MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
Sixty-seventh Session
April 28, 1993
The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:00 p.m., on Wednesday, April 28, 1993, in Room 227 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
Senator Sue Lowden, Vice Chairman
Senator William J. Raggio
Senator Dean A. Rhoads
Senator Thomas J. Hickey
Senator Leonard V. Nevin
Senator Matthew Q. Callister
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman James A. Gibbons, District 25
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Caren Jenkins, Principal Research Analyst
Tanya Morrison, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mike Sommers, President, North Lake Tahoe Fire District Board
Steve Snyder, County Manager, Lyon County and Fire Chief, Central Lyon Fire District
Martin Bibb, Lobbyist, Nevada State Fireman's Association
John Swendseid, Lobbyist, Clark County
Lisa Foster, Lobbyist, City of Sparks
Steve Elliott, Attorney, City of Sparks
Marvin Leavitt, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas
Judy Matteucci, Director, Department of Administration
Bob Seale, Treasurer, State of Nevada
Chairman O'Connell opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 143.
ASSEMBLY BILL 143: Makes various changes regarding county fire protection districts. (BDR 42-255)
James A. Gibbons, Assemblyman, District 25, spoke in favor of A.B. 143. He told the committee he was the principal sponsor of this bill. He explained this bill represents the legislative process at its best. He stated the bill, in essence, was required by the North Lake Tahoe Fire Prevention District, a 474 fire protection district, which is a district with an elected board of directors to manage it. He explained this kind of district has an elected board and this bill proposes a change of three members to five members. He pointed out this bill also allows for a permissive increase of the amount that each board member is entitled to receive for service on the board of the fire protection district, to a maximum of $6,000 per year. He stated this was requested because of the amount of time and commitment each of these members had to make and they are requesting the ability to expand this up to a maximum. He explained there is a great deal of work that goes into one of these committees and a great deal of time that is spent by these individuals and the current $1800 maximum per year was totally inadequate for compensating these individuals for their time committed to this board.
Chairman O'Connell asked where the money comes from that pays the members of the board.
Mike Sommers, President, North Lake Tahoe Fire District Board, told the committee his primary source of revenue to support the fire district is Ad Valorem taxes and the SECRT taxes. He explained they have an ancillary amount of revenue from the paramedic ambulance service that provides the EMS (emergency medical service) service to all the residents and visitors within their fire district.
Chairman O'Connell stated the $6,000 seemed like an excessive amount of money. She asked how many meetings the members attend on an annual basis.
Mr. Sommers stated they average between 18 and 24 meetings per year. He explained they also have general improvement districts which are in the same existing revenue base and the improvement districts are permissive up to $6,000 per year. He further explained they must have people sit on the board who are good business-decision people, because their primary function as fire district commissioners is the oversight of the budget and administrative authority. They leave everything else as far as personnel up to the administration. He explained they have an assessed valuation of approximately $546 million and they have an annual budget of approximately $5 million. He further explained
the size of their district is approximately 49 individuals with 9 paramedics, 31 linemen and approximately five administrative staff including the full-time mechanics and three dispatchers.
Chairman O'Connell asked if the commissioners are paid $80 a meeting.
Mr. Sommers replied no, they receive compensation of $150 per month which is a flat fee per month regardless if they have one, three or five meetings per month. He explained the average time he spends with the fire district as president of the board is approximately 4 to 8 hours per week. He told the committee it is very difficult for the board members to meet and have functions with the open meeting law. He in fact, was expecting another board member here today so they were going to post to have a meeting here because of the fact they only have three members. He explained there are quite a few projects the board works on including assisting with the administration, contract negotiations, grievance hearings with the union, organizational workshops, appearances before advisory boards, appearances before the county commissioners, medical control board hearings, town hall meetings, meetings for planning capital projects and briefings after any kind of fire or emergency. He told the committee each one of the board members is on one of the committees or assists the administration in working with this and with the line personnel.
Mr. Gibbons explained even if it were a 4 hour per week requirement it is 200 hours per year, which is minimal. Their wage would be $30 per hour at the current rate. He told the committee they have a problem getting qualified, interested individuals to be a part of this board because it takes an extraordinary amount of time out of their schedule to be a part of this. He pointed the amount they are requesting is permissive and not mandatory which will allow them to raise it up to that amount if they wish, but it is not a requirement. He stated he doubts they will at this point in time.
Senator Hickey asked if there were any vacancies on the board at this time.
Mr. Sommer stated there was no vacancy at this point.
Senator Hickey asked how long the present commissioners had been on the board.
Mr. Sommer stated the term is 4 years and they have one commissioner who just began his first 4 year term this year and the other two commissioners, including himself, are in the opposite 4 year term.
Senator Hickey pointed out if the board members took the maximum number of meetings of 24 their present salary comes down to about $75 a meeting, but if they go to the maximum which is suggested it will increase their pay to $250 per meeting. He stated he is not sure policy makers should be included in negotiations for wages and so forth, but that is just how he feels. He also stated they will probably run into some objections to the $6,000 figure.
Mr. Gibbons told the committee there already is in statute a place for a general improvement districts, with members elected like this board by the public, for a permissive amount of expanding the reimbursement up to that amount under a 318 of the statutory scheme. He explained what they are doing with this bill is paralleling the same type of reimbursement scheme which is already in place under the statutes permitted for general improvement districts. Incline Village is a general improvement 318 district. He further explained they ask for this increase because of the amount of work required and the fact that they are elected officials.
Senator Hickey stated this is still a policy making board, but he does understand now where they came up with the dollar amounts in this bill.
Mr. Gibbons explained the other part of this bill is contained in section 1 which is an amendment which was composed by Assemblyman Dini for his Lyon County conversion of their fire protection district. They wish to be converted from a (NRS) 474.540 (Nevada Revised Statutes) district which has been established for greater than 10 years. He stated that type of fire protection district is one that is regulated by the county commissioners and they want to convert their fire protection district to an elected board similar to what is under the statutes for the North Lake Tahoe Fire Protection District. He pointed out this is simply enabling language and they also requested the amendment that is before the committee (Exhibit C). Mr. Gibbons stated the language in the amendment allows for a conversion from 3 to 5 members to be permissive within the district, at a decision of the board of directors. He explained this bill in essence permits Lyon County to convert from a NRS 474.540 district to a NRS 474.050 type statutory district.
Steve Snyder, County Manager, Lyon County and Fire Chief, Central Lyon Fire District, spoke in favor of A.B. 143. He stated they also support the amendment that is proposed (Exhibit C). He explained there are only two Lyon County Commissioners who reside within the Central Lyon County Fire District and common sense tells a person that the commissioners should reside within the district they govern, therefore he states they do support this bill.
Chairman O'Connell asked if this was discussed during a regular county commission meeting so there was input from the public and she also asked if there was any opposition to this.
Chief Snyder replied this was discussed in open meeting and agenda meetings both for the Central Lyon County Fire District as well as the Lyon County Board of Commissioners. He explained traditionally the Central Lyon Fire District has been meeting outside the district down in Yerrington which is about 30 miles distance from that district.
This is one more reason why they are supportive of this bill. He added all seven volunteer fire chiefs and 300 volunteers are very supportive of this measure.
Senator Lowden asked if Chief Snyder thought he might have a problem coming on board if there is no increase in salary.
Chief Snyder stated he did not feel there was any concern with the salary and they have had overwhelming response of people wanting to be appointed for that first term before the general election, so he feels there will be competition for appointment to those positions.
Senator Raggio asked about the new language in section 5, subsection 3 beginning at line 7 which he feels adds new authority to the board of directors to organize, regulate, establish and disband fire companies and fire departments.
Mr. Gibbons explained to the committee that language is a carry over from the existing statutory language which is permissive within a NRS 474.540 (Nevada Revised Statutes) district and they wanted to bring it into the fact that allows the board of directors to do, in essence, what the county commissioners have been doing in establishing these types of fire protection districts. It does not, in essence, do away with fire protection districts, but allows them to make decisions within the district of establishing a fire department wherever the need is necessary. He pointed out this is a parallelling statutory scheme which brings that enabling language out of one section and puts it into the statutes under which we have an elected board of directors, giving it the same authority.
Senator Rhoads asked if the fiscal note will change since this bill has been amended twice.
Mr. Gibbons stated the only effect it would have on local government would be whether or not the amount of tax revenues raised for each fire district would be utilized in whatever dollar amount for the compensation or increased compensation for each board member as decided upon by individual boards.
Senator Rhoads asked if the smaller districts, like his, are taken into consideration.
Mr. Gibbons stated the amount is permissive which means they may, but any elected board of directors would certainly be cognizant and very aware of the public interest in this matter should they decide to raise those fees. After all, they are elected by the vote of the people.
Martin Bibb, Lobbyist, Nevada State Fireman's Association, stated they are in support of A.B. 143 with the proposed amendment (Exhibit C), because this is permissive and allows the individual fire district to consider either a three or five member board and he feels this makes sense as to the geographical disparity among many counties in the state.
Chairman O'Connell asked Mr. Bibb if the people he represents had any problem with the statement of up to, but not to exceed the $6,000.
Mr. Bibb stated the remarks he heard from the association president were much the same as Mr. Snyder with the Central Fire Lyon District and that is they had not really addressed the issue of money and it was not their main concern. He explained their concern was being bound to a five person board when a three person board would work more effectively for them.
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 143 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 198.
ASSEMBLY BILL 198: Revises procedure for refunding surplus money from local improvement districts.
John Swendseid, Lobbyist, Clark County, spoke in favor of A.B. 198. He gave the committee written testimony, see Exhibit D. He told the committee this bill is a technical bill to clear up a procedure in the statutes having to do with a refund of surplus assessment districts. He explained an assessment district is a district the local government creates within its boundaries that it uses to pave streets or install a water line. He said it then assesses the cost of that paving against the property owners who are adjacent to the street. He testified the property owners can then pay off their assessment in full or what they typically do is choose to pay it off over a few years and the government floats bonds based on the assessments. Mr. Swendseid stated at the end of 10 years when the bonds are all paid off, existing statutes provide generally that any surplus left over for each district is to be returned to the property owners who paid the assessments. He explained this statute clarifies some provisions of existing law. Mr. Swendseid stated the existing law states they are to pay the money back to the property owners who paid the assessments, but it does not explain what to do if the house has changed hands several times in the 10 years the assessments were outstanding. He elucidated the fact the law states they pay the money back to the current owner of the property assessed. He told the committee the existing law states if there is no more than $10,000 in surplus, then the surplus goes into the Municipalities Surplus and Deficiency Fund and this bill changes it to say even if there is more than $10,000, the first $10,000 goes into the Surplus and Deficiency Fund.
Chairman O'Connell asked Mr. Swendseid to explain section 1, line 18. She explained she wanted to know what they mean when they address the administrative cost.
Mr. Swendseid replied the administrative cost of refunding the surplus which existing law states the treasurer is to deduct from the surplus the amount of administrative costs, but then it does not say they pay the costs, they just deduct them from the surplus. He explained this bill clarifies the treasurer is to take the administrative costs and pay them. He told the committee they send mailers to let the home owners know the surplus is available and they usually do that by certified mail, which is about $1 for each letter. He stated it is not a lot of money, but it takes care of the cost.
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 198 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 258.
ASSEMBLY BILL 258: Makes various changes to charter of City of Sparks. (BDR S-831)
Lisa Foster, Lobbyist, City of Sparks, spoke to the committee on A.B. 258. She gave the committee her written testimony (Exhibit E).
Chairman O'Connell stated she was concerned about the wording on line 20, page 2 where it states, "the elected officers are entitled to the same salary as their respective predecessors."
Ms. Foster told the committee the bill drafter put this wording in when he saw the word, "must."
Chairman O'Connell stated part of the repealed section they are taking out is the amounts they are paying. She added she could find no other information in the bill that talked about or alluded to the pay of the elected officials, so she assumed they did not want that amount set, since they decide on the amount.
Steve Elliott, Attorney, City of Sparks told the committee the salaries are set by ordinance by the city council for all elected officials of the city. He stated the only reason they have the repealed section is because in 1985, the legislature, with the approval and pursuant to the Spark's City Council, converted the three elected department heads of the city full-time positions. The department heads are the judge, the city clerk and the city attorney. The legislature gave gave them an increase in salary, which was a mid-term increase and that is why this was here for the years 1985, 1986 and 1987.
Ms. Foster went on to explain the next amendment on page 3. She explained currently all employees who are given an oath of office are required to receive it in a formal city council meeting. She stated this is cumbersome, especially for the nonmanagement employees that have to come back to a council meeting. They would like the flexibility of having the mayor go to the employees office during the normal working hours to administer that oath of office. She stated the next change is found in section 5 which is a result of the city purchasing software that drafts amendments to ordinances in a manner that conflicts with the way the charter states it is supposed to be done. The charter requires that new material be in italics and material to be deleted be put in brackets. She explained the software they have puts new material in highlights and material to be deleted in strikeout, so they need this amendment to utilize the software. Ms. Foster explained the changes in sections 6 and 7 were also done by the bill drafter for consistency purposes. She pointed out the last change is the one they discussed for deleting the salaries for those elected officials.
Mr. Elliott stated he found only one thing disappointing in this draft and that is on page 3 there are references to the code of federal regulations in defining the terms administrator, professional and executive employee, but they added the term as that section existed on October 1, 1993 and he stated they did not propose that, but it came from the Legislative Counsel Bureau. Mr. Elliott stated in 10 years it will be difficult to determine what existed. He explained the federal laws probably will not change dramatically, but they will be refined somewhat over time.
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 258 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 249.
ASSEMBLY BILL 249: Allows private sale of bonds issued by redevelopment agency. (BDR 22-858)
Marvin Leavitt, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, spoke in favor of A.B. 249. He stated this bill simply changes the law to allow the private sale of redevelopment bonds. He handed out to the committee members, Exhibit F, which consisted of graphs comparisons on bonds. He pointed out to the committee members they had just had a meeting discussing the use and function of bonds. He explained there are a number of type of bonds and some are fairly easily sold on the market and others are fairly difficult to sell. He added in general, bonds on which the full faith of credit of the community are placed, sell fairly easily. Normally they are done on a competitive-sale basis, whereby they simply go to the market and issue bids and state on a certain date they will ask for replies and various underwriters will get together and provide an interest rate. He stated that is essentially all there is to it and there is very little marketing which needs to be done on these bonds. He further explained they are normally rated and most agencies in the state have fairly decent ratings and they can sell bonds in that way. Mr. Leavitt explained there are more complex bonds that they are going to be repaid from a specific revenue source, as opposed to being a general obligation of the community that issues the bonds. He stated it is difficult to know, without marketing, exactly what has to be done to sell these bonds at the lowest interest cost. He explained the graphs to the committee members (Exhibit F). Mr. Leavitt told the committee the bonds and interest on the bonds are negotiated, but in a way it allows much more flexibility in how the bonds are issued so hopefully the best rates possible can be obtained.
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 249 and opened the hearing on Assembly Joint Resolution (A.J.R.) 24 of the Sixty-sixth Session.
ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 24
of the Sixty-sixth Session: Proposes amendment to Nevada Constitution to authorize state to enter into certain agreements notwithstanding limitations on state indebtedness. (BDR C-1834)
Judy Matteucci, Director, Department of Administration, State of Nevada, told the committee this amendment to the constitution is necessary to allow the state to enter into installment or lease-purchase agreements and not have the total value of those leases or the lease-purchase agreements count against the state's debt and the debt capacity. She explained the Nevada Constitution is very restrictive as to what constitutes debt. She added it has also been affirmed by a Nevada Supreme Court decision and the determination has been if the state enters into installment or lease-purchase agreements for buildings, the full value of those leases constitute debt because the state has an obligation to extinguish the debt over a certain period-of-time. She stated this has frustrated attempts by the state to lease and it also frustrates many privatization attempts because many organizations that come into the state are wanting to enter into a lease-purchase agreement in order to give the state the proposals for their particular bill. Ms. Matteucci explained this essentially would enter new language into the Nevada Constitution that says the installment or lease-purchase agreements do not constitute debt, because they are extinguished by the failure of the legislature to appropriate money for the ensuing biennium for payment of the amounts when coming due. She explained this protects the state from having an additional debt and also protects the state from having to count that amount in the debt.
Senator Raggio asked if this language will accommodate any of the contracting out conditions where they extend beyond 3 years or so, provided the contract has that language in it.
John Swendseid, Lobbyist, Clark County, stated the amendment is designed to do exactly that and these types of clauses are very typical in a lot of other states, so a lot of the privatized people are used to this kind of clause and it will accommodate Nevada in that area.
Senator Raggio stated they could not change the language because it had already been passed in one session, but he stated he wanted to make certain Nevada does not run into that legal objection again, if they try to do the same thing. He explained this would have accommodated the Governor's request to contract out for the minimum security prison facility in Southern Nevada.
Mr. Swendseid stressed Senator Raggio's comments were correct. He explained there is similar language in a statute which applies to localities which are not governed by this constitutional provision. The localities have been able to finance various projects through lease-purchase agreements so they know this language will work in the marketplace.
Bob Seale, Treasurer, State of Nevada, spoke in favor of A.J.R. 24. He stated this was an excellent bill and he urged its passage.
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on A.J.R. 24 and opened the hearing on Bill Draft Request (BDR) 38-2027.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 38-2027: Revises provisions governing trust fund for child welfare.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED FOR COMMITTEE REQUEST FOR BILL DRAFT TO ACCOMMODATE THESE ISSUES.
SENATOR NEVIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Chairman O'Connell opened the hearing on Bill Draft Request (BDR) 18-1990.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 18-1990: Makes various changes concerning deadlines for proposing and adopting permanent regulations.
SENATOR NEVIN MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 18-1990.
SENATOR HICKEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator Callister suggested an interim study for a bill draft request which would require municipalities to jointly design and develop parks, libraries, schools, community theaters to maximize operational efficiencies. He stated this is being done on a voluntary basis in some instances in Clark County. He explained he feels there may be some efficiencies to be achieved from a state point-of-view to jointly operate and maximize the cost of these facilities.
SENATOR CALLISTER MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION ON A BILL DRAFT REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF AN INTERIM STUDY OF MUNICIPALITIES JOINING TOGETHER ON SOME OF THEIR RECREATIONAL FACILITIES.
SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Chairman O'Connell reopened the hearing on A.B. 258.
ASSEMBLY BILL 258: Makes various changes to charter of City of Sparks.
SENATOR NEVIN MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 258.
SENATOR HICKEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
There being no further business, Chairman O'Connell adjourned the meeting at 3:20 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Tanya Morrison,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Government Affairs
April 28, 1993
Page 1