MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs

 

Seventy-First Session

February 13, 2001

 

 

The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:11 a.m., on Tuesday, February 13, 2001.  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 J. Lee, Vice Chairman

Ms.                     Merle Berman

Mr.                     David Brown

Mrs.                     Vivian Freeman

Ms.                     Dawn Gibbons

Mr.                     David Humke

Mr.                     Harry Mortenson

Mr.                     Roy Neighbors

Ms.                     Bonnie Parnell

Mr.                     Bob Price

Ms.                     Debbie Smith

Ms.                     Kathy Von Tobel

Mr.                     Wendell Williams

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

Tom Collins, Assemblyman Clark County, District 1

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel

Dave Ziegler, Committee Policy Analyst

Linda Utt, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Rachel Nicholson, Attorney at Law, Nye County

Tom Grady, Executive Director, Nevada League of Cities

Dan Musgrove, Legislative Advocate, Intergovernmental Relations, Las Vegas

Michele Richardson, Assistant City Manager, City of North Las Vegas

Neena Laxalt, Government Relations Consultant

Richard Wilkie, Legislative Advocate, City of Henderson

 

Chairman Bache stated before committee members heard the bills on the agenda, there was a Bill Draft Request (BDR) that needed introduction.

 

• BDR 22-479 – Requires approval by attorney general of certain contracts and such contracts and leases take effect. (A.B. 128)

 

            ASSEMBLYWOMAN BERMAN MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 22-479.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN LEE SECONDED THE MOTION

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

********

 

Chairman Bache referred to Assembly Bill 63 and per the prior meeting on Monday February 12, 2001 would refer to a subcommittee with the Chairman being Ms. Parnell and the other members being Ms. Smith and Mr. Brown.

 

Assembly Bill 56:  Authorizes counties to transfer or sell certain real property to certain persons without offering property to public under certain circumstances. (BDR 20-96)

 

Assemblyman Roy Neighbors introduced Assembly Bill 56 and summarized the bill as a way to give counties the authority to deal fairly with residents who had long occupied, but were currently deemed not holding valid title to, property in the state’s historic town sites when the property was transferred to the counties by federal legislation.

 

He stated that U.S. Senator Reid was working with representatives in Nye and Esmeralda Counties to draft and introduce legislation to convey those properties to the counties for proper disposal.  He also said although the BLM and USFS could not be directly involved with the federal legislative process it was hoped that the special legislation would result in transfer of the properties to the counties within the year.  Hopefully people would receive deeds to those properties after paying taxes on them for years. 

 

Mr. Neighbors introduced Rachel Nicholson, Counsel for Nye County, and stated she would discuss some of the specifics.  Ms. Nicholson was in the process of allowing those town sites to be transferred to the counties.  There were historic town sites throughout Nevada and not just within Nye County.  She stated that Nye County had the most up-to-date federal land management plan in place and all those properties were scheduled for disposal throughout the state.  Those counties were ahead of other locations in Nevada.

 

Ms. Nicholson gave an explanation of A.B. 56.  She explained there were four criteria necessary to apply: 

• They be within an historic mining town site,

• People that lay claim to the property had lived or their predecessors had lived there for at least 25 years,

• They had taken that property by documentation, either with a deed or a document that they thought was valid but was now deemed not to be, and

• They pay taxes as assessed.

 

There were two levels of non-competitiveness:

• If a person said they meet all four criteria, then the county would be allowed to transfer those properties without a competitive bid with the only additional cost being the transfer fee plus $100.

• If it was within an historic mining town site and they had lived there for 25 years but were lacking one of the other 2 criteria, then they could come in but the county could still do a non-competitive process.  The county would need to get an appraisal and the people would have to pay that fee along with all taxes due within the last 5 years and the $100 fee if the taxes would have been less than that.

If the public did not meet those criteria then the property would go through the competitive process and would be eliminated. 

 

Ms. Nicholson commented that those properties were now being identified by BLM, USFS and Senator Reid’s office, a lengthy process that should be completed within a year. 

 

Assemblywoman Freeman asked Ms. Nicholson if she was hired by the county.  Ms. Nicholson stated she had been retained as outside counsel and dealt with several specific issues.  Mrs. Freeman asked Ms. Nicholson if that was her area of expertise.  Ms. Nicholson explained she worked for the District Attorney’s office for a number of years and this issue was an item she had worked on at that time.

 

Mrs. Freeman then asked if this would apply not only to counties but to cities as well.  Mr. Neighbors said it applied initially to historic mining town sites that had all been recorded and were in the Nye County Recorder’s Office.  It would also encompass sites statewide.  Mrs. Freeman contended she was interested because of a gravel mining pit in her city that could be classified as “historic.”  Although people do not live there, she was sure they would meet the rest of the criteria.  She then questioned if it was historic, would it affect those within city boundaries. 

 

Chairman Bache responded that A.B. 56 would amend Chapter 244 of NRS, which encompassed counties rather than the cities.  She asked where the competition would likely come from and what the competition would be.  Ms. Nicholson indicated that anytime there is a competitive bid it could come from anywhere including speculators who could and would bid.  Ms. Nicholson stated she felt it unfair to have someone bid on property that someone else had lived on for 50 years.

 

Assemblyman Mortensen asked how the counties could accept tax money when those properties were not on the books as being registered to the occupants of the land.

 

Mr. Neighbors clarified this happened at the Nevada Test Site under NRS 361.157 and 361.159 when exempt real estate such as this property was made available for people to occupy.  They were still subject to the taxes and if not paid could be taken to court.  If they own the property and they do not pay the tax you can place a lien against the property.

 

Ms. Nicholson remarked that A.B. 56 points out the “muddy” history of these land ownerships where people presumed they had legal title.  The assessor, acting on the people’s presumption, had taxed them and technically they did not have legal title. 

 

Mr. Mortensen stated those people lived on the land and paid the taxes and were continuing to be taxed because the assessor assumed they owned the land.  Ms. Nicholson responded that it would be difficult to piece all the history together to know who initiated what.  She also stated that deeds were recorded in the County Recorder’s Office.  Mr. Mortensen questioned how one could record a deed without a significant title.  Ms. Nicholson said as far as she understood almost anything could be recorded and although it was recorded and accepted it did not verify the validity of that document.

 

Assemblyman Brown noted Section 5 defined original mining towns and wondered how many documented mining towns there were in the state.

 

Mr. Neighbors responded there were hundreds, but many had no one living on the site.  Mr. Brown then questioned the density of population on the sites and asked if they were several acres or just a few miles.  Mr. Neighbors said Gold Point, with all its homes, had the people pay what he termed a “possessory” tax.  Under current law, someone could bid them out and they would have to tear down their buildings.  Mr. Neighbors stated with BLM’s efforts those people should be given titles to their land. 

 

Mr. Brown questioned if the town sites were subdivided, how the taxes were apportioned.  Mr. Neighbors responded there were regular maps showing streets and blocks in the town sites.  He held up a map (Exhibit C) that showed the town of Ione, which was a mining town and the first county seat of Nye County.  The county seat was located there for 36 months.  The town had problems and the town of Belmont was developed.  The county seat stayed 36 years in Belmont and was currently located in Tonopah.  He named several mining towns, including Gabbs, Round Mountain, Gold Point and Manhattan.  Mr. Brown asked if the heavy blue line on the map was the outline of the town site.  Mr. Neighbors responded that it was, and the parcels were within those lines.

 

Mr. Brown stated that it sounded like the intent was to benefit those who had been in adverse possession for many years and questioned if it benefited individual counties.  Ms. Nicholson testified that getting the land transferred from the federal government to the counties was a plus and eventually everything would be on the tax roles.  Mr. Brown then questioned if she was aware of any large corporate interest that owned or had been on those tracts for some time.  Ms. Nicholson revealed that there was a mining company located in the town of Ione called Marshall Earth Resources that had many claims to property.  She said they also had a lot of mining claims underneath the property.  There was a mining company located in Gold Point, but she was not sure of the name.  She indicated that there were some corporations as well as individuals that would fall under the 25-year requirement. 

 

Assemblywoman Gibbons questioned if the taxes were for the property or the mining claim themselves.  Would the county purchase the land from the federal government and then resell it?  She said Section 2 was confusing.  Ms. Gibbons read “the price of property sold pursuant to this sub-section must be equal to the sum of the appraised value of the property plus the greater of $100 or the balance of the state county municipal taxes that are due and owing on the land for the 5 years immediately preceding the date of the sale.”  She said she was confused about why the county would sell back to the occupant.  Ms. Nicholson advised there would be taxes on the real property, not on the mining claims.  She also said that sometimes those taxes were levied on the improvements.  The federal legislation did not include any cost other than survey costs to the counties.  The federal government would give the land, not sell the land, to the counties based on the value of the property being less than the administrative burden.  She said it would be easier for the counties to take care of the transfer.  Ms. Nicholson called to Ms. Gibbons’ attention that this was the second level where people had lived on the property for 25 years, but either had not paid taxes or did not have the proper documentation.  She explained that the appraisal value would be used in that situation.

