MINUTES OF THE
	SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

	Sixty-eighth Session
	June 21, 1995

The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order 
by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 3:30 p.m., on Wednesday, June 21, 
1995, in Room 119 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, 
Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Attendance 
Roster.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
Senator Randolph J. Townsend, Vice Chairman
Senator Jon C. Porter
Senator William J. Raggio
Senator William R. O'Donnell
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Dana Bennett, Principal Research Analyst
Teri J. Spraggins, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Guy Hobbs, Comptroller, Clark County
Bonnie Rinaldi, Development Projects Coordinator, Clark County
Donald L. "Pat" Shalmy, County Manager, Clark County
Bruce Woodbury, Commissioner, Clark County
Erin Kenny, Commissioner, Clark County
Marvin Leavitt, Legislative Coordinator, City of Las Vegas
Jan Jones, Mayor, City of Las Vegas
Larry Barton, City Manager, City of Las Vegas
Warren Hardy, Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas, and City of 
Mesquite
Denise Broadsky, Concerned Citizen, Spring Valley
Norma Phillips, Concerned Citizen, Spring Valley
Helen Mortenson, Concerned Citizen, Spring Valley
Barbara Cegavske, Concerned Citizen, Spring Valley

Roger Stockton, Concerned Citizen, Sunrise Manor
Thomas J. Grady, Executive Director, Nevada League of Cities
Kurt Fritsch, Assistant City Manager, City of Henderson
Tim Cegavske, Concerned Citizen, Spring Valley
Mike Alastuey, Assistant Superintendent, Clark County School 
District
Mary Henderson, Director, Washoe County Government Affairs
Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association
Robert Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association
Kathryn McClain, Legislative Analyst, Clark County
Ande Engleman, Lobbyist, Freedom of Information

Senator O'Connell opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 556, 
which was video conferenced to the Grant Sawyer State Building 
in Las Vegas.

SENATE BILL 556:		Provides additional circumstances for 
creating unincorporated towns and 
revises provisions governing 
establishment of basic ad valorem 
revenue for certain local governments.

Senator O'Connell stated that the committee would limit each 
side to 1/2 hour of testimony before allowing the public to 
testify.  She explained that she has asked Guy Hobbs, 
Comptroller, Clark County, to provide a section-by-section 
analysis of the bill and confirmed that amendments will be 
presented.  

Mr. Hobbs testified first regarding S.B. 556.  He provided a 
handout to the committee (Exhibit C).  He explained that section 
1 pertains to the creation of a town by ordinance if all the 
property owners within that area so request.  Under existing 
law, they can only create towns under limited circumstances.  

Bonnie Rinaldi, Development Projects Coordinator, Clark County, 
said:


I have been working on the Summerlin South proposal 
for the last 2 years.  One of the situations that we 
have encountered is the existing mechanisms for 
creating a town in most cases pertain to towns where 
there are existing residents and talk about a vote of 
the people.  There is one provision to be able to 
create a town by ordinance by the governing body.   In 
that case, you are required to have a federal mandate 
to provide water quality services, and I believe it is 
sanitation disposal service.  

Our attorneys are a little uncomfortable that we do 
not have a specific federal mandate to provide those 
services for the Summerlin South area.  We have a 
general federal mandate to provide those services for 
all of Clark County.  They preferred that we create a 
new mechanism for creating a town when you do not have 
residents and when all the property owners are 
interested in creating a town.  So that is why we are 
proposing this additional method.   The following 
sections, 2 through 5, are all amendments to various 
related statutes that incorporate the language that is 
in section 1; incorporate the language referring to 
that new way of creating a town without residents 
(Exhibits D and E).  Those sections were added by the 
bill drafters to make the statutes consistent.  

Mr. Hobbs testified again:

Section 6 of the bill and section 8 of the bill are 
probably the most important as they relate to fiscal 
issues and creating tax distribution mechanisms for 
newly created unincorporated towns.  The two towns 
that we are primarily dealing with in this bill are 
the existing town of Spring Valley and the yet to be 
created town of Summerlin South.  

Section 6 provides the mechanism for the Nevada Tax 
Commission to initially establish a basic ad valorem 
rate which would allow the unincorporated town to 
receive Supplemental City/County Relief Tax (SCCRT) 
distributions and also setting an initial ad valorem 
tax rate.  The method that has been chosen is to use 
the weighted average of the urban towns current 
distribution factors for SCCRT and allow ad valorem 
for property tax.  


Section 8 of the bill deals with motor vehicle 
privilege tax (MVPT) and similarly establishing a 
distribution mechanism for MVPT that would use the 
average of the urban towns that existed in fiscal 
[19]80-81 because the distribution of MVPT is based on 
the [19]80-81 tax rate.  In neither case, with Spring 
Valley nor Summerlin South, did they have a [19]80-81 
fiscal tax rate.  That is the same mechanism that is 
used for the basic ad valorem distribution factor 
under section 6, since neither Spring Valley nor 
Summerlin South had fiscal year [19]80-81 tax rates. 
 So it uses the mechanism of creating an average of 
what the other urban towns receive and using that as 
the distribution factors.  That is essentially the 
bill.  

Senator Raggio asked what practical effect would section 6 have 
on Clark County regarding allocation of the SCCRT and the MVPT. 
 He also asked what effect it will have outside Clark County.

Mr. Hobbs responded:

Each year there is a finite amount of money available 
and generated within each county that is available for 
distribution.  This bill would allow Spring Valley, 
which has never had the opportunity to participate in 
the distribution of those revenues, to participate in 
the distribution of those revenues.  It would also 
allow Summerlin South, as it continues to grow, to 
also receive a share of those revenues each year.  In 
essence, it adds two more participants to the 
distribution within the county.  On the property tax 
side, it would not have an effect of diluting any 
existing revenue streams to any of the local 
governments.  
Senator Raggio questioned, "What effect, if any, is there 
outside the county?"

Mr. Hobbs answered, "I am not aware of there being any effect 
outside the county unless and except in another county, an 
unincorporated town would be created that would fall within the 
guidelines of the dates put forth by this bill."

Donald L.  "Pat" Shalmy, County Manager, Clark County, provided 
testimony:

We know that this request of ours has caused you some 
concern and difficulty.  I think that after you have 
heard our testimony today and have heard our solution 
of an amended S.B. 556, you will agree with us that it 
is something that in effect will nullify any adverse 
impact to the various entities in Clark County.  


As you well know, Clark County has a population of 
over 1 million people now.  It continues to be the 
fastest growing county in the nation.  There are those 
that feel possibly we should not be providing urban 
services, but in fact we are.   Many urban counties 
around the nation are providing those same types of 
services.  We provide a level of service that we are 
proud of and we are constantly implementing ways to 
better service our customers.  As we look to the 
future however, we worry about sustaining a 
satisfactory level of service as we will continue to 
grow.  

Spring Valley and Summerlin South are perfect examples 
of planned communities.  Communities that we feel 
should be allowed the opportunity to receive sales and 
privilege taxes on an equal footing with other urban 
towns.  We certainly do not relish a repeat of another 
Spring Valley situation as relates to Summerlin South. 
 

Residents of incorporated cities get to vote for 
county commissioners.  Hence, the Board of County 
Commissioners has an obligation through a constituency 
that really recognizes no boundaries.  We are here 
today as a major provider of public services in Clark 
County.  We are looking toward and emphasizing the 
future in our thinking as relates to this bill.  Since 
there will be significant growth in the future in 
Spring Valley and Summerlin South, we think it is 
timely to address these issues now; an amended S.B. 
556 does that.  We are asking for your help and 
support in treating Spring Valley residents fairly, 
and in giving us an effective mechanism to deal with 
a future planned community called Summerlin South.  

I would like Commissioner Bruce Woodbury to give you 
his thoughts on this issue and speak to the suggested 
amendments.  Following Commissioner Woodbury, 
Commissioner Erin Kenny, who represents the Spring 
Valley and Summerlin South area, will give a 
statement.  

Bruce Woodbury, Commissioner, Clark County, testified:


My commission district includes the cities of Boulder 
City, Henderson, and Mesquite.  Those cities together 
constitute about 65 percent of the population in my 
district.  I also represent many of the rural towns, 
plus Enterprise, portions of Sunrise Manor, Paradise 
and Spring Valley.  The part of Spring Valley I 
represent is everything south of Tropicana Avenue, 
including Spanish Trail and the surrounding 
neighborhoods.  Commissioner Kenny's district includes 
all of the rest of Spring Valley.  
I have to tell you frankly that when this proposed 
legislation emerged late in the session, I had mixed 
feelings about it.  On the one hand, I recognize the 
very serious inequity which current law perpetuates 
for the residents of unincorporated Clark County in 
general whose numbers far exceed those of any city in 
the state by far, and for the residents of Spring 
Valley in particular.  On the other hand, I had three 
concerns or reservations about the bill.  

Number one, it was introduced late in the session.  In 
my opinion, the county could have done a better job of 
anticipating it and discussing it with you and the 
cities earlier in the session.  Number two, it had 
potential negative impacts on the revenues of the 
cities who had already formulated their 1995-96 
budgets and had planned their services accordingly. 
 I have spoken to the mayors and council members of a 
number of the cities about this, particularly those in 
my district, and have done so as late as yesterday. 
 Number three, I was told that an argument was being 
made that the proposal violated the joint resolution 
agreement of 1985 between the City of Las Vegas and 
Clark County, which I basically negotiated for Clark 
County.  I told Pat Shalmy several days ago, and I 
tell you today, that I would not support any 
legislation which hurt my cities or which violated 
that agreement with the City of Las Vegas, regardless 
of the injustice that exists within current law.  


It must be obvious to everyone that to treat nearly 
100,000 tax-paying residents of Spring Valley as 
though they did not exist for purposes of distribution 
of SCCRT and MVPT, simply because they live in an 
unincorporated town which was formalized after 1981, 
cannot be justified under any legitimate rationale of 
logic or fairness.  They do exist.   They do pay taxes 
like everyone else and they are entitled to have their 
local governmental entity receive their proper share 
of those revenues to provide municipal services to 
them like everyone else.  I have been shown figures 
that indicate that the residents of Spring Valley pay 
over $20 million annually into the SCCRT and MVPT 
revenue distribution pools.  The continuing exclusion 
of these taxpayers from the distribution formula 
surely needs to be remedied by this Legislature.  

