The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 9:10 a.m., on Monday, February 22, 1999. Chairman Douglas Bache presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All Exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Douglas Bache, Chairman

Mr. John Jay Lee, Vice Chairman

Ms. Merle Berman

Ms. Dawn Gibbons

Mr. David Humke

Mr. Harry Mortenson

Mr. Roy Neighbors

Ms. Bonnie Parnell

Ms. Gene Segerblom

Mr. Kelly Thomas

Ms. Sandra Tiffany

Ms. Kathy Von Tobel

Mr. Wendell Williams

COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:

Mrs. Vivian Freeman

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

After several technical problems were corrected, Chairman Bache introduced three Bill Draft Requests (BDRs).

• BDR 19-546 – Requires employer or former employer of applicant for position as peace officer with law enforcement agency to make certain information regarding applicant available to law enforcement agency under certain circumstances (A.B. 297).

• BDR 28-991 – Requires bidders on public works projects to qualify before bidding (A.B. 298).

• BDR 30-1118 – Revises various provisions regarding medium-term obligations (A.J.R. 2).

Assemblyman Humke asked the Chairman to entertain a request for a bill draft. Mr. Bache indicated he would mention the request to Speaker Dini.

Chairman Bache opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 226.

Mike L. Baughman, representing Lander County, introduced Leon Aberasturi, Lander County Deputy District Attorney. A.B. 226 was requested by Lander County to address a problem that occurred in the small community of Kingston. Relatives of members of the town board were seemingly the most qualified applicants for positions to serve the community, primarily with water and administrative functions. In two cases town board members had to resign to enable their relatives to become employed by the town. Mr. Baughman directed the committee’s attention to a handout (Exhibit C) and indicated it was a summary of issues confronting the Kingston area.

Despite the fact that Kingston was a small community, located between Austin and Eureka, it did maintain a community water system. There was a semblance of town government in Kingston. A town board consisting of five members governed the community. There were two salaried employees, one who ran and maintained the water system and a town clerk/utility bookkeeper who handled the billing for the water system. Because of Kingston’s remoteness and the low wage scale ($10 per hour), the town found it difficult to fill those positions. He cited the instance where a member of the town board had resigned so that her husband could become the watermaster and maintain the water system (Exhibit C). Kingston was asking the committee to adopt A.B. 226 which would basically exempt relatives of a member of a town board of a town whose population was less than 300 from the restrictions on employing relatives of members of town boards.

Leon Aberasturi, Lander County Deputy District Attorney, continued the testimony in favor of A.B. 226. The tax base in a town the size of Kingston was relatively small, perhaps several thousand dollars a year, and it was a real financial burden to advertise for the two salaried positions. Historically the nepotism issue was always a problem. Most towns in Nevada were under the unincorporated town board section of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 269. Kingston did have its own town board with some autonomy and did its own hiring. Other counties where there was no town board form of government, the county itself did the hiring. Lander County’s problem was unique.

Chairman Bache asked for questions from the committee.

Assemblyman Humke noted there were other exemptions already built into NRS 281.210, notably subsection (a) with regard to school districts. Where there was a relationship to a school trustee, there was a requirement for unanimity. Obviously the law was created to prevent nepotism, but " . . . the down side of that is that some person who had a feud over a cow 30 years ago could have veto power," he said. Mr. Aberasturi responded in such a case the relative still could not vote under existing ethics statutes.

Assemblywoman Gibbons wondered why a small community the size of Kingston would elect to have a town board of five members and if a three-member board would be considered. Mr. Baughman replied that rural areas often had meetings where there was no quorum. On a three-member board, often one member would abstain and thus no action was taken. A five-member board, especially where some members traveled long distances to work, helped eliminate the quorum problem.

Mr. Aberasturi admitted Kingston’s five-member board was an oddity which had come about 30 years before when a developer moved into the area and set up a recreational area. It was hoped the area would grow and prosper. The anticipated growth did not occur, but the town did install a water system and with it a governing town board. He did not think the proposed legislation would "open the floodgates" for other communities the size of Kingston to apply for exemptions.

Assemblywoman Von Tobel asked about the town of Glendale, within her assembly district, which had a governing board appointed by County Commissioners. "Since they are just a town advisory board or citizens’ advisory council," she asked, "how does this (legislation) affect them?"

Kingston was under NRS Chapter 269, which set up town board forms of government, Mr. Aberasturi responded. Two types of town boards were established under NRS 269.016 to 269.019. Kingston’s town board had autonomy. They had the right to have a budget, levy taxes, had authority over sewer and water systems, and even established speed limits. Towns created after 1973 were formed under the Uniform Unincorporated Town Board Government Act, under the latter parts of NRS Chapter 269. Most of those town governments were more like adjuncts of county government wherein budgets were created, but taxes could not be levied, nor did they have hiring and firing authority.

Ms. Von Tobel said she hoped to give Clark and Washoe Counties the same rights as all counties had under the Unincorporated Towns portion of NRS Chapter 269.

