MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-second Session
March 26, 2003
The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:00 p.m., on Wednesday, March 26, 2003, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was videoconferenced to the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Room 4412, 555 East Washington Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
Senator Sandra J. Tiffany, Vice Chairman
Senator William J. Raggio
Senator Randolph J. Townsend
Senator Warren B. Hardy II
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Terry Care
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Joseph (Joe) M. Neal Jr., Clark County Senatorial District No. 4
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Michael Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst
Marla McDade Williams, Senior Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau
Scott Wasserman, Committee Counsel
Joseph Bozsik, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mary E. Henderson, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities
Keith L. Lee, Lobbyist, State Board of Medical Examiners
Andrew A. List, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties
James L. Wadhams, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Homebuilders Association
Dan Musgrove, Lobbyist, Clark County
Bryan Montgomery, City Manager, City of Mesquite
Mel Drown, Finance Director, City of Mesquite
Carole A. Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association
Kareen Masters, Personnel Officer, Department of Human Resources
Ruth Jones, Personnel Officer, Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation
Doug Bache, ex-Assemblyman
James J. Spinello, Assistant Director, Administrative Services, Clark County
Barry C. Duncan, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Homebuilders Association
Gregory A. Brower, Lobbyist, The Gordian Group
Harry Mellon, The Gordian Group
Randy Robison, Lobbyist, Associated Builders and Contractors
Mark Sullivan, Lobbyist, Associated General Contractors, Nevada Chapter
Vikki Seelig, Industrial Support Technologists Incorporated
John Madole, Lobbyist, Associated General Contractors, Nevada Chapter, Coalition for Fairness in Construction, Nevada Association of Mechanical Contractors
Lori T. Ashton, Lobbyist, Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters
Danny Thompson, Lobbyist, Nevada State AFL-CIO
Richard Daly, Lobbyist, Laborers International Union of North America Local 169
Evan Blythin, Chairman, Red Rock Citizens Advisory Council
Richard Holmes, Assistant County Manager, Clark County
Ed Rothfuss, Sierra Club
Pauline Van Betten, Member, Red Rock Overlay Task Force
Walter Barbuck, Volunteer, Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area
Mark Beauchamp
Hermi Hiatt, President, Red Rock Audubon Society
Jeremy Garncarz, Southern Nevada Conservation Director, Friends of Nevada Wilderness
Desiree Saporito, Sierra Club
Howard Booth, Sierra Club
Terri B. Barber, Lobbyist, City of Henderson
Tina Nappe, Lobbyist, Sierra Club
Steven D. Hill, Lobbyist, Associated Builders and Contractors, Coalition for Fairness in Construction, Silver State Materials Corporation, Southern Nevada Concrete and Aggregates Association
John Pappageorge, Lobbyist, Jim Rhodes
Leonard Grodzinsky, Attorney
Senator O’Connell opened the work session with Senate Bill (S.B.) 229.
SENATE BILL 229: Makes various changes regarding public meetings. (BDR 19‑16)
Michael Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst, said the amendment submitted by Lobbyist Madelyn Shipman and the Nevada Association of Counties (NACO) set a new definition of “public body that is a governing board” and clarified what constituted minimum public notice. The amendment would require, he noted, minutes to be posted to the public body’s Web site upon the adoption or approval of those minutes, rather than the 30-day deadline.
Mr. Stewart indicated an amendment was submitted by Lobbyist Mary Henderson, which provided for the length of time allotted for public comment to be set forth in the adopted rules of any board, council, commission, or public body affected by the bill.
The attorney general’s office requested contested cases, as defined in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 233B.032, be exempted from section 1, Mr. Stewart noted.
An amendment suggested by the Department of Taxation, Mr. Stewart said, expressed concern about the requirement to hold a public comment period for each item under consideration. Mr. Stewart further noted the department offered specific amendments requesting the use of certified transcripts in lieu of audio recordings and to remove the requirement that a member of a commission, board, or committee be present for regulation workshop.
Mr. Stewart noted, the last amendment was proposed by the Board of Medical Examiners, which proposed a deletion of sections 35 and 36 from S.B. 229.
Mary E. Henderson, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities, noted the language described by Mr. Stewart met her concerns.
Senator Raggio indicated the bill was too broad and stated the committee should limit the scope of S.B. 229 to a “public body that is a governing board.”
Senator Hardy affirmed the distinction of a “public body that was a governing board” was the body’s ability to make final legislation or executive decisions.
Senator O’Connell indicated she wanted to make sure the suggested amendments from the Department of Taxation and the attorney general’s office were included in the final bill.
Senator Care noted his agreement with the attorney general’s proposed amendment. In regard to Ms. Henderson’s proposed amendment, Senator Care cautioned the adopted rules of the board be strictly followed. Additionally, he supported the deletions of sections 35 and 36 of the bill because hearings in rural areas could be limited.
Senator O’Connell said the Clark County Medical Association proposed sections 35 and 36 because they did not have enough information from the board and they wanted to make sure this board was included, as far as holding meetings in a place that could be teleconferenced.
Keith L. Lee, Lobbyist, State Board of Medical Examiners, noted the two people who supported the inclusion of sections 35 and 36 of S.B. 229 in the hearing last week were Dr. Weldon E. Havins, chief executive officer and special counsel of the Clark County Medical Society, and Dr. Rudy R. Manthei, president of the Nevada State Board of Osteopathic Medicine.
SENATOR TIFFANY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 229 AS AMENDED BY ADDING THE LANGUAGE THAT DEFINED A SPECIFIC PUBLIC BODY, TO INCLUDE THE WEB SITE POSTING FOR THE AGENDA, MINUTES, AND APPROPRIATE AUDIO RECORDINGS, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S AND DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION’S PROPOSALS, AND MS. HENDERSON’S PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE THE LENGTH OF TIME ALLOTTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT BE SET FORTH IN THE ADOPTED RULES OF EACH BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION OR PUBLIC BODY.
SENATOR HARDY SECONDED THE MOTION.
Scott Wasserman, Committee Counsel, noted his concern about the minutes not getting approved. He asked the committee if it wanted to put a time frame for the posting of the minutes.
Senator O’Connell said the minutes were secondary if the audio was available.
Senator Raggio asked if S.B. 229 was limited to “public bodies that were governing boards,” would the concerns of Pam Wilcox, administrator of the Division of State Lands, have been addressed about including rural conservation districts.
Senator O’Connell indicated Lobbyist Madelyn Shipman said if a board did not have the funding to pay for the members, the board would not be included in the bill.
Senator Raggio stated language should be added to the bill specifying within financial ability.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO FURTHER AMEND THE AMENDMENT TO STRIKE SECTIONS 35 AND 36 AND DO PASS S.B. 229.
SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS O’CONNELL AND TIFFANY VOTED NO.)
*****
Senator O’Connell opened discussion on S.B. 262.
SENATE BILL 262: Requires certain abstracts of votes to be transmitted to certain public libraries. (BDR 24-906)
Mr. Stewart said Senator Tiffany had proposed an amendment to permit the transmittal of abstract votes via electronic means or at least require the abstract votes be posted on the Internet.
SENATOR TIFFANY MOVED TO AMEND TO INCLUDE THE AUTHORITY FOR ELECTRONIC MEANS OF TRANSFER AND POSTING ON THE WEB SITE, AND DO PASS S.B. 262.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator O’Connell opened the discussion on S.B. 277.
SENATE BILL 277: Requires using agencies to purchase prescription drugs, pharmaceutical services, or medical supplies and related services only through Purchasing Division of Department of Administration under certain circumstances. (BDR 27-26)
Mr. Stewart said the Purchasing Division proposed an amendment, which stated if a using agency found a better value, notification shall be provided to the Purchasing Division after the initial purchase.
SENATOR HARDY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 277.
SENATOR TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator O’Connell opened discussion on S.B. 280.
SENATE BILL 280: Revises provisions governing awarding of state purchasing contracts. (BDR 27-846)
Senator Tiffany stated her support for an amendment from purchasing which declared if a state other then Nevada imposed a residential preference on Nevada vendors for the procurement of specific materials, supplies, services, or equipment, then the chief shall impose an identical residential preference/penalty on vendors submitting bids or proposals for such from that state.
Senator Raggio stated the Purchasing Division submitted a high fiscal note for S.B. 280, calling for $3.7 million the first and second years and $8 million over future biennia. He indicated with the amendment, the committee should make sure the fiscal note was not needed.
Senator Tiffany said Bill Moell, Chief, State Purchasing Division, recommended the amendment and stated on the record the fiscal note would be either miniscule or none. Senator Raggio noted he could support the bill, if Mr. Moell’s testimony was accurate. Senator Raggio wanted a letter from Mr. Moell indicating that with the amendment, the fiscal note was no longer needed.
SENATOR TIFFANY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 280.
SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator O’Connell opened discussion on S.B. 295.
SENATE BILL 295: Abolishes Dillon’s Rule concerning statutory interpretation of powers of local government. (BDR 0-591)
Andrew A. List, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties, offered an amendment to turn the bill into a rule of statutory construction and not abolish Dillon’s Rule. He noted NACO only wanted the powers expressly granted by the State, but stated they would have those powers necessarily or fairly implied or appropriate or convenient to carry out expressly granted powers. He said S.B. 295 with his proposed amendment would have given counties flexibility to carry out their duties on a day-to-day basis.
Senator Raggio indicated his concern was for the committee not to abolish Dillon’s Rule, but that local governments have the ability to handle practical situations. Senator Raggio said counsel for local governments was, at times, offering an unfair or unnecessary interpretation of Dillon’s Rule. Judge Dillon’s opinion indicated local governments could exercise expressly granted powers, but the opinion did not prohibit necessarily implied powers, Senator Raggio noted. He concluded he would not want the bill to be any broader.
Mr. Wasserman said the bill would change Dillon’s Rule by granting appropriate or convenient powers that go along with expressed powers.
Senator Raggio indicated, if the committee was going to amend the bill, then the language from the original Dillon’s Rule opinion should be used.
Senator Care stated there might be debate as to what was an implied power and questioned whether the language suggested by Mr. List addressed the issue.
Mr. Wasserman quoted a portion of NACO’s proposed amendment “ ¼ that are appropriate or convenient for the accomplishment of the declared objects.” Mr. Wasserman explained, the Legislature would have to look back at the statutes where the State had granted powers to local governments, because along with those powers, S.B. 295 as amended would grant appropriate or convenient powers to the accomplishments of the declared objects, thereby creating additional powers. Mr. Wasserman noted to limit additional powers in those instances, the Legislature would have to amend the original statute that created the expressed power for local governments. Mr. Wasserman concluded, if the State had already ruled in statute or preempted the field, then the statutes would not change; local governments would not be able to adopt local ordinances under preemption.
James L. Wadhams, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Homebuilders Association, noted he was concerned with an orderly process of government. He further noted Dillon’s Rule was well-established law in Nevada and, in part, compelled by article 8, section 8 of the Nevada Constitution.
Senator Hardy asked if the proposed amendment, as Senator Raggio articulated, would have the effect of giving similar powers to the counties that charter cities now had. He noted charter cities tended to take actions unless specifically prohibited in statute.
Mr. Wasserman said if the committee adopted Senator Raggio’s suggestions, Dillon’s Rule would be codified.
Senator Raggio indicated he did not advocate an amendment, but stipulated Dillon’s Rule needed to be maintained to provide uniformity throughout the State. He noted he was attempting to avoid an inconsistent interpretation of the Dillon opinion by local governments.
Senator Joseph (Joe) M. Neal Jr., Clark County Senatorial District No. 4, said he understood the interpretation of Dillon’s Rule as applied throughout Nevada. He continued, the amendment was an attempt to give Dillon’s Rule statutory construction to create a uniform interpretation.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 295.
SENATOR TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS TITUS AND CARE VOTED NO.)
*****
Senator O’Connell opened discussion on S.B. 328.
SENATE BILL 328: Provides for the establishment of regional development districts. (BDR 22-311)
SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 328.
SENATOR HARDY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator O’Connell opened discussion on S.B. 329.
SENATE BILL 329: Authorizes review of and objection to temporary regulations by Legislative Commission in certain circumstances. (BDR 18-730)
Mr. Stewart indicated the Nevada Legislative Committee on Health Care had the authority to review certain regulations proposed by licensing boards. An amendment was proposed, Mr. Stewart noted, to add additional licensing boards to the list in NRS 439B.225.
SENATOR TIFFANY MOVED TO AMEND BY ADDING HOMEOPATHIC MEDICINE, CHIROPRACTIC, ORIENTAL MEDICINE, PODIATRY, OPTOMETRY, DISPENSING OPTICIANS, MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPISTS, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SPECIALISTS, HEARING AID SPECIALISTS, OCCUPATIONAL THERAPISTS, AND ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE COUNSELORS, AND DO PASS S.B. 329.
SENATOR HARDY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator O’Connell opened discussion on Senate Concurrent Resolution (S.C.R.) 19.
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 19: Urges Athletic Directors of University of Nevada, Reno, and University of Nevada, Las Vegas, to schedule annual rivalry football game to coincide with observance of Nevada Day. (BDR R-884)
SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO AMEND AND ADOPT AS AMENDED S.C.R. 19 STIPULATING IF THE TWO SCHOOLS WERE IN THE SAME ATHLETIC CONFERENCE THEN AN ATTEMPT SHOULD BE MADE TO HAVE THE GAME ON A CERTAIN DATE, AND TO STUDY THE FEASIBILITY OF BOTH SCHOOLS BEING IN THE SAME ATHLETIC CONFERENCE.
SENATOR HARDY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator O’Connell opened discussion on S.B. 123.
SENATE BILL 123: Prohibits state and local governments under certain circumstances from paying for publications that prominently feature current public officers who are candidates for elective office. (BDR 24‑214)
Mr. Stewart said the first proposed amendment added Assemblyman David Parks as a cosponsor to the bill. Mr. Stewart noted the second amendment, suggested by Senator Titus, would add a television-programming portion, similar to the language proposed in Assembly Bill (A.B.) 298. The third suggested amendment, Mr. Stewart indicated, was sponsored by Nevada’s Commission on Ethics, which specified a public employee should not request or otherwise cause a government of this State or political subdivision to incur an expense to support or oppose a ballot question or candidate. The fourth suggested amendment would add language creating additional exceptions and clarifications to the provisions of NRS 293.725 to address certain situations whereby an elected official, by virtue of being a public figure, might appear on television programming or in a pamphlet or brochure distributed by the government of the State.
Dan Musgrove, Lobbyist, Clark County, suggested including an amendment indicating:
The language that relates to ballot issues shall not prohibit an expense or expenditure by an entity specified for the creation or dissemination of television programming, which provides a forum for discussion or debate on a ballot issue, so long as persons both in support of and in opposition to the ballot issue participate in such a forum.
Mr. Musgrove concluded S.B. 123 as written might preclude such forums.
Senator Raggio noted he wanted to include Mr. Musgrove’s suggestion. He indicated he did not want to limit the opportunity for issues to be publicly debated.
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO AMEND BY INCLUDING ALL AMENDMENTS, THE BALLOT QUESTION LANGUAGE, AND DO PASS S.B. 123.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator O’Connell opened the hearing on S.B. 335.
SENATE BILL 335: Increases maximum amount that may be paid to redevelopment agency in small community. (BDR 22-1172)
Bryan Montgomery, City Manager, City of Mesquite, said S.B. 335 would only affect Mesquite. He noted chapter 279 of NRS placed an artificial population limit of 100,000 that would cap Mesquite Redevelopment Agency (RDA) revenues within a year. The cap would adversely affect the city’s ability to fulfill the purposes of the RDA, whereas, he said, S.B. 335 would take into account smaller communities. Mr. Montgomery concluded the bill added a ratio provision with regard to the revenues from the RDA and the General Fund for communities under 50,000.
Mel Drown, Finance Director, City of Mesquite, stated the RDA in Mesquite had grown from its initial formation and with the statute cap of 15 percent to the total assessed valuation, Mesquite, based on numbers submitted by the Department of Taxation, was now at 12.4 percent. Mr. Drown said he anticipated dramatic growth, including a 29-bed hospital in Mesquite, and the Mesquite RDA needed the ability to increment more assessed valuation in the project area to generate revenue for future partnerships and development.
Senator O’Connell asked how long a period of time Mesquite had for the redevelopment area. Mr. Drown said the project life was approximately 30 years of which 8 years had passed.
Senator O’Connell inquired if the problem was the property outside of the redevelopment area losing assessed value. In response, Mr. Drown said the problem was the property outside the redevelopment area was not growing as fast as the property inside the project area.
Senator O’Connell asked if the boundaries of the redevelopment area had been moved and Mr. Drown said no.
Carole A. Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association, noted she was concerned about the increase to 25 percent. A number of entities were using redevelopment for infrastructure financing, she said, not redevelopment. Ms. Vilardo said taking 25 percent would impact General Fund revenues because the increment, directed by growth, was being kept out of the General Fund. Yet, she noted, she had heard the entities have complained about not having sufficient funds to accommodate their needs. Additionally, she said, education funding could be negatively impacted. Ms. Vilardo suggested an interim committee to look at creating tax increment financing for redevelopment, economic development, and for infrastructure financing. Ms. Vilardo indicated the Mesquite redevelopment plan was now at 30 years, however the law would allow them to go to 45 years. She said more redevelopment agencies go to 45 years, which would further exacerbate the entire increment. If the entity were successful in pushing it to 45 years, everybody would be impacted for that much longer, Ms. Vilardo concluded.
Senator O’Connell asked Ms. Vilardo if she had a suggested percentage increase. Ms. Vilardo answered; redevelopment was used for more than redevelopment. For example, she said, it sounded like the new Mesquite hospital was not a redevelopment area; it was an attempt to create the necessary infrastructure to accommodate the new hospital. Ms. Vilardo suggested a 2 or 3 percent adjustment, but to restrict the time period to 30 years.
Mr. Montgomery said the City of Mesquite had confined its use of redevelopment funds for the explicit purposes found in the ordinance and for the purposes found within the statutes for redevelopment.
Senator O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 335 and opened the hearing on S.B. 331.
SENATE BILL 331: Makes various changes to employment practices governing state personnel. (BDR 23-983)
Kareen Masters, Personnel Officer, Department of Human Resources, explained her concerns with S.B. 331, Exhibit C. She outlined her concerns: in section 2, the department did not concur with a need to grant the Employee Management Committee (EMC) subpoena power, in section 4, with the delay of administrative investigations, in section 8, with adding arbitration as a duplicate avenue of appeal for grievances, and in section 9, the department did not believe the best interest of the public was served by delaying the implementation of disciplinary action in certain instances.
Ruth Jones, Personnel Officer, Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation, noted the department’s opposition to sections 2 and 3, which provided the EMC with subpoena power for records. It could allow employees to go on a fishing expedition by requesting confidential records, she said. Ms. Jones suggested the section be amended to allow only for the subpoena power of witnesses. She indicated section 4 would hinder the investigation process and the agency’s ability to resolve issues in an expeditious manner. The agency needed the ability to question employees and witnesses to determine the facts surrounding an issue or event, and move to take immediate action, Ms. Jones commented. She said the notice requirements would cause undo delays when resolving issues. Section 5, Ms. Jones noted, would impose a burden and hardship in recruiting qualified candidates for vacancies. She suggested section 7 needed clarification to ensure the appointing authority might provide input to an employee’s evaluation. Section 8 would be too costly an addition to the grievance process and could result in inconsistent decisions between the two processes, she concluded. Ms. Jones suggested section 9 would disrupt services and additional costs would be incurred.
Senator O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 331 and opened the hearing on S.B. 347.
SENATE BILL 347: Provides for creation and administration of incorporated towns. (BDR 21-249)
Doug Bache, ex-Assemblyman, said S.B. 347 was the culmination of the interim study on the issue of creating a new form of government called an incorporated town. Mr. Bache noted he wanted smaller communities, without the means to incorporate as a city, to have an alternative form of local government.
Marla McDade Williams, Senior Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, began detailing selected sections of S.B. 347. She said section 7 listed services an incorporated town could provide. She further noted, section 30 discussed the circulation of a new petition for the incorporation of a town and established some time limitations for the petition process. Section 60 identified services provided or arranged by the council specifying the process by which services might be changed, Ms. McDade Williams noted. She indicated section 30 was in conjunction with section 7. Ms. McDade Williams said section 63 granted a town council the authority to levy ad valorem taxes and specified the usage of the proceeds by the town council. She continued, sections 86 and 87 concerned zoning and land-use planning. She further noted sections 86 and 87 deemed a town as a city for purposes of chapter 278 of NRS, concerning zoning and land-use planning. Section 95 defined a town, Ms. McDade Williams said, to include incorporated towns for purposes of chapter 360 of NRS, which concerned taxes and taxation. She indicated section 95 specified an incorporated town was subject to the statutes governing the distribution of proceeds of certain taxes to local governments. Ms. McDade Williams noted section 97 would require the committee on local government finance to conduct a study to prospectively examine the expected operation of the act and the expected feasibility of towns incorporated pursuant to the act and set forth the requirements for the study. In section 98, she noted provisions for a study by the committee on local government finance were effective upon passage and approval of the bill and other sections of the bill were effective on July 1, 2005.
Senator Care asked how the specific number limitations in section 5, subsections 4 and 5, of S.B. 347 were selected.
Ms. McDade Williams said section 5 related to population density where pockets exist of unincorporated areas within Clark County. She noted the definitions were put forth to ensure there was enough population density to support incorporation as a town and to prevent encroachment on other local governing areas already established. She said statutes existed to prevent the annexation of someone’s parcel without their permission.
Mr. Wasserman pointed out the numbers were based on NRS 266.017 for incorporated cities.
Senator Care asked if section 10, subsection 2 of the bill stemmed from existing statutes, and if not, then from where. Section 10, subsection 2, read:
A petition for incorporation must contain a number of signatures equal to at least 15 percent of the qualified electors within the boundaries of the town proposed to be incorporated who, together with any corporate petitioners, own not less than 5 percent in assessed value of the taxable real property within the territory of the proposed incorporated town. ¼
He also asked what would happen in the case of a joint tenant; would each have one signature or half of a signature.
Ms. McDade Williams stated she could not answer the joint-tenant question, but in terms of the language, the committee did change the current incorporation of cities law, which corresponded to NRS 266.022. She noted the change was put in place at the request of the Nevada Taxpayers Association.
Senator Care read section 22, subsection 2:
If the board’s written opinion concludes that the incorporation is advisable and the proposed town is feasible, an affirmative vote of a majority of the voters voting on the matter is required to constitute approval by the voters of the incorporation of the town. If the board’s written opinion concludes that the incorporation is not advisable or the proposed town is not feasible, or both, an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the voters voting on the matter is required to constitute approval by the voters of the incorporation of the town.
Senator Care questioned the legality of requiring a supermajority under the circumstances.
Ms. McDade Williams stated the section was modeled after NRS 266.029 and noted the statute indicated three-fourths of the voters were required to approve incorporation. Senate Bill 347 would only require two-thirds, she commented.
Ms. Vilardo said the reason for the provision, called the negative referendum condition, was because of the number of people in assessed value. If a population base existed where over 50 percent of the assessed value was in commercial property, those commercial property owners would have no standing unless it was given them. Ms. Vilardo said the commercial property owners could have the bulk of the assessed valuation and section 22 would allow for a corporate signer in this particular instance.
Senator Care noted the petition process was acceptable, but he did not understand why two-thirds was required for approval.
James J. Spinello, Assistant Director, Administrative Services, Clark County, and NACO representative on the advisory committee to the interim committee, stated the NACO board voted to oppose this draft of S.B. 347. He noted his objections were philosophical as well as specific to several of the provisions of the draft. Philosophically he said he opposed the bill’s intent to create a new form of government which afforded certain important municipal authority while forgoing other critical municipal responsibilities, thereby imposing those responsibilities and costs on the county. With special and general districts currently in existence, the concept of an incorporated town was unnecessary and dangerous, he concluded. He explained an unincorporated area of a county with a small total population of 750 individuals could form an incorporated town and gain the authority over zoning and land use planning, but not take on any significant municipal responsibilities. The bill did not specify the responsibility for other services impacted by zoning and land-use planning decisions made by the town. The city or county who engaged in zoning and land use planning was responsible for providing all municipal services impacted by their decisions, an incorporated town was not.
Mr. Spinello noted an incorporated town could claim a portion of the consolidated tax distributions, claim representation on regional planning boards and agencies, on regional transportation commissions, and on other regional bodies.
In Clark and Washoe Counties, Mr. Spinello noted, nothing prevented large residential, commercial, or industrial land owners from combining with adjacent properties like an apartment complex and incorporating, claiming minimal services and gaining zoning and planning authority. He said the bill would allow a virtual balkanization of the urban areas of the most populous counties.
Mr. Spinello indicated the time lines required for the elections involved could force a special election in the midst, but not on the specific dates of a primary and general election, which the election department had said could be quite disruptive.
Barry C. Duncan, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Homebuilders Association, noted their concern was incorporated towns could lie within urban areas, creating small forms of government within what are typically urban areas in Clark and Washoe counties.
Senator O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 347 and opened the hearing on S.B. 392.
SENATE BILL 392: Establishes pilot program for use of indefinite quantity contracts by Clark County School District for certain public works. (BDR S-1277)
Gregory A. Brower, Lobbyist, The Gordian Group, stated The Gordian Group had developed a method of government contracting known as job order contracting (JOC) and S.B. 392 would allow for a pilot project with the Clark County School District (CCSD). He noted the CCSD came to The Gordian Group to develop JOC (Exhibit D. Original is on file in the Research Library.), but it was unclear if under NRS, such a system could have been implemented by a governmental entity in Nevada. Job order contracting would be used for small‑ and medium‑sized construction and repair jobs, he noted, and JOC could save the CCSD money. Mr. Brower said the southern Nevada chapter of the Associated General Contractors (AGC) also supported S.B. 392. Washington state and Arizona have recently allowed the implementation of JOC, joining many other states, Mr. Brower concluded.
Mr. Brower indicated JOC would not eliminate competitive bidding or the prevailing wage requirements existing in the NRS and it would, in fact, require all JOC contracts to be prevailing wage contracts. Senate Bill 392, he further noted, would not require the school district to implement JOC, it would not affect maintenance jobs, and it would not take away bidding opportunities. The Clark County School District estimated if JOC were implemented, approximately 90 percent of maintenance, repair, and construction contracts would still be bid the traditional way, he added. Mr. Brower concluded, JOC would not adversely affect subcontractors, but would encourage the use of small, local, and emerging businesses, thereby giving new and small subcontractors increased bidding opportunities.
Harry Mellon, The Gordian Group, said JOC was a construction tasks catalog, typically containing over 100,000 such tasks developed by a public agency. The public agency would develop a unit price for each task. Mr. Mellon said the catalog would be put out for competitive bidding, and interested contractors would, in a competitive nature, bid their adjustment. For example, he noted, if a contractor wanted a 10 percent markup, they would bid a 1.1; if a contractor wanted a 15 percent markup, they would bid a 1.15. The school district would award the contract to the contractor bidding the lowest adjustment, he explained, and the adjustment would be fixed for the first year of the contract.
An example of a small project would be the conversion of a classroom into a computer lab, Mr. Mellon said. He stated the school district and contractor would find the listed tasks necessary to complete the job, like cabinetry work, ceiling work, painting, carpeting, and wiring. Each task, Mr. Mellon concluded, would be prepriced in the catalog, added together, and multiplied by the adjustment, thereby creating a fixed job cost.
Mr. Mellon said the contractor would be awarded a small, minimum-guaranteed dollar amount of work, typically around $50,000, at the beginning of the contract. He noted the contract could also have a ceiling of $5 million or one set by the agency budget. If a contractor did not perform, the school district could stop giving that contractor further work, he concluded.
Job order contracting would create a cost savings, Mr. Mellon commented. He indicated the San Diego Unified School District saved 14 percent of the cost of construction over traditional contracting, the Chicago Public School District saved 8.6 percent, and the New York City (NYC) Board of Education saved $115 million over 5 years at an 11.7 percent cost savings. Mr. Mellon commented, the NYC Board of Education had 6000 projects without lawsuits, bid protests, or claims.
Mr. Mellon continued, all bonding would be held by the prime JOC contractor, which would allow substitute work without tying up limited bonding capacity. Bonding by the prime JOC contractor would be critical for small businesses with a limited bonding capacity trying to get started, he remarked.
Mr. Mellon concluded, The Gordian Group’s role would be to help the CCSD develop the construction task catalog, terms and conditions, procedures, and train the CCSD and their contractors in the use of the process.
Senator Care asked for the legal significance of S.B. 392, section 5, subsection 5, where it stated, “A work order issued pursuant to section 10 of this act is a contract; and an indefinite quantity contract is not a contract.” Mr. Wasserman responded, the work order was considered a contract for making progress payments, but the indefinite quantity contract as a whole was not a contract for determining the progress payments.
Senator Raggio disclosed Mr. Brower was a shareholder in the legal firm in which Senator Raggio was a shareholder, and therefore, noted a conflict on the matter.
Mr. Brower noted the Nevada State Education Association had a friendly amendment, Exhibit E, prohibiting contracts, if they resulted in a reduction in force or the elimination of any existing position among the employees of the district.
Senator O’Connell asked Mr. Mellon if JOC would eliminate change orders.
Mr. Mellon explained, if during the course of a project, a change of scope of work had to be made, it would be handled as a new job order given to the contractor. Mr. Mellon continued, the subtraction or addition of construction tasks from the catalog would be calculated and multiplied by the competitive adjustment factor. All work classified as a change of scope would be paid at the competitively bid price, he said. The same would happen if an unforeseen condition occurred. If for example, Mr. Mellon said, a task for tearing down a wall was assessed at a certain price, but after the project began, asbestos was found, the order would be changed. Competitively bid prices would only be paid on any differing site condition work, he concluded.
Senator O’Connell asked Mr. Mellon to identify the areas of cost savings.
Mr. Mellon said cost savings from JOC were in four primary areas. The first cost savings area was found in the reduction of professional architect-engineer fees. A public agency, he noted, had to hire an architect-engineer firm to produce a bid document for every small job, which typically accounted for 7 to 10 percent of construction costs. Mr. Mellon said design costs were typically reduced to a range between 1.5 and 2 percent of the cost of construction, because legally sufficient bid documents would not be needed. He concluded, the work only needed to be described enough for pricing. The second cost savings area, Mr. Mellon outlined, was found in the reduction of professional fees and administrative and management costs. For example, he explained, a public agency might process a hundred projects per year with JOC. They would have saved 100 advertisements, bid openings, trips to their approval authority, and the processing incurred, and saved paying 100 mobilizations to 100 separate contractors. The third cost savings area was found through change orders and the post award costs, Mr. Mellon stated. He said there had been no history of claims, filed by a contractor, against an owner under JOC. Change orders were priced at competitively bid prices and a 2 to 4 percent savings was seen with post-award costs compared to traditional contracting. The fourth area of cost savings was found in the construction, Mr. Mellon said. He noted, instead of bidding out a separate $75,000 job, the school district or public agency would be building out a multimillion-dollar contract. The contractor, in developing our adjustment costs, Mr. Mellon continued, would spread their overhead in indirect cost over the multimillion‑dollar potential of the contract, not over a single individual project. He said, for each project, you would receive a smaller distribution of overhead and profit objectives, which reduced the cost of the individual project. Combined, this typically saved between 10 and 15 percent, Mr. Mellon concluded.
Mr. Brower indicated section 11 would provide a sunset provision, effective in 2005. The Gordian Group, he said, would like the committee to amend S.B. 392 to allow for a 4-year pilot project ending in 2007.
Randy Robison, Lobbyist, Associated Builders and Contractors, noted the Associated Builders and Contractors supported the pilot program to see what benefits might be provided to local governments.
Mark Sullivan, Lobbyist, Associated General Contractors, Nevada Chapter, noted, after meeting with the proponents of S.B. 392, resolution on several issues of concern was not met.
Vikki Seelig, Industrial Support Technologists Incorporated, said S.B. 392 would limit the opportunity and growth for the small emerging contractor. Ms. Seelig noted if an open‑ended contract were awarded to a prime contractor for $5 million, it would limit the opportunity for small contractors. She asked who would determine eligibility to bid on a project and if a prime contractor was awarded a project. Additionally, Ms. Seelig asked what kind of safeguards would be in place to prevent the prime contractor from assembling a small group of exclusively used subcontractors and accepting kickbacks from them to guarantee their work.
Ms. Seelig continued, S.B. 392 did not address Nevada’s contracting laws. Contractors generally have limited licenses, she noted, and if a license was limited to $500,000, how could a small contractor be awarded an open-ended CCSD contract up to $5 million? Ms. Seelig said she did not know if that was legal. In conclusion, Ms. Seelig commented that B-licensed contractors do the majority of school district work and asked what A-licensed contractors were supposed to do.
John Madole, Lobbyist, Associated General Contractors, Nevada Chapter, Coalition for Fairness in Construction, Nevada Association of Mechanical Contractors, said S.B. 392 would eliminate opportunities for small contractors. Mr. Madole noted he could do some of the $200,000 to $400,000 contracts, but could not responsibly do a $5 million contract, because he did not have the resources.
Lori T. Ashton, Lobbyist, Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters, indicated section 8, subsection 2, stated “A contractor who submits a bid on an indefinite quantity contract is not required to submit the information described in NRS 338.141 with his bid.” Ms. Ashton noted section 8 dealt with the listing of subcontractors who would be performing work on those projects as validation for Ms. Seelig’s concerns. Ms. Ashton explained the bill did not provide the kind of monitoring currently provided on public works projects.
Danny Thompson, Lobbyist, Nevada State AFL-CIO, stated the AFL-CIO had many problems with the CCSD. Workers on jobs were being forced to pay kickbacks to supervisors, Mr. Thompson indicated; he further reported the CCSD privately told him S.B. 392 was not their bill and they did not want it.
Richard Daly, Lobbyist, Laborers International Union of North America Local 169, noted S.B. 392 would drastically change and weaken the competitive bidding process everyone relied on in Nevada. He remarked it would take out the provisions against bid shopping and concluded the JOC concept was fraught with errors and potential for mischief.
Senator O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 392 and opened the hearing on S.B. 358.
SENATE BILL 358: Provides for certain protections relating to certain lands adjacent to Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area. (BDR 22-645)
Senator Alice Constandina (Dina) Titus, Clark County Senatorial District No. 7, testified on S.B. 358:
I come before you today representing a coalition of interests, comprised of the Clark County commission, responsible builders and developers, and a number of groups that range from the Sierra Club to the Friends of the Nevada Wilderness, the Las Vegas Valley Bicycle Club, Red Rock Audubon Society, and a number of others. We also have the support of thousands of southern Nevada residents, who all agree we must work together to save one of our State’s, no, one of our nation’s greatest treasures and that is Red Rock Canyon.
Recognized initially by the Legislature in (Statutes of Nevada) 1993 with the enrollment of chapter 639, Red Rock Canyon is a uniquely beautiful land where Mother Nature has worked for over 600 million years to create. Less than 20 miles from Las Vegas it is an awe-inspiring desert playground sculpted by the winds and rains of time. Not only is the canyon a scenic area, which provides recreational opportunities for thousands of people each year, but it is also an area rich in cultural resources, which tells a story of human activity in southern Nevada dating from prehistoric times.
Found throughout Red Rock Canyon are roasting pits, petroglyphs, and pictographs, as well as broken pots and stone tools, which are pieces of a puzzle that when put together tell the story of ancient ways of life and human adaptation to the desert. The geology of the Red Rock Canyon is also fascinating. For much of the past 600 million years it lay at the bottom of a basin with a wide variety of marine life. This life flourished and left behind deposits of shells and skeletons more than 9000 feet thick, which were eventually compressed into limestone. Petrified wood can also be found throughout the rocks of the canyon. The most significant feature is the keystone thrust fault, which began some 65-million years ago. The gray carbonate rocks of the ancient ocean have been thrust over the tan and red sandstone in one of the most dramatic and easily identifiable formations in the world.
Finally, Red Rock Canyon is an oasis in the desert. Its deep sandstone canyons provide a perennial water supply, moderate temperatures, and a wide variety of vegetation, making it an ideal habitat for over 100 bird species, including the rock wren, loggerhead shrike, roadrunner, rufous-sided towhee, mourning dove, white-throated swift, chucker, and Gambel’s quail. And to the surprise of many who are not familiar with the desert habitat, 45 species of mammals also live there, including coyotes, kit foxes, rabbits, bobcats, and mountain lions; they make their home here in the canyon, as do mule deer, desert big horn sheep, which is our State animal, wild burros, bats, and shrews. Reptiles and amphibians, including the desert tortoise, 10 species of frogs, 20 species of lizards, 25 species of snakes, and also the tiger salamander live there in the Red Rock Canyon. Plant life is equally varied and it includes the endangered cholla, along with pinion junipers, Joshua trees, various brushes, grasses, sage, and creosote.
There is a 13-mile, one-way loop through the Red Rocks, which offers visitors a chance to view the diversity and beauty of the area from the comfort of their cars. There are also dozens of trails throughout the area for family hiking along with opportunities for picnicking, bicycling, and rock climbing. The area receives nearly 1.2 million visitors a year from around the globe and it is considered a national treasure by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which is charged with its stewardship and protection. In fact, Assistant Interior Secretary Rebecca Watson visited the park earlier this year and commented she was awestruck by the canyon’s red and beige outcroppings. She also noted that because of the canyon’s fee demonstration program, which has brought in $5.5 million since November of 1997, and because of its partnerships with volunteer and nonprofit groups, the canyon is a model for how BLM projects should cope with urban growth. That notion of coping with urban growth is the perfect segue to why we are here today: to deal with the encroaching development that is threatening the integrity and sanctity of this precious area. As Las Vegas continues to expand, there is a looming threat that someone will want to develop the area immediately adjacent to the Red Rocks and we must not let that happen. First it will be homes, then convenience stores, shopping centers, more traffic, bad air, dangerous intersections, loss of plant and animal life, you know how the story goes.
Senator Titus continued:
At the county level, the Clark County commission began to realize the danger of this encroaching development and moved to address the threat last summer with the creation of a special committee to look into how to protect the Red Rock Canyon, comprised of developers including Tom Warden and Colleen Pappas, environmentalists like Jeff van Ee, residents of Blue Diamond like Evan Blythin and Pauline Van Betten, and others. This committee designated a Red Rock Design Overlay district. A map was drawn, and you have a copy in the packet we handed out [Exhibit F. Original is on file in the Research Library.], showing a number of restrictions were proposed concerning allowable development features, such as landscaping, color buffering, screenings, signage, and lighting. These are now before the Clark County commission for final approval. To augment this excellent work done by the county commission, I have been working with their staff to come before you today with S.B. 358. This bill, very simply, will lock in the existing zoning, found today, within the overlay district. The zoning designation currently is rural (RU), which means that on the privately held land within this district today, only 1 house is allowed for every 2 acres. The bill before you does not prohibit development; it simply makes it impossible for someone to get a zoning variance, which would allow denser development than the RU designation. I would also point out to you that the land in the overlay district, in this map drawn at the county level, is all outside the Ensign-Bryan federal land act’s disposal boundary and with only a small exception, most of it is federally owned. The original bill called for a temporary moratorium on zoning changes to be made permanent by a vote of the people. I believe the county, and this is one of the suggestions made to me by the county and I certainly support it. If we could put the moratorium in place now, we do not have to go to a vote of the people; it will not be necessary and it will save that expense and we can just make the moratorium permanent at this point.
You have the packet of information before you which includes the map, there are pictures of red rock in case some of you have never visited this beautiful place, several newspaper articles that give you some background information about the issue, signatures gathered, and also some examples of typical letters we have received from many people who support the protection of the Red Rock Canyon. There is one letter from a person in Texas who just happened to be a tourist here recently, looking at the other side of Nevada, and sent his letter of support. Another is from United States Senator John Ensign who expresses his general desire to preserve this area and addresses the question of the BLM possibly buying the area of land that is privately owned.
I want to conclude by saying again this is not a case of the State unnecessarily interfering with county issues. I am pleased to note I spoke with [ex-]Senator James earlier today and Senator Raggio spoke to him on the phone at the same time. After initial reservations he, is pleased with some of the changes we made in the language and the proposed amendment and said I could put on the record that he is now in support of this measure and will try to be at the rally with me on Saturday. So, it’s not a question of us interfering at all; I think it is a question of us working together in a partnership to make this happen and save this precious place. Now you might ask if the county commission is so supportive, then why don’t they just do it themselves? Why does the State need to get involved at all? The answer is simple; as you know, one Legislature cannot bind another Legislature, one commission could not bind another commission. Well, this current commission feels very strongly about protecting Red Rock Canyon, but this does not mean in the future some aggressive developer couldn’t go to the commission and attempt to get a zoning change, so they could do more dense development. It is much harder to get a State law changed than it is to get a zoning variance, and this is not an issue just of zoning, it is an issue of protecting a State and national treasure. So, let us form this partnership with each level of government doing what it does best. The county will be left to make the determination for how to develop in the area that can be developed. The State can protect our own interest and the federal government, if the BLM purchases this land, then also has a role to play.
So far, only one opponent has come forward on the bill, not to me personally, but the name has been in the paper. This is a developer, Jim Rhodes, who wants to possibly buy some of the private land and do dense development on the site of the old Gypsum mine. He does not currently own that land, but he is kind of betting on the outcome. Remember, if he does buy the land in the future and wants to do development, it is not prohibited under this bill; he would simply have to meet the current requirements and the new regulations being proposed under the overlay design plan. So, I urge you not to be swayed by the arguments of this very popular lobbyist and to work together to protect this area that has provided so much pleasure to so many for such a long time.
Evan Blythin, Chairman, Red Rock Citizens Advisory Council, noted his support for S.B. 358. Mr. Blythin indicated some people have said Clark County should limit growth within the Red Rock Overlay District, but the odds were against it. In 1999 and 2000 the Clark County commission approved 96.7 percent of all nonconforming zone changes and land use changes in Clark County, he indicated. Mr. Blythin said the county had on numerous occasions made onerous and troubling zoning decisions. Growth was uncontrolled and created a strain on the State and local governments, he concluded.
Richard Holmes, Assistant County Manager, Clark County, said the Red Rock Canyon was a source of pride. Mr. Holmes commented the boundaries of Summerlin had extended as far as 100 feet from the Red Rock Visitor Center, but had since been moved several miles back. He stated the county would have been concerned about the State’s encroachment on the county’s decision‑making abilities, but S.B. 358 was narrow and focused. Local governments maintained full authority for planning, zoning, and regulation of land use other than the specific limitations in section 8 of S.B. 358, he commented. Mr. Holmes offered an amendment for Clark County, deleting section 11, which dealt with the advisory question. The Legislature could always review the situation and make amendments as appropriate, he concluded.
Ed Rothfuss, Sierra Club, noted his full support of S.B. 358. He said he volunteered every week at the Red Rock Canyon information desk and talked to hundreds of people daily, about how much they loved Red Rock Canyon. Mr. Rothfuss urged the passage of the bill.
Pauline Van Betten, Member, Red Rock Overlay Task Force, stated many people have put forth a great effort to preserve Red Rock Canyon. She asked the committee to support S.B. 358 to protect the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area.
Walter Barbuck, Volunteer, Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area, said he supported S.B. 358. He noted it would be a shame to permit unfettered development for the area owned by James Hardie Gypsum.
Mark Beauchamp, stated no one wanted to visit Red Rock Canyon and view urban sprawl or to battle increased traffic from a city on Blue Diamond Hill.
Hermi Hiatt, President, Red Rock Audubon Society, noted she was concerned if the bill was not passed, many species of plants and animals would be threatened. Without the bill, zone changes could be requested constantly. She urged the passage of S.B. 358.
Jeremy Garncarz, Southern Nevada Conservation Director, Friends of Nevada Wilderness, said S.B. 358 was a good piece of legislation for a very special place. He said the legislation would ensure future residents of southern Nevada that the scenic and natural beauty of the area, the rural and historic character of the area, and the many recreational opportunities enjoyed would remain at a high quality.
Desiree Saporito, Sierra Club, said she was speaking on behalf of Marcia Forkos, chairman, Toiyabe Chapter of the Nevada Sierra Club. She noted the mission of the Sierra Club was to explore, enjoy, and protect the planet. She said she supported the overlay as written because it would minimize the impact of development.
Howard Booth, Sierra Club, noted his support for S.B. 358 to protect Red Rock Canyon. Blue Diamond Hill should not be developed because Red Rock Canyon would be put in danger, he said.
Terri B. Barber, Lobbyist, City of Henderson, said during the 107th Session of Congress, Henderson was successful in creating the Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area, adjacent to the city border. She noted they supported protecting the Red Rock Canyon area, like what was done for Sloan Canyon on the outskirts of Henderson.
Tina Nappe, Lobbyist, Sierra Club, noted her enthusiasm for Red Rock Canyon. Ms. Nappe said she and the Sierra Club wholeheartedly supported Senator Titus’ bill.
Mr. Wadhams said the Southern Nevada Homebuilders Association had taken an active role in conservation and responsible development. The community was becoming high density and they recognized preservation of sensitive areas was important. He concluded by noting his support for the bill.
Steven D. Hill, Lobbyist, Associated Builders and Contractors, Coalition for Fairness in Construction, Silver State Materials Corporation, Southern Nevada Concrete and Aggregates Association, stated his support of S.B. 358.
John Pappageorge, Lobbyist, Jim Rhodes, said Mr. Rhodes had purchased the James Hardie Gypsum mine. Beginning his presentation, Exhibit G, he noted the total area of the site was 2648 acres, outside the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area, but inside the boundaries described in S.B. 358. He indicated Congress passed legislation creating the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area with its own buffer. Additionally, Mr. Pappageorge said Congress prohibited the creation of additional buffer zones. He said “Congress does intend for the establishment of the conservation area to lead to a creation of a protective perimeter or buffer zone around the conservation area. The fact there might be activities or uses on lands outside the conservation area should not preclude such activities or uses of such lands up to the boundary of the conservation area to the extent consistent with other law.” He indicated S.B. 358 would adversely affect the mine site, which represented over 80 percent of the private property within the Red Rock overlay, and would be in direct conflict with federal law. Mr. Pappageorge further noted it was dangerous to allow the State to dictate permanent zoning restrictions, which should be left to the county. Senate Bill 358 was introduced because of the belief Red Rock Canyon was being destroyed, but the mine site had already ruined the serenity and pristine nature of the Red Rock Canyon area, he concluded. Mr. Pappageorge introduced a video, Exhibit H, stating S.B. 358 violated private property rights, usurped local control, placed an undue burden on the property owner, and suggested a taxpayer bailout for acquisition and reclamation of the mine site would cost in excess of $100 million.
Senator Titus responded to the video by stating Congress did not intend for the establishment of additional buffer zones, but it did not prohibit a buffer zone. She quoted Mr. Pappageorge: “It should not preclude such activities or uses of such lands up to the boundary of the conservation area to the extent consistent with other law.” Senator Titus explained existing law called for a rural designation for zoning and S.B. 358 would keep it a rural designation. The mine was not beautiful and reclamation would be nice, Senator Titus continued, but the mine would not demand increased infrastructure. She concluded S.B. 358 would not take away property rights; Mr. Rhodes bought the property after the bill was introduced with the knowledge that the land was zoned rural.
Senator Care asked when escrow on the mine site purchase closed and Leonard Grodzinsky, Attorney, answered the land closed last Friday. Mr. Grodzinsky noted he was not aware of when the land purchase deal had been accepted.
Senator Care asked if the 2648 acres were the total acreage of the Gypsum mine site. Mr. Grodzinsky responded the 2600 acres included the mine site and the land around the processing plant by Blue Diamond Road.
Senator Care noted current zoning allowed for the property to be developed with 1 house per 2 acres and the demand for such properties existed. He asked Mr. Pappageorge for a comment. Mr. Pappageorge said he was not aware of Mr. Rhodes’ plans for the property.
Senator O’Connell adjourned the meeting at 5:51 p.m.
Joseph Bozsik,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE: