MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
Sixty-seventh Session
March 18, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Val Z. Garner at 8:09 a.m., Thursday, March 18, 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
Mr. Wendell P. Williams
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Pete Ernaut (Excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Dana Bennett, Research Analyst
Lorne J. Malkiewich, Legislative Counsel
OTHERS PRESENT:
Paula Treat, Nevada Judges Association; Don Gladstone, Judge, Sparks Municipal Court, Nevada Judges Association; George Pyne, Operations Officer, Public Employees Retirement System of Nevada; David R. Parks, Assistant Director, Regional Transportation Commission; Marvin Leavitt, City of Las Vegas; Kirby Burgess, Clark County; Robert Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties; John Sherman, Washoe County; Nancy Howard, Program Assistant, Nevada League of Cities; Ted J. Finneran, Executive Director, Laughlin Chamber of Commerce; Donna Varin, Chief, Drivers License Division, Department of Motor Vehicles; Raymond L. Sparks, Chief, Registration Division, Department of Motor Vehicles; Myla Florence, Administrator, State Welfare Division.
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 308 -Provides that all judges and justices are entitled to retirement benefits calculated in same manner.
Lorne J. Malkiewich, Legislative Counsel, walked the committee through AB 308 section by section, defining what had been done as the bill was drafted. He explained the first few sections of the bill would amend Chapter 286, Nevada Revised Statute, Public Employees Retirement System (PERS), by allowing municipal judges and justices of the peace to have the same election supreme court and district judges had when their retirement provisions were converted over from PERS to a statutory benefit. He pointed out the applicable sections, and the language which would prohibit receiving benefits from both PERS and the statutory benefit.
Chairman Garner asked when judges would exercise their option to participate in PERS or the statutory benefit. Mr. Malkiewich replied under Section 3 all judges would have 2 years to exercise the option after passage of the legislation. He explained other judges who were not currently members of PERS, when elected, would automatically fall under the statutory benefit. If a judge was a member of PERS he could opt to remain a member, or under AB 308, if he qualified for a judicial benefit, he could make the selection to withdraw from PERS and rely entirely on the statutory benefit based on subsection 2. But, he explained, once the option was exercised a judge could not return to PERS, it was irrevocable. Further explanation of AB 308 followed.
Mr. McGaughey referenced the withdrawal of a judge under section 2, and questioned how Section 15, which stated the child of a deceased justice would draw a benefit from PERS, would apply. Mr. Malkiewich stated there would not be a benefit from PERS, but rather, the benefits would be measured the same way as the benefits for children under PERS. He added the statutory provision was not a qualified benefit plan, it was not a retirement plan.
Mr. McGaughey asked for the fiscal note and wanted to know how much it was. Mr. Malkiewich said the total amount had not been calculated because the amount was speculative. It was not known how many judges would withdraw from PERS.
Mrs. de Braga asked if the reduction from 1/4 to 1/6 in Section 7 lowered the pension now received. The reply was no, with an explanation why.
Mr. Garner said the vesting period was being lowered from 10 years to 8 years in AB 308. He added he understood the vesting period in PERS was 5 years, therefore the vesting period would be longer under the statutory benefit. Mr. Malkiewich agreed, adding there was a little more security in PERS because of the earlier vesting, and because prior service with another public employer could be counted toward PERS but not toward the judicial benefit.
Mr. Garner questioned how judges could be treated differently if the vesting period was 5 years in PERS. Mr. Malkiewich said a judge would have to withdraw from PERS. Again he explained the statutory benefit was not a retirement system. If it was, there would be serious problems with the Internal Revenue Service. Therefore, in order to make a system non-discriminatory, a parallel system had to be set up rather than amend Chapter 286 for judges.
Mr. Bennett said he had a copy of the fiscal note, and although it was difficult to determine what the amount might be, the assumption was if half of the present judges were to withdraw from PERS, the lifetime payout might be approximately $20 million. Mr. Malkiewich replied it was the lifetime payout beginning, "Who knows how many years in the future and spreading out into the future." He then said the amount was very difficult to determine and was highly speculative.
Mr. Bennett asked if there was potential for a significant liability. Mr. Malkiewich concurred.
Mr. Bache gave an illustration and asked if the service time had to be kept in PERS or in the statutory benefit. Mr. Malkiewich said he suspected, under the circumstances given, the person would be allowed 2 benefits as he had qualified independently for each.
Paula Treat, Nevada Judges Association, said the theory behind the bill was to have parity in the court system. A mass exodus of the judicial system from PERS was not expected, therefore, the fiscal note was hard to deal with. She said she expected more solid numbers prior to going to the fiscal committees. She concluded by saying, "We thought it was a very fair way to reach retirement for a system which is already separate from the regular retirement. We hope for your approval."
Mrs. Freeman questioned increasing the benefit for spouses of supreme court judges, and asked if AB 308 made it possible to do that. Ms. Treat replied, as written, no.
Mr. McGaughey asked for the range of salaries for justices of the peace and municipal court judges. Don Gladstone, Judge, Sparks Municipal Court, Nevada Judges Association, replied $58,000 to $62,000 in Northern Nevada, and $65,000 to $75,000, in the large metropolitan areas of Southern Nevada. A general, incremental difference applied in other jurisdictions by size. When asked what the differences were between municipal judges and justices of the peace, the answer was virtually none. Ms. Treat added quite a few judges served in both positions in the rural areas.
George Pyne, Operations Officer, PERS, said the retirement board had not had an opportunity to take a position on AB 308. However, retirement staff would recommend the board take a position in opposition to the legislation. He said the opposition was to the methodology proposed in AB 308, which 1) perpetuated an inequity already existing for district court judges and supreme court justices, and 2) the contribution paid by the city or county into the PERS system for a judge would not be paid out in a benefit from PERS, because the benefit would be paid out by the state of Nevada.
Mr. Bache wanted clarification regarding the contribution. It was determined local governments currently contributed to PERS for justices of the peace and municipal judges, but if a judge opted to fall under the statutory benefit, the state of Nevada would pay the benefit by direct appropriation of the Legislature.
Mrs. Segerblom asked if supreme court judges paid into the system. Mr. Pyne answered no, it was a "pay as you go" system appropriated by the Legislature.
The hearing on AB 308 was closed with no action taken.
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 315 -Requires governing bodies and boards of county commissioners to obtain approval of regional transportation commission of their services relating to benches and shelters for passengers of system of public transportation.
David Parks, Assistant Director, Regional Transportation Commission, Las Vegas, read prepared testimony (Exhibit C) explaining the purpose of the bill and submitted proposed amendments.
Mrs. Lambert said she thought the ADA covered all entities including governments. Therefore, she asked, "If the city or the county owned the bus stop, wouldn't it be responsible for meeting the ADA requirement?" Mr. Parks replied, "They might have some responsibility for that. The important factor, as we see it from our position, is should sanctions be taken they would be taken against the public transportation provided, because we are the ones providing the service to the general public."
Chairman Garner asked Mrs. Kenny to meet with Mr. Parks to work out the amendments on AB 315 and to bring them back to the committee for further action.
Marvin Leavitt, City of Las Vegas, testified he had been prepared to speak in opposition to AB 315, but said the proposed amendments might change his position. He then asked to work with Mrs. Kenny and Mr. Parks.
Kirby Burgess, Clark County, concurred with the new direction
AB 315 was taking and asked to be included in working out the solution.
Robert Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties, suggested everything did not need to be put into the statutes, but rather, it could be worked out between the entities.
John Sherman, Washoe County, concurred with Mr. Hadfield and said the matter should be a local issue which could be worked out with the local RTC.
Mr. Garner invited both Mr. Hadfield and Mr. Sherman to work with Mrs. Kenny and Mr. Parks.
Nancy Howard, Program Assistant, Nevada League of Cities, also asked to be included.
The hearing on AB 315 was closed with no action taken.
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 322 -Requires establishment in Laughlin of branch offices for department of motor vehicles and public safety and for welfare division of department of human resources.
Assemblyman Segerblom, District 22, introduced Ted J. Finneran, Executive Director, Laughlin Chamber of Commerce, and pointed to Laughlin as a fast growing community needing more attention. She said Laughlin would soon be the third largest city in the state. The gaming tax from Laughlin had been $28.5 million in 1991, and $32 million in 1992, not including other taxes such as sales tax or business license tax. In addition, the room tax had been $2.5 million for fiscal year 1990-1991, and $3.4 million in fiscal year 1991-1992. She referenced Exhibit D, asking the committee to read it, and turned the floor over to Mr. Finneran.
Mr. Finneran said AB 322 meant a lot to the community as the City of Laughlin had been experiencing unlimited growth for the last 10 years. It was difficult and problematic for the 8,000 residents and the 15,000 employees of the city to live 100 miles from the county seat which offered needed services. In order to draw employees to the city, it had been necessary to advertise nationally. But once people arrived, in order to legally register their vehicles, a drive to Las Vegas was required to have the vehicle inspected and the VIN verified. Many people failed to do this. He continued his testimony by giving the committee statistics regarding the money Laughlin contributed to the state; the size of Laughlin versus the services the city did not have and which other communities took for granted: DMV, Welfare and etc.; and the funds Laughlin currently received from other agencies including the federal government. He then recommended different ways Laughlin could work with the state to provide offices for the needed services AB 322 requested. In conclusion, Mr. Finneran gave the committee more statistics, and said the people of Laughlin were doing their part financially and should be able to have state offices in the town.
Mr. Neighbors asked how often DMV visited Laughlin, the reply was 2 times a month for driver's licensing only. A discussion followed regarding the current licensing process, the fiscal impact which was unknown at this time, and the traffic condition of the roads into Laughlin.
Mrs. Freeman questioned if Laughlin was an unincorporated city. Mr. Finneran replied it was a township. More discussion followed regarding new water plant funding, child care and welfare services, housing, and sewer capacity.
Mr. McGaughey agreed Laughlin needed a DMV office, but due to a lack of funding, he suggested contracting or cross training someone to provide the service in another state office. Mr. Finneran agreed it might be possible, suggesting DMV and welfare could share an office.
Donna Varin, Chief, Drivers License Division, Department of Motor Vehicles, said the department currently visited Laughlin twice a month, providing 4 staff members, each at 20 hours, for a total of 80 hours of service. She asked to work with the committee to establish what the costs would be for a facility in Laughlin.
Mr. Garner wanted to know how extensively the service was being used. Ms. Varin said the department was currently licensing 1400 residents a year, an amount equal to the Pahrump office which had a full service office. When asked by Mr. Garner if Laughlin should have a full service office, Ms. Varin said the recommendation from the driver's license side was a full time driver's license examiner who could perform all services. The travel services could then be discontinued and relocated to other offices throughout the state. She did point out though, the registration division did not provide those services at this time and it would require new staff in addition to the services for the area.
Mr. McGaughey questioned if there would be a way to work everything out before the bill reached the Committee on Ways and Means. Ms. Varin stated the division would be able to show what the costs were, and in working with Laughlin, she believed some of the costs did include the development facility.
Mr. McGaughey then asked if it would be possible to share staff and space with another agency under the way the division operated. Ms. Varin replied she was not sure. She said Welfare was a general funded agency, and DMV was a highway funded agency. The monies, constitutionally, could not be spent for general fund purposes or vice versa, but sharing space was possible. Further discussion followed concerning interlocal agreements, and the total number of people who would be serviced if Las Vegas was eliminated.
Raymond L. Sparks, Chief, Registration Division, Department of Motor Vehicles said his department had looked at the total number of registered vehicles in the Laughlin area and determined it was approximately 6000. He said when the state provided services in an area such as Laughlin, it cost the state money. Therefore, it was a policy question for the legislature, whether the services were worth the expenditure.
When asked by Mrs. Augustine if the one full time person included only driver's license registration or vehicle registration as well, Mr. Sparks replied there would be two registration division employees and one driver's license division employee, each cross trained to back each other up.
Myla Florence, Administrator, State Welfare Division, presented prepared testimony (Exhibit E) which also contained a fiscal note, as well as other pertinent operating costs.
Chairman Garner closed the hearing on AB 322 and assigned Mrs. Segerblom to chair a subcommittee consisting of Mr. McGaughey and Mrs. Freeman.
Chairman Garner requested committee introduction of BDR 23-687.
ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF
BDR 23-687.
ASSEMBLYMAN de BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Garner said he intended to ask the committee for a vote to reconsider AB 8 when all committee members were present, and to entertain another motion to change the length of time from 3 months to 4.
There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
BETTY WILLS
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Government Affairs
March 18, 1993
Page: 1