Assemblyman Neighbors questioned the advantages of town board governments in the smaller communities as opposed to unincorporated towns, which had the right to go to the county commissioners, issue bonds, and do what needed to be done. In the latter case an employee would work for the county commissioners rather than the town board.

Kingston was developed in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, Mr. Aberasturi replied. "People just started meeting as a town board," he said. "No one noticed anything. Then, in the mid-1980’s someone realized a governing body had never been formed. The body went to court and got a judge to issue an order saying, in effect, We’ll pretend as if this had been formed properly back in the early 1970’s." The question was under Nevada law counties and cities existed, but because of NRS Chapter 269 there were town board governments as well. "Are they cities or are they counties?" he asked.

Mr. Aberasturi went on to describe a town of 500 which had unlimited bonding capacity. As he represented the county at that time, he was concerned if the town was unable to meet its financial obligations, the county would be "stuck". Since 1973 with the new statutes in NRS Chapter 269, there was more conformity and better understanding of town board governments.

Chairman Bache remarked he had read through NRS Chapter 269 and could not find the definition of a town. He indicated it would be a subject the committee needed to address in the future.

Assemblywoman Segerblom wondered if a Lander County community had no town board, would business have to be conducted out of Battle Mountain the county seat.

If the Kingston town board went "out of business", Mr. Aberasturi replied, the county would have to administer the water system. One would then have the problem of administration from Battle Mountain, 150 miles away.

Assemblywoman Tiffany asked if rural communities had looked into the possibility of hiring people from the Welfare to Work program. There was a good amount of money available for training both through that program and the community colleges. She questioned the advisability of changing a statute when those programs were already in place, presumably with available skills.

People simply did not want to move to Kingston, Mr. Aberasturi said. The salaries were on the low side, and the remoteness of the area was unattractive to qualified applicants. The watermaster had to be state certified, which took time and money. Once a watermaster obtained certification, he/she would often leave Kingston for a better-paying job.

Mr. Baughman added that a watermaster position required a degree of stability. A water system had to run 365 days a year. If local people could be identified and trained to provide those services they would be more inclined to stay in the community.

Assemblywoman Tiffany wondered if Kingston had considered employment contracts, including money for training and licensing, in order to find qualified people. She knew most rural areas had significant problems with hiring and keeping employees and would rather see programs within the federal and state governments look into the situation. She said she would prefer avoiding a statute change.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 226 and opened the hearing on A.B. 260.

A.B. 260, which amended NRS 281.4365, was requested by Lander County to remove the barrier to qualified public health professionals from accepting the appointment of county health officer in rural areas of Nevada, Mr. Baughman stated. NRS 439.290 required the Board of County Commissioners to appoint a county health officer and pay said person $25 per month. Funding for those positions was not provided by the State of Nevada and arguably represented an unfunded mandate. Since NRS 281.561 required the county health officer to file a statement of financial disclosure, and since the position was essentially that of a "volunteer", Lander County felt that was an invasion of privacy. The county was asking for the addition of subsection (e) to A.B. 260 which exempted public health officers from the public disclosure statute.

Lander County had only three licensed physicians, an emergency physician, a general practitioner, and an internist, Mr. Baughman continued. The county had not had a regular county health officer for 6 months. At the end of the last term of service the three physicians had rotated the position, and none was willing to accept the job on a permanent basis. They felt disclosure of their private incomes was invasion of privacy. Under NRS 439.310, the State Health Officer could conceivably come to Lander County, appoint a county health officer, and fix his/her compensation at a rate that would be unaffordable. Removing the county health officer from the definition of "public officer" in NRS 281.4365 would enable Lander County to recruit and train a locally appointed county health officer.

Mr. Aberasturi, elaborating, said the three doctors within the county felt the statute was invasive. Without much compensation the physicians helped run the volunteer ambulance service, worked with the county health nurse, and generally provided valuable services. Lander County had a unique set of circumstances and he asked the committee to add that fifth exemption to subsection 2 of NRS 281.4365 by passing A.B. 260.

Chairman Bache wondered if there were other appointed positions that were not being filled because of financial disclosure requirements. Mr. Aberasturi indicated it was a distinct possibility. He would like to see more study on the problem specifically as it affected rural counties.

Mr. Baughman observed the state, by statute, was empowered to appoint a county public health officer in cases where no one volunteered for the position. There was nothing in the statutes to indicate that state-appointed health officer would have to be a county resident. Consequently, the appointee might have to travel from Winnemucca or Elko and would have to be reimbursed for his or her expenses. It was a situation Lander County was trying to avoid, he concluded.

There being no further questions, Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 260. He reminded the committee of the joint meeting with Senate Government Affairs on Thursday afternoon, February 25, at 3:30 p.m., in order to hear a presentation by the Southern Nevada Strategic Planning Authority.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:08 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Charlotte Tucker,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman

DATE: