MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
Sixty-seventh Session
February 4, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Val Z. Garner at 8:05 a.m., Thursday, February 4, 1993, in Room 330 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Val Z. Garner, Chairman
Mr. Rick C. Bennett, Vice Chairman
Mrs. Kathy M. Augustine
Mr. Douglas A. Bache
Mrs. Marcia de Braga
Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Mrs. Erin Kenny
Mrs. Joan A. Lambert
Mr. James W. McGaughey
Mr. Roy Neighbors
Mrs. Gene W. Segerblom
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Wendell P. Williams (Excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Mr. John Carpenter, District 33
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Dana Bennett, Research Analyst
OTHERS PRESENT:
Gary DiGrazia, City Counsel, City of West Wendover; Walter Sanders, Mayor, City of West Wendover; G.P. Etcheverry, Nevada League of Cities; Barbara McKenzie, Legislative Coordinator, City of Reno; Donald J. Cook, City Clerk, City of Reno; Jim Polkinghorne, Mayor, City of Elko; Lorry S. Lipparelli, City Manager, City of Elko; George Pyne, Operations Officer, Public Employees Retirement System of Nevada; Robert S. Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties; O.C. Lee, President, Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs; Paula Treat, Lobbyist/Consultant, Peace Officer's Research Association of Nevada; Marvin Leavitt, City of Las Vegas.
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 160 -Increases number of councilmen authorized in city of third class.
Mr. John Carpenter, District 33, introduced Walter Sanders, Mayor, City of West Wendover and Gary DiGrazia, City Counsel, City of West Wendover. He said A.B. 160 enabled the city council, in cities of third class, to increase membership to 5 council members. In addition to West Wendover, he identified Ely and Mesquite as being the only 3 cities in Nevada which would be affected by the bill, and he presented letters from the 2 other cities in support of A.B. 160 (Exhibit C).
Mr. DiGrazia explained the three provisions of the bill in more detail, and concluded by saying the best point of the bill was it was totally optional. The cities, themselves, could vote to increase the council.
Mr. Sanders stated why the City of West Wendover wanted to increase the city council to 5 members. He explained it was very difficult for a 3 member council to take an active role in the manner they wanted to as each member had too many duties to perform each one effectively and responsibly. He believed the council would be more effective with 5 members and there would be an even distribution of power. At the end of his testimony he said the Nevada League of Cities fully supported the bill for the same reasons.
Mrs. Segerblom wanted to know what the population was in West Wendover. Mr. Sanders replied the Nevada side of Wendover was approximately 3,500.
Mr. McGaughey asked what duties were performed by the councilmen beyond sitting on the council. He asked if West Wendover had subcommittees or boards which the members sat on. Mr. Sanders replied yes. There was an Airport Authority Board, Administrative Authority Water System, Recreational Board, National League of Cities, Nevada League of Cities, Nevada Association of Counties, and other committees and subcommittees at the city, county and state levels.
Mr. McGaughey questioned what the annual budget was of West Wendover. Mr. Sanders answered he believed it had been $2.7 million last year.
Mrs. Augustine questioned what population constituted a third class city. Mr. Sanders replied 5,000 or less. Mrs. Augustine then wanted to know what the population of Ely was. Mr. Sanders answered he believed Ely had been included because it had been incorporated under Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 266. He said A.B. 160 was an amendment to NRS 266. He did not believe Ely was a charter city. He added there had been only 3 cities incorporated under NRS 266, and felt that was why Ely was involved, not because of population. In conclusion Mrs. Augustine asked what the population of Mesquite was. Mr. Sanders answered he was fairly certain the population was under 5,000.
G.P. Etcheverry, Nevada League of Cities, supported A.B. 160. He gave the committee the history as to why Ely was also looking at retaining a 5 member council. Unlike Ely, Mesquite was a third class city, therefore, the league supported West Wendover and Ely for the passage of A.B. 160. To answer Mr. McGaughey's question, Mr. Etcheverry said in third class cities, the Mayor is the Chief Executive Officer. He in turn assigns each councilperson to oversee a division or a department. So, in addition to his normal duties of sitting on boards or committees, a councilperson was in charge of a function; public safety, public works, or general administration.
Mrs. Segerblom asked if only ward people voted in the ward or if it was a general election. Mr. Sanders replied they voted in wards in West Wendover. Mr. Etcheverry added third class cities voted by wards with the Mayor being voted at large.
The hearing on A.B. 160 was closed.
ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA MOVED DO PASS ON A.B. 160.
ASSEMBLYMAN MCGAUGHEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 166 -Changes time for election of certain officers of City of Reno.
Barbara McKenzie, Legislative Coordinator, City of Reno, stated A.B. 166 amended the Reno City Charter. She gave a brief history as to why the legislation was being requested and said the voters supported moving the elections from spring to fall by 76 percent. She then stated how the legislation would be enacted starting with the election of Spring, 1993. See (Exhibit D).
Mrs. Segerblom asked if the elections would coincide with the general election for President. Mrs. McKenzie replied, "As do all County Commissioners' elections." Mrs. Segerblom wanted to know if Mrs. McKenzie thought it would be confusing with everyone running for office. Mrs. McKenzie said 4 or 5 more officers would not make that much difference, the turnout would be better, and a considerable amount of money would be saved.
Mrs. Augustine asked if the line limitation was known on the voter ballot. Mrs. McKenzie deferred to Mr. Don Cook, City Clerk, City of Reno, who replied the line limitation did not pose a problem for the City of Reno.
Mr. Cook then made the following suggestions to amend A.B. 166, describing the changes as mechanical. The first was to Page 3, section 5, paragraph 1, which should be changed to coincide with the filing dates for other state offices. See (Exhibit E). The second change was on Section 5, number 3, line 46, which contained a grammatical error.
Mrs. Lambert wanted to know if transitory language was needed for the municipal elections of 1993 and 1995. Mr. Cook answered yes, stating some type of mechanism would be needed.
Chairman Garner asked Mrs. Lambert to work with Barbara McKenzie to prepare the amendments on A.B. 166. The hearing on A.B. 166 was closed with no action taken.
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 16 - Allows early retirement for firemen and police officers whose promotions or transfers are not within chain of command.
Jim Polkinghorne, Mayor, City of Elko, referenced Exhibit F and asked the committee to take 10 minutes to read the prepared documentation as he felt it better explained the reason for A.B. 16. Mr. Garner explained the committee would review the exhibit later and asked Mr. Polkinghorne to recap it for the committee, which he did. Mr. Polkinghorne related the experience of hiring a Chief of Police for the City of Elko from out of state, who, after being hired, was denied membership and coverage under the police and fire fund of the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS). A.B. 16 would change NRS 286.061 to allow membership and coverage in the system.
Lorry S. Lipparelli, City Manager, City of Elko, supported the bill, and added, "Primarily the reason we are here is because of the incident which arose from our hiring of Chief Songer, and even though the current statute covers police and fire, we believe it needs looking at to allow other management in police and fire the opportunity to be eligible for membership in the police and fire fund. Additionally, I believe the fact that, specifically in the police department, they are post certified. They are required by the State of Nevada to take an equivalency exam in the state of Nevada to be the Chief of Police. They are sworn officers with arrest powers, they are in uniform, they take an oath of office to uphold and enforce the laws of the city, state and counties. Also, they have a responsibility to the general public to act in the enforcement and protection of the public and public property. I think one of the key criteria here is the language of the existing statute that says the primary responsibilities, whether their primary responsibilities are administrative and management, is 90 percent and 10 percent when they are actually out in the field to make an arrest. If they fail to act responsibly, a Chief of Police, with all the arrest powers, sworn officer, badged, in uniform, firearms trained, I think they could be charged with dereliction of duty or malfeasance/misfeasance of office by not taking an action in order to uphold and protect the public within the state. In addition to that, it is our opinion, that their membership in the police and fire fund is an actuarial equivalent. We, as the participating public employer pays the 27 percent contribution for that employee into the membership of the police and fire fund. Currently under the regular PERS it is 18.47 percent or an 8.53 percent difference. In the past, as I understand it, the PERS contribution for police and fire has increased 1 percent per year in order to get that funding actuarially sound to pay the liability for the retirement in police and fire fund. I cannot speak on behalf of other cities and counties, but I know Elko, Nevada, would willingly pay the increased PERS percentage for our Chief of Police so that he be allowed membership into the police and fire fund."
Mrs. Augustine asked if the bill referred only to those who were hired from outside of the state. Mr. Lipparelli replied, for police and fire, yes. He added one of the benefits of membership into the police and fire fund was the opportunity for early retirement. Those who were not promoted from within, meaning those who came from outside the State of Nevada, who did not have 2 years prior service in police and fire, were not eligible for membership in the police and fire fund.
Mrs. Augustine then queried if retirement was prorated by the amount of time the person served within the city. Mr. Lipparelli said, "Correct, it would be based on the number of years of service."
Mr. Bennett was curious about the 20 1/2 years Chief Songer had served in the State of Washington, and asked if Mr. Songer had been in a retirement fund there. Mr. Lipparelli answered yes.
Mr. McGaughey asked if Chief Songer was drawing a pension from the retirement fund he had been in. Mr. Lipparelli said he was not.
Mr. Polkinghorne closed his testimony by saying he did not believe A.B. 16, as written, fully answered the situation his city had found itself in. He pointed out it was the terminology regarding "police officer means" with the State of Nevada in the language which was causing the difficulty. He felt even if the bill was amended, the requirement would still be 2 years of experience within the State of Nevada. Therefore, Mr. Polkinghorne did not believe the bill addressed the specific situation he had presented and thought the bill would have to be redrafted to do so.
George Pyne, Operations Officer, Public Employees Retirement System of Nevada, stated, "The retirement board has studied the provisions of A.B. 16 and has taken a position in opposition. The board feels the language change in the bill would, essentially, dilute the purpose of the promotional coverage language which is contained in NRS 286.042, subsection 2, and NRS 286.061, subsection 2." Mr. Pyne proceeded to divide his testimony into two parts, turning his attention to the bill first. He continued, "In regard to the bill, by way of background, the legislature in 1985 commissioned the retirement system to determine which positions should participate in the police and fire retirement system and would shift. It was a rather comprehensive study, the bottom line conclusion was those positions which really warrant coverage are those that are involved in the physical agility, emotional stability, and protecting the public from physical harm. What we are really talking about is front line fire fighting positions, front line police positions, and front line sheriff positions. When we did the study, we recognized the fact that if all we did was approve front line positions because they required the physical agility necessary to protect the public, we would have a potential problem because individuals in those front line positions might not want to promote up to lieutenant types of positions, or assistant chief positions, or whatever the case may be. A couple of adverse consequences would result because of that. One, we would end up with an older front line work force, which is not what the conclusion of the study was. Two, the police or fire chief would be deprived of employees with valuable experience in the upper levels of management. So, the only reason we allowed for continued coverage in the police and fire retirement fund was for people who promoted out of front line positions and to recognize the need to do that within a police or fire department. The bill itself removes the chain of command language." He then illustrated how a person, under A.B 16, could promote to an unrelated position with the same public employer and still qualify for the police and fire retirement fund. He said, "This again really dilutes the intent of what we were trying to do. The retirement board has reviewed positions like D.A. investigator, bailiff, and that type of thing, and determined they don't qualify for coverage in the police and fire retirement fund." Again, he expressed concern and said A.B. 16 would dilute the intent of the language which had been passed by the legislature in 1987.
Mr. Garner interrupted and asked if this action denied a person the opportunity to participate in regular PERS. Mr. Pyne said no, and added Chief Songer was participating in PERS as a regular member, but not in the police and fire fund.
Mr. Pyne next turned his attention to the comments made by Mr. Polkinghorne and Mr. Lipparelli. He said, "Their intent is, obviously, to allow them to hire someone from out of state, and to continue to participate in the police and fire retirement fund. The way this bill is worded, you could not do that because the promotional language says you have to be promoted or transferred." He then pointed to the language which could not be met by someone hired from out of state. He again stressed, "The only reason we put the promotional language for continued coverage in the police and fire retirement fund was to recognize the need that we need to retain a younger work force within a police or fire department, and to recognize the fact that a police or fire chief could certainly use the experience of his people who promote within a chain of command into positions that really don't require, any longer, physical agility and emotional stability of front line positions. Therefore, those are the reasons the board has taken a position in opposition to A.B 16."
Mr. Hettrick, for clarification, wanted to know what was the real question; early retirement which was not available in regular PERS, and a higher deposit rate? Mr. Pyne replied yes to the former, and said to the latter, "The benefits received from the system is not based on how much is put into the system in terms of contributions, it's based on years of service and the wage you are making. So, the real issue here is earlier retirement, or the primary one."
Mr. Hettrick, again clarified, there was no provision for someone to come out of another department or state and be considered to have moved up within the chain of command. Mr. Pyne concurred. He said the provision would apply only if the person was hired into a police or fire fighter position, not as a police or fire chief. In those cases the person would participate in the regular fund.
Mr. Hettrick queried if PERS would have a problem with adding language, without changing the current language and destroying the original intent, to allow a person to participate in the police and fire retirement fund. Mr. Pyne replied yes, and repeated his earlier reasons for having promotional language.
In answer to the next few questions, Mr. Pyne reiterated PERS position and said he did not feel there should be a way for someone who did not meet the qualification of the law to fit into the police and fire retirement system.
Mr. Bennett asked if the funds paid into the State of Washington's retirement system could be transferred. Mr. Pyne said the funds could not be transferred as there was no reciprocity.
Mr. Neighbors stated he vaguely remembered the study and cited an example of application. He said a good system was being tinkered with and it ought to be left alone.
Mr. Hettrick asked if Chief Songer could get more out of the retirement system by early retirement. Mr. Pyne said he did not know the details of Mr. Songer's case in terms of age, etc. He said he suspected Mr. Songer was vested with 20 years in the State of Washington. He then added, "At a certain age he could, possibly, draw a benefit from them as well as us. There will be no offsets as far as we're concerned when he receives the benefit based on his years of service through us. The benefit formula is the same for both police officers and regular members of the system. The primary difference is the eligibility. Police officers can retire at an earlier age. They can retire with 10 years at age 55, for example, versus 10 years at age 60 for a regular member."
Mrs. Kenny queried if Chief Songer would be able to draw retirement from the State of Washington. Mr. Pyne answered he did not know, but it was usually the case unless Mr. Songer had taken a refund.
Mrs. Kenny next questioned if Chief Songer was under the impression, at the time he accepted the position in Elko, he would be compensated under the police and fire fund. Mr. Pyne said it was his understanding he had been, but the statutes said otherwise, even though the City of Elko might not have been aware of it.
Mrs. Kenny asked if there had been formal, written correspondence to indicate Chief Songer would be enrolled in the police and fire retirement fund. Mr. Pyne said there had been none from PERS.
Mr. Garner wanted to know if it was possible, under the provisions of the proposed change, for a city, county or entity to participate in a program which would assist a person from out of state, who came here as an administrator, to buy out retirement time and, thus, encourage the person to leave early, given the fact the person would now be ineligible for early retirement under police or fire. Mr. Pyne said it was possible.
Robert S. Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties, sympathized with the City of Elko, but said the association guarded, very jealously, the retirement system of the State of Nevada. It was not fully funded in police and fire, and although the contribution rate for general government employees met the amortization of the program, the police and fire contributions were going up annually to meet the need of fully funding the system. Therefore, proposals to change the system could be construed as a basic change of the philosophy of the system and could not be supported. He addressed the transferability of experience and said it was an employment choice people made, just as he had when he came to the State of Nevada. In addition, those who made this choice were treated identically in the retirement system as any other administrator, as general government employees. The only ones who were given preferential treatment were those who were in the system, those who the state would like to encourage to accept management positions, those who could grow in their jobs so the state could take advantage of their professionalism and their experience. A.B. 16 would penalize those people by taking a benefit away from them. Mr. Hadfield concluded his testimony by saying, "We have a very fine retirement system which would be very attractive for a lot of people to come for retirement purposes only. Frankly, if that is the major motivation for accepting a top level, administrative position in police and fire, I think that is the wrong reason and do not wish to encourage that by changing the law. We support the retirement system and the retirement board in asking you to leave this legislation alone. It has worked very well. We have an unfortunate circumstance in the City of Elko. The salary of the police and fire chief is up to the city and county to determine. If they wish to make an adjustment in salary to compensate for what somebody perceives as a loss in retirement benefit, that is their prerogative, but we do not want to see this retirement system changed. The philosophy is well founded."
O.C. Lee, President, Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs, and representing the Professional Fire Fighters of Nevada, testified in opposition to A.B. 16. He supported all which had been said in opposing testimony, and gave an example of how out of state experience in police or fighting would impact the taxpayer should early retirement be elected by the person hired from out of state.
Paula Treat, Lobbyist/Consultant, Peace Officer's Research Association of Nevada, spoke in opposition to A.B. 16, echoing Mr. Hadfield's remarks.
Mr. Hettrick wanted to know how old Mr. Songer was. The reply was 47.
Mrs. Kenny asked Mr. Polkinghorne if a written agreement or a promise had been made to Mr. Songer to be in the police and fire fund. Mr. Lipparelli answered no. It had been a good faith effort by the City of Elko.
A discussion ensued as to how the passage of A.B. 16 would affect other cities in the state.
Mr. McGaughey wanted to know if the contract with the police chief was written or verbal. Mr. Lipparelli replied he was an appointed official, not reduced to writing.
Marvin Leavitt, City of Las Vegas, also indicated opposition to A.B 16. He said the system was fair and equitable. He, too, gave an experience of an out of state person hired as a fire chief. There had never been a request for membership in the police and fire retirement system, and he stated it would be inappropriate for the fire chief to be part of the early retirement system. Mr. Neighbors concurred with Mr. Leavitt's testimony using himself as an example.
The hearing on A.B. 16 was closed with no action taken.
Mr. Bennett presented an amendment to A.B. 12, explaining the changes as shown in Exhibit G.
Mrs. Freeman supported the amendment by saying the legislation was important to the State's recycling effort.
ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS ON A.B. 12.
ASSEMBLYMAN FREEMAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
As the last order of business, Mr. Garner requested committee introduction of the following bill draft request:
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 21-837 - Revises procedure for refunding surplus money from local improvement districts.
ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF B.D.R. 21-837.
ASSEMBLYMAN AUGUSTINE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 9:57 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
BETTY WILLS
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Government Affairs
February 4, 1993
Page: 1