MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE AND MINING Sixty-eighth Session May 24, 1995 The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining was called to order at 1:15 p.m., on Wednesday, May 24, 1995, Chairman John C. Carpenter presiding in Room 321 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. John C. Carpenter, Chairman Mrs. Marcia de Braga, Chairman Mr. Max Bennett, Vice Chairman Mrs. Genie Ohrenschall, Vice Chairman Mr. Douglas A. Bache Mr. Thomas A. Fettic Mr. David E. Humke Mr. P.M. Roy Neighbors Mr. Brian Sandoval Mrs. Gene Wines Segerblom STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: David S. Ziegler, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Jack Jeffrey, Southern Nevada Central Labor Council; Stephanie Licht, Nevada Wool Growers Association; Deeann Parsons, State Energy Office; Al Boardman, Division of Wildlife; Nancy Brown, Senator Dina Titus; Don Williams, Legislative Counsel Bureau; Earl Hodge, D.O.E.; Joe Johnson, Sierra Club; Marlene Lockard, State Director; Doug Bussleman, Nevada Farm Bureau; Terry Crawforth, Division of Wildlife; Gary Simmons, Animal Damage Control Chairman Carpenter called the meeting to order at 1:25 p.m. The bills were taken out of order to accommodate committee and audience members. SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 23 - Encourages purchase of local agricultural products. Mr. Jack Jeffrey, representing the Southern Nevada Central Labor Council, and speaking on behalf of Mr. Danny Thompson, said the purpose of S.C.R. 23 was self-evident; it encouraged various state institutions, wholesalers and retailers in the state to use Nevada-produced agricultural products. It also asked the regulatory agencies of the state who are in the position to make these purchases to choose Nevada products first. The resolution came from the dairy industry, which is a large one in Nevada. Chairman Carpenter thanked him and mentioned the importance of supporting the use of state products. Stephanie Licht, representing the Nevada Wool Growers Association, followed up in encouraging the purchase of Nevada products which included sheep and wool. Assemblyman Ohrenschall asked if it was fair to say not only are we asked to buy American, but to buy Nevadan? Yes Ma'am, Ms. Licht answered. Assemblyman Bennett asked if a motion would be accepted. Mr. Carpenter indicated he would wait for all members to arrive before voting on the resolution. SENATE BILL 174 - Increases fee for issuance of certificates of ownership and number for transfer of ownership of certain motorboats. Mr. Al Boardman, Chief of Administrative Services for the Division of Wildlife, said the bill was intended to increase fees for the transfer of boat titles. Last session, fees were increased for registration, but transfers had not been included then. S.B. 174 is essentially a clean-up bill to make all fees equal for new or transferred titles. Mr. Bennett questioned if this included jet skis and wave runners. Mr. Boardman said it did not. Assemblyman Segerblom asked if the additional money from the fees would be used in any particular area. Mr. Boardman replied their service would be expanded to the rural areas as a result of the fee hikes. Mr. Carpenter closed the hearing on S.B. 174. SENATE BILL 178 - Revises remedies available to state board of sheep commissioners for enforcement of provisions governing sheep industry. Stephanie Licht, representing the sheep commissioners, said the sheep industry has fallen on hard times. The sheep commission is made up of producer members who assess themselves a tax of $0.30 per sheep. Ten cents of this tax goes to the sheep inspection fund and twenty cents goes to provide some assistance to the animal damage control office for controlling predators. Part of the problem, Ms. Licht related, was last biennium they were hit with state cost allocations that exceed their $10,500 reserve by about $1,500. There was no enforcement in the law at that time to ensure that out-of-state ranchers complied with statutory regulations. They simply had the attitude that the sheep could be confiscated and someone else could feed them. Ms. Licht told the committee that was why this measure was drafted; to recover court costs, interest, attorney fees and penalties if they had to go to court to get the taxes. If the sheep were impounded, the costs for that would also be expected to be reimbursed by the owners. Carole Vilardo had also requested a taxpayer relief amendment for those showing good faith or other mitigating circumstances to allow a waiver of the fees by the board. Mr. Doug Bussleman of the Nevada Farm Bureau, presented written testimony to express strong support for the measure (Exhibit C). Mr. Carpenter closed the hearing on S.B. 178. SENATE BILL 267 - Revises legislative findings concerning energy. Nancy Brown of Senator Dina Titus' office, introduced the bill. She spoke on both S.B. 267 and S.C.R. 11, as they had both come out of the same interim subcommittee on conservation and development of natural resources. SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 11 - Urges increased development of solar energy in Nevada. Ms. Brown pointed out the interim committee was chaired by Senator Titus, Assemblywoman Freeman was Vice-Chair. Assemblywoman de Braga also served on this subcommittee. Both bills were presented with unanimous recommendations from the committee. S.B. 267 indicates the need to utilize energy resources that are indigenous to the state of Nevada, such as solar, geothermal and wind. With the increased population rate and development in Nevada, investigation and development of alternative energy resources should be paramount. S.C.R. 11 encourages the increased development of solar energy in Nevada. Although solar energy is attributed to the south, the benefits of its research and development will help the entire state, Ms. Brown stated. She introduced Don Williams, Marlene Lockard, Earl Hodges, Rose McKinney-James and Deeann Parsons who would speak on the bill. Ms. Brown presented written testimony from Tim Carlson, Executive Director of the Nevada Commission on Economic Development, as he could not be present (Exhibit D). Don Williams, Chief Principal Research Analyst for the Legislative Counsel Bureau, was present to provide background information on the bill. He handed out an LCB bulletin on Conservation and Development of Energy Resources (Exhibit E) and two summaries, one on S.B. 267 and one on S.C.R. 11 (Exhibits E and G). On S.B. 267, the committee looked at the energy import situation, found that Nevada imports about 95% of its energy and spends nearly 2 « billion dollars each year on energy. After examining the current state energy policy, it was felt it was a good one except for one thing; it did not emphasize the use of indigenous resources, solar, geothermal and wind. That was why the bill was drafted. S.C.R. 11 endorsed what has already been done to develop a solar enterprise zone. The resolution reflects the committee's support of that program. Assemblyman Bennett said Eureka County had several wells that yielded 5,000 barrels a day that could be depleted rapidly due to extensive use. He wondered if there were any plans to set up allowables and follow the guidelines of other states to prevent these wells from being overproduced and to ensure a steady supply of hydrocarbons from these wells. Mr. Williams said he was not aware of that and he would be glad to check on any potential policies for Nevada. Mrs. Segerblom asked if we only got 5% of our energy from the dams on the Colorado River. Mr. Williams answered yes. Mrs. Segerblom felt that was low. She questioned if they had selected a site for the solar or was El Dorado Valley still being looked at as a site. Mr. Williams replied a corporation has been recently formed in March of this year from the task force that first looked at the solar enterprise zone. The corporation was formed for the advancement of solar technology and alternative energy resources and they were now looking at the locations and financing of the project. Mrs. Segerblom reiterated whether the El Dorado Valley was still a site. Area 25 on the test site was the area under consideration. Deeann Parsons, Chief of the State Energy Office, read from prepared testimony (Exhibit H) in support of S.B. 267. She indicated the bill broadens the current statute to add "maximizing the use of indigenous resources". Mrs. Parsons pointed out possible future production from solar, geothermal, wind and biomass resources. She emphasized use of these assets would help Nevada's future prosperity. Other states are offering a variety of incentives to encourage development and use of their natural resources; Nevada must not be left behind. Assemblyman Ohrenschall asked "what is biomass?" Mrs. Parsons said it was carbon-based growing materials that could be used for energy production. "How are we going to do this?" questioned Assemblyman de Braga. She said the resolution was wonderful, but it would take a lot of money to do the research and development and a commitment from the utility companies to buy what is produced. If there is no incentive or mandate, this does not mean anything. Mrs. de Braga said it clearly states in S.B. 267, line 17 ..."to the extent economically feasible" and that would shut the door. Mrs. Parsons replied the incentives are obviously what other states are doing. They are putting state money into these programs because they see the future. Nevada has been slow to do this. Giving tax breaks, setting up revolving loans and possibly mandating that certain amounts of indigenous resources be used were definite possibilities. Mrs. Parsons agreed with Mrs. de Braga there had to be a market; it cannot be developed unless it can be sold and selling it is tenuous at best because it is too expensive. Mrs. de Braga iterated a resolution would be passed, urging somebody to do something, but at the same time the mandate was defeated. Mrs. Parsons indicated at least with the resolution, some attention is being paid to the issue. It is vital for the future. Mrs. Parsons presented written testimony on S.C.R. 11 (Exhibit I) in support of solar technology. The solar power potential in Nevada is extraordinary, she said. The ripple effect of such development would include the establishment of a thriving new industry leading to new job opportunities, potential international business ties, energy security and a bright future for the state. Joe Johnson, Toiyabe chapter of the Sierra Club, spoke in favor of both measures. He appreciated Mrs. de Braga's concerns about encouraging as opposed to mandating action on the issue. Mr. Johnson said economic competitiveness on solar and other alternative energy sources was currently on the rise and geothermal use was already in operation. The intent to encourage these was indeed a step in the right direction, but at some time a certain percentage of the use of alternative resources would have to be made mandatory considering the economic benefit the state could accrue by keeping the money here instead of shipping it out of the state. Marlene Lockard, Senator Bryan's State Director, read from prepared testimony (Exhibit J) to convey the Senator's support of both S.B. 267 and S.C.R. 11. Senator Bryan had a feasibility study done on solar power in southern Nevada, focusing on the test site. A task force was formed to examine the questions, challenges and issues presented by the study. It was determined that a number of areas, including the test site, were ideal for the development of a viable solar industry. The project had to be a commercial venture in the realm of a public/private partnership. It was also agreed the primary means of governmental support would be tax exempt bonding to reduce the cost of financing. In January, 1995, the Corporation for Solar Technology and Alternative Resources (CSTAR) was formed. The corporation's interim board is now in the process of working to obtain a 3 million dollar grant from DOE to provide for start-up costs, initial staffing, IRS filings and development of a Request for Proposals (RFP). Nevada is ideally suited to become the center of the solar manufacturing industry, but other regions are bidding for this opportunity as well. Mr. Bryan related strong support from the committee and the Legislature would help secure Nevada's frontline position in the development of this technology and ensure the future reputation as the solar power market leader. Assemblyman Humke questioned if the corporation was a non-profit one. Mrs. Lockard said it was. The President of that corporation is Rose McKinney-James, Director of the Department of Business and Industry. Mr. Humke asked if it was a condition of the federal funding that the corporation be formed. Yes, replied Mrs. Lockard. Why did the feds not give the money to a state, for example, Mr. Humke asked. Mrs. Lockard answered it was a result of Senator Bryan's study and a request for seed money from DOE to explore this research in Nevada. What is the ultimate goal? queried Mr. Humke. Mrs. Lockard replied the funding will go to the corporation for start-up costs. Three million dollars to file articles of incorporation? Mr. Humke questioned. Mrs. Lockard said that would include staffing and other needs. She mentioned Rose McKinney-James had the budgetary figures and she would be happy to obtain that for him. There was no state money involved. Mr. Humke asked where the federal money would come from; was it taxpayer money? Mrs. Lockard told him it was a Department of Energy grant. Is it ratepayer money or general fund money from the government, Mr. Humke asked. Mrs. Lockard did not know but would find out; she did not think it was ratepayer money. Mr. Bennett mentioned an earlier proposal for solar power at the test site had been through a private corporation and were they involved in this as well. Mrs. Lockard responded there has been interest expressed by private corporations and the committee was working with those individuals at this time. Mr. Earl Hodge, electrical engineer for the U.S. Department of Energy, testified in support of both bills. He presented written testimony (Exhibit K) echoing many of Senator Bryan's concerns. He reiterated the feasibility study, the task force findings and referred to a subsequent report entitled "Nevada Solar Enterprise Zone Development Study" (Exhibit K), encouraging the development of a competitive, sustained solar energy industry in Nevada. Because of the strong leadership provided by Senator Bryan and the combined efforts of the state of Nevada, labor and the solar industry, this joint public/private effort is becoming a reality. Passage of these two bills would further this effort immensely. The manager of the DOE could not attend the meeting but did extend an invitation to the committee to tour the test site and Las Vegas facilities that would be used to support solar activities in Nevada. Mrs. Segerblom had been to a meeting on these issues in Las Vegas and wondered if Mr. Hodge was responsible for that meeting. Mr. Hodge asked if that was an environmental needs process meeting. Mrs. Segerblom said it was put on by companies that were interested in starting a solar project at the test site. Mr. Hodge was not a participant at that meeting. Mrs. Segerblom expressed her enthusiasm for such a project. Mr. Hodge indicated he was aware the solar program described today has been extremely well received by both local governments in southern Nevada and the general public. Mr. Carpenter closed the hearing on S.B. 267 and S.C.R. 11. SENATE BILL 348 - Revises provisions governing powers and duties of state predatory animal and rodent committee and places committee to control predatory animals under control of state board of sheep commissioners. Gary Simmons, State Director for the Animal Damage Control Program, testified in support of S.B. 348. He stated the bill would make three important changes to NRS 567. First, it would change the definition of crop and property-destroying birds. It would modernize the language in the act and cover what their program is currently accomplishing. Second, in sections two and three, the bill becomes permissive in terms of cooperating with the U.S. Department of Agriculture as opposed to a mandatory cooperative relationship. Mr. Simmons said this was very important given the uncertain times, the federal level of funding and the critical examination of programs. He mentioned they wanted to be sure the state of Nevada was able to continue this important program in the absence of the federal government. Last of all, in section five, there was a correction of a deficiency that occurred in the state reorganization last session that left the committee to control predatory animals in the Division of Agriculture rather than putting it under the jurisdiction of the Sheep Commission, where it really belongs. Mr. Bennett questioned if pigeons were included in the definition of crop and property destroying birds. Mr. Simmons said they viewed them in the other category and they did offer assistance from time to time with pigeon control. Stephanie Licht referred to section five, lines 9-14, and mentioned there were two parts to the Board of Sheep Commissioners, one being the sheep inspection tax and the other .20 tax that goes to the committee to control predatory animals. Ms. Licht said that generates about $20,000 per year which provides a subsidy to the public. The predatory animal control committee can use this money to mitigate damage from geese on golf courses, skunks in people's attics and birds in airports. When the reorganization took place, the people who wrote up the bill unnaturally assumed this went with the state predatory animal control and put it under the Division of Agriculture. This is a housekeeping bill to put it back under the jurisdiction of the Sheep Commission. She had a letter from Jack Armstrong (Exhibit L) who could not attend the meeting in support of the measure. Mrs. de Braga asked how this related to other members of the livestock industry; were they all under the jurisdiction of the Sheep Commission? Ms. Licht deferred the question to Mr. Simmons. Mr. Simmons said there was some confusion and it was important to understand there were two committees referred to in NRS 567. The first one is the predatory and rodent control committee. The second is the wool growers committee to control predatory animals. Both sound similar, they work cooperatively and combine to make up the entire program. The latter committee is the one placed under the jurisdiction of the Sheep Commission. Mr. Humke questioned whether the other predatory control committee was the one that issued licenses for lion hunting. Mr. Simmons answered no, that was the Division of Wildlife. Stephanie Licht pointed out the wool growers committee was totally self-funded by the sheep industry and the state predatory animal control committee was funded by general funds from the State Legislature. Mr. Carpenter said a motion would not be taken today on S.B. 267 or S.C.R. 11 but would wait to get more information from Senator Bryan's office. There would be a work session next week. Mr. Carpenter took a motion on S.B. 174. ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM MOVED DO PASS ON S.B. 174. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Humke apologized for missing the testimony on the bill. He said it looked like a tax and suggested he would vote no as he had made a commitment during campaign season not to increase taxes. Assemblyman Sandoval also apologized because he had missed the testimony and stated he would like to hear some testimony as to why fees need to be increased and what would be done with those increases. Terry Crawforth, Division of Wildlife, remarked the fees were for titling boats just as vehicles were titled. Last session of the legislature, the title fee for new boats was increased to $15 and there was an omission in that bill for the transfer of an existing boat to someone else and this bill was an attempt to correct that. Staff has been added and they have to travel to rural areas to title boats so the increased fees were needed to cover extra staff. Mr. Neighbors queried if this was administered by the Department of Motor Vehicles. No. it was not, Mr. Crawforth replied. The boat trailer has to be registered with the DMV but the boat itself is registered with the Department of Wildlife. Mr. Neighbors said he would be voting against the measure because he had received too many complaints. Ms. Ohrenschall asked if they made house calls on people who needed to have their boats registered. Not necessarily, Mr. Crawforth responded. For the most part, people come to one of the many offices located in Elko, Fallon, Reno and Las Vegas. There is no office in Carson City so they have someone come and sit at the DMV in Carson on certain days to register their boats. The same thing is done in Hawthorne, Yerington and Winnemucca. Mr. Humke has watched this governmental function for awhile and has made motions during other committee meetings that the Department of Wildlife should not perform this function. He saw no relationship to the wildlife of this state of the regulation of boats and boat ownership. Mr. Humke said this was a bizarre result of government. He pointed out the DMV titles and regulates the boat trailer and the Department of Wildlife regulates the boat; this is ridiculous. This should be transferred to the DMV. Assemblyman Fettic questioned whether most of the registration and transfers could be done by mail. Mr. Crawforth answered the registration system allowed people to renew by mail but the titling cannot be done by mail because the boat identification number needs to be checked. Mr. Fettic understood some of the money from the fee increases would be used to create a part-time position in Las Vegas to accommodate the population growth. Mrs. Segerblom said she wanted to keep her boat registration with the Department of Wildlife because it was much easier, simpler and cheaper. Mr. Neighbors asked if it would be to their advantage to have the DMV take over the titling. He mentioned they were currently generating eight million dollars and only had six people doing the job. Mr. Crawforth said over the years the Department of Wildlife has been the "boating" agency in Nevada and was not sure historically how that came about; they did not ask for it. He mentioned there was a period of time one had to go to the DMV to register their trailer, the Department of Wildlife to get their boat registered and to the Assessor's Office to pay property tax. They worked with the Assessor's Office a few years ago and brought forth legislation to allow boat registration and property tax to be included in the same payment to eliminate the trip to the Assessor's Office. They receive the money and transfer the money to the county the boat is registered in. The DMV does not want to do this and neither does the Assessor's Office. Mr. Neighbors reiterated would it be to their advantage to get rid of it, though. Mr. Crawforth indicated it would be more convenient for the public. In the last session of the Legislature, he related, boat registration and titling was proposed to be transferred to the DMV but the bill was not passed at that time. Mr. Bache reaffirmed that the $15 fee was inadvertently left off the bill last session for transfers of title. Yes, Mr. Crawforth said. Mr. Bache questioned how much it would be for a used boat from a dealer. Mr. Crawforth told him the current title transfer fee was $5 at the present time no matter where the boat was purchased. About 11,000-12,000 transfers per year were done and approximately half were new and half were transfers; $15 was received for the new ones and $5 was received for the transfers. Mr. Bache wanted to make sure the error from last session was being corrected. Mr. Crawforth stated the title fee for motorboats prior to last year had been $5 since 1977 and it would be changed. Ms. Ohrenschall remarked her district had a lower income bracket than many due to many retirees in the area. She said many of these folks attempt to buy boats each year not realizing the expense and work involved in boat maintenance and subsequently have to sell the crafts. Ms. Ohrenschall was opposed to raising fees if it would make it harder for these people to liquidate these assets. Mr. Carpenter asked if the fee increase had been included in the Governor's budget. Mr. Crawforth told him it was in the budget. Mr. Neighbors wondered if Mr. Crawforth had been required to find areas in which to increase fees. Mr. Crawforth answered no, this had been proposed because of the discrepancy in the transfer and titling fees. This measure was only to correct that fee structure. Mr. Neighbors asked the question because someone had indicated last session requests had been made for possible areas of increase. Mr. Fettic was reminded of a conversation that took place while he was on the Carson City Board of Supervisors regarding raising business fees because the Legislature said they could. At that time he was in doubt that it was needed. Mr. Fettic was asking that same question now; was this really necessary? He did not see the justification for a fee increase. Mr. Crawforth told him the reason they were doing it was due to the increase in the number of boat owners. Well then your income will increase as well, Mr. Fettic said. True, Mr. Crawforth replied, but each boat requires the same amount of time to register and title and they have had to add staff to handle the extra workload and maintain adequate service levels. Mr. Bache questioned if the agency was losing money by only charging five dollars for a transfer. Yes, Mr. Crawforth responded. Would you stop transferring if you do not get this? Mr. Bache wondered. No, Mr. Crawforth replied. Mr. Neighbors asked how much money the titling and transfers of title generated. Mr. Crawforth indicated they did almost 12,000 a year, about 6,000 of them at $15 and another 6,000 at $5. Currently at the five dollar rate it generates approximately $30,000. At the $15 rate it would generate about $87,000. Mr. Carpenter called for the vote. THE MOTION FAILED 7 TO 3. ASSEMBLYMEN BACHE, SEGERBLOM AND DE BRAGA VOTED YES. ****************** ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 174. ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 9 TO 1. ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM VOTED NO. ******************** ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED DO PASS ON S.B. 178. ASSEMBLYMAN FETTIC SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Carpenter assigned the bill to Mr. Bennett on the floor. ******************* ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED DO PASS ON S.B. 348. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. *************** ASSEMBLYMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO ADOPT S.C.R. 23. ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Carpenter assigned S.B. 348 to Mr. Fettic and S.C.R. 23 to Mr. Neighbors on the floor. Mr. Carpenter told the committee Mrs. de Braga wanted to explain the changes that would be made in A.B. 307 when it would be put on the Chief Clerk's desk. Mrs. de Braga said in committee it had been agreed when the commission was changed, it would be done so in an orderly manner allowing present terms to expire and then appointments to be made from the list presented by the local advisory boards, providing for standard terms. When the amendment came out, Kim Morgan mentioned the traditional way to do that was to end the terms and then set the terms for different lengths of time. What happens when that is done, explained Mrs. de Braga, there is no continuity in service and that was not agreed upon by the committee. They wanted to go back to their original plan and allow the terms to expire and the appointments to be made from the list of nominees from the local advisory board. Under a separate bill, the advisory boards will be expanded to include a local person who will be appointed by county commissioners in each county and they will be held to the open meeting law. The county advisory boards will be appointed by the commissioners. The advisory boards will be held to the open meeting law and they will be the people who recommend the list of new commissioners from which the Governor will make appointments. Mr. Carpenter said because of how the terms are staggered, this year under the modified S.B. 307, the rancher, two of the sportsmen and one of the general public member's terms expire. Three sportsmen and one rancher will be appointed this time. Mrs. Segerblom had several calls from her constituents wanting one of the members to be a fisherman. Mr. Carpenter pointed out the member could be a fisherman, hunter or other sportsman. He remembered the first version of the bill was limited to possibly just hunters, but now there would be an opportunity to name fishermen as well. Mrs. Segerblom said Mr. Neighbors also wanted boaters included. Mr. Carpenter answered possibly the member of the general public should be a person who represents the boating industry. Mr. Humke inquired how the amendment was being structured; did it put off the changes for a biennium or one year? Mr. Carpenter replied the changes would be in effect this year under the new system. As the other members' terms expire, two more sportsmen will be appointed. One member's term ends in 1996 and the other in 1997. Mrs. de Braga said they had agreed in committee that the transition would be orderly and terms would expire beginning this year. Mr. Humke was surprised to see this on the floor. He would wait one day for an amendment and then would have it moved off the desk as it is late in the session. If a certain agency wants to slow down a bill, they could do that with another bill. Mr. Carpenter told him the amendments should be ready tomorrow and the bill would be moved off the floor. ASSEMBLY BILL 537: Establishes system of demerit points for violations of provisions relating to wildlife. Mr. Sandoval had a subcommittee report on A.B. 537. He said the Division of Wildlife and the proponents of the bill got together and worked out a compromise. Page two of the bill, and on page three, lines 1-23 would be deleted. Line 31 on page three from " demerit points may only be" through line 33, and lines 38-48 are other deletions. On page four, sections eight through 14 would also be deleted. He referred the committee back to page one of the bill, line six and would delete the period and add a comma, and add the language "or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto". In section three, line 9, the phrase after the word "any" through the period and the sentence would read "against any person convicted of a wildlife violation". To line 11, subsection two of section three, delete the word "contained". In section four of this act on line 12, add "established by the commission for the purpose of revocation of hunting, fishing, trapping licenses and permit privileges." Also in line 12, "48" would be changed to "60" month period. In line 18, the word "occasion" and substitute "event". In line 17, the second to the last word should be "at" instead of "on". Mr. Sandoval referred to line 29 on page three and changed the three to a four. He said it should also say 60 months instead of 12 months on line 30. On line 37 there should be a period after "title" and the rest would be deleted. On page four, line one, the first sentence would be omitted, also the second sentence through the word "it", substituting the words "not later than 30 days after a person accumulates 12 demerit points with the division." Line seven, after the word hearing, the words "before the commission" would be added. On line 12, "48" would be changed to "60". At line 11, substitute commission for division. On line 20, after the word begins, the rest of the sentence would be omitted to line 21 and then the word violation would also be deleted. After the word begins, "30 days after notification as stated in sections three and four above or decision by the commission as stated in 4b. above" would be added. On line 24 it should say sections two through six inclusive. That exhausts the amendment, said Mr. Sandoval. Mr. Carpenter indicated the bill drafters would make the necessary changes and the bill would be brought back to the committee for determination. Mrs. Segerblom questioned page three, line 30, where 12 months would be changed to 6 months. Mr. Sandoval replied that was a decision of the Division of Wildlife. A letter was submitted by Mr. Larry Johnson, Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife (Exhibit M), expressing support for the amended A.B. 537. ASSEMBLYMAN SANDOVAL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 537. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED. ASSEMBLYMEN BACHE, OHRENSCHALL AND DE BRAGA VOTED NO. Mr. Bache mentioned he wanted to see the amendments in writing prior to voting in favor of the bill as it was a complicated measure. The meeting was adjourned at 3:05 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Pat Menath, Committee Secretary Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining May 24, 1995 Page