 

Ms. Gibbons asked if the county would gain extra revenue through these transfers or would it break even.  Ms. Nicholson replied it was anticipated that there would be additional revenues to the county because there might be some parcels that had no claimed ownership.  Those would be offered for sale competitively.

 

Assemblyman Brown questioned paragraph 3, Subsection a, of A.B. 56 addressing the continuously possessed and occupied issue.  He said it stated, “usually inhabited, cultivated or improved by the person or his predecessor and interests.”  It contained the word “or” which was ambiguous.  Mr. Brown was concerned that someone would make an argument that they improved the property but did not inhabit it.  They may have not been around the last 20 years.  He questioned if people might “come out of the woodwork” and make claims even though they might not have been seen for the last 20 years.  Ms. Nicholson answered that it was a definition of what possession meant.  Improvements would have to be made for the entire 25 years and not for an isolated period.  She said the language was patterned almost word-for-word from the state’s adverse possessions statute. 

 

Assemblyman Neighbors advised that the word patented should be mentioned.  He said that most of the land in Tonopah was patented and mining companies had retained the first 50 feet.  The patented land was a separate tax and the owner would pay the regular tax on the same property. 

 

Assemblyman Lee explained he was concerned with page 2, line 24, which referred to pasturage, and wondered whether ingress and egress would become an issue.  Ms. Nicholson explained that prior to the transfer of property, it would become an issue because many mining claims overlapped each other either by surface rights or mining rights.  Those needed to be worked out with the federal legislation.  She was not sure how that would be worded in federal legislation, but she felt the county would make sure that people’s rights were maintained. 

 

Assemblyman Price asked if someone created a homestead on their property would that be handled the same.  Ms. Nicholson stated if one does not have title to the home, then they would be out of luck when they went to court.  She indicated that would be a way for them to stake or confirm their title to the property.

 

Assemblyman Humke questioned Mr. Neighbors regarding the patented mining claims, asking if this bill provided for a sale of all rights involved in a real estate transaction, including mining claims.  Ms. Nicholson responded that any transfer from the federal government to the county would necessarily have to keep the mining claims intact.  Mr. Humke then expounded that if you owned one piece of property, someone else might own a patent and might own a mining claim to the same land.  Ms. Nicholson explained that most everyone living in Tonopah owned the surface rights but did not own the mining rights.

 

Mr. Humke then questioned if the federal government usually reserved the mining rights when making those transfers.  Ms. Nicholson responded that she had seen land transfers where the federal government had reserved certain rights.  Mr. Neighbors added that there had been a moratorium on further patents at the federal level.  The mining industry had lobbied for that because an acre could be bought for $7 or $8, but $50,000 in attorney fees was then needed to free up the land.

 

Assemblyman Mortensen asked how someone could build a home on land and someone else own mining rights.  Could the mining rights be exercised and possibly a hole dug in your front yard or living room?  Mr. Neighbors responded that the BLM has strong rules and regulations.  He stated that he had never recalled that happening.

 

Ms. Nicholson stated there was a company that bought all the mining rights under the town of Pahrump.  The community had many senior citizens who had received a letter stating they were to pay large amounts of money to avoid having an unnamed company exercise their mining rights.  Ms. Nicholson stated it is a fact of life in the state of Nevada that most people own only surface rights to their land.  Mr. Neighbors gave another example at the Nevada Test Site where a man staked a mining claim on Yucca Mountain and was paid a lot of money to get off the property.  Mr. Mortensen asked how a mining claim could be staked on federal property.  Mr. Neighbors responded that it was “withdrawn” property.

 

Ms. Nicholson turned in Exhibit D to summarize the bill presented by Mr. Neighbors. 

 

Chairman Bache closed the meeting on A.B. 56.

 

 

Assembly Bill 59:  Requires special election to fill certain vacancies on or offices of additional members of governing body of city. (BDR 21-71)

 

Assemblyman Tom Collins, District 1, North Las Vegas, stated that A.B. 59 was requested several years ago when Councilman Bob Nolan left his city council seat for another position.  There were many promises from members of the council in filling the vacancy but eventually a decision was made to appoint a black male to represent that ward.  The appointee created a conflict with the local government, and when the election took place another person was elected over the appointed person.  He stated that if a city council expands, which might happen in Henderson and possibly North Las Vegas within the next few years, constituents should have the opportunity to vote for their local representative.  If the cost of a special election was too expensive for a local government then why continue to have elections when they could continue to appoint all their positions?  Mr. Collins asserted that people have elections to choose their representatives and when a council or local government has a vacancy that is a year or longer there should be an election.  Mr. Collins also felt people should be allowed to elect those who would represent them. 

 

Assemblywoman Smith asked if there would be circumstances in a period of time where the election could fall in a regular election cycle and a special election would not need to be held.  Mr. Collins contended that would not infringe upon a short-term appointment if it was less than a year.  It would only affect vacancies of over a year.  He used an example of a two-year vacancy.  Mr. Collins explained that there are many different politics involved with appointments.  Some people went so far as to change their party in order to be appointed.  Some councilmen were asked not to appoint certain people because they were more useful in other positions.  Because of those incidents, many thought it would be better to elect rather than appoint if a position was vacant for longer than a year.  Mr. Collins also mentioned that on the other side there were elected officials who wanted the power and authority to make those appointments.  He felt that incidents with the media would be fewer, along with fewer ethics cases. 

 

Assemblywoman Smith asked again if it fell in a regular election cycle would they still hold the special election.  Ms. Smith asserted that it could send them to special election when it might fall in a regular election cycle.  Mr. Collins explained if a council slot were expanded it would wait until the next regular election.  If the vacancy was for longer than a year due to loss of a councilman there would be a special election.  Mrs. Smith requested that Mr. Collins let her think through her figures and get back with him.

 

Assemblywoman Von Tobel confirmed that if the vacancy was less than one year, then an appointment would still be made and there would be heavy lobbying and issues in the appointment process.  Mr. Collins responded that current law allowed either an election or an appointment.  He said they could have elections at any time, but elections in a short-term case could be expensive and would take away the power of appointment.  He also said that with any appointment it might lead to an advantage of incumbency in the next election.

 

Ms. Von Tobel then wanted to stress that the appointment process was the problem, rather than who was serving.  If Mr. Collins did not like the appointment process and it was “fatally flawed,” she wondered why there was language in the bill allowing appointments for less than a year.  Mr. Collins asserted that it was not “fatally flawed” and that it had worked successfully in some cases.  If there were two or three years left in a term, an election should take place rather than an appointment.  He also gave the example of Bob Nolan being elected in the spring and by the fall had taken a different position, leaving the seat open for two years.  He felt that in that particular case an appointment would not be in the best interest of the people.

 

Ms. Von Tobel then hypothesized that Mr. Collins was stating that a person that was appointed was not doing a good job once they were appointed.  She also stated that she knew the appointment process was very political, but once they were in office it gave that person a chance to prove worthiness and they could then run for that office.  Ms. Von Tobel asked why set a time limit on appointment versus election.  Mr. Collins responded by saying there was no real perfect time limit, so dividing the 2-year cycle in half would be a fair dividing line. 

 

Assemblyman Williams asked why the county was not included and what was the difference between that body and county commissioners and the city of Las Vegas.  Mr. Collins said he believed that he wanted to address all local governments but had no problem including the counties.  He apologized for leaving them out.  Mr. Williams thought the Las Vegas city charter stated if a person decided to seek another office they must resign.  However, the county currently had two commissioners that were actively campaigning for office and did not need to resign.  Those two seats would be vacant while they campaigned.  He asked if Mr. Collins thought that they should all resign in order to hold a special election to fill the vacancies.

 

Mr. Collins responded that he did not feel a person should resign while running for another office and felt that seeking another position was not a negative.  State Senators had 4-year terms and Assemblymen had 2-year terms, and that could easily happen.

 

Mr. Williams remarked that as a citizen he felt he would rather have an appointed person in the seat rather than one that was out running for office and campaigning for three years.  He said at least the appointed person would focus on the issues of the commission.  Mr. Collins stated that Mr. Williams had the opportunity as a member of the committee to change the law and not require people to resign if they campaigned.  He also stated that county commissioners’ jobs were part-time and did not feel they should be limited.  Therefore, he said, they should be able to have other professions as well as running for another office.  Mr. Collins again stated that if their seats became vacant and it was more than a year they should hold an election rather than have an appointment.

 

Mr. Williams again brought up what had taken place with the appointments, including phone calls, political lobbying and jockeying for position.  Those people that were running for office were lobbying for the same endorsements as were the appointees, and were receiving the same support.  He then questioned Mr. Collins on the differences between the appointment and the election processes.

 

Mr. Collins responded that the election was an open process and people select a person even though they may receive endorsements from different entities.  Mr. Williams argued those people who were in the running to be appointed as city council appointments also ran ads in the paper showing their supporters just as if they were running for an elected office.  He also felt that the candidates with key endorsements were not defeated in the election process after being appointed.

 

Mr. Collins contended that he could name one in 1994 and six in the Legislature that did have key endorsements and lost their elections.  Mr. Williams stated that circumstances were different in some situations and sometimes in the best interest for the makeup and financial stability of the city it is in their best interest to have an appointment versus an election.  Mr. Collins responded that they had that option and he was only trying to curb the option so it would not go over a year.

 

Mr. Collins stated he could not see how an official could claim a financial burden and tell their constituents they did not deserve the right to elect someone to a vacant position.  He also said it was not fair that someone was going to pick for them rather than give them a choice.  Mr. Collins again stated the issue was whether the election should take place when the vacancy was short term or long-term.

 

Assemblyman Brown, looking at the dates on this bill pointed out that it required an election within 90 days and that seemed rather short.  He stated it seemed like a very short period of time and would limit candidates to those who were probably in the loop.  He asked Mr. Collins if he also felt that was a short period of time in which to hold an election.  Mr. Collins said this statute would prevent the vacancy from being prolonged and there was precedence in other statutes for that short time frame.  The appointment time and the election time both fall within the same length of time.  Mr. Brown asked if he had the figures for other states and Mr. Collins replied he did not have that information. 

 

Assemblyman Mortensen questioned if the growth in North Las Vegas would result in another seat becoming available.  Mr. Collins claimed he was only suggesting that in the future the possibility existed.  Nevada was projected to grow 49 percent in the next 9 to 10 years.  He declared that if there was to be expansion in the area where he resides, he would hope that it would be done by election time.

 

Assemblywoman Parnell reiterated that only through the election procedure would one need to make a financial disclosure and, therefore, many of those groups would lobby for an appointment.  She stated it would be more valuable to see the financial disclosure than an ad in the newspaper showing they had the Culinary Union’s support.  Mr. Collins explained it created better government to let the people pick their representatives by due process.

 

Assemblyman Lee stated he agreed with Mr. Collins and if his city councilman left there would be prejudiced councilman choosing his replacement for his district and the electorate would not have an opportunity to choose.  He explained the only thing he disagreed with was the one-year provision.  With the 3-month election process he felt if it were 18 months rather than 12 months it would be better.  Fifteen months would give the person who was appointed a chance to make it or break it and there would not be enough of a time period to learn the job.  Mr. Lee asked Mr. Collins if he was stuck on the one-year term, because to support the bill he felt he needed a longer period of time allotted.  Mr. Collins explained that the one-year fell as halfway between a two-year cycle of elections and declared it fit into a frame that was flexible enough to give the community the opportunity to vote. 

Assemblywoman Smith again wanted to point out that there might be some circumstances where a special election would not need to be held and they would fall into the regular election cycle.  She stated it would be possible with the time limit set on elections to have a special election and two months later hold a regular election.  She felt there should be a provision to save time and money.  Mr. Collins explained there were other statutes in the law that would require that one would have to run for election even though he might have been appointed.  He gave an example of someone receiving an appointment in January and having to run for special election in June.  He mentioned it was longer than the 90-day election period that Mr. Brown mentioned.

 

Assemblywoman Gibbons thought the county commission seats were appointed by the Governor.  Ms. O’Grady responded that she was correct.  Per Assemblyman Williams, people lobbied for the three names that were submitted to the Governor to fill vacancies.

 

Assemblyman Williams asked Mr. Collins how he felt if all people that were interested in fulfilling appointed jobs would not be able to run in the general election.  Mr. Williams stated if appointees were told upfront they would not be able to run in the regular election, it would eliminate the whole aspect of lobbying to get the advantage of being an incumbent.  Another situation Mr. Williams wanted to address concerned the University Regents, whose terms were for six years.  It was possible a regent might resign with more than five years left on his term.  He suggested the committee should look into those elections in addition to school boards.

 

Mr. Collins stated he was not trying to rewrite election laws, but to address local government.  He did not think there was any binding law that restricted appointees from running for elected office when it became available.  Mr. Collins said there were now fewer and fewer people running for the Assembly and local government positions, so an individual should not be restricted from campaigning and running for office.  The desire was to have better government representatives, especially elected ones.

 

Mr. Williams again challenged Mr. Collins’ original statement regarding “the purpose is to give the people the choice to vote for who they want.”  Mr. Williams stated those people who wished to run for the position could start gearing up their campaigns and those who wished to be elected could gear up to face the voters.  Mr. Collins responded there had been appointees in the past that had taken appointments with the understanding that they did not want to run for the office.

