The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 9:15 a.m., on Monday, March 1, 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

Mrs. Vivian Freeman

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

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Gary H. Wolff, representing Nevada Highway Patrol Association

James Richardson, representing Nevada Faculty Alliance

Nancy Becker, Justice, Supreme Court, State of Nevada

Karen Kavanau, Director, Administrative Office of the Courts,

Dana K. Bilyeu, Operations Officer,

Carole Vilardo, President, Nevada Taxpayers Association

Marvin A. Leavitt, representing the city of Las Vegas

Jeffrey Griffin, Mayor, city of Reno

David Aiazzi, member of the city council, city of Reno

Due to Chairman Bache’s inability to be present at the commencement of the meeting, the meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Lee.

The hearing on A.B. 213 having commenced on February 26, 1999, and been recessed until this date, Vice Chairman Lee announced the committee would resume the hearing on A.B. 213 and invited Andy Anderson to resume his testimony.

Andy Anderson, representing Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs, stated he had concluded his testimony when the hearing on A.B. 213 was previously recessed, and Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs opposed all aspects of the bill.

Gary H. Wolff, representing Nevada Highway Patrol Association, testified. He contended A.B. 213 was too vague and would seriously complicate matters related to informants and internal affairs investigations. Another problem he perceived was the effect on proceedings in criminal trials if information obtained in an internal affairs investigation was made public and subsequently used in a court of law.

Mr. Wolff said, "I want to go on record, here, that the highway patrol association has its own internal committees in the association that reviews even our own officers. It’s worked very well. We certainly do not want any bad police officers out there either if it’s that serious."

Assemblyman Mortenson said Mr. Anderson mentioned information was sometimes received pursuant to a guarantee of secrecy. He asked whether, for public record purposes, the name of a person who provided information could simply be omitted from the records, thereby guaranteeing that informant’s name would be kept secret. Mr. Anderson responded he did not believe confidentiality could be fully guaranteed because a judge could obtain the informant’s name through the subpoena process.

Mr. Anderson said often when victims and witnesses were interviewed, they were apprehensive about coming forward with information, and law enforcement officers wanted to assure them some degree of confidentiality. However, information provided by a victim or witness would not be kept confidential if a court determined it would not. If investigation files were opened to the press, there was nothing to prevent a member of the press from conducting his own interview of someone who provided information to law enforcement. Mr. Anderson asserted making investigation files available to the press would inhibit people’s willingness to come forward with information.

James Richardson, representing Nevada Faculty Alliance, testified. He said he wished to reiterate comments he made during the 1997 legislative session about the aspect of the omnibus-type bill the legislature passed during that session and which A.B. 213 addressed.

Mr. Richardson stated Nevada Faculty Alliance opposed making personnel records fully open to the public. However, the alliance understood A.B. 213 addressed a special situation, to wit investigations of allegations of wrongdoing. Although it appeared obvious if someone, particularly someone who worked for a public agency, did something wrong, the public should have the right to know about it once the matter was concluded. However, Mr. Richardson maintained, there were complicating factors. The concern he voiced during the 1997 legislative session dealt with sexual harassment cases. He asked members of Nevada Faculty Alliance their opinions about the provisions of the bill, considered by the legislature during that session, which would have made results of an investigation of allegations of either sexual discrimination or sexual harassment public upon conclusion of the investigation. Most female members with whom he spoke said if they experienced sexual harassment, they wanted the problem resolved but did not want their names to appear in a newspaper. Many said the possibility that results of a hearing on sexual harassment charges would be made public would have a chilling effect on their willingness to come forward with allegations of sexual harassment.

Vice Chairman Lee closed the hearing on A.B. 213.

Nancy Becker, Justice, Supreme Court, State of Nevada, testified. Justice Becker stated A.B. 269 merely eliminated a discrepancy between state statute, the practice by the Supreme Court over the past 20 years, and appropriations the legislature made when it expanded the membership of the Supreme Court from five to seven members.

Justice Becker explained, historically, there were two pension plans in which Nevada’s judges could participate. One was the judicial pension plan, which she believed existed since 1937. At that time, a member of the judiciary’s pension was calculated over time, and when that member retired, the legislature was requested to appropriate money to pay his pension.

Justice Becker said as time passed and the concept of pensions grew, the judicial pension plan became more like the Public Employees Retirement System of Nevada’s (PERS) pension plan, which was the second pension plan in which judges could participate. She pointed out the judicial pension plan was always paid through legislative appropriation; it was an employer-paid plan, not an employee contribution plan.

Justice Becker stated in 1983, the legislature amended Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 286.421 to allow elected officials of political subdivisions’ retirement contributions to be paid by local government. Therefore, those elected officials did not pay their own retirement contributions. In 1987, the legislature again amended NRS 286.421 to include district court judges in its provisions. As a result, district court judges who were members of PERS pension plan had their retirement contributions paid for them, as opposed to those contributions being deducted from their salaries or their salaries being reduced by an amount equal to those contributions.

Justice Becker pointed out justices of Nevada’s Supreme Court were omitted from the 1987 amendment. She suspected there were two reasons for that omission. First, at that time, all justices were members of the judicial pension plan; therefore, the issue did not arise. Second, perhaps, was the conduct of the Supreme Court and resultant bad feelings.

Justice Becker said when the legislature created two additional justice positions, it appropriated money to pay pensions for those two positions; therefore, funds for those pensions were currently included in the state’s budget and A.B. 269 would have no budgetary impact. What A.B. 269 accomplished was to eliminate the discrepancy between the manner in which district court judges were treated, if they elected to participate in PERS’ pension plan rather than the judicial pension plan, and the way Supreme Court justices were treated if they made the same election.

Justice Becker suggested if the discrepancy was not eliminated, a conflict would exist between the legislature’s action and statute. The legislature appropriated money for pensions for the two additional justice positions and clearly intended justices’ pensions to be paid for them; however, statute did not say that. If the discrepancy was not eliminated, salaries of the three justices, who were members of PERS, would be less than their salaries when they were district court judges. She maintained eliminating the discrepancy was consistent with what the legislature attempted over the years with respect to judges’ salaries. When establishing salaries for judges, the legislature always considered a judge’s pension as a benefit he received, and when it compared Nevada to other states, it always compared Nevada to states which paid their judges’ retirement contributions.

Justice Becker asserted the legislature, historically, attempted to maintain a gap between the salaries of Nevada’s Supreme Court justices and those of its district court judges so that the compensation package of a Supreme Court justice would be greater than that of a district court judge. She asserted A.B. 269 caused justices of the Supreme Court to be included under the statute previously cited to make statutory language comport with the legislature’s appropriation of money for justices’ retirement benefits.

Assemblywoman Segerblom asked whether contributions to the retirement system for justices of the Supreme Court were made entirely by the state. Justice Becker replied affirmatively and said that was true for all judges in Nevada.

Assemblyman Neighbors mentioned at one time, a number of public employees elected to have employer-paid retirement contributions in lieu of pay raises. He asked what occurred with Supreme Court justices regarding those pay raises. Justice Becker replied pay increases for classified and unclassified public employees did not pertain to Supreme Court justices. She explained a Supreme Court justice’s salary could be increased only during the legislative session immediately preceding his term of office. She believed when the legislature exempted local elected officials of political subdivisions from making retirement contributions, in 1983, it was recognizing salaries for such individuals were set at the time of their election to office, and they might receive no salary increase for several years.

Vice Chairman Lee invited Karen Kavanau, Director, Administrative Office of the Courts, State of Nevada, to testify. Ms. Kavanau indicated she had nothing to add to Justice Becker’s testimony.

Dana K. Bilyeu, Operations Officer, Public Employees Retirement System of Nevada, testified, in part by reading from prepared text (Exhibit C). She said PERS’ board of directors had taken no official position on A.B. 269; however, the board’s staff would recommend it take a neutral position.

Ms. Bilyeu explained only elected officials of local governments and district court judges participated in PERS without sharing the cost of the contribution plan. Their contributions were entirely employer-paid, and A.B. 269 would extend that treatment to Supreme Court justices.

Ms. Bilyeu maintained the issue A.B. 269 raised was more an issue of public funding than a pension policy issue. She explained PERS would receive the contributions owed the retirement system, regardless of how an employer paid them, because they were " . . . paid on a percentage basis."

Ms. Bilyeu said PERS prepared a fiscal note on A.B. 269 because, at the time, PERS was unaware of the legislative appropriations discussed by Justice Becker.

Assemblywoman Von Tobel asked whether A.B. 269 would increase Supreme Court justices’ salaries while they held office. Ms. Bilyeu replied it would not. She explained A.B. 269 would cause justices’ retirement contributions to be fully employer-paid, and therefore, their salaries would not be reduced by contributions to fund PERS’ pension plan.

Ms. Von Tobel pointed out legislators, who were elected officials, paid their full contributions to PERS, and those contributions were deducted from their pay. She asked whether Supreme Court justices’ PERS contributions were made in the same manner as legislators’ contributions were made. Ms. Bilyeu replied currently, Supreme Court justices were not exempted by NRS 286.421 from making contributions to PERS’ pension plan. The purpose of A.B. 269 was to cause Supreme Court justices to be treated, under the law, in the same manner as district court judges, whose salaries were not reduced by retirement contributions.

Ms. Von Tobel asked whether A.B. 269 would affect Supreme Court justices only when they became eligible for reelection and not during their current terms of office. Ms. Bilyeu replied she did not know the answer to that question.

