MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
Sixty-seventh Session
February 11, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Val Z. Garner at 8:10 a.m. Thursday, February 11, 1993, in room 101/102 of the Cashman Field Center, Las Vegas, 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
Mr. Pete Ernaut
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
Mr. Wendell P. Williams
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ms. Dana Bennett
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mr. Mark Aston, Clark County; Mr. Don Charleboix, Las Vegas Constable.
ASSEMBLY BILL 40 - Abolishes certain duties of county treasurer.
Mr. Mark Aston, representing Clark County, indicated this legislation was the result of an audit done on Clark County Treasurer's office to determine compliance with NRS 249.110. Mr. Aston said in the course of the audit, the external auditors found various statutes which were outdated. He noted the treasurer's office was nearly fully automated in the tax collection and receipting process.
Mr. Aston referenced Section 1, Subsection 2, stating the treasurer's office no longer dealt strictly in cash, which would make it difficult to exhibit the money collected to the county commissioner.
Regarding Section 2, Subsection 1, Mr. Aston indicated the county treasurer provided the required information to the board on a monthly basis, receipts were automatically entered into the computer system and the books of the county comptroller, and reconciled on a daily basis, which made this section inapplicable.
Mr. Aston felt repeal of NRS 249.160 was necessary as deposits were automatically done on a daily basis.
Mr. Bache asked Mr. Aston for clarification of the repealed text in regard to the other 16 counties, indicating some of the other counties might not be automated to the same extent as Clark County.
Mr. Aston stated these statutes basically covered counties like Washoe and Clark. He said a proviso could be added to include only counties over 200,000.
Mr. Neighbors queried Mr. Aston if the state fiscal officers supported this legislation.
Mr. Aston replied he had only discussed this with Washoe fiscal officers as Washoe and Clark were the only two counties it applied to.
Mrs. Augustine asked why the language in Section 2 could not be just clarified to indicate "monthly" rather than "annual" instead of deleting it altogether. She also felt NRS 246.160 could also be changed to reflect current practices rather than repealed.
Mr. Aston agreed with Mrs. Augustine, stating, "I wouldn't have a problem if 'Annually make complete statements with the board of county commissioners' says that, 'statements will be made to the board of county commissioners on a monthly basis,' and you may want to include in there that these statements could be made from automated reports." He also said regarding NRS 249.160 the county had not done orders in that manner for about 25 years and the statute would not apply at all as it was done on a daily basis.
There being no further testimony Chairman Garner asked Mr. Bache to check with NACO to see if there would be any concerns with the other counties. The hearing on AB 40 was closed.
ASSEMBLY BILL 41 - Clarifies provision relating to claims for reimbursement of constable for executing writ.
Maggie Green representing Clark County stated Don Charleboix, Clark County Constable, who had asked for this bill to be introduced, had not arrived but was on his way to testify.
Chairman Garner indicated the committee would take a break until Mr. Charleboix arrived. Meeting temporarily adjourned at 8:21 a.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:53 a.m.
Mr. Don Charleboix, Clark County Constable, testified in favor of AB 41 indicating it was simply a language change. He stated in the last session of the legislature it was elected to allow the constable to serve papers from any court of competent jurisdiction rather than only justice of the peace courts. He pointed out the language in AB 41 indicated the constable could only go back to the justice of the peace to collect reimbursement; this change would allow the constable to return to the court of jurisdiction for reimbursement.
Mr. McGaughey asked Mr. Charleboix if he was serving the papers for the other courts. Mr. Charleboix indicated he was but was unable to be paid by those courts except for special circumstances. He stated anything done for local district courts over and above what was presently allowed by law would not be paid for.
Mr. McGaughey questioned what was presently allowed by law.
Mr. Charleboix stated constables would be paid for serving subpoenas, small claims and other legal papers as spelled out by statute. He said those not paid for would be, "...for instance, the district court issues a pick up on a vehicle, and it takes my deputy three hours to get the vehicle, or myself, I can't back-bill for that three hours to the district court, I have to go to a J.P. who does not have jurisdiction."
Mrs. Segerblom asked if this change would include all the courts.
Mr. Charleboix replied it would include any court of competent jurisdiction from within or without the state.
There being no further testimony Chairman Garner closed the hearing on AB 41, indicating action would be reserved until return to Carson City. Chairman Garner stated there was no opposition to the bill.
There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 9:02 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
LINDA FEATHERINGILL
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Government Affairs
February 11, 1993
Page: 1