MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
Sixty-seventh Session
June 4, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Val Z. Garner at 8:08 a.m., Friday, June 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
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:
Assemblyman Chris Giunchigliani, District 9
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Dana Bennett, Research Analyst
OTHERS PRESENT:
Bonnie James, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce; John Pappageorge, Clark County; Marvin Leavitt, City of Las Vegas; Jan Laverty Jones, Mayor, Las Vegas; John Sherman, Washoe County; and Kurt Fritch, City of Henderson.
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 641 -Provides specifically for certain consolidations of local governmental services.
Assemblyman Chris Giunchigliani, District 9, testified, "In Osborne and Gablers book, Reinventing Government, they reflect in the preface that the people's lack of confidence in governments stems not from what governments should operate but instead on how governments should operate. Government exists to serve its citizens, in other words its customers. Yet those in government don't seem to think of the taxpayer as a customer. People want not only value from government services but they want to feel valued as well. Those of us in government, as well as those of us who are taxpayers, have all too often witnessed the arrogance of the bureaucracy. That is what this bill is all about. Despite the bureaucratic quagmire and the administrative fears, we must recognize, in Nevada, we have changed. The Nevada that you all grew up in, or those of us who chose to move to, is no longer the Nevada that was. The good old boy network is outmoded and improper. The games for the sake of games, the protection of turf and power is intolerable, and the lack of vision, planning and willingness to buck the system is unacceptable. Those of us who believe we can do better believe that one mechanism is through the consolidation of governmental services and governmental entities. The issue of governmental entities, though, would take a constitutional amendment, and I would hope that this committee might consider something along those lines so that, at least, we can give the people an opportunity to vote down the road. However, this bill is simply enabling legislation which allows elected officials to sit down and attempt to agree on service delivery areas for consolidation. We must make government user-friendly, efficient, and competitive. If you have a bloated administration and duplicate departments, you create an atmosphere that is ripe for cronyism and ineffectiveness. My district that I represent is located in the City of Las Vegas. The services they need are many and they are willing to pay for it. All they want to know is if the money is being well spent. It is difficult to not be able to properly explain why we have the need for two parks, two public works, two transportation. I could go on and on and on. If you start thinking about it, court systems and so on and so forth. Las Vegas, in my opinion, is ready for a change, and I am not talking about change for change sake, but true substantial change for better government and the people that it serves." Ms. Giunchigliani then presented an amendment (Exhibit C) to make the legislation fully enabling rather than mandatory, and allow Clark County and the City of Las Vegas to work together and, hopefully, reach a compromise on consolidation.
Mrs. Augustine asked if the language was being changed as a result of a meeting with Mayor Jan Jones. Ms. Giunchigliani replied, "You are absolutely right," with explanation.
Bonnie James, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, supported AB 641 with the proposed amendment. She told the committee the chamber had supported consolidation in Clark County as far back as the '70s and had been working very diligently during the last two years with staff, from both the county and the city, to look at different areas of services which could be combined to make things more efficient.
Mr. McGaughey wondered if the population threshold should be lowered to cities and counties over 100,000 to give Reno and Washoe County the same ability. Ms. Giunchigliani replied she would have no objection.
John Pappageorge, Clark County, testified Clark County supported AB 641 with the proposed amendment, but he pointed out, although permissive, the language on Page 2, line 11, in its present form, added another layer of bureaucracy.
Mrs. de Braga referred to Section 2, subsection 2, and asked if the language did not cover smaller counties. Mr. Pappageorge answered it would appear so. Marvin Leavitt, City of Las Vegas, agreed. Mrs. de Braga then commented living in a county which only had one town with two governments, she wished the word "must" had stayed in the language.
Mr. Hettrick stated he agreed with Mrs. de Braga but he had a problem with the language at the end of Section 2, subsection 2, which said....going back to Section 2, subsection 1, he did not see what the manner was, therefore, he found the language vague.
Ms. Giunchigliani replied according to constitutional language it was necessary to maintain uniformity, which was what that area of the language did.
Chairman Garner clarified the language in Section 2, subsection 2, made it permissive for all other counties. Ms. Giunchigliani answered, "I believe it is and, if you need to make it clearer, I have no problem with doing it that way."
Mrs. Segerblom questioned if Henderson or North Las Vegas could join if they wanted to. Ms. Giunchigliani said yes, or if they wanted to they could do it themselves within a structure. She then said interlocal agreements could be worked out. Mr. Leavitt agreed.
Mrs. Lambert mentioned the legislation would be statewide, therefore, she questioned if it was necessary to be specific regarding Section 3, revenues which would be shared, because revenues would vary from county to county. Her thought was revenues could be worked out within an interlocal agreement, if entered into. Mr. Leavitt explained there was a problem with the revenues. He said, "As you might well recognize, the county receives revenues because they are a county. They also receive certain revenues because they essentially offer municipal type services. This does not differentiate between those type of revenues, so if you provide a very strict interpretation of this, the county could end up paying much more than what would actually be proper for any particular service because they are receiving both those types of revenues." Referencing the amendment, he indicated the better language would be for the city and the county to negotiate among themselves to determine the contribution for a particular service. He then gave an example of how it would work. Ms. Giunchigliani suggested Page 2, subsection 2, line 11, might take care of the concern to allow for an interlocal.
Mr. Ernaut asked how general improvement districts would be affected by AB 641. Ms. Giunchigliani responded general improvement districts would not be affected by the bill. Mr. Leavitt added, "This bill deals with an area in the statute that allows for interlocal agreements between political subdivisions. A general improvement district, if they desired to enter some kind of agreement with the county, could do that under existing law, but they definitely would not be forced to do it by this bill."
Jan Laverty Jones, Mayor, City of Las Vegas, said, "When the report that was conducted by Ernstein Young on feasibility of reorganizing city and county government, looking at potential savings which could be achieved just in combining duplicative management services, there was upwards of $23 million per year. The city and the county, upon presentation of their report, assigned two committees to represent both entities to begin looking at consolidating services. At the moment they are thinking of beginning with municipal courts, and sewer and sanitation which were recommended by the consultants as offering the maximum savings. This legislation would allow us to proceed. We see it only as enabling, they are just beginning to process. But without this legislation we couldn't move forward."
Mrs. Freeman referred to reorganization and said she felt the focus was, oftentimes, on saving money rather than performance and service to the public. She then asked if saving money was the real concern. Ms. Jones replied, "It is only one of the concerns. The study was asked to identify three major issues. The first being responsiveness: what structure would be most responsive to the taxpayer; the second was efficiency, efficiency and delivery of those services; the third was cost effectiveness." She pointed out the study was not approached from the standpoint of just saving money. Ms. Giunchigliani agreed, stating the reasons why.
Mrs. Segerblom mentioned the outlying, unincorporated areas and asked if they would come under the consolidation. Ms. Jones responded if the county took over sewer and sanitation, it would be a matter of which entity would deliver the service. Ms. Giunchigliani added there were six states studied and, at times, whoever had the better delivery system was the one selected to perform the service. Ms. Jones agreed service delivery levels was one of the key factors to be evaluated.
John Sherman, Washoe County, concurred with the change on Page 1, line 16, changing "shall" to "may," and Mr. Leavitt's suggestion regarding revenues, making them negotiable.
Kurt Fritch, City of Henderson, stated he was not against the bill but he wanted to comment on it. He told the committee the City of Henderson did not have a problem with AB 641 as long as it was permissive. His concern was Clark County and Las Vegas eventually rolling into one major metropolitan government. He said it would cost Henderson $10.5 million per year if it did one day come to pass. He stated North Las Vegas and Boulder City would be impacted as well. In closing, he said, "This legislation, today, does not have an impact on that but, down the road, that is potentially what we are looking at."
Mrs. Segerblom said she had questioned and been assured the two entities would not roll into one government.
Mrs. de Braga said the bill only addressed services, not consolidation of governments. Mr. Fritch agreed but added the concept, although not an actuality today, had been bounced around down south. Further discussion ensued.
Mr. Williams asked if the bill was for the specific purpose of saving money for city and county budgets or showing the taxpayers a reduction in the amount of money they were paying for services. Mr. Fritch countered, "I think there is also the efficiency question and it's quite clear a bureaucracy of 10,000 people has a lot more layers to go through than a bureaucracy of 800." He then gave an illustration of how a service was performed in Henderson versus the same service performed within a large governmental entity. When asked the same question, Ms. Giunchigliani replied, "Just by consolidating you also can decentralize which then makes it more user-friendly. There are two ways you look at the dollars. That is the tax structure, which we did not deal with in this bill." She next proceeded to explain the dual tax structure, which was addressed in the study, and how it would be resolved by the entities. Continuing, she said property tax would probably not be lowered but it might stabilize for a period of time.
Mr. Williams next asked how smaller items, such as licenses, would be impacted. Ms. Giunchigliani responded, "That should be an unresolved, and hopefully, if AB 153 passes from Government Affairs, that will help assist with the state having to work with locals so we are not duplicating those forms which, and of itself, should also drive the cost down for that fee. Many of your administrative costs are built into your fees so if you begin to cut some of that administration down that should have a direct impact on that." Mrs. Jones added the consultants stressed not only saving money by consolidation but looking for ways to protect those savings, either by a reduction in fees or by a rebate. In closing, she said, "It really depends on those people who are working to implement."
Chairman Garner asked if the proposals had the full support of the City Council and the Clark County Commission. Ms. Giunchigliani said she did not know. Mrs. Jones said they were not unanimously in support of consolidation. They were unanimously in support of putting together committees to look at ways of improving efficiencies, with an eye to saving money through consolidation of services.
Mr. Garner explained the committee was going to vote on AB 641 to amend and do pass. He directed Ms. Giunchigliani to obtain the appropriate amendments which would come back to the committee for review before being dropped. A discussion followed thereafter regarding what would be amended.
ASSEMBLYMAN KENNY MOVED AMEND & DO PASS ON AB 641.
ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 36 - Urges persons in charge of state buildings to display flag of National League of Families of American Prisoners and Missing in Southeast Asia.
Mr. Hettrick referenced Exhibit E, the revised amendment, and said it answered the questions which had been raised. He then explained what changes had been made.
ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED AMEND AND ADOPT ACR 36.
ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 624 -Revises procedures concerning applications for water rights.
Mr. Bennett referred to Exhibit F, a memo from Fred Welden with proposed amendments, explaining the subcommittee had met and had agreed to the direction which would be taken. He then reviewed the changes with the committee.
ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS ON AB 624.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.
In further discussion of the motion, various members of the committee voiced positive opinions regarding Honey Lake, water speculation, and the handling of the issues by means of AB 624.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
SENATE BILL NO. 49 - Revises procedure for payment of claim from state treasury made pursuant to legislative appropriation or authorization.
Mr. Neighbors said the problems with AB 49 had been resolved and he presented the proposed amendment to the committee. He said there would be a fiscal impact of $400,000 if the bill was not passed, explaining why.
ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MOVED AMEND & DO PASS ON SB 49.
ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
BETTY WILLS
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Government Affairs
June 4, 1993
Page: 1