 

Assemblywoman Von Tobel admitted that the problem with the process was the controversy surrounding appointments.  The bill would not eliminate appointments.  It would take someone who was appointed and shorten the length of time they had to run for office.  Ms. Von Tobel commented that it would make it more difficult for a person recently appointed to organize a campaign and run.

 

Mr. Collins stated again they were just addressing a timeline on the length of the appointment versus the choice by the people.  Ms. Von Tobel suggested Mr. Collins come up with a timeline of how many people would be affected by the change, and asked if it would be a detriment to that person who would immediately run for office.  She also felt that the pool of appointees would be smaller if someone knew they would have to immediately run for the office.  She stated they would much rather be out campaigning than trying to hold down the office and campaign at the same time.  Mr. Collins responded to Ms. Von Tobel and said he did not think it would be a detriment to run for office because it gave the candidate a chance to meet their constituents and the community.  He said, “Let’s find something that is more balancing and not just one way.”  Ms. Von Tobel again requested how many people would be affected by the change versus how many would still fall under the current language. 

 

Assemblyman Price stated he had been contemplating quick, efficient solutions to the problem.  He was in agreement with U.S. Senator Reid in being able to vote on Saturday and Sunday.  He suggested that legislators could serve their citizens efficiently if a system could be established whereby immediately following a vacancy, constituents could select the candidate by being able to register or call in their vote to the Art Bell show.  He said it would not be expensive.  Mr. Collins had no comment for Mr. Price. 

 

Chairman Bache stated for the last 23 years he had lived in the district that was Ward 3 in Las Vegas.  The following was testimony given by Chairman Bache:

 

Back when Mr. Brass received the appointment I know there some discontent among the community but I don’t think there was unhappiness with the process as occurred and it was more a case of Mr. Brass did not do his work with the community.  The appointment I believe was for slightly more than 2 years because the vacancy when councilman Nolan left to become Constable was after the close of the filing period for the city elections.  So it was like 2 years and 3 months, the longest period of time because it is the next scheduled city election that the person would have to be up at.  It was only slightly more than 2 years.  I believe the council at that time asked for a legal opinion if they could reopen filing and their city council advised them not to as I recall and so they made that appointment.  Myself in common with councilman Reese; I applied for a vacancy, didn’t get it and then was elected.  Same thing occurred for him.  I think the real issue is more what happened this last session with the Legislature mandating the appointment of the two councilmen for the expanded wards.  That was a case where had the city, it was an extended period of time, where we were first in ’95 legislation came up.  We could have Senator Neal give us a history lesson on this but the city of Las Vegas after reapportioning and there was discontent among the Hispanic Community and the Black Community about that reapportionment.  Both asked that they wanted to expand the council and in exchange for not challenging the reapportionment in court and some other things that city agreed they would come to Legislature to have a bill to expand the wards.  That occurred in ’97 with Senator Neal’s bill and then after allowing the city to expand to six but it did, the city decided and I don’t remember the exact thing but the city did not at that time — I see you moving, we’ll get to you eventually — the city did not after the ’97 session take any action and then they decided to put it to a vote of the people.  They could have put it to a vote of the people in November of ’98 even though that was not a scheduled election so they could have had elections in ’99 so this was more a situation where the city compounded and Senator Neal being frustrated, as I a resident of the city too felt that the city was not maintaining their commitment to expand the council had his legislation in ’99 mandating the appointment and the redistricting so that we could have those additional representatives.  I think that’s more where this is from as opposed to ’93.  I think the big concern came because first we had the vacancy from Mr. Adamson who had to resign to run for Mayor so councilman Boggs-McDonald was appointed to that vacancy and then we’ve had councilman Mack and Weekly appointed to the two so we had a majority of the council appointed and I think there was some concern about that.  If there’s future expansions of any councils by any cities and they wish to have the voters decide whether to expand they can always put that on a November ballot question so that they could then deal with the issue of expanding the council the following city election cycle.  I don’t know if you have any comments on that.  It’s more a comment as opposed to a question.

 

Assemblyman Collins explained the reason he had the billamended from the first request (Exhibit D).  He indicated they wanted to make sure the expanded seats would require an election. 

 

Dan Musgrove, Office of Administrative Services, city of Las Vegas, mentioned that Mr. Collins had said he respected the wishes of those who wanted to make appointments.  Those that appointed were elected officials so if there was unhappiness with politics then the voters had ability to speak.  He explained that currently the city council had the ability to call a special election.  NRS 268.325 stated if a vacancy occurred, the governing body might, in lieu of appointment, declare a special election to fill that vacancy.  Exhibit E was a handout that listed Section 1.160 of the city charter, which addressed the fact that the city council needed to appoint within 30 days.  The council tried to fill the vacancy in an immediate manner so there was a representative in office to handle individual needs.  He stated the biggest concerning this bill was not whether the cost of a special election was worth what was gained.  He stated currently a position would be filled in 30 days, but the bill would take 90 days for a special election, and that was pushing the city clerk.

 

Mr. Musgrove went on to say financial costs were difficult to estimate since some costs were constant, such as printing and transportation while others were not, like acquiring staff, both temporary and overtime.  It was estimated that one ward election could cost between $85,000 and $95,000.  If early voting was included, there would be an additional increase of $10,000 to $15,000. 

 

Mr. Musgrove explained that in 1997, S.B. 38 of the Sixty-Ninth Session was introduced and passed which originally required the city of Las Vegas to be divided into four wards.  Then it was amended to allow as many wards as the city council deemed necessary.  The city council was slow in responding to Senator Neal’s bill in their expansion from four to six wards so a task force was put together in October of 1998.  The task force determined there should be an expansion of the wards, but it also determined the public was being adequately represented from the existing council.  It was like a “catch-22” in that there was adequate representation, but it would be better to expand.  Mr. Musgrove drew attention to S.B. 274 of the Seventieth Session, which required the city to divide into six wards upon approval of the voters.  The voters approved and part of the original legislation required appointments that turned politically intense on both sides.  Mr. Musgrove stated the city council should have the right to make the decision on an individual basis on whether to appoint or hold a special election.  He observed that A.B. 59 would not allow that to happen and it would remove that right.  The law would require every local government to hold special elections if a vacancy would be longer than a year.  Mr. Musgrove listed some time period problems with the bill:

• A.B. 59 referred to affidavit of candidacy rather than declaration of candidacy.
• There was no indication that a special election would require absentee voting or early voting.
• If absentee or early voting was contemplated there was not enough time for mailing, preparation and publication of those ballots and holding.
• The one-year time frame was very ambiguous.  Did the measure address the general or the primary election?

 

Assemblyman Lee said Mr. Musgrove seemed to be totally against all portions of the bill.  He stated that the appointment process did not work well.  He also said he had never seen any benefit in a ward appointing someone to fill a vacancy.  Mr. Lee reiterated that he totally disagreed with an appointment of three years as being justified, and A.B. 59 would eliminate some of the embarrassment with those appointment processes.  He questioned if Mr. Musgrove’s goal was to totally “kill” the bill, or find some good to work with in the bill.  Mr. Musgrove replied that his council had not taken a position.  There were some timing problems and some problems in the language that should be clarified.  Mr. Lee then confirmed that Mr. Musgrove and the city of Las Vegas might be open to reopening the dialogue on A.B. 59. 

 

Assemblywoman Gibbons questioned the cost of $85,000 for a special election and wondered if that cost was relevant to Las Vegas or would it be similar in Reno.  Mr. Musgrove responded that the figure quoted was related to Las Vegas for a single ward that would involve 74,000 votes.  He added that did not bring into consideration early voting and pointed out the bill did not clarify or discuss that issue.

 

Assemblyman Price stated he was not sure how they could estimate or get a cost because a special election would not require machines in as many places and would involve only one ward.  He stated the special election could have just one location to vote rather than several in each precinct.  Mr. Musgrove replied he felt it would be a disservice to voters if it was not conducted like a regular ward-wide election.  If there was only one location, a number of people could be prevented from voting, for example seniors with transportation problems. 

 

Chairman Bache stated that Mr. Musgrove’s testimony indicated the system currently in place, with the exception of mandated appointments of ward seats two years ago, did what Assemblyman Collins was requesting.  Mr. Bache wondered if that was a fair statement.  Mr. Musgrove stated it was fair, but also through the appointment process it was possible to get a candidate of choice.  Mr. Musgrove felt that Senator Neal wanted appointments made so there would be better representation of ethnic groups on the city council.

 

Mr. Tom Grady, Executive Director of the Nevada League of Cities, requested that he be able to summarize some of the questions and concerns regarding this bill. 

 

He asked, “Will either an election or an appointment take the politics away?”  He answered, “No, that’s why it’s called politics.”  He requested people look at the way the bill was written and referred to Section 1, NRS 268.325.  The old language read that governing bodies of a city may, in lieu of an appointment, declare a special election to fill a vacancy.  He explained the bill addressed election procedures if expanding a council and if there was a vacancy an appointment would take place.  Those issues should not be confused.

 

There was mention of two cities and their operations with their city councils.  Mr. Grady reiterated that there are 18 cities, some very small.  He stressed that exempted A.B. 59 from the unfunded mandate.  He did not think it should be done.  The cost to some cities could be as high as $85,000, but to other cities it could be $30,000, $10,000, $8,000, and a small city such as Carlin would spend up to $3,000 for a special election.  He testified that all cities opposed the concept because of cost.

 

Mr. Grady said no circumstances would allow an appointed official to be in office for longer than two years with the one exception that Chairman Bache mentioned.  He again stated that the appointment would fill the vacancy until the next official election.  He recalled that Winnemucca had an election several years ago and no one filed.  There were two vacancies so it was necessary to appoint.  A.B. 59 would not work in that situation. 

 

Mr. Grady stated the Legislature discouraged special elections.  He asked if bond issues would also be added to the ballot if there was a special election.  He stated that was what the Legislature would not want.  Would A.B. 59 open those doors once again?  He also mentioned the 30-day appointment and indicated that some city councils only had three members.  He stated that if the election period was spread out over 90 days or longer it would prohibit that council from operating. 

 

Mr. Grady requested that everyone keep in mind this bill would encompass more than the city of North Las Vegas.  If the bill was implemented as written, it would affect all cities.  Mr. Grady also indicated they had already spoken to Assemblyman Collins regarding the bill and some of its problems.  Mr. Grady pleaded again not to pass legislation based on one city’s problem, because it would affect 18 cities. 

 

Assemblywoman Von Tobel again voiced her concern regarding the bill and asked how one would find a candidate willing to be appointed if they would then have to immediately run for office.  The appointee would not want that if their opponents could work on their campaigns while the appointee held down the office. 

 

Assemblyman Mortensen asked Mr. Grady to give costs for the top four cities other than Las Vegas.  Mr. Grady listed the following:

 

1.     Boulder City – estimated $30,000

2.     Winnemucca – estimated $10,000

3.     Fallon – estimated $8,000

4.     Mesquite – estimated $8,000

5.     Carlin – estimated $3,000

 

Michele Richardson, Assistant City Manager, North Las Vegas, stressed opposition to A.B. 59 as it was currently written.  It was cost prohibitive for North Las Vegas.  She also wanted to point out a fact that was not in prior testimony and that was when an election was held, even though council members had to reside in a particular ward, they had to be elected citywide.  The cost to hold such an election in North Las Vegas would be approximately $130,000. 

 

Neena Laxalt, representing Sparks, Nevada, stated that according to the city clerk in Sparks it would cost approximately $100,000, but if the special election happened close to the time for a general election it would run between $15,000 and $20,000.  Chairman Bache questioned Ms. Laxalt regarding whether Sparks was still on the city election cycle or had it switched into the regular election cycle.  Ms. Laxalt stated there was a bill before the Legislature this session, which, if passed, would switch to the regular election cycle.  She stated at this time Sparks was in the off-season and would have another election in the spring.

 

Mr. Richard Wilkie, representing the city of Henderson, stated that while the city supported the election efforts of the bill, Henderson shared concerns with the language and time requirements (Exhibit F).

Mr. Val Garner, prior Chairman of the Assembly Government Affairs Committee, representing the city of Reno, stated the Reno City Council was meeting that day to consider this issue.  He estimated the cost would run around $100,000 to have a special election.

 

Assemblywoman Gibbons requested that when Mr. Garner found out Reno’s position regarding A.B. 59 to please let the committee know.  Mr. Garner advised he would do so.

 

Assemblyman Collins stated that he understood some of the local governments’ concerns on the timeframes whether 1 year or 15 months, and he reiterated that a long-term appointment should not continue for local governments.  He voiced that any expanded council should not have seats filled by appointee’s.  He agreed that Assemblyman Lee had brought up some good points and that pulling $85,000 out of the city of Las Vegas for a special election would not be a burden.  Constituents should be able to choose their representation.  He also stated those cities mentioned by Mr. Grady would also not have a burden on their budget and their constituents would have legitimate representation.  He asked the committee to search for a successful approach which would address timeliness of appointment versus election.  Future needs of expanding communities should offer elections of any expanded seats versus an appointment.

 

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 59.

 

Chairman Bache adjourned the meeting on Government Affairs at 10:47 a.m.

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

Linda Utt

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

                       

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman

 

DATE: