely no public property involved.
2. This is not property resolution for the state government, this is a county and a city problem. A report to the county dated September 9, 1992, contained the following language:
'County actions on ditches and linear open space, the county should support property owners living on existing subdivided, residential parcels, who do not want the public using their portion of a ditch easement for recreational purposes by excluding easements located on these individual parcels from any potential future trail plans but, not requesting any open offers of dedication and/or actual dedication of recreational easements.'
Most of the Steamboat Ditch is in the county, and part of it is in the city. The city council on January 12, 1993, made the following statement:
'Although the council felt that the ditch trail would benefit the community they were concerned about private property rights, possible hinderance of the cities to take care of its concurrent infrastructure, cost of maintenance and indemnification issues.'
3. This would set an extremely bad precedent, because if the state by approval of the proposed resolution, would be inviting similar requests by other non-property owners for other similar actions, all over the state by the state parks system.
4. The matter of litigation in connection with this fight is highly probable. As chairman of the legal committee for the Steamboat Property Owners Association, be advised that funds have been raised to commence litigation. I have been authorized and I am in the process for arranging a thorough research of the legal questions involved.
5. There are various methods that the non-property owners could have taken by this time: a. Commencing litigation to determine if the public have any rights in the Steamboat Ditch Trail; b. Formed nonprofit organizations to acquire property rights. I understand that they have been advised by a similar group from Colorado, with experience in this matter, that they should not commence litigation.
6. In the event the resolution is approved, it would give non- property owners a strong lever in the event of litigation to persuade the state parks system to become involved in the litigation.
I am sorry I am not able to appear in person, but I was not aware until last evening of the resolution and that it had been introduced. Please read these remarks to the government affairs committee and make it part of your record. Thank you for your consideration. Very Truly, F.R. Breen, Chairman Legal Committee Steamboat Property Owners Association.
Mr. Bertelson further commented on his own behalf and indicated his opposition to S.C.R. 13. He told the committee he not aware of the interim study concerning parks or the trail issue.
SENATOR LOWDEN MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.C.R. 13.
SENATOR NEVIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Chairman O'Connell opened the hearing to testimony on S.C.R. 14.
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 14: Directs Division of State Parks of State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources to assist persons and organizations interested in establishing non-profit foundation for state parks. (BDR R-271)
Mr. Welden stated the purpose of the resolution was to direct the parks division to assist people and organization in establishing a state parks foundation. He explained the goal of a foundation would be to coordinate the efforts of citizens working towards the development of particular facilities or programs within existing parks, or the creation of new parks.
Mr. Welden commented that in researching foundations of other states, it is illustrated that foundations with the funds to hire full-time professional staff certainly do better than those without permanent staff.
He concluded by saying the resolution simply directs the division to assist persons wanting to put together a foundation.
Senator Hickey stated that during the interim study the subcommittee assessed park maintenance problems and funding required. He commented further:
...the parks in Nevada have never been looked at as an economic development, they have been looked at as recreational areas primarily for local citizens...there has not been a lot of money put into the parks...the parks have been dependent primarily on the weather...and then the visitation goes way down...we have parks that have never had repairs...
The problem has been...the state's budget crunch...we have never had the kind of will or the kind of money for park development to be looked at as an economic benefit and an advantage to an area...
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on S.C.R. 14 and moved to the next order of business S.C.R. 15.
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 15: Directs Division of State Parks of State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources to establish plans relating to state parks. (BDR R-264)
Mr. Welden reminded the committee of the earlier testimony from
Mr. Richardson that the park system has a backlog of 300 to 500 improvements and major maintenance projects. The park division has developed a series of criteria for use in evaluating the proposals, in order to objectively establish priorities based on need. Mr. Welden explained that S.C.R. 15 directs the parks system to continue to plan the objective criteria for needed projects and offer recommendations for new parks.
Mr. Richardson provided the committee with a copy of the process and procedures the agency will be utilizing (Exhibit G).
Senator Raggio asked Mr. Richardson why S.C.R. 15 was required and if he would be implementing the same procedures even if the resolution was not adopted.
Mr. Richardson replied that was correct, they would still implement a criteria plan. He could not recall the testimony during the study as to why the subcommittee saw the need to have it outlined in a resolution.
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on S.C.R. 15 and moved to the next order of business. She distributed copies of bill draft requests (BDRs) to be considered for committee introduction.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 30-808: Consolidates or eliminates various funds.
Mary Sanata, Chief Accounting Manager, Office of the State Controller, stated her office requested the measure as a vehicle to clean up unnecessary funds. Ms. Sanata stated her office attempts every session to introduce a housekeeping bill to eliminate needless paperwork.
SENATOR NEVIN MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF
BDR 30-808.
SENATOR HICKEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 28-724: Provides that various provisions governing construction of public work apply to construction of certain projects that are not public work.
Chairman O'Connell stated that BDR 28-724 was requested from the Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor.
SENATOR CALLISTER MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF
BDR 28-724.
SENATOR NEVIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO VOTED NO.)
* * * * *
It was pointed out by Chairman O'Connell that the next bill draft request, BDR 28-723 also was requested by the Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 28-723: Restricts preference given to certain contractors on public works.
SENATOR CALLISTER MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF
BDR 28-723.
SENATOR NEVIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS RAGGIO AND HICKEY VOTED NO.)
* * * * *
The next bill draft request to be considered was summarized by Chairman O'Connell. She indicated the only information available on BDR 32-181 was that it was requested by a legislator.
BDR 32-181:Increase tax on cigarettes, if approved by voters, to generate revenue for public education.
SENATOR HICKEY MOVED TO RETURN BDR 32-181 TO THE MAKER.
SENATOR NEVIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
There being no further business Chairman O'Connell adjourned the meeting at 4:20 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Ricka Benum,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Government Affairs
March 31, 1993
Page 1