Second, let me say that I have carefully reviewed the 
agreement between the City of Las Vegas and the 
County.  I asked for a district attorney's opinion as 
well.  The bottom line is that since this legislation 
does not seek any change to any statutes concerning 
boundary adjustment, annexation procedures, 
consolidation, or the composition of regional boards, 
it is not covered by that agreement.  We have a 
district attorney's written opinion to that effect. 
 If you simply read the agreement, you will see that 
that is the case.  

Finally, the most serious problem for me was the 
potential impact of this proposed change on existing 
or near-term city budgets.  Even though the fiscal 
impact on all the cities combined would only be about 
$2 million and represents a very small percentage of 
the total pool of revenues, certainly it could create 
some significant short-term challenges as originally 
proposed.  


I believe that this concern can be resolved in two 
ways.  Let me say that Mayor Grossbeck of Henderson 
indicated to me yesterday that I should say for the 
record that I am representing his views on this matter 
as well.  The cities of Boulder City and Mesquite are 
not opposed.  They are taking a neutral position.  
First of all, we would ask that you amend the bill to 
phase in the SCCRT change in equal portions over 4 
fiscal years beginning in the 1996-97 fiscal year.  
There would be no change whatsoever in the upcoming 
1995-96 fiscal year.  This would allow the change to 
be gradual and to be offset by the natural growth in 
each of the entities, including the City of Las Vegas. 
 The proposed amendment would also hold the school 
district harmless, at least until the year 2000, by 
making the motor vehicle privilege tax change 
effective in 5 years.  In the interim, we would work 
with the school district on future legislation to 
prevent any loss of revenues even beyond the year 
2000.  

Clark County has always assisted and often subsidized 
the smaller cities and the rural towns in our county 
by way of block grants, park and recreation grants, 
flood control and road funding formulas, [and] room 
tax distribution formulas.  We have discussed with the 
small cities, all of whom already receive county 
grants, our willingness and desire to offset and 
mitigate the revenue loss.  Since even a small loss of 
revenue to a small city or town can have a serious 
impact, it is only right and proper that we work with 
these cities to minimize the effect upon them.   I now 
fully support the legislation, if amended as proposed, 
to create a phased approach.  I respectfully ask this 
committee to give the people of Spring Valley and the 
rest of unincorporated Clark County their proper share 
of these tax revenues, and to do it in a way that 
should address the prior concerns on the part of our 
cities.

Senator Raggio asked, "Mr. Woodbury, you need to help me 
understand the geography first of all, although I am pretty 
familiar with the area, outside of the cities of Las Vegas, 
North Las Vegas, Boulder City and Henderson, you have some 
unincorporated areas? What are their names?"

Mr. Woodbury responded, "The rest of the Las Vegas Valley is 
unincorporated.  There is Spring Valley, the town in question 
today.  We have Enterprise, Paradise, Winchester, Sunrise Manor, 
and Whitney.  We have several rural towns, Moapa Valley, 
Bunkerville, Searchlight, Laughlin and there is that rural city 
of Mesquite."

Senator Raggio questioned, "Why are Spring Valley or Summerlin 
South in a different posture, if they are, than the others you 
indicated?"

Mr. Woodbury answered:


The 1981 legislation was written to the effect that 
only unincorporated towns, that were formalized as an 
unincorporated town prior to 1981 or as of 1981, would 
share in that SCCRT and MVPT distribution.  Because 
Spring Valley was created in 1983, and Summerlin South 
has not yet been created, they would not share in 
those tax distributions.  
Senator Raggio queried, "Is that with reference to both of the 
distributions?"

Mr. Woodbury answered in the affirmative.

Senator Raggio inquired, "You mentioned in the proposed 
amendments, or in the proposed action on the part of the county, 
that you were proposing some increased grants to cities and I 
did not hear all of that.  I apologize.  What were you 
referencing?"

Mr. Woodbury acknowledged, "We are first proposing, by way of 
the amendment to the legislation, a phased-in approach whereby 
Spring Valley would obtain a share of these revenues; not all at 
once, but in four equal increases."

Senator Raggio replied, "Yes, I understood that and also holding 
the school district harmless." Mr. Woodbury testified, "And 
holding the school district harmless.  By way of county action, 
we would give increased grants to the smaller cities to offset 
even that phased-in impact to them."

Senator Raggio commented, "I think that is the one I did not 
understand where the increased grants [are given] to the smaller 
cities.   Can you give us some examples of what you are 
suggesting there?"

Mr. Woodbury testified:

Well, one example would be the City of Boulder City. 
 We have been giving a recreation grant to them in the 
range of $40,000 to $60,000 over the past several 
years.  When this legislation is fully implemented, 
the decrease in revenues to Boulder City would be 
about $40,000 or thereabouts.  We would propose to 
increase the grant to Boulder City to help offset that 
impact because it is a small city and even a small 
decrease could hurt.

Senator Raggio asked if other cities were affected.  Mr. 
Woodbury answered, "That is not part of the legislation but that 
is part of [the] action that we will work out with those 
cities."


Senator Raggio questioned, "Have some of these agreements, in 
fact, been worked out as a proposal?"

Mr. Woodbury responded, "I have indicated to the cities that I 
represent, that that would be my intent and given the past 
action of the commission in making these grants to these cities, 
I see no problem in having that accomplished."  Erin Kenny, 
Commissioner, Clark County, testified next, reading from a 
prepared statement (Exhibit F).

Senator Porter stated:

Commissioner Kenny, you mentioned [currently in Spring 
Valley] that there are no parks.  There are no metro 
substations.  There are no community centers.  There 
is one fire station; and that the balance of the 
county has been subsidizing this area for over 10 
years.  Commissioner Williams mentioned this past week 
in a briefing before the caucus that this has been in 
the works for about 5 years, as far as changing this 
tax situation.  A very pertinent question in your 
presentation had to do with a more open government and 
communicating with elected officials.

I guess the question I have is that we're now probably 
a week away from finishing the session.  We have other 
cities that supposedly were not aware of this until a 
few weeks ago, but yet it has been a problem for 10 
years and been in the works for 5 years.   Here we are 
with 1 week left and it is a very complex issue.  I 
think there is a lot of merit to what you are saying, 
but your presentation is such that if we do not do 
something in this last week, the citizens of that area 
are going to be penalized.   I guess my specific 
question to summarize that is, ` Why now? Why not 
January?'

Ms. Kenny testified:


The taxpayers are paying for this session to go on as 
long as it takes to get their business done.  I 
appreciate the fact that it is late in the session, 
but nonetheless we all have to work to get the 
business done.  I understand it may complicate the 
time frame, but nonetheless, it is something that can 
be addressed.  Although it may seem complex from a 
numerical formula standpoint, it really is far simpler 
than it seems because it is a fairness issue.  It is 
an equity issue.  We have been working with Summerlin 
South for 3 years right now.   As soon as this was 
done we put our bill draft request in.  The rest of 
our bills, I believe, were put in last summer.  We did 
not have a completed master plan to be able to bring 
you anything prior to that.  As soon as it was 
approved by the Board of County Commissioners, we 
moved forward on that in as timely a fashion as 
possible.

Senator Porter challenged:

It may be a very simple plan; I have a very simple 
mind.  It appeared to be a real surprise to your 
sister cities in southern Nevada that this was brought 
up at this time and that there hadn't been 
communication.  There had even been a question of some 
letters addressed back and forth where each, the City 
of Las Vegas and the county, have sought legal advice 
as to the interpretation of this mutual agreement.  It 
appears to me that there should be more open 
communication.   We probably would not have this 
problem at this late date because we are getting mixed 
signals from the cities who are literally in shock 
initially; and I think in some cases now are starting 
to realize the advantages and disadvantages.  But it 
was a surprise to everyone but apparently the county.

Ms. Kenny retorted:


Well, perhaps that is true from your perspective or 
from their perspective.  I cannot comment on how they 
think or what their reactions are.  I can only tell 
you that as soon as we had an approved master plan, we 
moved forward with the legislation that would be 
appropriate to deal with that issue.   We tried to do 
it in as timely a fashion as was humanly possible and 
practicable, given the backlog for bill drafting.  We 
have attempted to clarify any questions.  We have 
taken a lot of time speaking with all our sister 
cities to explain to them what the numbers and the 
ramifications are.  We have given them all the data 
and asked them to make their own evaluations on it. 
 I think for the most part they have been very frank 
with us on their positions, concerns, questions, and 
we have attempted to address all of them.  

Senator Porter asked Mr. Woodbury a question.  "Bruce, I know 
there are some concerns from the library districts.  Do you know 
or can someone from staff tell me?"

Mr. Woodbury responded, "I am not familiar with that Senator. 
 Maybe Mr. Hobbs could address it."

Mr. Hobbs testified:

Senator, there would be an effect of approximately 
$200,000 on the combined library districts from the 
redistribution of sales tax and approximately $13,000 
from the redistribution of motor vehicle privilege 
tax.  As Commissioner Woodbury outlined earlier, one 
of the mechanisms we are proposing as an amendment was 
a 1-year hold harmless for fiscal 1995-96 where there 
would be no change in any of the distribution; and 
then a 4-year phase-in, up to the full amount of the 
impact following that, to mitigate the immediacy of 
the impact on any of the affected entities.  That 
would hold true of the library districts as well as 
the cities, as a way of trying to mitigate a sudden 
financial impact particularly [for] the smaller 
library districts where it might be a more material 
impact.

Senator Porter queried, "...Have you communicated with the 
libraries?"

Mr. Hobbs explained:


To my knowledge, we have not communicated directly 
with the library districts.  The communication we 
initially had was with the finance directors of each 
of the cities.  I have also spoken with the finance 
director of the school district.  The amendment, some 
of them may be hearing for the first time today.  In 
particular, the language that would not implement any 
change in motor vehicle privilege tax until the fiscal 
year beginning July 1, 2000, and a phase-in that would 
be approximately a 4-year phase in with the 1-year 
hold harmless.  

Senator Porter inquired, "When did you plan on talking to the 
libraries?" Mr. Hobbs replied, "That is probably something that 
we should have done.  We felt that there was a more significant 
impact on the other cities.  I chose to call the cities early 
and talk to them.  I probably should have called the library 
districts as well."

Senator Raggio questioned:

I do think we need to have an understanding and a 
record of what we are doing here.  It is my 
understanding, from what little information I glean 
from the language of the bill and from what has been 
said, that we are going through some artificial device 
of creating an unincorporated city in which there are 
no residents.  Is that right?

Mr. Hobbs answered, "We are creating a mechanism to create an 
unincorporated town in which we would have several residents."

Senator Raggio asked, "But at this time the envisioned 
boundaries would be an area in which there are no residents?" 
Mr. Hobbs responded, "Correct."

Senator Raggio queried, "And I assume that that is adjacent or 
are there going to be more than one of these, or two of these or 
something like that? How many of these are expected to be 
created?"

Mr. Hobbs explained, "Howard Hughes Corporation has further 
plans to expand to the west of the existing Summerlin 
Development.  That is probably some number of years away.   I 
would not expect another circumstance like this arising in the 
near term."

Senator Raggio questioned, "Well, once we enact this 
legislation, it would allow any number of these entities to be 
created as I read the bill.  Is that right?"

Mr. Hobbs answered that is correct.


Senator Raggio probed, "For the present purposes, this area that 
is envisioned as an unincorporated town, would be adjacent to 
the Summerlin area.  Is that what is being talked about?"

Mr. Hobbs acknowledged that it would be south of the existing 
Summerlin area.

Senator Raggio queried:

There are other alternative ways to form these 
unincorporated towns.  You have some that you have 
identified.  Why cannot the bill merely allow them to 
change the date and allow them to participate? That is 
one way.  Obviously, there is creation of an 
incorporated city, which there are provisions for 
doing that in our law.  This area could become an 
incorporated city and then participate itself directly 
in these tax revenues.  

There are obviously procedures for annexation, and I 
do not know whether that is feasible or not, but let 
me say, I guess I am playing a devil's advocate in my 
own mind, because I will probably ask the same kind of 
questions in the other direction when the city people 
come here.  Can you give me some understanding about 
why those alternative procedures that we now have in 
place, are not reasonable and appropriate and why we 
have to go through this artificial creation of a town 
in which there are no people.

Ms. Kenny explained:

Right now as we are here, Howard Hughes Corporation is 
before the Board of County Commissioners in a zoning 
hearing for the section 14.  They are anticipating 
6,000 homes which [with] 2.5 people [per home] equate 
to that many residents that they expect to be there 
within 2 to 2 1/2 years.  There are tentative maps 
being filed.  There are architectural renderings and 
things that are already in place.  For those homes, 
they expect to have a viable living community for what 
they anticipate as being the next real estate boom.


They have accelerated their plans in order to 
accommodate what they believe will be a fairly rapidly 
growing area that they are going to sell in very fast 
order.  So although there are not technically people 
there today, we anticipate within 18 months to 2 years 
for there to be residents there.  Howard Hughes 
[Corporation] has expressed to us on numerous 
occasions that they would like to stay in the county. 
 They have come before the Board of County 
Commissioners.  I hope that can clarify some of the 
questions as to why there is no one there physically; 
but that we are in the process of doing that through 
our zoning procedures right now.

Ms. Rinaldi testified:

I think you'll see by the maps that you have just been 
handed (Exhibit G.  Original is on file in the 
Research Library), that this area called Summerlin 
South is located immediately west of some of the 
existing development in the county.  The area south of 
The Lakes is rapidly developing.  

The Howard Hughes Corporation is anticipating 
continuing that development further west of Walapie 
and beginning their construction as soon as they 
physically can.  Howard Hughes Corporation approached 
[the county] approximately 5 years ago to talk in 
detail about developing a community in the county.  
That decision is their choice to make under the 
existing statutes.  It is their choice to petition the 
City of Las Vegas.  [It] is a choice for the Howard 
Hughes Corporation to make, to stay in the county or 
to even incorporate as their own separate city.  

They have obviously been working with us very steadily 
over the past 2 years to develop a master plan for 
development in the county.  As we have considered that 
master plan, as we have considered all the impacts of 
adding 45,000 residents, [and] 18,000 dwelling units. 
 We are concerned about not only how do we build the 
initial services and facilities to serve this kind of 
development, but also how do we maintain that service 
over the years? We have got quite a few mechanisms for 
initial construction; but we have relatively fewer 
options when it comes to the ongoing operations and 
maintenance of those facilities.   


We have been trying to plan not only for the physical 
but also the financial development of this community. 
 We are going to be entering into negotiations for 
development agreement with the Howard Hughes 
Corporation this fall.  We thought it important to 
know where we stood on the dollars that would be 
available through the sales tax for the ongoing 
operations and maintenance of this community for the 
next 30 to 50 years.   We wanted to know where we 
stand before we start to negotiate that development 
agreement because we want to know what kind of dollars 
we have to support the facilities.  It will make a 
difference as to what we approve or do not approve 
ultimately.  It will make a difference as to how much 
the developer contributes and how much other towns in 
unincorporated Clark County have to subsidize the 
development that would occur within Summerlin South; 
as they have been subsidizing the development in 
Spring Valley.  

I do not think that financial burden ought to be born 
by those other towns nor should it be born by the 
developer.   When you talk to county residents, it is 
their understanding that their tax dollars go to 
maintain roads, maintain parks, and man fire stations. 
  We are trying to provide that opportunity.  

Senator Raggio inquired if the tax rate is lower in the county 
than it is in the City of Las Vegas?

Ms. Rinaldi replied, "Absolutely."

Senator Raggio asked, "That is the incentive I suppose for 
anyone developing in these areas, not to want to be next to the 
city? I would assume that is an incentive."

Ms. Rinaldi opined that the primary incentive is the services 
that can be provided in terms of sewer lines, and other 
services.  The developer does not normally pay those additional 
taxes.  It is usually the person that they sell their housing 
units to, the end taxpayer that pays those higher tax rates.


Senator Raggio surmised that somebody is going to suffer if this 
change occurs.  He stated, "I assume that is [will be] the 
residents within the city? They will not receive as much in the 
way of tax allocation as they are presently receiving under 
this? Is that the result?"

Mr. Hobbs answered:

We will be picking up considerable service delivery 
requirement in the unincorporated areas whether it is 
an unincorporated town or not.  If it falls within our 
jurisdiction, we will be required to provide services 
to that area.  As a consequence, we feel very strongly 
that the revenues, or at least a portion of the 
revenues that are generated in those areas should come 
back to offset the cost of those services that were 
provided.  A significant point in all this is that 
there are other tax revenues that are currently being 
distributed in Clark County that create an 
importation/exportation issue.  The issue of basic 
city/county relief tax, cigarette tax and liquor tax.

We anticipate in the next fiscal year approximately 
$77 million will be generated by those three taxes. 
 In counties where you have more than one incorporated 
city, the county does not participate as a receiver of 
any of the revenues derived therefrom.  That is 
divided amongst the cities based on population.  

If the unincorporated county was receiving a share 
based on population, it would be approximately $34 
million.  If it were receiving a share based on what 
it is generating, it would be considerably higher than 
that.  That has set a tone regarding subsidy from 
unincorporated areas to incorporated cities.  We have 
an existing identified subsidy of approximately $2 
million net going from Spring Valley to the cities, 
which is exactly the fiscal impact that you are 
referring to, that would be reversed if this bill were 
passed.  


On top of that, you have the future opportunity cost 
created in the unincorporated town of Summerlin.  Once 
development begins to take place, there would be 
foregone revenue opportunities that should come back 
to help offset the services to the new area.  
Summerlin is at a point where Spring Valley was 12 
years ago.  When Spring Valley was created, since it 
did not have a fiscal 1980-81 tax rate, it was not, by 
formula, to share in the distribution of sales tax and 
MVPT.  Summerlin is in the same position today that 
Spring Valley was 12 years ago.  Over the 12 years, 
countless millions of dollars have not gone to Spring 
Valley, but have gone elsewhere in the county.  That 
is the primary impetus of the bill.  

Senator O'Connell queried:

We have on the record already that some $20 million 
has been paid by the residents of Spring Valley.  We 
know they only have one fire station, no parks, no 
metro, [and] no community centers.  Yet, when this 
proposal was made to me, I was told the chip that the 
county was willing to give on was the Spring Valley 
part of the bill.  I would like to have the two 
commissioners who represent the area to address that 
question for me.

Mr. Woodbury explained the suggestion to remove Spring Valley 
from the bill came from the cities who worried that their 
revenues would be impacted by the inclusion of Spring Valley in 
the bill.  He stressed that is why the phase-in proposal was 
offered, because it would address everyone's needs.  He stated 
Spring Valley should not go without their fair share of the 
revenues any longer than the phase-in proposes.  He stressed 
that, although the subsidy of Spring Valley has caused a lack of 
basic services, other entities in the county should not have to 
subsidize Spring Valley any longer.

Senator O'Connell emphasized that the committee was concerned 
that Spring Valley would be dropped if they were to continue 
with the rest of the bill.

Ms. Kenny apologized for not contacting the residents of Spring 
Valley sooner, and for failing to communicate the situation 
better.  She said as the residents are beginning to understand 
the implications, they are demanding that this situation be 
resolved.   She stated they are trying to correct the actions 
which occurred in Spring Valley and to prevent those actions 
from occurring in Summerlin.


Senator O'Connell probed, "The next concern that I have about 
this is that recently Clark County gave us a property tax 
decrease.  We built a new building and I am not sure, what is 
the total cost of that building?"

Mr. Hobbs acknowledged that the total cost is approximately $66 
million.

Senator O'Connell queried, "$66 million?  And I think we have an 
ending fund balance of $71 million.  Is that correct?"

Mr. Hobbs clarified:

The total ending fund balance that the county intends 
to have a year from now is $71 million.  However, of 
that total, approximately $28 million of that is 
reserved fund balance.  A majority of the reserve fund 
balance that we have is money owed to Clark County by 
University Medical Center.  The true ending fund 
balance which is considered available for use is 
approximately $43.8 million, or slightly less than 10 
percent of our budget.  

Mr. Hobbs mentioned the credit rating which Clark County is 
pursuing and the importance of their ending fund balance.  He 
stated, "On tens of millions of dollars borrowed over a long 
term, that is substantial money.   We feel that it is well worth 
our while to maintain a solid and sound ending fund balance.  I 
might also note that the City of Las Vegas is perusing a 10 
percent fund balance objective level as well."

Senator O'Connell probed, "Will this now make Clark County the 
largest unincorporated town in the state with the passage of 
this bill?"

Mr. Hobbs acknowledged:

I would venture to say that we would have more 
unincorporated area in assessed valuation than 
probably any other part of the state within the 
existing 13 unincorporated towns that we have, 5 of 
which are urban.  If there is another unincorporated 
town created for Summerlin, that would give us 6 urban 
towns.

Senator O'Connell asked Commissioner Kenny to address the sewer 
lines out of Sahara to accommodate the first development of 
Summerlin.

Ms. Kenny answered that the Twain intercepter is in place.  She 
noted the sanitation district was prepared to go forward on the 
project; but requested Ms. Rinaldi to explain some of the 
complexities of the negotiations that have been going on.

Ms. Rinaldi testified that Howard Hughes Corporation will decide 
whether they tie into the city or county sewer depending upon 
who has the ability to serve them.  She described the lay of the 
land in the Summerlin South development.  She told the committee 
there may be problems with the sizing of the lines and the 
current existing capacity of Las Vegas to serve the development. 
 She suggested that the Twain interceptor would serve more of 
the needs of the development.  She added that the Howard Hughes 
Corporation decides whose lines they want to use and where they 
want their city or county border to be.  

Marvin Leavitt, Legislative Coordinator, City of Las Vegas, 
testified next on S.B. 556:

I think it is well understood that the present tax 
system particularly in the way that the Supplemental 
City/County Relief Tax is distributed, does not adapt 
itself very well to new entities coming on-line and 
the fact that when any new entity comes on-line all 
the existing entities suffer a loss.  I think the 
county recognizes this and the fact that they have 
attempted to resolve the problem for the smaller 
cities by offering "recreation grants" to offset 
losses when the tax distribution system becomes 
skewed.  We of course have not had an offer for a 
recreation grant to the City of Las Vegas and we are 
the principal ones to lose money under the scheme.  

I remember, for instance, several years ago when a 
group in East Las Vegas was attempting to form an 
incorporated city out there.   The county rushed to 
the Legislature to put some restrictions [in statute] 
so that could not be done; because they recognize the 
fact that they were going to suffer some revenue 
losses there.  In contrast with this situation where 
they are now rushing to establish a new one [town] 
without having gone through the process.  


You might remember also that several years ago we 
spent a sizable portion of the legislative session 
trying to work out a process by which, when we 
incorporated new cities, there was a methodology so 
that the existing entities did not lose substantial 
amounts of money that they could not offset in other 
ways.  You remember that we had...when they were going 
to lose population taxes and such, we came up with a 
methodology by which they could keep the revenue base. 
 Now, we have a bill that proposes, with amendments, 
to change the distribution scheme throughout Clark 
County; to phase it in with the first year of its 
effectiveness being a year from now.  We know the 
Spring Valley situation has existed for 10 years; we 
know there has been discussion going on with Summerlin 
for 5 years.  

Mr. Leavitt suggested that an interim study to provide a 
mechanism on a permanent basis would be better than trying to 
give grants to cities to eliminate the effect of offsetting the 
Spring Valley tax funds.  He noted the process can be phased in. 
 He stated, "We are not talking simply about Summerlin, we are 
talking about the possibility of this happening all over the 
county and every time we establish one of these, of course, we 
obviously hurt the revenue stream of everybody else that gets 
money from the system."

Mr. Leavitt continued his testimony:


The same problem can exist anywhere in the state and 
there is no reason we should restrict it to Clark 
County, but to try to come up with a methodology by 
which we can do that and we would suggest an amendment 
to the bill that goes farther than they propose that 
would provide a methodology for some type of a study 
to take place in the interim so that the 1997 
Legislature can hopefully take steps to correct this 
problem once and for all.  You know one of the 
problems we have got, it has been mentioned by the 
county as being an inequity.   I suppose that 
inequities are in the eye of the beholder.  It was 
mentioned about the taxes that were distributed to the 
cities only based on population.  If we look at it, 
that is true.  There are certain taxes, the basic 
city/county relief tax, the cigarette tax, the liquor 
tax that are not received by counties such as Clark. 
 If you were to look at those taxes standing alone, 
you would say that the system that has this has got to 
be unfair.  There has to be something wrong with the 
system that would allow that.  

We go back in time, back when these were enacted, back 
to the fact that we're in the midst of tax wars every 
year and I am talking about property tax wars, and 
because of counties have assessed valuation that 
covered the entire county, and a penny being worth 
much more to a county.  Of course, what was happening 
is that counties were almost always winning those and 
finally the city said, `If we do not have some way to 
provide money for us for our urban services, we are 
going to have problems because we are continually 
losing.'

So these taxes came on-line.  If you look at the total 
SCCRT that is being distributed in Clark County, 70 
percent of that goes to either to Clark County or the 
entities of which they control; 30 percent goes to all 
the other entities including the various cities and 
the library districts and such.  So what they are 
really asking for is an amount greater than the 70 
percent that they are already receiving.  

We have had numerous studies that have tried to 
resolve tax probleMs. We have had a session this time 
when the Senate taxation committee met only half the 
time because they did not have enough business to keep 
them busy.  In summary, what we would suggest that 
instead of proving the bill as presented by the 
county, that you establish a procedure so that we can 
look at this on a statewide basis, on a one-time 
basis.  

We are going to be back again when we have new towns 
established.  It is just not going to work on a 
permanent basis.   We just do not see the need in the 
last week in the session to try to solve the tax 
distribution problem of the state.   We do not see 
that as very wise.  We will not argue there needs to 
be some mechanism to accommodate growth in new areas 
in the county.  It is the wisdom of doing it under 
these circumstances where we are trying to equalize 
taxation by giving grants to cities.  You know, when 
you think about tax policy, by one entity giving 
grants to other entities to try to resolve the tax 
policy of the state, that is really brilliant.


Senator Titus asked if Mr. Leavitt was suggesting that the 
Legislature wait until next session and conduct an interim study 
to look at the problem.  She questioned if the city is willing 
to commit to waiting or delaying any efforts to annex Summerlin 
during that same period or do they have any plans to do that 
during the same period.

Jan Jones, Mayor, City of Las Vegas, stated:

Yes, we are.  I have several concerns regarding this 
bill as it is currently proposed, not the least of 
which, in our estimation, is the direct violation of 
the city and the county `bury-the-hatchet agreement,' 
which I signed in 1991 with Commissioner Jay Bingham. 
 I have great respect for Commissioner Woodbury and 
know he has a D.A.'s opinion saying that it does not 
violate.  We also have a four-page opinion by our 
attorneys, who said it is direct violation.  

Early in the session we have proposed, or were 
considering a bill which would have annexed several 
county islands which are in the city.  Islands to 
which the residents are driving our roads, [and] using 
our parks and facilities.  I received a letter from 
Commissioner Woodbury asking us to drop that 
legislation because of the agreement between the two 
entities and we did.  

Ms. Jones commented that the cities have said they will support 
the bill if they receive grants, and will not support the bill 
if they do not receive grants.  She stressed that Mesquite, the 
City of North Las Vegas, and the City of Las Vegas remain 
adamantly opposed mostly to the bill because none of them can 
really determine what the long-term impact of this bill could 
be.  She opined that this bill would not address inadequate 
parks, police stations, fire stations, and many of the essential 
services that are desired by the constituents.  She stated 
support of the 2-year interim study to allow entities to really 
look at urban service delivery.

Ms. Jones concluded her testimony by saying, "If we are going to 
change the tax structure, we [should] do it in a responsible 
manner.  I respectfully disagree with Commissioner Kenny that 
the estimated cost of $60,000 a day, to keep this session in one 
day longer than it needs to be, is the appropriate time to give 
careful and thorough consideration to this matter."

Larry Barton, City Manager, City of Las Vegas, testified that 
the impact of this bill on the City of Las Vegas will create 
problems presenting a revised budget.  He stressed the sewer 
duplication issue and explained what services Las Vegas already 
has installed for the Summerlin area.  A memorandum from 
Mesquite (Exhibit H) was provided.

Mr. Leavitt testified that during the 1991 session of the 
Legislature, the county presented a bill to substantially 
increase the sales tax that was going to the community of 
Laughlin.  He noted they did not object to that.  Laughlin was 
taking part at the same time that the fair-share money was 
coming into Clark County.  He stressed a substantial amount of 
fair-share money went to the town of Laughlin and was not shared 
among the other entities in the pool.  He said after seeing 
other entities come on-line, he wanted to know when is it going 
to end?

He inquired, "Are we going to have continually more of these 
kinds of situations? We feel that we have come to the time when 
we have got to take a look at the whole structure and say, `What 
are we going to do for the future?'  Otherwise we can see that 
down the road our revenue base is going to be hurt in a terrific 
way." 

Ms. Jones commented, "I believe that northern Nevada recently 
undertook a similar analysis of both the collection of taxes, 
distribution, redistribution of same, delivery of services, so 
they could ensure they were utilizing all the money they were 
collecting from taxpayers in the most responsible manner."

Senator Shaffer told Mr. Barton, "We had testimony here 
previously that Summerlin has chosen to go to the county.  How 
are you going to annex, or how do you propose to annex a 
contiguous area that does not want to be annexed to the city?"

Mr. Barton answered, "We cannot, under state statute, forcefully 
annex a property owner who refuses or will not request it.  We 
asked Summerlin to consider annexation 2 or 3 years ago.  
Summerlin is the sole determinant of whether they want to annex 
into the City of Las Vegas or not.   If they ask us to annex, we 
would certainly be glad."


Senator Shaffer stated, "I am sure you would say yes, but 
apparently they do not want to be annexed into the city.   I am 
wondering why we would even delay this if they chose to go to 
the county instead of the city.  There is not anything you can 
do about it even though you would like to have them as part of 
the city."

Ms. Jones responded:

First of all, when the question was asked by Senator 
Titus, `Would we be willing to delay any discussion of 
annexation pending the outcome of an interim study?' 
The answer is, `Yes, we would.' Secondly, Summerlin 
South can still be part of a county without being a 
funded township.  These certainly can exist and we can 
talk to staff about it.  Whether they just come and 
ask `Can we use your sewer lines and we still want to 
be in the county,' would make more sense than building 
duplicate service lines where that money can be going 
to parks or police or fire or community centers.

Senator Shaffer opined that Summerlin would opt for the 
prudently financial course.

Mr. Leavitt clarified that it is not the intent of the City of 
Las Vegas to stop Summerlin from eventually becoming an 
unincorporated town.  He stressed they are trying to accomplish 
a revision of the tax structure system so that this can occur by 
some method, without doing harm to everyone else in the county. 
 He stated, "We will promise not to annex them regardless of the 
situation.  But our desire is that we have the opportunity, with 
all of us participating, to work out the details of this tax 
structure; so that we accommodate new entities coming on-line 
without doing harm permanently to the other entities."

Senator Raggio asked, if this bill were enacted without the 
proposed amendments, what in fact is the fiscal impact upon the 
City of Las Vegas?

Mr. Leavitt responded that loss of Spring Valley's taxes would 
impact Las Vegas between $1.1 and $1.2 million annually.  He 
said they would have to estimate the impact of Summerlin because 
there are no immediate figures.  He stated concern of the future 
impact of Summerlin on Las Vegas.

Senator Raggio remarked that he was told it was a $6 million hit 
on the city.

Mr. Leavitt summarized:


What happens when you change the money coming to any 
entity, all the other entities suffer.  the biggest 
entity that is going to lose the most money is 
actually Clark County as a county.  They are the 
largest loss.  Since they really put all of their 
money together eventually, they are not too concerned 
about that because they have control over it.  
Technically, if you look at the schedule, the county 
itself is the one who will lose money.  If we include 
all the entities, including the county, then we are 
talking about the larger amount of money, but if you 
just look at the effect on the City of Las Vegas, we 
are talking $1.1 to $1.2 million for Spring Valley. 
 

Senator Raggio asked, "How do you respond to the county's claim 
that areas like Spring Valley, where they are in fact being 
treated in an unequal fashion, that they are in fact subsidizing 
the city? How do you respond to that?"

Mr. Leavitt expressed:

We know there is no sales tax going into Spring 
Valley.  We know that the system, as it exists in our 
distribution scheme, does not accommodate new entities 
coming on-line.  We won't argue that perhaps there 
should be some amendment to the existing law.  The 
only thing that we really quibble about is the fact 
that we are trying to do it in a week period when we 
have had the problem for 10 years.  

Senator Titus questioned, "I remember about a year ago, Ms. 
Jones made the comment that we did not really need fair share. 
 The south did not need that money. Now you are saying that this 
$1.2 million will cause reductions in services or tax increases. 
 Would you reconcile those two positions for us?"

Ms. Jones elucidated, "I questioned whether fair share was 
really fair.   If you look at the way we collect and 
redistribute monies in southern Nevada, I still raise the issue. 
 Maybe it is part of the study.  If we are going to consider how 
we collect and redistribute, then it should be done in a 
thoughtful manner."


Senator O'Donnell emphasized that he knows who it is not 
benefiting; it is not benefiting the people he represents in 
Spring Valley.  The $1.1 million every year is going to the 
cities to pay for goods and services that the people in Spring 
Valley do not get.  He suggested that the people in Spring 
Valley got left out of that "bury-the-hatchet" agreement.  He 
maintained an increase in property taxation is not the issue of 
this bill.  The issue is, "Who will deliver the services; and 
there is a big fight over who is going to deliver the services." 
He opined that if something does not get done this session, then 
he will be the first one to come back with a consolidation bill; 
because this is getting out of hand.  He insisted experience 
tells him the most contentious bills show up in the very last 
week of the session.

Mr. Leavitt questioned whether the way taxes are distributed 
right now is fair; and whether the amount the county is getting, 
as a county, is fair.  He suggested without taking another look 
at it, Las Vegas does not know that all the formulas in use 
right now are perfect.

Senator O'Donnell stated he believes that is exactly why this 
bill appears; this is the answer.  It may be a one-sided answer, 
but at least it is an answer.  The city did not come up with 
anything, and he does not think the city would have come to the 
table at all if this bill was not introduced in the first place.

Ms. Jones made two comments in response to Senator O'Donnell's 
observations:

First of all, I have long been a proponent of 
consolidation and I think particularly when you look 
at southern Nevada, it may be in the long-term best 
interest to address that issue particularly between 
the largest city in the county leaving out the smaller 
cities which I feel have long felt they would like to 
operate independently.  Those residents are now using 
services that exist in the city.  They are using city 
parks.  They are playing on city municipal golf 
courses.  They are using city services.  We would not 
want people to think `Well, you cannot come in and use 
our services because that is city funded.' The 
question on the county islands when they are using not 
just parks and community centers, but they are also 
using water and sewer and police and fire and paying 
a lower tax rate which again, I think that is 
wonderful.  When we were asked to drop the bill 
annexing those islands so that they would pay a fair 
share, we did so willingly.   


I think that Marvin's comment is very well-taken.  If 
you looked at 55 percent of the population in Clark 
County resides in cities and 66 percent of the revenue 
tax collected goes to the county, maybe that is fair, 
maybe it is not, maybe it is the best distribution. 
 I do not think any one of us can answer that 
question, and if we are going to change it, then let's 
take a thoughtful approach, let's change it so we are 
not back in 2 years and then 2 years and then 2 years 
changing it again.  If entailed in that change is 
consolidation, I would be the first to support it.  

Senator O'Connell asked Mr. Leavitt if it is possible to give a 
grant to Spring Valley from the county or the city, since they 
have been impacted for 12 years without being made whole?

Mr. Leavitt responded there is no legal reason they could give 
a grant to a city and not give a grant to a town located within 
the county.  He suggested perhaps part of their $71 million 
balance could help.

Senator O'Connell queried further, "So right now there is not 
anything that prevents them from giving some money to them?"

Mr. Leavitt answered in the affirmative.

Senator Porter asked Mr. Leavitt, "What has been offered to the 
City of Las Vegas from the county?"

Mr. Leavitt replied, "We have not been offered anything."

Senator O'Connell asked Mr. Leavitt when he addressed the bill, 
if he also had a copy of the amendments?

Mr. Leavitt answered that he had not seen the amendments.

Senator O'Connell observed that Mr. Leavitt should be provided 
with the amendments.  She stated the committee would like to 
hear his response to the amendments that are being offered.


Senator Shaffer told Warren Hardy that he is aware of the 
position that North Las Vegas has taken (Exhibit I).  He asked 
Mr. Hardy if he could give the committee an idea if the City of 
Las Vegas was to annex Summerlin, would he prefer that over the 
county taking over Summerlin.

Warren Hardy, Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas, and City of 
Mesquite, responded they are opposed to the bill as currently 
written.  He has not had occasion to discuss the amendments 
proposed by the proponents of the bill.  He maintained the 
concerns have been addressed by both the proponents and 
opponents.  He said they want to reserve the right to examine 
the amendments and to develop an opinion based on their impact. 
 He surmised, in economic terms, it is in the best interest of 
the people of North Las Vegas to have the county opposed to the 
city annexing Summerlin.

Senator O'Donnell asked Mr. Hardy why he opposed this? Mr. Hardy 
replied specifically he thinks there is concern about the timing 
of the discussion on an issue that has these types of far-
reaching ramifications.  Senator O'Donnell asked if Mr. Hardy 
would oppose it if it benefited North Las Vegas.  Mr. Hardy 
answered that issue is not necessarily clear and they need time 
to investigate it.  Senator O'Donnell asked Mr. Hardy if he is 
opposed to the bill because it will ultimately take money out of 
North Las Vegas.  Mr. Hardy responded he thinks that the issue 
at hand is pure economic terMs. Senator O'Donnell asked Mr. 
Hardy whose money would that be.  Mr. Hardy replied he is not 
prepared to answer any technical questions on the issue.  He 
explained that Ms. Jones and city council members simply asked 
him to clarify the position of North Las Vegas on this issue.

Senator Porter asserted he would like to separate the turf 
situation and go to the merits of the bill for a moment to 
discuss the bill before the committee.  He concurred with 
Senator O'Donnell in that it is important how this will affect 
the folks who live in the area.  Referring to lines 8, 9, 10 and 
11, it states "if any owner withdraws his consent before 
adoption of the ordinance creating an unincorporated town, this 
property must be excluded in fixing the boundaries of the town." 
He asked if anyone could address how this will work, for the 
folks who live there.


Ms. Rinaldi testified this will pertain only to those towns 
which do not have any residents, in which the property owners 
are requesting the land be included in an unincorporated town. 
 That language was specifically requested by the Howard Hughes 
Corporation so if negotiations on the ordinance established 
terms that they were not in complete agreement with, they wanted 
to be able to back out.

Senator Porter asked Ms. Rinaldi if the proposed Summerlin West 
area is now held by the Howard Hughes Corporation.  He thanked 
her for the map (Exhibit G).  Ms. Rinaldi answered in the 
affirmative.

Senator Porter stated, "Otherwise there is not any other 
privately held properties?" Ms. Rinaldi answered in the 
affirmative.

Senator Porter asked Ms. Rinaldi, relative to the unincorporated 
areas of the county, how will this draft of S.B. 556 affect 
those areas? He further asked if another part of the southwest 
area wanted to go with an unincorporated town, how this bill 
would affect potential residents.

Mr. Woodbury replied the main effect of this bill is that other 
portions of unincorporated Clark County will be subsidizing 
services in Spring Valley to a much lesser extent than presently 
required.  He explained they are providing services to Spring 
Valley which are subsidized from other towns in Clark County. 
 He surmised the bill will affect the subsidy from taxpayers in 
towns represented by Senator Porter.

Senator Porter commented he appreciates that, but said there are 
a lot of other areas that are not incorporated which may desire 
to be.  He asked Mr. Woodbury if there are other plans in the 
county to do something similar.

Mr. Woodbury asked Senator Porter if he means, "to become an 
unincorporated town?" Senator Porter answered in the 
affirmative.

Ms. Rinaldi testified she is not aware of any other situations 
similar to this.  She opined this is an unusual situation where 
one property owner with over 20,000 acres of property and 56,000 
acres of vacant land wishes to develop in the county.  She 
stated they consider this a model, and that is part of the 
reason they want to do this right.  She said she cannot imagine 
this situation being duplicated in Clark County and knows of no 
other property owner holding that kind of land.


Senator Porter asked what short-term and long-term gain will the 
residents of Spring Valley see with these facilities, such as 
community centers, police and fire facilities?

Mr. Woodbury answered there are plans for a community center, 
large regional park, and fire facilities.  He opined this would 
probably allow them to accelerate the plans.

Ms. Kenny interjected that property for the community center and 
the park already exist; it is merely a matter of financing.  

Senator Porter questioned Ms. Kenny what the current time frame 
is without Senate Bill 556.  

Ms. Kenny responded the park is a 20-year hope and she thinks 
they will be able to accelerate that time frame.  The proposed 
community center is many years away.  Although the county owns 
the property, the physical construction of the community center 
is estimated at $3.2 million.

Senator Porter queried if it is 20 years now, without the bill, 
does Ms. Kenny think it could happen within 5 years or so with 
the bill?

Ms. Kenny replied, "20 years for the park and 5 to 8 years for 
the community center.  We would be able to accelerate that."

Senator Porter mentioned there are folks in the rest of the 
county in unincorporated cities who will be hearing of this and 
saying, "Well, what about us? If Spring Valley is being short-
changed, per se, what about me and the rest of the areas?" He 
asked Ms. Kenny how the county will respond to them?

Ms. Kenny asked Senator Porter if he means they are being short-
changed, or will they be short-changed?

Senator Porter responded as a result of the current tax 
structure, Spring Valley is being short-changed in some 
services; which brings up the question about the balance of the 
county.  How will we respond to those folks when they also ask 
to not be short-changed?


Mr. Hobbs declared there is not another incorporated city within 
Clark County that faces the same structural deficiencies that 
Spring Valley has or that Summerlin would have going forward. 
 He maintained the rest are able to share in SCCRT, MVPT, and 
receive the benefit of basic cigarette and liquor tax; which go 
a long way to compensate for any of those services where county 
residents cross city boundaries to use city facilities.  He 
surmised that $34 million would compensate for that fairly well. 
 He testified they have a couple of other unincorporated towns 
in Clark County; none of them are urban.  He mentioned a couple 
of rural towns that also receive no SCCRT or MVPT, such as 
Indian Springs and Glendale.   He noted an amount of taxes is 
generated in those areas and none being returned.  He opined the 
same argument can be made to include other rural towns in a 
similar situation which did not, because of the way the laws 
were written in 1981, receive those revenues.

Senator Porter told Mr. Hobbs those communities are in his 
district and said he would appreciate knowing what his plans 
are, based on the conversation today.  He asked Mr. Hobbs if he 
could lay out the short-term and long-term plans for the Spring 
Valley area and capital improvements discussed today based on 
existing revenues contrasted with the revenue they would be 
receiving.  

Ms. Kenny acknowledged that Senator Porter had a valid point. 
 She emphasized, although the people who live in the county use 
city services, the county provides services whether the 
residents live in the city or county.  She concluded they carry 
the burden of services for seniors, abused children, family and 
youth, the juvenile court system, the ill, the indigent, and the 
University Medical Center.

Senator Porter chided, "My biggest disappointment is that this 
should have been worked out between the cities and the county. 
  It is a disservice to all local government that this is 
happening at the state level.  It sends a poor message that we, 
and I still consider myself a local official at heart, cannot 
work these things out with ourselves and then come together with 
a spirit of cooperation and one joint effort."

Senator Shaffer referred to previous testimony that Summerlin is 
currently being impacted because of the current status of the 
bill.  He asked Ms. Rinaldi if they are being delayed from doing 
anything.  He asked if a 2-year lapse would retard their plan 
from moving forward?

Ms. Rinaldi replied they have not suffered any delay to date. 
 Their master plan was adopted in May of this year and they are 
filing their first request for zone change on a portion of the 
property which is being heard in Las Vegas today.  She contended 
this will most significantly impact the negotiations on the 
development agreement which will spell out who pays for what, 
both currently and long-term.  She said it is difficult to 
estimate exactly how it will impact the negotiations, but 
surmised it would lengthen the negotiations and the ultimate 
approval of the project as they search for the dollars to serve 
that.

Senator Titus asked Ms. Rinaldi to elaborate on the issue of 
sewer line duplication.

Ms. Rinaldi outlined the work being done to provide sewer 
service to the Summerlin area.

Senator O'Connell asked, "Have you ever considered giving a 
grant to Spring Valley to help elevate some of their problems? 
And, is there any reason that you did not include the city since 
you knew they were going to be impacted as you have tried to 
accommodate the other entities with grants?

Mr. Woodbury testified:

The whole purpose of this legislation, as it relates 
to Spring Valley, is that the rest of the county is 
giving grants to Spring Valley on a massive basis 
every year; subsidizing services in Spring Valley 
because Spring Valley does not get a share of the tax 
revenues that we are talking about here.  Services are 
being provided and it is a matter of several million 
a year.  We wish there were more funds that were going 
to Spring Valley so that those services could be 
increased; but to provide the basic level of services 
that are there now, there is this very massive subsidy 
from the rest of the county to Spring Valley already. 
 
Senator O'Connell asked, "Would it exceed the $20 million that 
they are paying?"

Mr. Woodbury answered, "$20 million on an annual basis 
approximately into the fund that we are talking about here.  
That's motor vehicle privilege tax and the SCCRT.  $20 million 
a year comes from Spring Valley."


Senator O'Connell queried if their collective opinion is that 
Spring Valley uses far more services than for which they are 
paying?

Mr. Hobbs responded, "We estimate the current cost to provide 
service to Spring Valley at approximately $27 million per year."

Senator O'Connell probed, "So currently they are being 
subsidized by $7 million from the other unincorporated towns, 
and this will then do what for them? This will return how much 
money to them?"

Mr. Woodbury acknowledged: 

They are being subsidized to the tune of $18 almost 
$19 million a year.  That $20 million goes into the 
pool; not all of it goes to Clark County.  That [$20 
million] is distributed among the cities as well as 
the other towns in Clark County.  The county gets 
approximately $8 million total taxes, ad valorem as 
well as this fund that we are talking about here 
today.  We spend in Spring Valley approximately $27 
million, leaving a subsidy of approximately $19 
million per year.  

Senator O'Connell asked, "Now are we going to make up that 
subsidy with the money they are now going to be receiving?"

Mr. Woodbury answered, "That will only partially offset.  They 
will still continue to be a subsidy for probably a number of 
years."

Senator O'Connell questioned, "So then they are making out like 
bandits right now?"

Mr. Woodbury responded, "Well, the rest of the county is 
subsidizing Spring Valley.  However, they are not getting the 
full level of services they should get if this revenue that is 
now being divided among the cities was coming to Spring Valley.

Mr. Hobbs asserted, "I might add that they are paying the same 
property tax rate as residents of Whitney or Sunrise Manor, or 
Paradise or Winchester.  They are also paying sales tax and 
motor vehicle privilege tax.  That is not coming back to them to 
help deal with the deficiency in funding."

Senator O'Connell queried, "Mr. Hobbs, if I may have a copy of 
the sheet that you are reading from that addresses the Spring 
Valley issue, I would appreciate it.  And now would you address 
why you did not consider doing anything for the city as you have 
with the other entities?"

Mr. Woodbury answered: 

You mean why we are not offering grants to the City of 
Las Vegas? First of all we are offering to phase this 
in over a period of years.  The City of Las Vegas is 
growing very rapidly.  We feel there needs to be an 
adjustment in this.  We feel that this adjustment, if 
it is phased in, would hardly be felt by the city.  It 
would be over a period of 5 years.  The city also gets 
the cigarette, liquor, and basic sales tax that the 
county does not get and it has just been a tradition 
of helping small counties through the Legislature, 
helping the small towns and cities through Clark 
County.  We feel it is appropriate to continue, 
because of a much smaller budget to start with.  Any 
kind of a loss to those small cities really hurts 
their ability to deliver services in a much greater 
way.  Boulder City, for example, does not grow very 
fast as you know.  They are not going to be able to 
make up this loss in revenue very quickly and that is 
why it is appropriate that we increase the recreation 
grants that they are already getting.  I think that is 
the reason for the difference.  

Mr. Woodbury summarized some of the grants that are in the 
existing budget for the fiscal 1995-96 year.  He provided a 
summary of the grants (Exhibit J) to give the committee an idea 
of the history behind this bill.  He stressed that it has been 
common practice for the county to provide this kind of support 
to the cities within the county.


Denise Broadsky, Concerned Citizen, Spring Valley, testified on 
S.B. 556.  She stated she supports the bill, and until a few 
days ago, asserted she, like countless others, had no idea of 
the inequities that exist in the current tax structure that 
directly affects the residents of the unincorporated areas 
represented by Spring Valley and Summerlin South.   She stated 
as a taxpayer and a resident of the city, she believes this bill 
must be revised.  She urged the committee to pass S.B. 556 to 
restore equality to the counties and put them on equal footing 
with other local governments.  
Norma Phillips, Concerned Citizen, Spring Valley, testified next 
that she is also representing Dorothy Kidd, who is the President 
of the Spring Valley Town Board.  She explained that she has 
been a resident of Spring Valley since 1987, and added it has 
grown a lot since then.  She asked the committee to recognize 
the residents of Spring Valley and make them an equal part of 
the tax structure.  She urged the committee to support S.B. 556.

Helen Mortenson, Concerned Citizen, Spring Valley, told the 
committee she has resided in Spring Valley since 1985, and has 
participated as a secretary on the Spring Valley Town Advisory 
Board.  She asked the committee what is proposed for Spring 
Valley if the bill does not pass?

Senator O'Connell stated the only thing that the committee can 
tell her is what the county commissioners have told them.  There 
are things on the planning board for a park and community 
center.  The land has been purchased, but there is no money 
right now to complete the projects.

Ms. Kenny reiterated her previous position that they do have 
long-range plans for Spring Valley.  This is a very important 
issue to Spring Valley to generate the funds needed to build 
those facilities and help the people of Spring Valley get the 
service they need and have paid for over the years.

Senator O'Connell told Ms. Kenny she believes Ms. Mortensen 
wants a definitive answer as to a date when these things are 
going to happen.

Ms. Kenny asserted, "As soon as we have the money."

Senator O'Donnell asked Ms. Mortensen how many times she has 
been asked, as a member of the town board, "When are we going to 
get a park; when are we going to have some recreation facilities 
for our children?"

Ms. Mortensen replied the most predominate question is, "If this 
bill does not pass, what is the future of Spring Valley?" She 
opined, "It sounds if this bill does not pass, we will not have 
the money to implement these programs." She asked what Plan B is 
if the bill does not pass?


Senator O'Donnell stated as far as he is concerned, there is no 
Plan B. He advised he is still on Plan A, and would like to get 
some kind of equalization of these tax dollars.  He said he has 
represented the Spring Valley area for a number of years and it 
is about time this issue is resolved.

Ms. Mortenson explained her main concern is solving the inequity 
for Spring Valley.  She asked the committee to seriously 
consider this a Spring Valley problem and then a subsequent 
problem for Summerlin.  She asked if this means that the other 
cities do not want any more growth, or any more unincorporated 
areas to be developed because they are worried that they are not 
going to get their money? She opined this is a complete stop, a 
wall that Spring Valley residents have hit and they are not 
going to be growing in the future.  She said she would like the 
committee to consider that also.

Barbara Cegavske, Concerned Citizen, Spring Valley, advised she 
has been in Las Vegas for 20 years and urged the committee to 
support S.B. 556.  She asked why Spring Valley is not the same 
as other areas? She alleged they have been advised over and over 
again that they are the only area that does not share in the 
same equities as everyone else.  She queried why should it be so 
difficult to make that decision this session? She surmised it is 
not a big deal to correct an inequity.

Mr. Hobbs explained that Spring Valley receives no SCCRT or MVPT 
because of a technical deficiency.  In 1981 when the tax shift 
passed, Spring Valley did not exist.  That was the year that was 
used as the base year for establishing distribution for sales 
tax and motor vehicle privilege tax in all subsequent years.  
Spring Valley was created in 1983.  The fact, that it was 
created 2 years later, means it did not have a tax rate in 
fiscal year 1980-81.  He reiterated that it is a technical 
deficiency and can be remedied fairly easily.

Ms. Cegavske asked why has awareness of the problem taken 12 
years.  She stressed that the Legislature has a chance to change 
the problem now, instead of waiting another 2 years for the next 
legislative session.


Roger Stockton, Concerned Citizen and 5-year resident of Sunrise 
Manor, voiced his support for S.B. 556.  He stated as an 
employee at McCarran International Airport, it has been obvious 
to him that Clark County has been growing at an unprecedented 
rate.  He insisted the demand and need for county services for 
roads, sewers, and social services grows daily.  He asserted 
Clark County provides many services to townships which do not 
provide for their own.  He told the committee he strongly favors 
S.B. 556, with the proposed amendments, because he wants his 
fair share of taxes to go to Clark County to pay for the 
services provided by the county.

Thomas J.  Grady, Executive Director, Nevada League of Cities, testified they are 
not here to take a position for or against the five cities or Clark County.  He stated 
their concern is that although the bill currently addresses Clark 
County or other counties with 400,000 or over population, Elko 
County has four cities.  He urged the committee to consider 
distribution of taxes and be careful when considering the 
statewide impact.

Kurt Fritsch, Assistant City Manager, City of Henderson, 
testified, "I have been instructed by my city government that 
should Clark County put on the table the amendments which they 
have today, and agree to keep us whole for the next 5 years; we 
will withdraw our opposition to S.B. 556."

Tim Cegavske, Concerned Citizen, Spring Valley, addressed the 
committee:

I happen to be a resident of Spring Valley.  I do want 
to address this issue today.  I am a former member of 
the Spring Valley Town Advisory Board.  I am also a 
member of the Spring Valley Little League and a member 
of the board of directors there.  Parks in Spring 
Valley are a significant concern.  We currently share 
our facilities.  We are happy to share them because 
the kids need a place to play ball.  The revenue, I 
did not realize until recently, that we weren't 
getting all the revenue that we should have been 
receiving through the various tax mechanisms that are 
in place.  I just encourage you to ensure that, not 
just Spring Valley, but all entities of the county and 
the state are receiving their fair share of the 
revenue that they are putting into the system.

Senator O'Connell asked, "Sir, I wonder since you did serve on 
that board, if you might enlighten this committee a little? This 
issue was not made known to you until when?"


Mr. Cegavske testified he became aware of this issue 3 weeks 
ago.  He said it was never discussed in 1991 to 1993 when he was 
a member of the town board.

Senator O'Connell asked, "So during that time, you had not 
approached the county and asked why you weren't getting parks, 
community centers or did not have a metro station?"

Mr. Cegavske testified that they made numerous requests 
regarding parks, adding light facilities to the parks to 
increase the opportunity for the kids to play baseball, soccer, 
football, and the general response was there is not enough 
money.  He said they were never given a specific reason, just 
that there was not enough money.

Senator Porter commented:

The County of Clark requested that we take a look at 
home rule and the benefits, advantages, etc.  We 
narrowed it down to some specific goals and we have 
introduced a resolution that has to do with looking at 
the services provided by the local government entities 
in southern Nevada.  This is something that has been 
a cooperative effort.  We have been working together 
not only with Clark but with all the counties of the 
state, trying to work out an arrangement or agreement 
that would be a benefit, to not only the Legislature 
but most specifically, to those local entities.  There 
are certain rules that we deal with that the local 
entities felt they should be handling on the local 
scene.  It is a frustration for me, having spent 
months working on a study to do home rule which 
specifically has to do with services; that this was 
not addressed throughout that process.   The BDR [bill 
draft request] on this particular bill was May 15.  We 
need to do the right thing for those residents and to 
do it properly and systematically.  

Mike Alastuey, Assistant Superintendent, Clark County School 
District, testified:


I do not bring a board position for your consideration 
today.  I probably would have opposed the bill as 
originally drawn without amendment.  However, seeing 
the amendment that has been proposed, I guess I would 
consider it in skeleton form to section 8, subsection 
4, in effect postponing the effects of the 
redistribution of motor vehicle privilege tax until 
into the year 2000.  We recognize that as being of 
some faith.  We would also want to participate to 
process the perfection of the amendments to the bill 
to make sure that the school district is held harmless 
after the year 2000 as well.

Mr. Hardy stated the City of Mesquite is opposed to the bill, as 
drafted, and wanted an opportunity to review the impact of the 
proposed amendments to make a judgment based on those numbers.

Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 556 and recessed 
the committee meeting for 15 minutes to prepare for the 
committee work session.

The committee reconvened at 6:15 p.m.  to begin the work 
session.  Senator O'Connell opened the work session with a bill 
draft request (BDR)

BILL DRAFT REQUEST C-1862:		Makes changes concerning 
compensation of county 
officers.

Senator O'Connell explained this is a proposal to amend the 
Constitution of the State of Nevada to require the boards of 
county commissioners to fix the compensation for county officers 
(Exhibit K).  Discussion of the BDR ensued.  Senator O'Connell 
suggested the implementation of an independent salary commission 
to set the salaries as done in California.  She stated the 
commission would not be an advisory commission; they would have 
the authority to set the salaries.  

Senator Shaffer wanted to know who would formulate the committee 
and appoint the members.  Senator O'Connell stated the Governor 
appoints the commission.  The commission is totally independent. 
 Senator O'Donnell asked if the legislators get to ratify the 
members.  Senator O'Connell stated they could implement whatever 
they want to do.  Senator Shaffer stated a member of the press 
must be included on the board.


Senator Raggio stated he did not favor any plan where county 
commissioners fix their salaries or the salaries of the county 
officers.  He said if this legislation is implemented, "the 
salaries will be all over the board.  There will be no rhyme or 
reason to the salaries that are in place.  I think that has been 
the problem.  There needs to be some relevance or format or 
rationale for the salaries that are paid to county officers."

Discussion of the bill draft request continued.  

SENATOR PORTER MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BILL 
DRAFT REQUEST C-1862.

SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION FAILED.  (SENATORS TOWNSEND, RAGGIO, O'DONNELL 
AND SHAFFER VOTED NO.)

*****

Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on BDR C-1862.  Senator 
Porter asked the committee to set a subcommittee hearing for 
S.B. 556.  The subcommittee was set for Thursday, June 22, 1995. 
 Senator O'Connell stated it will be important to have the 
residents of Spring Valley understand the revenues will not come 
to their town board, but will go to the general fund.  Senator 
Porter stated he had specifically asked Commissioner Kenny for 
this information.  Senator O'Connell assured Senator Porter this 
information will be provided.

Senator O'Connell opened the discussion on legislative pay by 
providing the committee with a discussion paper (Exhibit L).  
Senator O'Donnell explained the history of the executive powers. 
 He stated the responsibility of determining salaries should be 
given to an independent body who will determine salaries in the 
future.  He said if the Legislature can determine the salaries 
for the county elected officials, why cannot someone determine 
the salaries for the Legislature? He suggested the State Board 
of Examiners as a possible body to set salaries.


Senator Raggio told the committee he could remember a time when 
the legislators could raise their own salaries without fuss from 
the public.  He stated the raises were reasonable.  He said when 
legislators raise salaries, they do not raise salaries for 
themselves, the salary is raised for the next person to assume 
the job.  If the legislator is reelected, then they receive the 
salary raise.  He reminded the committee that they are not 
eligible to receive a salary increase during their current term 
in office.  He explained the problems with the salary increase 
was from the furor over the excessive retirement increase.  
"That has chilled the process, unfortunately." He suggested if 
the Legislature does not want to raise its own salaries, 
although he reminded them it is their duty, then a commission 
should do this.  He stated there has not been a salary increase 
in 10 years; the last salary increase was in 1985.  He suggested 
the committee look to commissions established in other states 
for guidelines.

Senator O'Connell asked Dana Bennett, Principal Research 
Analyst, if she had the information on the California commission 
with her.  Ms. Bennett stated she did not, but she recalled that 
it is specified in statute who is on the commission.  She cited 
representatives who would be included.

Discussion continued.  Senator Townsend asked Ms. Bennett if she 
could research and find out how many states tie their raises to 
the raises given to the state employees.  Senator O'Connell 
asked if the committee was in favor of having the salaries set 
by a commission between now and next session.  She asked Ms. 
Bennett to bring language back to the committee at the next 
scheduled meeting.  Senator Shaffer stated he is willing to look 
at the proposal, but he is not committed to going that way.  
Senator O'Connell asked that the minutes reflect that Senators 
Raggio, Porter, Titus, Townsend were in favor of the commission.

Senator O'Connell closed the discussion on the legislative 
salaries and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 47.  The 
work session document is Exhibit M.

ASSEMBLY BILL 47:	Revises provisions relating to impact fees.

Mary Henderson, Director, Washoe County Government Affairs, reminded the 
committee this bill came from an interim study.  She explained the need to remove 
the first five sections of the bill which deal with police and fire stations.  She stated 
this is the bill which removed the requirement that school districts pay impact fees. 
 She explained this situation.  Discussion of the bill and the proposed amendment 
ensued.  

SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 47.


SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATOR PORTER WAS ABSENT FOR THE 
VOTE.)

*****

Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 47 and opened the 
hearing on A.B. 48.

ASSEMBLY BILL 48:	Provides for establishment of funds for 
extraordinar
y repair, 
maintenance 
or 
improvement 
of certain 
buildings of 
local 
government. 
 (BDR 31-
402)	

SENATE BILL 456:		Authorizes local government to establish certain funds 
for 
loc
al 
fin
an
cial 
ad
mi
nis
tra
tio
n.
	

Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association, stated all of the language 
in A.B. 48 was added into the language of S.B. 456.  Senator Porter stated he has 
discussed this with the Assembly and they are in concurrence.

SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 48.

SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 48 and opened the 
hearing on A.B. 50.

ASSEMBLY BILL 50:	Authorizes medium-term financing for 
municipalities in lieu of short-term 
financing.  (BDR 30-404)

Senator O'Connell told the committee there is a conflict notice 
on Assembly Bill 50 (Exhibit N).  

Ms. Vilardo stated A.B. 50 was a result of the interim committee 
on infrastructure financing.  She said the substantive change in 
the bill is moving short-term financing in statutes and 
including them in the municipal financing statutes.  She said 
the bill drafter cleaned up the language from short-term 
financing to medium-term financing.  She said these are the only 
two changes to the bill.

Senator O'Connell stated the conflict amendment deals with A.B. 
281 and A.B. 295.  She said the conflict amendment makes 
substantive changes.  Ms. Bennett stated the substantive changes 
were made by Michael Pitlock, Executive Director, Department of Taxation.  
Discussion of the conflict notices ensued.

ASSEMBLY BILL 281:	Requires supermajority vote of governing 
body of municipality for issuance of certain 
obligations without election.

ASSEMBLY BILL 295:	Revises certain limitation on investment of 
state money.

SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 50.

SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 50 and opened the 
hearing on A.B. 171.

ASSEMBLY BILL 171:	Authorizes the use of straw and solar energy 
under building codes.

Discussion of A.B. 171 ensued.  There was a proposed amendment 
from the Assembly (Exhibit O).  Senator Titus asked the 
committee to hold the bill until she can research the effects of 
the amendment on the bill.

Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 171 and opened the 
hearing on A.B. 341.

ASSEMBLY BILL 341:		Makes various changes concerning group 
insurance coverage of trustees of 
school districts.

Robert Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees 
Association (SNEA), answered questions for the committee.  He 
informed the committee that the Assembly removed the parts to 
which SNEA objected.  Senator O'Connell stated it was an 
attractive bill because it would provide an opportunity for 
entities to obtain insurance.  Senator Porter stated before the 
committee continued with the bill, he wanted to be sure that all 
retired school employees could receive this insurance.  He 
received assurance this was so.

SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 341.

SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION.  

THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE 
VOTE.)

*****

Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 341 and opened the 
hearing on A.B. 356.

ASSEMBLY BILL 356:	Revises provisions governing issuances of 
municipal obligations.

Senator O'Connell explained there was another conflict amendment 
on this bill (Exhibit P).  Discussion of the bill and display 
advertising ensued.

SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 356.

SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE 
VOTE.)

*****

Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 356 and opened the 
hearing on A.B. 365.

ASSEMBLY BILL 365:	Makes various changes relating to elections.

Senator O'Connell reminded the committee this is Assemblyman 
Spitler's bill.  This bill is concerned with challenge of 
voters.  There was no further discussion of the bill.

SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 365.  

SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE 
VOTE.)

*****

Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 365 and opened the 
hearing on A.B. 370.  There was a proposed amendment to the bill 
(Exhibit Q).

ASSEMBLY BILL 370:	Revises provisions governing alternative 
procedure for creation of local improvement 
district.

Kathryn McClain, Legislative Analyst, Clark County, explained this bill to 
the committee.  She said the intent of the bill is to charge 
assessable property in the creation of a local improvement 
district.  She said 100 percent of the assessable property 
owners have to sign the petition requesting a special 
improvement district.  This situation requires no public hearing 
because everyone who will be taxed has signed the petition.


Ande Engleman, Lobbyist, Freedom of Information Act, stated 
concern with public access and the public having things imposed 
upon it by a minority of the public.  She said if the bill 
guarantees 100 percent buy-in of the property owners, then she 
has no problem with the bill.

Senator O'Connell asked if the property owners approach the 
county for the district? She further asked if this would 
constitute the public meeting?  Ms. McClain stated every 
property owner, who will be paying the tax, has to sign the 
petition.  Then the petition is presented at a public hearing 
before the Board of County Commissioners.  Ms. McClain stated 
they feel if 100 percent of the owners sign the petition, then 
another 30-day waiting period and public notice should not be 
required.

Discussion of the bill continued.  Senator O'Connell told Ms. 
Henderson that the committee will delay a vote on the bill to 
allow her time to look at the bill and the amendment before 
addressing her concerns to the committee.

Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 370 and opened the 
hearing on A.B. 397.

ASSEMBLY BILL 397:	Requires that certain motor vehicles 
purchased or leased by or on 
behalf of State of Nevada 
meet or exceed average fuel 
economy standards 
established by Federal 
Government.	

Discussion of the bill ensued.  The committee agreed that the 
bill is not intended to hamstring agencies into purchasing 
vehicles which are not appropriate for the needs of that agency. 
 The committee discussed how the standards are currently used, 
and if the new standards would severely impact the purchasing 
decisions of agencies.  Senator Titus stated the bill has been 
amended in draft form to address the concerns of the Purchasing 
Division.  She drew the committee's attention to the provisions 
in the bill.

SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 397.

SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE 
VOTE.)

*****

Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 397 and opened the 
hearing on A.B. 412.

ASSEMBLY BILL 412:	Revises provisions governing contests of 
elections of certain state officers.

Senator O'Connell told the committee she wanted to hold the bill 
and discussion of the bill until Senator Raggio returned.  

Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 412 and opened the 
hearing on A.B. 428.

ASSEMBLY BILL 428:	Makes various changes to the charter of the 
City of Henderson.

Senator O'Connell reminded the committee this bill will allow 
Henderson to sell city property at below market value.  This 
provision will allow them to compete with surrounding states 
regarding tax breaks.  She said the Assembly amended the bill to 
require a public hearing, and a two-thirds vote to move forward 
with the sale.

Senator O'Connell stated that often bills like this cause a 
whiplash effect.  She reminded the committee they have changed 
laws specifically to bring in a certain industry.  That industry 
then took the proposal from Nevada to Arizona and used it to 
negotiate a better deal in Arizona.  She asked Kurt Fritsch if 
this whiplash deal will keep occurring.  She stated she would 
rather see tax breaks for Nevada corporations and businesses so 
they can expand, rather than offer such incentives to out-of-
state companies who only use Nevada's proposal to get a better 
deal elsewhere.  Mr. Fritsch stated that the Henderson Chamber 
of Commerce supports the bill.  He said the city council views 
it as a "last-gasp effort." He said they have industrial parks 
and private locations where they direct companies.  He said this 
is a "last opportunity on the verge of losing someone." He 
asserted that they do not want to get into a bidding war either 
throughout the valley or with other states.  

Senator O'Connell asked how far Henderson is willing to go to 
get a large industry in their area? Mr. Fritsch stated this bill 
does not preclude Nevada industries.  He said they would use it 
to prevent industries from relocating firms outside of the 
state.  Senator O'Connell reminded the committee that other 
cities with charters could come and ask for the opportunity to 
utilize these statutes.  

Mr. Fritsch explained how they lost a very large industry 
because they could not offer them a break on the property 
purchase.  He reiterated that this is the last effort if a 
company is walking out the door.  He stated he could not provide 
specific numbers on how much they would lower the price of the 
land; it would depend upon negotiations.

Discussion of the gender change in the city charter interrupted 
the discussion of the property purchase.  Senator Porter noted 
this was an omnibus bill, and some language would be forthcoming 
regarding the Henderson Library.

Senator O'Donnell asked Mr. Fritsch to explain the portion on 
the council being unable to raise their own salaries.  He stated 
it focuses on diminishing the salary and deals with the judges. 
 He said they are elected officers, but they do not set the 
salaries, the city council does.  He stated it is deleted from 
page 3 and is found on page 4 of the bill.

Senator Shaffer asked if Henderson negotiates with a company for 
reduced land prices, is there a time limit on the reduced 
prices? He said he would not want the company to be able to 
speculate with the land.  He stated these safeguards could be 
written into the bill.  Senator O'Connell stated there are 
qualifications for reduced tax rates and she suggested those 
qualifications become the guidelines for reducing the rate on 
the land.  She said it should be included in statute also to 
ensure that they are a good corporate citizen and are paying 
above average wages.

Ms. Vilardo told the committee that in S.B. 520 the three 
criteria are that the company must pay the state average wage, 
must provide 10 permanent new jobs in the first year of 
operation, and must provide medical insurance.  She said there 
are other criteria used on abatement and business tax, but they 
are not in law.  They are adopted by commission regulation.  

SENATE BILL 520:		Provides abatement from certain sales 
and use taxes for eligible machinery and 
equipment used by certain businesses in 
Nevada.

Senator O'Connell asked Mr. Fritsch if he objected to the 
committee amending the bill to include these criteria.  Mr. 
Fritsch stated he felt this proposed amendment would fit in with 
Henderson's goals.  Discussion of how to include this proposal 
in the bill ensued.  The discussion included how to make this 
bill effective statewide. 

Mr. Grady reminded the committee that Henderson's city charter 
is unique.  He said they have property that they own in larger 
chunks that are bringing in no taxes.  He said by selling this 
property, they will benefit everyone in the community by getting 
that property on the tax rolls.  Senator Townsend stated they 
want to write the bill so that everyone can do it, not just 
Henderson.  The discussion of the bill continued.

SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 428.

SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION FAILED.  (SENATOR O'DONNELL VOTED NO.  SENATORS 
PORTER, TITUS, AND RAGGIO WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

*****

Discussion ensued again when Senators Titus and Porter rejoined 
the committee.

SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO AMEND INCLUDING SENATOR PORTER'S 
LIBRARY LANGUAGE AND THE LANGUAGE FROM S.B. 520 AND DO PASS 
A.B. 428.

SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE 
VOTE.)

*****

Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 428 and reopened 
the hearing on A.B. 370.  

Ms. Henderson stated that it appears to her that the bill is 
adding language that will require the board to have a two-thirds 
vote on special improvement district projects.  She explained 
the rest of the bill is in statute.  She said all the processes 
are in place; the only new language is the two-thirds vote.  The 
language also changes it from "property" to "assessable 
property." 

SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 370.


SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION.

Discussion of the two-thirds vote ensued.

THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE 
VOTE.)

Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 370 and opened the 
hearing on A.B. 495.

ASSEMBLY BILL 495:	Authorizes member of public body to have 
item placed on agenda for meeting of the 
body.

Ms. Engleman told the committee this bill will allow anyone to 
request an item be added to an agenda of a public body.  She 
reiterated prior testimony about the need for the bill.  She 
asserted that there was no opposition testimony delivered on the 
bill.

SENATOR SHAFFER MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 495.

SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE 
VOTE.)

***** 

Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 495.  Hearing no 
further testimony forthcoming on any of the bills, Senator 
O'Connell adjourned the committee meeting at 7:30 p.m.




RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED 


	
Teri J. Spraggins,
Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY 



Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman


DATE 	

Senate Committee on Government Affairs
June 21, 1995
Page