Justice Becker gave further testimony in response to Ms. Von Tobel’s last question. She stated A.B. 269 would become effective upon its passage by the legislature. However, its effect would not violate constitutional provisions that pertained to increasing or decreasing a justice’s salary during his term of office. Justices’ salaries would remain as established by statute. Pursuant to A.B. 269, justices’ PERS contributions would be paid for them, over and above their salaries, just as contributions to the judicial pension plan were paid.

Ms. Von Tobel asked whether a legal opinion was rendered that A.B. 269 would not violate constitutional provisions pertaining to justices’ salaries. Justice Becker said she presumed one was. She knew the question was raised during the 1987 legislative session, and she assumed it was answered satisfactorily because the legislature proceeded to pass legislation that amended NRS 286.421 to include district court judges.

Ms. Von Tobel suggested the committee obtain an opinion from its legal staff as to whether or not A.B. 269 would effect a constitutional violation.

Assemblywoman Gibbons asked whether all Supreme Court justices were previously district court judges. Justice Becker replied most of the justices currently on the Supreme Court were previously district court judges; however, historically, that was not the case.

Ms. Gibbons observed since the justices currently on the Supreme Court were previously district court judges, they were accustomed to having the cost of their retirement benefits paid for them. Justice Becker concurred with Ms. Gibbons’ observation.

Ms. Gibbons asked whether justices, once they became members of the Supreme Court, were asked to pay those costs themselves. Justice Becker replied they would have to pay them if either the "conflict" was not resolved or the legislature determined to resolve it by requiring justices to pay those costs.

Ms. Gibbons asked what salaries district court judges and Supreme Court justices received. Justice Becker replied district court judges were paid $100,000 per year and Supreme Court justices were paid $107,500 per year. In some instances, district court judges and justices might also receive longevity pay.

Assemblywoman Freeman asked Ms. Bilyeu whether or not there was a fiscal note on A.B. 269. Ms. Bilyeu replied PERS submitted a fiscal note of $6,000 on the bill. She explained PERS attached a fiscal note to the bill only because " . . . since we don’t administer the judges portion of their pensions, we are not aware of the way their appropriations are made."

Mr. Mortenson asked who was included in the group of people whose retirement benefits were entirely paid for by the state. Justice Becker replied all elected officials of political subdivisions and all judges were included in that group. She explained municipal court judges and justices of the peace were included in the group because they were elected officials of a political subdivision. District court judges and Supreme Court justices were not elected officials of a political subdivision of the state, rather, they were elected officials of the State of Nevada, which was the reason district court judges were added to the group through legislation passed in 1987.

Ms. Von Tobel suggested the legislature could resolve the difference between how district court judges and Supreme Court justices were treated by treating district court judges as Supreme Court justices were treated. Justice Becker concurred the legislature could do that; however, she believed the arguments for doing so were raised in 1987, when the legislature chose to include district court judges in the group of individuals whose retirement benefits were employer-paid. She believed it would be unfair to district court judges to treat them as Supreme Court justices were treated, and she would prefer the current situation remain unchanged than for that to happen.

Justice Becker said she understood Ms. Von Tobel might be concerned about the basis for treating district court judges differently from Supreme Court justices. However, she believed the issue was when, over the years, the legislature calculated what judges’ and justices’ salaries should be, it took into consideration the fact the state paid their pension contributions. She believed the fact pension benefits were not employer-paid for justices who participated in PERS was overlooked when those salaries were established.

Ms. Von Tobel pointed out if Justice Becker’s PERS contributions were not deducted from her salary, her take-home pay would increase. She said she was unable to understand how a mid-term pay increase for justices would not violate the state constitution since the constitution prohibited them. She asked Justice Becker to explain how having her PERS contributions paid for her would not constitute a mid-term salary increase.

Justice Becker explained "salary" and "compensation" were treated differently, and a valid legal argument was made that there was a distinction between how pension benefits were treated as opposed to a "flat salary." She pointed out although a "flat salary" could neither be increased nor decreased, other benefits, such as retirement benefits, medical benefits, and insurance deductibles changed, and a pension was always considered to constitute a benefit rather than salary. In establishing someone’s salary, benefits that person might receive were taken into consideration; however, those benefits were, in fact, benefits and not salary.

Justice Becker asserted if her retirement contributions were not paid for her, it would result in her net take-home pay being less as a Supreme Court justice than it was as a district court judge.

Ms. Von Tobel asked what cost, per justice, A.B. 269 would create if passed.

Justice Becker indicated she did not know the cost per justice; however, the total cost would be $6,000.

Ms. Gibbons asked why there would be a fiscal note on A.B. 269 and whether she was correct funds for the cost imposed by A.B. 269 were appropriated and included in the state’s budget.

Justice Becker replied those funds were appropriated and included in the budget; however, when PERS developed its fiscal note, it did not know that had been done.

Chairman Bache asked whether he correctly understood the state appropriated funds to pay pension benefits for judges who did not participate in PERS, and their salaries were not affected. Ms. Bilyeu replied the judges’ retirement system was a "pay-as-you-go" system, and benefit payments to retired justices were accomplished through legislative appropriation.

Chairman Bache pointed out retired judges had nothing deducted from their salaries for retirement benefits when employed as judges, and A.B. 269 would establish equity between judges who participated in the judges’ retirement system and those who participated in PERS.

Vice Chairman Lee closed the hearing on A.B. 269 and turned the meeting over to Chairman Bache.

• BDR S-279 – Makes various changes to the statutory provisions relating to

Southern Nevada Water Authority (A.B. 347).

• BDR 19-1440 – Designates official colors for reproduction or facsimile of

state seal.

Carole Vilardo, President, Nevada Taxpayers Association, testified. She said the most substantive provisions of A.B. 299 were found in line 21 on page 4 and in lines 3 through 5 on page 5. She explained in the 1995 legislative session, when the legislature " . . . transferred over . . . short-term financing and made it medium-term financing . . . " and transferred the discussion of medium-term financing from NRS 354, language was left in NRS 354 which created a loophole. That loophole was just used by Pahrump’s library district to enter into medium-term financing. A.B. 299 would tighten statutory language and close the loophole.

Marvin A. Leavitt, representing the city of Las Vegas, testified. He said local governments, for many years, had, essentially, two methods of issuing debt. Originally, one method was discussed in NRS 350, and the other, referred to as short-term financing, was discussed in NRS 354. Prior to the 1995 legislative session, many people desired to have all information related to financing contained in one place in statute. That desire, coupled with the fact the term "short-term financing" meant something different to the financial market than it meant in NRS, caused the legislature to replace the term "short-term financing" with the term "medium-term financing" and move all references to medium-term financing to NRS 350. NRS 350 now contained all statutory provisions related to bonds. Mr. Leavitt explained to the financial market, short-term financing meant financing for a period of less than 1 year; whereas, it was previously used in NRS to apply to financing for periods of up to 10 years.

Mr. Leavitt explained with voter approval, local government could issue general obligation debt. Such debt was not repaid from a specific revenue source, and a local government that issued a general obligation debt could levy property taxes, in addition to those levied to pay for its operating expenses, in order to repay the debt. However, a local government could not levy additional taxes to repay debt acquired through short-term financing, if it wished to use tax money to repay such debt it must do so from money received from existing taxes levied to pay its operating expenses.

Mr. Leavitt said when the legislature changed short-term financing to medium-term financing, during the 1995 legislative session, there was no intention to affect the way debt incurred through that financing was repaid. However, the law was technically changed in a manner that allowed a local government to increase property taxes to pay short-term financing debt, which had never been the case before and was not the legislature’s intent. A.B. 299 would correct the situation. The bill established medium-term financing was to be treated differently than what was, essentially, "long-term bonding," and precluded a local government from increasing property taxes, without voter approval, to pay for debt service.

At Chairman Bache’s request, Mr. Leavitt discussed the types of debt local governments could issue and the sources of repayment for those types of debt.

Mr. Leavitt explained in addition to medium-term financing, NRS 350 discussed three different types of debt local governments could issue. The first type was general obligation debt. To issue general obligation debt, a local government must first obtain permission from its voters. Once the local government obtained that permission, it could then issue the debt and could increase property taxes in order to repay the debt. Because that type of debt constituted a general obligation of the local government, the local government could, essentially, repay it with funds from any available revenue source.

Mr. Leavitt stated the second type of debt local governments could issue was sometimes referred to as "double-barrel." Although the debt was a general obligation of the local government that issued it, the governing board of that local government was required to certify particular revenues were available for repayment of the debt. If the specified revenues were insufficient to repay the debt, it might become necessary to use property tax revenues for its repayment. A local government intending to issue that type of debt was required to publish notice of its intent, after which voters had an opportunity to sign a petition that the matter be put to a vote of the people. If a sufficient number of voters signed the petition, an election would be required. The advantage of that type of debt over " . . . what would strictly be a revenue bond . . . " was, because it was a general obligation of the community that issued the debt, a lower interest rate could be obtained.

Mr. Leavitt explained the third type of debt a local government could issue, one which never required an election, was revenue debt. Revenue debt was not a general obligation of the community and could be repaid only with funds from a designated revenue source. If funds from the designated revenue source were insufficient to repay the debt, the debt would not be repaid. The interest rate on this type of debt would be substantially higher than that on debt which was a general obligation of the community.

Mr. Leavitt stated A.B. 299 established medium-term financing could not be repaid through levy of additional property tax but must be repaid from existing revenue sources, which was what the legislature always intended.

Barbara A. McKenzie, representing the city of Reno, submitted a copy of an inter-office memorandum (Exhibit D) and a letter from the office of the City Attorney of Reno containing a proposed amendment to A.B. 309 (Exhibit E). She then introduced Patricia A. Lynch and Donald J. Cook, city attorney and city clerk of Reno, respectively.

Patricia A. Lynch, City Attorney, city of Reno, testified. She explained section 1 of A.B. 309 required Reno’s city council to establish the city’s wards based on population rather than on the number of registered voters. She explained the city adjusted its wards’ boundaries, every January, based on records from the previous November election of the number of registered voters, and the city’s elections were once held in the spring. However, 4 years previously, the city changed the time of its elections from spring to fall, which meant the figures it obtained from the last election and used to adjust its ward boundaries were 2 years old and, therefore, irrelevant.

Donald J. Cook, City Clerk, City of Reno, testified. He explained by law, the city of Reno was required to use figures from the close of registration for the statewide general election, in establishing parity for its wards. Ward boundaries must be adjusted if one ward exceeded another by 5 percent. He maintained that system worked well when the city held its elections in odd-numbered years because the figures it utilized were approximately 3 to 4 months old. However, now the city’s elections coincided with the statewide elections, and the last time the city adjusted its ward boundaries it did so based on figures which were approximately 2 years old and, virtually, meaningless.

Mr. Cook said based on discussions with counsel, the city of Reno determined in might be better to base its ward boundaries on population rather than the number of registered voters. He suggested population numbers would probably be more representative of the city, as a whole, than the number of registered voters and using them would provide more reliable data.

Ms. Lynch pointed out section 1, subsection 2(b), of A.B. 309 provided when property was annexed or the population of one ward exceeded the population of another by more than 5 percent, ward boundaries could be adjusted based on any measure the city council found reliable. She said the language of that section was identical to language in the city of Las Vegas’ city charter.

Mr. Cook stated he favored utilizing the language Ms. Lynch cited. However, since Reno held its city election in conjunction with both the statewide election and Washoe County’s election, he would like to be certain, for the sake of consistency, the statistics the city used to establish its wards were consistent with statistics used to establish such things county commission districts.

Ms. Lynch said section 2 of A.B. 309 addressed the 6-month residency requirement for the city’s mayor and council members. Sections 6 and 7 addressed the same requirement with respect to the city attorney and municipal court judges, respectively. She explained when the city changed the time of its election, " . . . that requirement fell on the day before you were to file for office . . .," which rendered it more or less meaningless.

Mr. Cook concurred with Ms. Lynch’s last remarks. He said because of the 6-month residency requirement, coupled with the change in the time of the city’s election, candidates filed for election with only 1 day’s residency.

Ms. Lynch explained the changes in sections 2, 6, and 7 established a 30-day residency requirement, which was consistent with the requirement state law established for elected officials.

Ms. Lynch explained the reason for the request, in section 3, for the time period to be increased from 30 days to 45 days. She said currently, under Reno’s city charter, a bill introduced to the city council must be enacted within 30 days. However, on occasion, the council would not meet again for 30 days after a bill was introduced. When that happened, proceedings on the bill had to begin anew with the bill being read again as a first reading. That situation could occur when there were five Tuesdays in a month or around the Christmas holiday, at which time the council held regular meetings at the beginning of December but did not meet again until approximately January 10^th. If the period of time for enacting an ordinance was extended to 45 days, it would alleviate the problem encountered with the 30-day period.

Ms. Lynch said the purpose of section 4 was to eliminate outdated language concerning adoption of uniform codes, which required they be provided in either typewritten or printed form. The city of Reno requested that language be deleted so uniform codes could be provided through posting on the Internet and other technological means.

Ms. Lynch referred to section 5 and explained amending Reno’s city council’s general powers as provided in that section would cause any offense established as a misdemeanor by state law to be held by the city to be a misdemeanor if committed in the city. She explained that change was requested because, currently, at the conclusion of a legislative session, her office was required to review every law passed by the legislature and enact that law as a city ordinance. Occasionally one was missed, which created a legal dilemma, and the process was difficult and work-intensive for her office. Ms. Lynch advised the language proposed in section 5 was similar to language included in the city charters of Carlin, Henderson, Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Sparks and Wells.

Ms. Lynch stated ensuing sections of A.B. 309 dealt with sections (of the city charter) the city of Reno asked be repealed. She pointed out one of those sections dealt with special meetings and, pursuant to the Open Meeting Law, was outdated. That section provided a special meeting of the city council could be held upon 6 hours notice. She explained the city council could either: 1) hold a regular meeting, which required posting an agenda 3 working days prior to the meeting; or 2) in the event of an emergency, meet after giving whatever notice was reasonable in light of the nature of the emergency, without being required to give 6 hours notice.

Ms. Lynch said the other section of the city charter the city requested repealed was section 4.050, which created an unconstitutional presumption that the owner of a vehicle was presumed to be the vehicle’s driver and allowed the city to convict the owner of a criminal offense. That section was used only in connection with parking tickets and had not been used for several years.

Ms. Lynch explained the purpose of the proposed amendment to A.B. 309 (Exhibit E) was to clarify that both a member of the city council and the mayor could receive a pay increase if reelected. The amendment was requested because an interpretation of a provision of the city’s charter was rendered which said " . . . the mayor or council member could not be elected or appointed to any office created by or the compensation for which was increased or fixed by the city council until 1 year after the expiration of the term for which such person was elected."

Ms. Lynch explained in October, the city council raised the salaries for the positions of mayor and city council member. Those salary increases were to go into effect for individuals elected to those positions in the November election. The only incumbent reelected was the mayor, and the city was sued because, on the face of the provision she recited, it appeared the mayor could not have a raise in pay. The city requested an opinion from the attorney general because it appeared the entire statutory scheme, in which city council members had authority to set pay raises for incoming council members, was unworkable. The city was subsequently sued, and the Attorney General’s Office refused to issue an opinion. However, the Attorney General’s Office told the city it found nothing in the city’s research with which it disagreed. Also, the Attorney General’s Office provided the city an opinion in which the attorney general interpreted a section of NRS 266, which applied to non-charter cities, the same way the city interpreted it. The city prevailed in its lawsuit.

Ms. Lynch said the language of the proposed amendment (Exhibit E) was contained in the city charters of eight of Nevada’s cities, who interpreted it in the same manner as the city of Reno. The cities of Carlin, Elko, Gabbs, and Reno all had incumbents who received a pay increase upon reelection. Reno merely requested existing language be amended to clearly express the city’s intent.

Ms. Gibbons asked Mr. Cook how the language of section 1, subsection 2(b), of A.B. 309 would affect county commission districts. Mr. Cook replied Washoe County was considering utilizing an identical provision, and Reno would like to establish consistency with the county.

Ms. Gibbons asked whether federal law mandated wards be established based on population. Mr. Cook replied it did not, and Reno’s city charter provided wards be established based on the number of registered voter. However, other cities used population, rather than the number of registered voters, in establishing their wards.

Ms. Gibbons asked whether the intent behind establishing wards based on population was to provide voters better representation and preclude a segment of the city’s population being excluded. Mr. Cook replied affirmatively.

Ms. Gibbons commented she wanted people to have more representation not less.

Mr. Cook explained various precincts in Reno had very high voter participation, while other precincts had extremely low voter participation, and there was a philosophy it would provide more representation to establish wards based on population rather than on registered voters.

Chairman Bache observed Reno might be concerned about being sued if it continued to establish wards based on the number of registered voters. He suggested establishing the city’s wards based on population would eliminate the possibility of Reno being sued because that method was consistent with the tenant of "one-man-one-vote."

Mr. Lee referred to language on pages 5 and 6 of A.B. 309 that required Reno’s city attorney and municipal court judges to be qualified electors within the city. He pointed out according to the city attorney’s inter-office memorandum (Exhibit D), that language established a 30-day residency requirement rather than the 6-month requirement established by Reno’s city charter. He understood why the city might want the 30-day requirement with respect to its city attorney and judges. However, he interpreted section 2 of A.B. 309 to establish a 30-day residency requirement for city councilmen also. He asked Ms. Lynch if her interpretation was the same as his.

Ms. Lynch replied she understood those provisions to require candidates for the offices of mayor, council member, city attorney, and municipal court judge to be qualified electors within the city, which meant they must reside in the city for 30 days prior to the closing date for filing for election.

Mr. Lee said he had no problem with the 30-day residency requirement for the city attorney and municipal court judges but expressed some concern about that requirement for city councilmen. He suggested it might require a longer period of residency for someone to know an area well enough to adequately represent its residents. Ms. Lynch responded if the legislature believed a 6-month residency requirement was appropriate for council members, such a requirement would pose no legal problem; it was a policy decision.

Mr. Humke pointed out the legislature previously approved charter changes for various cities in Nevada, and he believed the city of Henderson had a longer residency requirement. Typically, however, the legislature allowed a city to determine its residency requirement as long as the requirement was reasonable. He suggested if a candidate’s residency was of short duration, that fact could be used as a campaign issue. He said he believed 30 days to be the minimum residency requirement established by law for most things for which there was a residency requirement.

Chairman Bache said the city of Henderson, previously, had a 3-year residency requirement; that requirement was reduced to 1 year during the last legislative session. He said he believed 1 year was the maximum residency requirement that could be constitutionally established, and between 30 days and 6 months was recommended as safer.

Ms. Segerblom asked why Reno changed its election time from spring to fall. Mr. Cook replied it cost Reno in excess of $170,0000 to conduct a stand-alone, city election, and the voter turnout for such an election was approximately 30 percent at best. By holding its election in the fall, Reno was able to conduct the election for an approximate cost of $30,000, and its voter turnout doubled. Therefore, a fall election was much more efficient for the city.

Ms. Segerblom asked whether Washoe County made changes to its county commission seats between the 10-year census takings rather than basing changes on the census. Mr. Cook replied he was uncertain.

Jeffrey Griffin, Mayor, city of Reno, testified. He said Reno could not wait for a census taken every 10 years to change its ward boundaries. In the past, it was easy for the city to change those boundaries because it used registered voter figures as the basis for its changes. However, if population was used as the basis for those changes, as requested in A.B. 309, the city would have to find a way to estimate changes in ward population other than by use of registered voter statistics.

Mayor Griffin stated, "We do, currently, have what’s called a consensus population forecast. It’s a group of city and county folks that get together from our community development, treasurer’s office, county treasurer, county assessor, and so forth, and that would be our intent. We would do it probably on an every 2 year basis, take a look at it." He explained under Reno’s city charter, if a population disparity of more than 5 percent existed between wards, ward boundaries had to be redrawn. In response to Ms. Segerblom’s last question, he said he believed Washoe County’s county commission, also, would utilize figures provided by the consensus population forecast group to make boundary changes.

Mrs. Freeman commented although she voted in favor of changing Reno’s city election from a spring to a fall election, having once experienced a fall election, she did not like it and did not believe it served the public well. She believed holding the election in the fall made things very difficult for many candidates for local government offices. She contended there were too many signs, and it was difficult to get people’s attention and raise money for campaigns because there were so many candidates.

Mrs. Freeman said she shared Mr. Lee’s concern about establishing a 30-day residency requirement and believed a longer period of residency, perhaps as long as 6 months, should be required.

Ms. Parnell asked whether "qualified electors" was defined anywhere. She stated she could not find the language pertaining to the 30-day residency requirement and asked where that language could be found. Mr. Cook replied he believed "qualified elector" was defined in NRS 293. He explained a qualified elector did not have to be a registered voter, merely someone whose voting rights had not been taken from him.

Ms. Parnell asked if she was correct under the definition of "qualified elector," an individual could file to run for office without being a registered voter. Mr. Cook replied affirmatively. However, he said, he had never encountered a situation where an individual who was not a registered voter filed to run for office.

Mr. Mortenson said he, too, believed a 6-month residency requirement would be much better than a 30-day requirement. He suggested a short residency requirement would promote the ability of special interest groups to sponsor candidates for office.

Mr. Mortenson said he believed it would be more difficult to conduct a population census than to determine the number of registered voters. He suggested establishing ward boundaries based on population might result in someone being elected by very few votes. He pointed out someone "covering" an area which contained a lot of apartments and consisted of less affluent neighborhoods would be elected by fewer votes than someone else and would be required to put forth less effort to be elected.

Ms. Lynch asked permission to address Mr. Mortenson’s concern. She said in Reno, candidates for city council ran for election only in their wards in the primary election. In the general election, they ran for election citywide and if elected, would be elected by a citywide vote. However, the mayor and one council member ran at large in both the primary and the general elections.

Mr. Mortenson asked whether the situation Ms. Lynch described would result in a ward with few votes getting little attention from the city council. Mayor Griffin responded that result was possible. Personally, he liked the idea of establishing ward boundaries based on the number of registered voters, which he believed provided true representation. However, asking to establish its wards based on population rather than registered voters was the city’s attempt to comply with the obligation imposed on it by the constitutional tenant of "one-man-one-vote."

Mayor Griffin asserted the city of Reno significantly empowered its neighborhood advisory boards, which were active in each of the city’s wards in making their desires known to their elected representatives. Therefore, the city had not experienced a practical example of a city council vote that contradicted a ward’s wishes.

Mrs. Freeman referred to the fact candidates for seats on Reno’s city council must run for election citywide. She contended that requirement created a burden for candidates who had little money to use for their election campaigns.

Ms. Lynch responded at one time, both the primary and the general election in Reno were citywide. However, the city’s charter was amended, by a vote of its citizens, to cause primary elections to be held only at ward level and general elections to be held citywide. In her ward, which was not as wealthy as other wards, voters could choose between only those two candidates whose candidacy was able to survive the primary election. Therefore, she believed ward members now had more say in who was elected than they had when the primary election was citywide.

Mrs. Freeman asked what would be necessary to establish a candidate was required to run for election only in his own ward. Ms. Lynch replied it would necessitate a change to the city’s charter to make general elections, as well as primary elections, ward wide. She explained the city’s voters rejected that option.

Mr. Humke asked whether either Ms. Lynch or Mr. Cook knew what the general rule was with respect to residency requirements in city charters throughout the state. Mr. Cook replied general law cities would defer to state law, which established a residency requirement of 30 days. He said he did not believe the city of Reno advocated one residency requirement over another. The city’s main concern was timing and not being caught in a "date crunch" as it was before.

Mr. Mortenson asked by what means the city of Reno empowered its town boards. Mayor Griffin explained one means was an indirect means. Although the city council could not obligate someone requesting a change in land use to present himself before any of the city’s seven neighborhood advisory boards, the council made it clear, through discussion and questioning, it found the positions expressed by neighborhood advisory boards extremely compelling.

Mayor Griffin stated during the first year he was a member of Reno’s city council, there was an excessive level of activity related to land use decisions. However, more statutory authority was given to the planning commission and the board of adjustment, and the city council now acted as an appellant body with respect to land use decisions. The number of land use decisions presented to the council had been reduced by at least half and possibly two-thirds. Any changes or conditions neighborhoods wanted effected or imposed in order to make land use decisions acceptable to them were being made at the neighborhood advisory board level.

Mayor Griffin said another thing Reno did to empower its neighborhood advisory boards was provide them funding in the amount of $350,000 for use in their neighborhoods.

Ms. Lynch referred to the second page of the letter containing the proposed amendment to A.B. 309 (Exhibit E). She suggested the proposed amendment should be revised by either deleting the word "other," which was not used in the city charter, of replacing it with the words "other office of position" to comport with the fact there were other elected offices, such as city attorney and municipal court judge. She said, " I believe the intent is . . . you can’t create a position and then raise the salary and then . . . get yourself appointed."

Chairman Bache asked Ms. Lynch to clarify which of the two possible revisions she proposed she wanted made. Ms. Lynch proposed the word "other" remain and the words "office or position" be added. She explained if the word "office" was deleted, the mayor or city councilmen could raise the salary for the position of municipal court judge and then appoint one of themselves to a municipal court judgeship. If the revisions she proposed were made, they would not be able to do that.

Mr. Neighbors said the problem he perceived with establishing wards based on the number of registered voters was the fact people who did not vote in the last election were not purged from the list of registered voters.

Mr. Neighbors said he liked the idea of candidates for city council being required to run for election citywide. In his experience as a county manager, he found too often people who were elected through district elections, rather than a countywide election, were more concerned with their individual districts than the county as a whole.

David Aiazzi, member of the city council, city of Reno, announced he was present solely for the purpose of answering any questions put to him.

Ms. Gibbons asked Councilman Aiazzi whether Reno’s city charter required candidates for office to run for election in their wards in the primary election and then run at large in the general election. Councilman Aiazzi replied affirmatively. Ms. Gibbons asked whether that requirement was based on a decision made by the voters. Councilman Aiazzi replied it was.

Ms. Gibbons commented it seemed unfair that candidates from a cross-section of the city’s population, who represented different interests, were not required to run for office on the general election ballot in their own districts. Councilman Aiazzi responded he believed a quandary was created regardless of which election procedure was utilized. For that reason, the question of which to use was put to a vote of the people and decided by the voters. Ms. Gibbons asked whether the question was in the ballot questionnaire. Councilman Aiazzi replied it was. He stated voters were given several options as to how city elections were to be held and chose to have primary elections held in the city’s wards and general elections held citywide.

Ms. Gibbons encouraged Mayor Griffin to reexamine the manner in which elections were held in the city of Reno. She contended some areas of the city might have people who would do a very good job if elected to office but who were not financially able to run for election citywide. Therefore, Reno was probably missing the opportunity to have some people in city government who would provide a good voice for their districts.

Mayor Griffin said he concurred with Ms. Gibbons’ remarks. He referred to Mrs. Freeman’s comments about the fall election, and suggested sometimes things done for the best of reasons had unintended consequences. He indicated he was not certain the city did the right thing in changing from a spring to a fall election, but it had to go through the experience of a fall election to make that determination.

Mayor Griffin suggested things done by municipal governments probably touched the lives of their citizens more than things done on higher levels of government. He said engaging voters in the voting process by providing them an opportunity to draw distinctions among candidates and providing people of modest means the opportunity to run for office were good things and things the city of Reno would like to accomplish.

Councilman Aiazzi contended people, like himself, who ran for office did not initially consider the fact they would have to raise a lot of money in order to do so. They believed they could do a good job, paid their filing fee, and were then faced with " . . . getting their word out." He said during Reno’s last election, many people were first time candidates for office, which contradicted the usual consensus of opinion that only full-time politicians ran for seats on the city council.

Mr. Mortenson said he understood Ms. Gibbons’ concern about the election procedure Reno utilized but wished that procedure was utilized in southern Nevada.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 309.

There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Bache adjourned the meeting at 10:55 a.m.

Following adjournment of the meeting, Chairman Bache directed the committee secretary to attach to the minutes of the meeting, as an exhibit, a letter from Justice Nancy Becker, dated March 1, 1999 (Exhibit F).

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Sara Kaufman,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman

DATE: