Thank you for your comments in support of S. 1461 at the May 20 Public Lands, National Parks and Forests Subcommittee hearing. Your sponsorship and support of the proposed legislation is appreciated. It is my understanding that the hearing record remains open to receive additional comment on S. 1461. The Las Vegas YMCA requests that the comments below be included in the record to respond to the concerns of and to correct misstatements made by the Bureau of Land Management witness. The following responds to each of the five concerns identified by the BLM in its testimony in opposition to S. 1461: To the contrary, the United States would clearly benefit from the provision by the Las Vegas YMCA of recreational opportunities and public services. Facilitation of such service is the very purpose of the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. As you pointed out in your hearing comments, the goal of S. 1461 is to enable the Las Vegas YMCA (105) Honorable Chic Hecht to continue to provide its services to the Las Vegas community and to expand such service into the Henderson community. There can be no serious question that the United States benefits from such service. Indeed, our operating budget for 1985 to 1987 shows that, in the past three years, the Las Vegas YMCA has provided $2,856,000 in services to Southern Nevada. Much of this service has been in the form of free or subsidized membership for socially and/or economically disadvantaged children. Indeed, a study has shown that in 1987 alone we provided $250,000 of free or reduced-price services to underprivileged children. Our service also takes the form of physical education programs for more than two hundred severely mentally retarded and handicapped children, a diabetes program, juvenile court referral programs, and a head injury rehabilitation program for all ages. It would cost the local government many thousands of dollars each year to provide similar services if our YMCA program were not available. Further, our acquatics and summer programs serve thousands of children and provide a form of day care, solving a critical problem for many families, particularly those with low and fixed incomes. If the local government were to provide such programs in our absence, the cost would, over a period of years, easily run into the millions of dollars. If this bill does not pass, we will be forced to evaluate all our programs and eliminate some services. Plainly, if we are forced to eliminate programs, someone must fill the void. The burden of providing those services would likely fall to the local government. That Clark County faces the prospect of losing millions of dollars in social services which it would be obligated to replace is presumably one of the reasons for their strong support of this legislation. 2. The BLM believes the bill creates a federal subsidy. The "subsidy," if that term is appropriate, came twenty years ago, when the BLM, in apparent recognition of the value and benefit of our programs, transferred title to the Henderson land to the Las Vegas YMCA. That transfer was a good idea in 1969 and it is equally appropriate today. We do not doubt that in the usual case R&PP Act land should revert back to the Federal government if used for other than recreation and public purposes. Ours is not the usual case, however. One of the primary purposes of this legislation is to enable us to use a portion of our land for recreation and Honorable Chic Hecht Page 3 public purposes. Rather than contradicting the objectives of the transfer made to us twenty years ago, this legislation furthers those objectives. Because the purpose of this legislation is consistent with the goals of the Recreation and Public Purposes Act, it establishes no improper precedent. Moreover, the BLM recognizes that it is appropriate to lift R&PP Act restrictions in certain instances where the public interest is served. Indeed, several years ago the BLM waived those restrictions to enable us to sell some R&PP land to the State of Nevada for public transportation purposes. In addition, Congress itself has, on several occasions, recognized the need to remove such restrictions and has enacted appropriate legislation. The BLM erroneously suggests that enactment of S. 1461 would result in a "loss to the U.S. Treasury.' In fact, the BLM conveyed title to the parcel to the Las Vegas YMCA two decades ago. The BLM has not indicated that, in the event of a reversion, it would dispose of the parcel to gain funds for the U.S. Treasury. Rather, in public hearings in the House and Senate the BLM has offered only two alternative uses of the parcel either R&PP transfer to Clark County or transfer under the Burton-Santini Act to obtain other lands. Neither option would benefit the U.S. Treasury. Clark County has expressed no interest in taking an R&PP transfer and bearing the accompanying costs and expenses of providing the services which the YMCA could provide. Rather, Clark County strongly supports S. 1461. Further, any transfer under Burton-Santini could be accomplished only to the detriment of the Southern Nevada community a potential cost of millions of dollars of lost social services otherwise provided by the YMCA. This statement exposes the BLM's fundamental misunderstanding of the proposed legislation. The Las Vegas YMCA successfully emerged from its bankruptcy proceedings over three years ago. Today, our indebtedness is owed primarily to the United Way and to First Interstate Bank of Nevada. The Subcommittee can be assured that land sale proceeds will not be attached by creditors or divided up by a bankruptcy court as the BLM erroneously suggests. Honorable Chic Hecht Further, we have been willing to accept stipulations limiting the amount of land we are authorized to sell and restricting the use of proceeds. We only wish to sell that portion of the Henderson land which is in excess of our needs. Our Las Vegas facility sits on approximately five and one-half acres of land. Assuming an expanded ten-acre facility in Henderson, we would expect to sell approximately thirty of the forty acres we now own. We have no objection should the Committee wish to restrict our authority to the sale of thirty acres. Likewise, should the Committee decide to restrict use of land sale proceeds to capital construction and retirement of United Way advances, we have no objection. If stipulations are attached to this legislation, then the sale proceeds would be directed only toward our United Way debt and toward the development of a new facility on the retained portion of our Henderson land. No part of the proceeds would be directed toward any present or future creditor other than the United Way. 4. The BLM notes that there are two pre-existing The BLM points out that the Nevada Power Company and the Clark County Sanitation District hold easements which encumber the parcel. In addition to my position as Chairman of the Board of the Las Vegas YMCA, I also happen to be President of the Nevada Power Company. As such, I appreciate the BLM's concern for our pre-existing rights. Because, however, the bill transfers only the United States' interest in the land and does not extinguish valid existing rights, the two easements do not appear threatened. To the extent, however, the Subcomittee finds it appropriate to make technical revisions as to the existing rights-of-way, the Las Vegas YMCA had no objection. 5. The BLM finds the bill technically The BLM finds the bill "confusing" because it transfers the United States' entire interest in the parcel when, according to the BLM, it need only transfer the United States' reversionary interest. This is based upon the BLM's initial contention that the reverter is the United States' only interest. The BLM contradicts itself, however, by noting that, in addition to the reverter, the United States retains any mineral rights which may be on the land. Honorable Chic Hecht As written, the bill clearly requires the BLM to transfer all of the United States' remaining interest in the parcel. To the extent, however, the bill is technically revised to accomplish the same goal by extinguishing the reverter and transferring the mineral estate, we have no objection. We do oppose the BLM's suggestion that the United States retain mineral rights to the parcel. To my knowledge, in the twenty years of ownership by the Las Vegas YMCA, mineral rights have not been an issue and no mineral entry has been accomplished. The BLM should have no interest in managing mineral rights which have no value on a small parcel in private ownership. Thank you for including these comments in the S. 1461 hearing record. Sincerely, Charles Leugier Charles Lenzie |