MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TAXATION Sixty-eighth Session February 28, 1995 The Committee on Taxation was called to order at 1:15 p.m., on Tuesday, February 28, 1995, Chairman Stroth presiding in Room 332 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bob Price, Chairman Mrs. Jeannine Stroth, Chairman Mr. Pete Ernaut, Vice Chairman Mr. Michael A. (Mike) Schneider, Vice Chairman Mrs. Maureen E. Brower Mrs. Joan A. Lambert Mr. Mark Manendo Mr. John W. Marvel Mr. P.M. Roy Neighbors Mr. Brian Sandoval Mr. Larry L. Spitler COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT/EXCUSED: Mr. Morse Arberry GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblyman Barbara Buckley STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Ted Zuend, Deputy Fiscal Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Marvin Leavitt, City of Las Vegas Mr. David Kuiper, Director/ Las Vegas Parks & Leisure Activities Ms. Irene Porter, Exec. Director/ Southern Nevada Home Builders Ms. Mickie Johnsen, National Assn. Of Industrial & Office Properties Ms. Carole Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayers Association Mr. Douglas Bell, County of Clark/ Community Resources Management Ms. Kris Jensen ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 169 - Authorizes nonprofit organization to acquire land held in trust by county treasurer for delinquent taxes for development of affordable housing for low-income families. Chairman Stroth opened the hearing on A.B.169 with the following testimony heard:: Mr. Douglas Bell, Manager/ Community Resources Management from Clark County spoke first in support of the bill. Mr. Bell distributed copies of his written testimony, attached as (Exhibit C). He explained this bill would enhance the powers, skills and opportunities for nonprofit organizations to be involved with neighborhood revitalization. There are many different approaches to be accomplished and the goal of the City Council is to give the empowering capacity to the non-profit organizations. Under the law, as it stands today, local governments and universities may apply for access to land that is held in trust by county treasurers. These are properties whose taxes have been delinquent for a minimum of two years and, at that point, the property is deeded to the county treasurer. The county is now asking the legislature to provide an opportunity for nonprofit organizations to acquire such delinquent property. After the city gives proper notification to the property owner, and the nonprofit group pays the delinquent taxes, the nonprofit groups would then be able to utilize the properties for the creation of affordable housing units in selected neighborhoods. Supplementing his written testimony Mr. Bell distributed copies of three maps outlining the areas the County would be targeting. (Exhibit D). Originals of these exhibits are on file in the Research Library. The first map outlines the ten census tracts designated by President Clinton as the "Enterprise Community" within southern Nevada. This includes Las Vegas, North Las Vegas areas, and a very small portion in Census Tract 5.04, representing the urban Las Vegas valley all of which are the oldest neighborhoods in the valley. The second map is an overlay of those ten census tracts and how they relate to the cities of Las Vegas and North Las Vegas Redevelopment Districts. In those tracts, there are already redevelopment activities occurring. The third map, covering the Clark County area, refers to neighborhoods meeting HUD's threshold, that is, a majority of residents being in the 80% median income or less. In terms of the Community Development Block Grant Program these are neighborhoods that the County is focusing on, utilizing these federal resources. Their goal is to assist nonprofit groups such as the Neighborhood Housing Service in North Las Vegas, by providing lists of properties as another tool to obtain properties that are available. The one string attached when that transfer has occurred is, after five years the nonprofit would have had to generate affordable housing on that site. This guaranty will be included through a deed of trust to insure the on-going afford- ability of the housing they have developed. The County, the cities of Las Vegas and North Las Vegas are currently involved in what is called a "home partnership" program that works with nonprofits such as Women's Development Center, Economic Opportunity Board, Neighborhood Housing Services and others in the rehabilitation of areas and housing stock. Mr. Bell urged favorable action from the committee and volunteered to answer any questions. Chairman Stroth opened the floor to questions from the committee members whereupon Mr. Sandoval asked for the County's definition of "nonprofit organization". He noted specifically, under the 501.C3 provisions. Mr. Bell responded that nonprofit organizations must be incorporated in the state of Nevada through the Secretary of State and, for the purposes of receiving other HUD Funds, they must be a 501.C3 legal entity. Mr. Sandoval explained his concern stems from a previous bill this Committee has dealt with which was tied to a 501.C3 designation as well. Mr. Neighbors stated he had no particular problem with the bill at this point but asked if the county commissioners have taken a position on this inasmuch as this will be taking property off the tax rolls. He asked if, initially, the county would pay the taxes and then pick the property up after or what. Mr. Bell replied in the negative, explaining the properties would be in deed of trust status under the county treasurer. That land would then be sold to the nonprofit, after payment of taxes who would then make the property available for first time home buyers. This would convert the units from vacant properties with unpaid taxes into housing projects where taxes would be paid on the newly-renovated units. It is directed toward helping preserve and maintain property values. Chairman Stroth introduced Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley (A.D. #8) as the next speaker in support of this bill. She explained to the committee that establishing capacity in nonprofit organizations to provide affordable housing instead of relying solely on government is the wave of the future. There are approximately 80,000 people in Clark County who are in need of some sort of affordable housing. This is caused, primarily, by minimum wage jobs and, if you are a single person with several children, for example, with the cost of day care, even if you are employed, you may be in need of affordable housing. This bill is only a small step but, with its passage, it will be a step in the right direction. Mr. Schneider asked for clarification on the bill, in particular, as to whether someone can acquire the property by just stepping up and paying the taxes. Is this bill proposing that the property would not have to go into a sale situation. Mr. Bell responded by explaining that under the current law, property is delinquent for over two years before it comes under the deed of trust status with the county treasurer. The nonprofit group would apply to the county commissioners for those properties that are in this status and after proper notification to give the property owner one more chance to pay and, after payment of taxes by the nonprofit, the nonprofit would get the property. The nonprofit groups would go to the treasurer's office and identify those parcels that are already in the deed of trust status and focus on those as the targeted areas. The County's goal here is targeting on certain neighborhoods, focusing on all the properties, and then rehabing streets and walks. Ms. Buckley interjected there are probably five or six nonprofit organizations in Clark County which would probably be capable of taking advantage of this bill. Those organizations such as the E.O.B., Women's Development Center, Southern Nevada Housing Corporation and others would, in turn, work with individuals who, either through disability or low wages, would qualify for the low cost, affordable homes. Mr. Schneider inquired as to how many properties in Clark County are available, annually, to be redeemed for taxes, that is, of those that have fallen into the county's geographic area. In talking to the assistant treasurer, Mr. Bell has learned there are about 1500 parcels currently in the deed of trust category. Before such properties can be sold, however, a title search has to be done to insure that all the legal owners have been identified and that the legal title is good. The County is trying to focus on the neighborhoods with lower amount of income using HUD eligible neighborhoods as a core area. The reason for that is in higher income areas, the owners will come in and pay the taxes at the last minute, after you have gone through the whole process. Ms. Brower questioned the process of what currently happens to those properties and was advised the treasurer, on an annual basis, does a tax sale of property they bring forward for nonpayment of taxes. They must go through the same process as this would entail. Ms. Brower commented that, according to her understanding, this property currently becomes open to anyone including charitable groups and was advised that was correct. She then asked what happens if there is more than one organization interested in purchasing a particular piece of property; who decides which one gets it. Mr. Bell explained the Board of County Commissioners would be making that determination and they would look for the agency that is the most suitable. If you are interested in running a neighborhood rehabilitation, targeted program in one certain neighborhood and there is already a nonprofit working in that area then, clearly, that group would have a head start in being selected. The county generally looks for this on-going relationship with the nonprofits as they can typically do this cheaper than the county, and with less bureaucracy. The county wants to strengthen and empower the nonprofits through this legislation and to help them in their rehabilitation activities. Ms. Brower repeated her understanding is these properties that would have once been available to everybody will now be closed to only nonprofit groups by passage of this bill. Mr. Bell concurred with her interpretation. Mr. Sandoval asked about the kind of discretion the nonprofits have once they have title to the property, that is, as to the type of families they offer housing. In other words, could the nonprofit organization limit who is eligible for the housing. Mr. Bell pointed out they expect a limit of 80% median income which is the high threshold of the Section 8 program. It would be that income level or less who would be targeted and there would be deed of trust placed on the property to insure it would remain in that status. Mr. Sandoval explained his concern is that this would be based solely on income. Mr. Price reminded the committee members we heard testimony several weeks ago about nonprofit groups and had an interim study on taxation relative to the same subject matter. This was geared toward doing what is right to help those that are unfortunate. When they were doing the interim study they put together a list of approximately 3,000 nonprofit organizations, not necessarily represented to be all of the nonprofit or charitable organizations in Nevada. He wondered how many people here today are aware of the number of groups eligible to participate in this program. He read the names of some of the nonprofit organizations on the list that do not have to pay property taxes, including some Nevada corporations as well as some from other states. Most of these do not come to mind as a "nonprofit" organization. He feels the impact and potential for abuse is much larger than what we are talking about in this bill and as being much larger than what we anticipate. He reminded the committee members that once you set up the rules, you set them up for everybody. He added he has a problem imagining how the county commissioners or whomever is going to "make a decision" out of several thousand organizations that would have the right to purchase property under those conditions. He added he is not certain how he would vote at this time. Ms. Buckley agreed that Mr. Price is absolutely correct in assessing the long list of groups that may or may not be eligible and are registered in the state. She is basing support for the bill on her past experience as a member of the County's Advisory Committee on Affordable Housing for the past three or four years. She explained the process that committee goes through and the make-up of the committee. The information gleaned from an extensive investigation helps weed out the shaky applicants from those that truly deserve assistance. The program, currently, has very limited public resources. To give them away to someone whose purpose is not to provide affordable housing or whose purpose is to squander our limited public resources would be a travesty. The list in Clark County is probably up to around 1,000 nonprofit groups but through the investigations done, it has been narrowed down to around 4 or 5 groups. So far, they have had excellent luck with the projects and find the nonprofit properties are the best looking on the block as generally, the other property owners have often times let their property go downhill. This is the kind of quality and caliber of people the money is going to in Clark County not the ones on the list. A question was directed to Mr. Bell by Mr. Spitler as to whether the property could be developed for rent or for sale; that is, can the property be developed either way. Mr. Bell replied the nonprofit group would have a choice whether they wanted to continue as affordable housing for rentals or for sale to a first time home buyer who meets the eligibility criteria of 80% median income. First time home buying is usually at the level of about 60 to 80% median income. Below that it tends to be falling into a rental subsidy or low rent rate. Under the home program, they are doing both rental rehab and first time home buyer programs. The nonprofits, such as the Women's Development Center have been involved in obtaining 4-plexes from HUD, rehabilitating them and making them available for women and children who are in a transitional living situation or the affordable housing level. This is a way to create a housing ladder from the shelters, to transitional, to affordable and ultimately to market rate housing. Pursuing that line of questioning, Mr. Spitler inquired as to what would happen in the event the properties would be used on a rental basis and fall into disarray from management perspective. Does the county have any recourse at that time. Mr. Bell explained the County monitors them to make certain they are meeting the housing quality standards of HUD and to make certain the units are maintained and are provided at an affordable level. If the property did fall below the level of acceptability, the County would take steps to reclaim the property. There were no further questions for Ms. Buckley or Mr. Bell. Chairman Stroth asked for further testimony from the audience. Speaking next was Mr. Al Kramer, Treasurer from Carson City who stated he was speaking neither for nor against this bill but he did have some questions he would like the committee to address. His first question was, specifically, how many nonprofit organizations may compete on the proposal contained in the bill, and he feels that has been addressed. However, should a situation come before the county commissioners where there is more than one competing is there any direction in this bill that would say which one would be preferred. Is it based upon the recommendation of the low-cost housing committee that the board of commissioners would have created. Second item, contained within Item 3 of the bill says, "A board of county commissioners shall not approve an application . .." and then down further it says, "unless the nonprofit does three things". Does that mean the commissioners will approve a giveaway to a nonprofit organization if these three conditions have been met and that it has to choose among the organizations presented for them to give it to. He feels it is rather a negative question inasmuch as it says "shall not unless". Does that mean they have to, or can they reserve the right themselves which he feels means, "no, we are going to sell it at auction and let anyone bid on it". Additionally, he asked if one nonprofit organization is chosen over another one to get the property to develop, is there recourse for the one who was not chosen, or will it require going up to the court level. He then brought up the circumstances in Carson City where they have had only one instance, in the last six years actually go to auction for non payment of taxes. They send out hundreds of letters warning people if they do not come in and pay they are going to sell the property and they all come in and pay. The one case was where the person had an "estate for life" and he thought he could live there rent free as well as tax free and he was proven wrong. This was a destitute person who could not pay his taxes. The purpose of the tax sale is, if you sell the property for taxes, the amount of money that is collected over and above the taxes goes to this destitute person. His concern is, you have an owner that can not pay his taxes and now you are not only going to take the property away from him but you are going to put it into a non-competitive bid situation so he does not get as much value as he could otherwise receive. The third issue Carson City is interested in pursuing is that quite often the properties that are worth nothing are the areas where perhaps a gas station had tanks underground that create a hazardous waste or toxic waste type situation. You may then have a negative value and perhaps it may take as much as a million dollars to bring this property up to where it is worth anything. Their concern is on those pieces of property the county does not want to take title to and they will avoid taking title for as long as they can. You may get a piece of property on the books that the taxes have not been paid for three to five years and as a treasurer, you would not want to take possession of that property. The reason being, the first thing that would happen is the district attorney will tell you, as a county official to get that property into shape and not have a possible hazardous waste site in the city and the cities and counties do not want to be in that position. He then called the committee's attention to the last page of the bill, item #4 where it talks about the "last known property owner may, within 90 days redeem. . . " This is a holdover from many years ago when the records at the assessors were not very complete. The property could be sold and resold many times and eventually to someone who is long gone. Property was not worth much back then and when they went to clean the records up it was almost impossible to determine who was the last person on record and to give him a chance to buy it back for the cost of the taxes which might only be a couple of dollars at that time. He suggested the committee may want to consider combining Item #4 with the last sentence of Item #2 where it says,"contact the latest property owner. This bill does not look as though it would be any burden for the treasurer's office except to say that currently, they receive a list of unpaid property they submit to the board of supervisors or county commissioners and are given permission to sell it at auction and they proceed. This would not be any different except you would have a limited group bidding for it rather than one person bidding. The paperwork would probably be the same as far as the county treasurers' are concerned. There being no further testimony or questions, Chairman Stroth instructed Mr. Zuend, Deputy Fiscal Analyst, to obtain the list of suggestions from Mr. Kramer and prepare a response. These would be addressed in the next scheduled work session. Mr. Zuend had previously distributed a brief summary on this bill (Exhibit E) and this was made part of the permanent record. Next item on the agenda was A.B. 170. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 170 - Authorizes tax for parks in existing residential communities. Deputy Fiscal Analyst Ted Zuend had prepared and distributed an analysis on this bill which is attached as part of the record and identified as (Exhibit F). Representing the city of Las Vegas and speaking in support of this proposed legislation were Messrs. Marvin Leavitt and Dave Kuiper. Mr. Leavitt advised the members that A.B. 170 was prepared and introduced at the request of the City Council of the city of Las Vegas. He explained this bill is a companion to the Residential Construction Tax which is found in Chapter 278 of NRS and has been on the books for 11 or 12 years. That tax imposes a fee on construction of residential property including apartments, mobile home lots, etc. This bill would impose a similar tax on the construction of warehouse and industrial property. Mr. Leavitt admitted a problem has arisen in the city of Las Vegas, particularly in the central and eastern areas of the city. In some areas of the valley there has been a considerable amount of construction and the Residential Construction Taxes have been used for the construction of a number of parks. However, in the other areas, there has been very little money collected and, as a result, the City has had very little construction of new parks, or even improvement of existing parks in those areas. He introduced Mr. Dave Kuiper, Director of the Department of Parks and Leisure Activities and asked that he explain the funds available in the various districts for park development and, as well, explain why the city council requested this legislation. Mr. Kuiper submitted a packet of information (Exhibit G). Included in the packet is a series of maps, some of which delineate the areas of development. The city has been looking for a common denominator that would provide funds for park development similar to the Residential Construction Tax. This bill would provide them with on-going funding for new and improved facilities and infill existing park sites. The city is hoping to offset the inequity they have in their capital funding source. They have found the Residential Construction Tax has been of great value to the city but it has some limitations. It is dedicated for neighborhood parks and is very specific as to what they can do with the money and how they can spend it. They have been able to work closely with the developers and home builders in southern Nevada over the past five or six years and have developed about ten new parks in the north and northwest sections. At the same time, there has not been the ability to make that type of construction commitment in other areas of the city and that is really their primary need. He proceeded to go through the packet of information outlining some of the primary goals. It has been projected, if this bill had been in place over the past five years, the City would have raised approximately $2,300,000 for those areas currently in need of capital infrastructure. The City has been very careful about working with other agencies, such as the school district, to maximize their capabilities. This has been working very well in the high- residential growth areas but back in the urban core centers they really need the help. Ms. Lambert called attention to Chapter 278 NRS where the Residential Park Construction Tax was developed. She pointed out there are a lot of restrictions on the Residential Park Construction Tax because of abuses over the years. She asked if this bill would be tied into any of the same restrictions and protections or are community parks totally separate. Mr. Kuiper stated the restrictions on the current rendition of the Residential Park Construction Fees are in place because the City wanted to prove they could do it right. In the city of Las Vegas, they never had the opportunity before the 1989 Session, when A.B. 7 was passed to come and negotiate those restrictions with the homebuilders. That bill brought in the "sliding window" of the three year limitation. That is the specific definitions of what the neighborhood parks were and, establishing the districts. In answer to Ms. Lambert's question, Mr. Kuiper stated the city would be able to sit down with the Legislators and negotiate the sort of fail-safes that needed to be built into the bill and they would be able to work around those. Ms. Lambert explained the reason those restrictions came about were abuses in Washoe County. The Residential Parks Construction Tax was supposed to be used for kids and families. In Washoe County the public officials wanted to put a foundation under a historic building and so spent $50,000 of those funds. Additionally, in her assembly district, at a regional park facility, using those funds, they charged admission. Those were the types of abuses that led to A.B. 7 to tighten down on the tax. She is concerned this bill is so open-ended there would be a potential for those problems to come up again. Mr. Kuiper assured her the city council would put in all of those limitations, if required, and would also expand them if needed. He outlined the procedure followed by the city departments in both construction and accounting for the funds used. Mr. Marvel asked how many other up-front fees there are on construction in Clark County. Messrs. Leavitt and Kuiper indicated they did not know exactly but there are a considerable number. Mr. Marvel pointed out he was curious only about the up-front costs that are required to be paid by the potential home buyer. These fees must be paid when they negotiate a loan or a purchase, but what percentage of the price are impact fees and costs of that nature. Mr. Kuiper estimated the average cost for the City of Las Vegas is $453.00 per unit on the Residential Park Construction Tax. There were no further questions for the representatives from the city of Las Vegas. Speaking in opposition to A.B. 170 were the following: Representing the Southern Nevada Home Builders was Ms. Irene Porter, Executive Director, who pointed out that during the discussion today, we have heard a great deal about the use of the existing Residential Construction Tax for parks. That is the tax imposed upon the privilege of building homes, apartments, townhouses throughout this state wherever a local government has chosen to enact the ordinance. However, there has not been a lot of discussion about the bill we are considering today. This particular bill talks about expanding this park bill to the community park areas, as Mrs. Lambert spoke of, without having the restrictions. Community parks, by definition, are much larger and contain a lot more than a neighborhood residential park does. This bill puts a tax on industrial use in warehousing. The way she interprets this bill is that the purpose of the tax. that is to be generated by this bill on industrial use and warehousing, is to improve parks. The parks area required by residents of existing residences are within the general area of the new construction, and therefore, would not be utilized for any of the growth areas as described by Mr. Kuiper. This money would be used in existing neighborhoods of the city. She explained the original Residential Construction Tax Bill and Land Dedication Bill came about in the 1973 Session of the Legislature. The land dedication was added on later. The bill was not used extensively, except for land dedication, for many, many years and then it became very popular and was used from the late seventies to the early eighties. As Ms. Lambert stated there were abuses throughout the state. The funds were being used but parks were not being built. Then legislation (A.B. 70) was introduced and ended up having 27 sub-committee hearings held. At that time, they negotiated out the existing residential tax and restrictions were put into the bill in an attempt to obtain neighborhood parks in those new areas. She concurs that the city of Las Vegas, since they enacted the residential tax, has done an excellent job in following the statute. She enumerated the various methods the city has used in following the law. She cautioned the committee that if we are going to open up park tax, she has a lot of items we should discuss since the track record, unfortunately of many of our local governments in the state has not been good. The local governments are not following the Residential Construction Tax Law. She has done a five-year charting on one of the local governments, using their records and minutes, showing how the funds have actually been used for maintenance rather than building new parks. She feels our real problem, in particular with existing residents, is the decision that is made at the local government level. How are they using the money they receive in grants, funds, property tax and other resources to service the existing population of the city. She questioned whether there is inadequate money being generated by those existing home owners to provide those types of facilities for their neighborhoods. However, it should not be the responsibility of an industrial user, a warehousing company, or the new growth areas to pay for the deficiencies of the existing neighborhoods. It should be the responsibility of the neighborhoods. It should be the responsibility of the community as a whole but it should, primarily, be the responsibility of the people that reside in that area. We are saying to new home owners, "you have to pay a park tax and property tax to have parks in your neighborhood", but we are saying to existing residents, " you get a depreciated property tax, plus we are going to have an industrial user over here pay for your park". It is a very unequal treatment of tax and tax is supposed to be fair and equal in a community. When you begin getting into this kind of legislation, you start getting into a whole unequal situation. One of the alternatives for the existing and new neighborhoods is bond issues. You can do park bond issues. If the people want the parks, they will vote for the tax overrides; they will vote for bond issues to provide improved parks in their neighborhoods. One of the most democratic processes we have is for people to tax themselves for the kind of facilities they want and not tax the next guy. If you are proposing to open up the park tax statute and discuss those sections or have any consideration of that, the Home Builders would like very much to participate in that process. Also testifying against A.B. 170 was Ms. Mickey Johnson. representing the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties. The Las Vegas Chapter is very concerned about the viability of the members being able to continue developing the commercial and industrial market in southern Nevada. Their 5,000 members nationwide represent the commercial development industry and the motto of the organization is, " Building America's Workplaces". They have had problems over the past four or five years with commercial lending sources, that is in getting the loans to build the projects. The funding just about dried up for a number of years and they are just now recovering. Alluding to Mr. Marvel's question about what they pay on up-front fees, she pointed out they put in streets, traffic lights, signals and sidewalks. They pay the Transportation Impact Fees that were passed in the 1991 legislature of so much money per square foot for regional transportation projects. They pay the tourists' fees; they have to work diligently with the EPA on clean air in following the Clean Air and Water Act and site clean up. Her point is when they do a commercial development, a lot of up-front money goes in just before it can even get off the ground. Her members do not develop commercial properties for resale, so they are holding on to these properties for investment purposes. She elaborated on many areas of concern to builders who, if they are not able to locate the right type of facility, move on to another state, thereby losing us not only the tax benefits but the job opportunities for Nevada residents. She called attention that one area of concern in this legislation is paragraph 3, on line 14 which talks about the residences within the general area of the new construction. What is the general area? That can be a pretty broad base. When you are talking about impact fees or taxes, one of the key tests is the Rational Nexus test: #1. Does it benefit the project. #2. Is it close to the project and, #3. Is the money that is going to be given through this tax or fee going to directly benefit the project from which it is going to be collected. She does not feel this bill does that. There were no further questions for this speaker, therefore, the floor was given to Ms. Carole Vilardo, representing the Nevada Taxpayers Association. She stated she read the bill and it struck her as a response to the failure of the parks question in Clark County and City of Las Vegas about 20 months ago. That is, the park tax to take care of development in new areas. The reason it struck her in that manner is that it looks like the City has taken the inner areas for which the voters did not approve raising property tax for new money. They have decided they wanted to continue with those parks and have gone around looking for a tax source that is not a people tax. She opposes the bill because it is very bad tax policy. This is earmarking a tax for which there is no user benefit relationship. She is asking the committee to reject this bill as it is not good policy. Speaking last was Ms. Khris Jensen, a resident of Clark County, who opposes this bill for several reasons. She explained she does stand to benefit if this passes. Her particular area was recently redesigned as a flight corridor and therefore was only allowed for residential estates, industrial and commercial zoning. As they built their home, they had to pay their fees up-front, and in response to Mr Marvel's question, they paid a tortoise fee of $550.00 per acre. Their park fee was $500.00 per acre, their transportation fee was $300.00 and on and on. In total, their Residential Pre-construction Fees total was over $3,000.00. They have yet to see a park. She called city hall and told the public officials they had paid their fees, and asked where their park was. She was told there were no parks planned and none planned for many miles. The point is, the people have paid the taxes for the park where none exists. This is nothing more than another hidden tax upon the people. Whether this tax is placed on an industrial or commercial developer or whomever, it will eventually have to be paid by all the people because those property owners must pass along the costs they incur. She asked the committee to please defeat A.B.170. There being no further testimony or questions, Chairman Stroth closed the committee hearing and asked for a subcommittee to give further study to this legislation. She thereupon appointed Mr. Neighbors as chairman, with members Ms. Brower and Ms. Lambert. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:15pm. : RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Nykki Kinsley, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Bob Price, Chairman Assemblyman Jeannine Stroth, Chairman Assembly Committee on Taxation February 28, 1995 Page