ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs

Seventy-First Session

February 20, 2001

The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:02 a.m., on Tuesday, February 20, 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

Mrs. Debbie Smith

Ms. Kathy Von Tobel

Mr. Wendell Williams

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel

Dave Ziegler, Committee Policy Analyst

Cheryl Meyers, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Robert S. Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties

Jim Spinello, Legislative Team, Clark County, Nevada

Douglas R. Bell, Manager, Community Resources Management, Clark County, Nevada

Jim Foreman, Manager, Public Response, Administrative Services, Clark County, Nevada

Karen Kavanau, Director, Administrative Office of the Courts

John J. Slaughter, AICP, Strategic Planning Manager, Washoe County, Nevada

Carole Vilardo, President, Nevada Taxpayers Association

Kimberly Rushton, Deputy Attorney General, Gaming Division, State of Nevada

Jim Spencer, Deputy Attorney General, State of Nevada

Alan Glover, Carson City Clerk and Recorder, and County Fiscal Officers Association

Barbara Reed, Douglas County Recorder, Douglas County, Nevada

George Flint, Representative, Wedding Chapels, State of Nevada

Margaret Lowther, Recorder/Auditor, Storey County, State of Nevada

Tim Crowley, Nevada Mining Association

Raymond Masayko, Mayor of Carson City, Nevada

Chairman Bache stated the committee would operate as a subcommittee until additional members arrived to reach a quorum.

Assembly Bill No. 128: Requires approval by attorney general of certain contracts and leases before such contracts and leases take effect. (BDR 22-479)

Chairman Bache noted there were no witnesses in the committee room who wished to testify on A.B. 128. He closed the hearing on A.B. 128 to reopen it later in the meeting. Mr. Bache then opened the hearing on A.B. 92.

Assembly Bill No. 92: Authorizes county to exercise additional powers under certain circumstances. (BDR 20-428)

Robert S. Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties (NACO), spoke. He referred to other bills and measures that gave counties the ability to conduct the businesses they needed to conduct. He asserted A.B. 92 gave counties authority and limited flexibility to address issues of local concern in a timely manner, as long as such authority did not conflict with the provisions of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) or other laws and regulations of the state of Nevada. Presently, he noted, the counties had only those authorities that were specifically in the NRS. The scope of the statutes in the NRS, he stated, were very limited due to the rapid changes in the state, the varying needs of the constituents, and the affairs of government that changed on a daily basis. The counties, he related, were not always able to come to the legislative session before a problem arose. Subsequently, counties were made to wait until the next legislature to seek authority before solving a problem. The counties were very cognizant, he stated, of the authority of the State and recognized the legislature’s role. The problem had been limited flexibility for areas such as public safety; development of affordable housing; control and protection of animals; redevelopment of communities; rehabilitation of property in residential neighborhoods; rehabilitation of abandoned residential property; public health and sanitation; and the abatement of nuisances.

Mr. Hadfield stated the individual counties were involved in each of the areas noted with some particular twists associated with the different counties. In the past the problem had been to craft legislation that would cover all situations in all counties, he noted. A.B. 92 specifically stated counties would not impose or increase any taxes. This subsection was intended to comply with all of the statutes. The counties had asked for functional and administrative authority in this bill. In Section 3 of A.B. 92 the counties had asked for the ability to have certain penalties changed from criminal to civil. He stated the counties needed to be able to treat certain criminal cases as they were handled in cities by reducing them to civil charges. The counties had asked the committee to consider giving them very limited authority in certain areas to operate within the boundaries of the state’s statutes and regulations.

The committee reached a quorum at 8:09 and continued the hearings as a committee.

Assemblywoman Gibbons asked for clarification from Mr. Hadfield on lines 16 and 17 of A.B. 92 in regard to tax increases by specific statute. She questioned if the specific lines enabled counties to vote by two-thirds for a tax increase.

Mr. Hadfield informed Ms. Gibbons Section 2 of A.B. 92 was placed on the bill to give assurance to the legislature regarding new taxes or tax increases. The taxes were regulated by existing statute and could not be changed by county administration.

Chairman Bache asked Mr. Hadfield if redevelopment of communities meant redevelopment districts. Mr. Hadfield stated the language was specific for redevelopment of communities because the counties did not want to refer to redevelopment districts.

Mr. Bache followed up with Ms. Gibbons’ query as to the language in Sub-section 1 of A.B. 92 that stated the county would be allowed to follow up with taxes that were previously authorized by legislature. Mr. Hadfield stated the counties could continue with past legislative direction but could not create any new taxes or increase existing taxes.

Assemblyman Mortenson stated he did not see a reason for the bill if nothing in the bill went against authority or legislation that existed.

Mr. Hadfield stated under existing procedures the counties only had those specific authorities that were listed and nothing further. A.B. 92 would let counties act unless something was prohibited by statute or regulation or any other state authority. This bill, he noted, would allow the counties to operate in much broader parameters when they addressed issues of local concern.

Mr. Mortenson stated if a county did not violate a rule, the county should be able to take action. He would wait for further testimony.

Mr. Hadfield replied the Dillon’s Rule declared the counties only had those specific authorities that were granted by the statutes. The measure A.B. 92 would provide the counties flexibility with the rule. The Legislative Counsel Bureau drafted A.B. 92, with specific areas asked for, so Dillon’s Rule would not take precedence.

Jim Spinello, Legislative Team, Clark County, Nevada, addressed some additional points mentioned in the Dillon’s Rule decision. A county could not perform any action that was not specifically stated in NRS. He stated a county was a subdivision of a state, whereas an incorporated city was allowed certain municipal powers. He commented Clark County had the largest population in Nevada and the urban unincorporated area constituted the largest city in the state of Nevada in population. The statistics did not include the rural areas, he noted. Municipal issues in all of the county areas, which were vast in scope, small and large, were hindered by Dillon’s Rule per district attorneys’ rulings. The issue of legislative authority and a political subdivision was an important one, he remarked. A.B. 92 was specifically limited to not subvert legislative authority and to keep the subdivision of state and county intact. The traditional concerns of the legislature, specifically tax issues, were covered in this bill, he noted. He invited the committee to consider the number of bills in the future that would be reduced if A.B. 92 were to pass.

Douglas R. Bell, Manager, Community Resources, Clark County, Nevada, spoke on the responsibilities of his office overseeing the county’s federal HUD grants totaling approximately $13 million each year. Additionally, his office administered county grants to outside non-profit agencies, and grants from the county to other local governments. He stated the agency worked with an estimated 50 outside nonprofit agencies as well as city municipalities. He concurred the counties were encumbered by Dillon’s Rule, and cited examples specific to his office (Exhibit C). Clark County had grown in population and was being called upon to assume increased functions. The county had previously spent hours searching the NRS to find a citation or mechanism that would enable county government to legally undertake the services expected by the citizens of the county. Mr. Bell stated his office wanted to provide all types of services and programs contained within the authorized and enabling section of the federal programs his office administered.

Assemblywoman Von Tobel referenced an article about a nonprofit organization, Nevada Housing Assistance, which faced a state probe. The organization had not registered with state agencies and had worked with low-income buyers in Clark County. Her concern was groups such as these, if A.B. 92 passed, would come into the state, not be required to register with the state, only Clark County, and the state would be held responsible for any failures.

Mr. Bell replied he had never heard of the group. Under county regulations, any group or nonprofit agency had to be pre-approved by the Board of Commissioners with a scope of work and funding specifications adopted. For any non-profit group to be considered a legitimate entity it would have to be a 501(c)(3) corporation with a tax identification number.

Ms. Von Tobel asked Mr. Bell to please research the corporation indicated that went under the name “Housing Assistance Corporation.” Her concern was the circumvention of the state in the proposed bill and subsequently, the state being involved in items such as probes when there was a problem.

Mr. Mortenson needed clarification on the issue of Mr. Bell’s agency making loans to for-profit corporations. Mr. Bell stated they did. Mr. Mortenson added he believed that was forbidden by the state’s constitution considering public monies given to for-profit organizations. He queried the legal staff about the issue.

Mr. Spinello indicated the drafters would remove the section in the A.B. 92 that related to federal funds if it was troublesome.

Assemblyman Williams applauded the good projects that were performed by counties and governments. He indicated his concern was the broad intent of A.B. 92. The incidents related gave specific examples of projects with groups that worked with the counties; however, A.B. 92 as written did not give any specificity to any of those examples. The bill only gave a broad scope and no specific authority. He queried why the proposed legislation did not address specifically the problems the counties were facing on some of the projects. Mr. Williams expressed concern county commissioners, upon passage of A.B. 92,could perform actions in any of the areas mentioned without laws to regulate them. He mentioned the Government Affairs Committee could be rendered obsolete. He explained he understood the frustrations of the counties; however, there were reasons for the different tiers of government and bureaucracy. If A.B. 92 would address all of the problems the counties have faced in the past and eliminated the stumbling blocks, he would vote in favor. The bill currently did not address any specific items. It allowed the counties to pass ordinances to do whatever they deemed necessary. He observed passage could lead to conflicts between the state’s ideas in the statutes and the counties’ actions. This committee had allowed local governments flexibility when problems were specifically stated. The laws had been written to address those problems, whereas A.B. 92 would not require counties to even state the problem. He stated this bill went too far in giving the counties a broad scope.

Mr. Spinello stated the bill would allow counties to exercise the same authority as incorporated cities in the state now enjoyed. A.B. 92 gave counties some of the same abilities as incorporated cities to adopt ordinances. He indicated the broad scope was not as great as it appeared on the surface. The reason the bill did not discuss specifics was the reason the counties continued to appear before the committee to address problems, the unpredictability of problems arising. Problems continued to appear every day and the counties had to wait eighteen months to come before the legislature to solve the problems. The dilemma for Clark County was the inability to have the flexibility of any incorporated city.

Mr. Williams retorted that most counties and cities worked on their legislative packages from sine die until the next session of the legislature. He added if there were problems of public safety, for example, that needed to be addressed, he would be in favor. To apply a broad scope for public safety, he reiterated, he could not vote in favor. If the counties had problems now, he stated the legislature could fix those problems now. The reason to meet every two years was to address those changing issues. To have a mandate to fix anything the counties wanted, in anyway the counties wanted, was going too far, he stated.

Mr. Humke wanted to look at Section 1, Subsection 3, whereby civil penalties were created where there was no criminal penalty at the state level. He asked what the intent of that section would be. Mr. Spinello replied a specific example would be an animal control issue that under statute required the county to criminalize barking dog problems. The county was forced to take these issues to the district attorney when a city could just issue a citation. This type of problem would be an example of the type of legislation that would not have to be brought before the legislature. He related every eighteen months, however, the legislature would have the opportunity to control county actions if the legislative body deemed they had gone too far in their actions.

Assemblyman Humke stressed the example given was the type of bill he would like to see brought before the committee. It would state a point of policy and be the type of bill sought after by the legislature. A.B. 92 as written gave a very broad type of authority. The founders of the legislature wrote the constitution, he noted, to include a strong legislature. One additional point he mentioned related to Section 1, Subsection 3 of the bill. If a county made an ordinance in which there was a civil penalty, he posed, it would be very difficult for this legislature to make it a criminal penalty on a statewide basis.

Mr. Spinello replied the logical extension of Mr. Humke’s comments would be to reduce some of the authority that cities currently had. The city of Reno had the ability to deal with the specific issue on a civil basis now and the counties did not. He reiterated the counties wanted some of the authorities that cities currently had. Mr. Humke stated he agreed and would grant specifically what the counties appropriately sought.

Assemblyman Price inquired if A.B. 92 would change laws regarding open meetings, disposal of property, or redevelopment. Mr. Spinello replied the county could not as a result of A.B. 92 change any existing laws or statutes. Mr. Price asked Mr. Spinello about notices of bids and leasing real property to charitable and civic organizations being affected. He wondered if the organization of such areas would fall under the county’s authority with passage of A. B.92. Mr. Spinello stated where the state had spoken the counties would follow the law or statute.

Assemblyman Lee stated some of the problems cited would be handled in this session without A.B. 92. Mr. Lee asked for clarification on Section 1h, the abatement of nuisances. He noted the counties had proposed a consolidation bill. He suggested the counties become cities and they would not have to deal with the legislature in the future. He indicated the voters wanted the committee to oversee the county as well as the state. Mr. Lee felt his responsibility was to protect the citizens from the state, counties and cities to give people the quality of life they needed. He noted the committee felt this bill was a far-reaching bill.

Jim Foreman, Manager, Public Response, Administrative Services for Clark County, Nevada, spoke concerning the question Mr. Lee posed on nuisances. In 1993 Clark County decided it could not react quickly to real dangerous structures. They could react; however, not quickly. The county introduced a bill that took two to three years to pass the legislature. The bill was not inclusive however, and in 1995, the county realized they could not address chronic nuisances. Those nuisances were not categorized as imminently dangerous, but there was criminal activity in the buildings, repeated zoning violations and dilapidated buildings, and the police asked the county for action. The county went through the legislative process again and it took three years for the county to be able to take the appropriate steps. Mr. Foreman addressed another item considered a nuisance. In the city of Las Vegas, graffiti and sub-standard structures were considered a nuisance, along with a long list of other items. In the Public Response Office, under NRS weeds, junk and dangerous structures were the only items listed the county could take action on. He stated he had sixteen inspectors that covered the county to take care of neighborhoods. His office had seen the needs in the communities but was unable to get BDRs introduced for possibly two to four sessions because of the long list of priorities for other departments.

Mr. Foreman stated the frustrations of his department involved, as an example, having the permit to discharge into a storm drain system but not having the authority, per the district attorney, to give citations to abusers. As part of the permit, the county was to do “strong enforcement.” His agency was caught in the middle trying to uphold the conditions of the permit and not being permitted to by another agency. He submitted a BDR to handle the problem; however, it did not make the list. The city of Las Vegas was able to handle the same problem in three months with citations issued by the fire department. Mr. Foreman indicated his frustration with specific laws that passed in all of the cities and his department had to release offenders. He stated the matters seemed simple; however, some offenses cost millions of dollars.

Assemblyman Brown asked for clarification with regard to the scope of the powers indicated in A.B. 92. If the county enacted an ordinance concerning redevelopment of communities, rehabilitation of neighborhoods, or sanitation it could mandate action on behalf of cities within the counties. Mr. Spinello was not aware of any authority that counties had over cities.

Assemblywoman Freeman stated she had always been a strong proponent of local government and felt as elected officials they should respond to their constituents. The state she indicated had unnecessary powers at certain times over local governments. She would favor the bill in question if the counties made a real effort at the local level to really address the issues: taxes, nuisances, fiscal equity, etc. She indicated the commissioners, especially in Clark County, were overburdened with the number of tasks they performed. She conceded that the counties were very limited on the number of bills they could present and the end result was the presentation of a bill that really did not address the specific issues. She announced she would be more than happy to support the bill if the guarantees were in place in regard to the effort at the local level.

Mr. Spinello replied if the committee would give him the specifics he would give the guarantee.

Mr. Price questioned Mr. Foreman about the inability of his department to get a BDR on the list. Mr. Foreman responded his department submitted his BDR requests very early to the county managers. The county received 15 total BDR slips and although his requests were needed and necessary, the managers had to assign BDRs to the top priorities. He stated he was frustrated in the past with a three-year wait and to know now that the wait would be six to nine years was doubly frustrating. The problem would continue to grow because of the growth of the county. Mr. Spinello clarified the actual number of BDRs allowed after dispensing a courtesy BDR to metro, the water district and the water authority was 12. The counties and cities tried to edit and share bills to bring fewer to the legislature. Mr. Price asked if the counties looked at amendments and related NRS to try to solve their problems. Mr. Spinello replied in the affirmative.

Assemblywoman Smith appreciated the frustration of the counties and did not want the citizens to wait for problems to be solved. She felt that a part of A.B. 92 was very narrow and well defined and part of the bill was too broad. She indicated Section 1, Subsection "a" and "h" needed to be more defined.

Mr. Williams wanted to clear up any misconception that he may not support the counties’ programs. He stated the bill should list all of the specifics that were talked about so that it could be passed. He indicated the frustration of the legislators, the school districts, etc., that were all limited in their BDR slips. Mr. Williams stated Section 3 should state the elimination of the Government Affairs Committee because that was in effect what it would do. The counties knew in their departments what stifled their movements when it came to serving the people. He stated the need to put those issues in A.B. 92 and let the legislators pass the bill. A.B. 92 could be amended to include all of the issues and problems discussed. The bill could be as thick as needed to cover all the issues so the counties could serve their constituents.

Assemblyman Neighbors agreed the bill needed to be more specific; however, as a former county manager, he understood the need for most issues to be handled at the local level administratively. He asked the bill drafters to include more specifics so the bill could be passed and the counties would not have to wait two to four more years.

Assemblywoman Von Tobel stated she agreed with her colleagues about the lack of the specifics in the bill. She had dealt in the past with unincorporated areas that wanted more power from the counties. In that effort she found resistance from the counties to relinquish authority and now found the “trickle down” situation interesting. She reiterated Mr. William’s suggestion to make A.B. 92 fifteen or more pages to take care of the specific issues.

Chairman Bache stated certain attorneys in the district attorney’s office, especially in Clark County, interpret the statutes far too narrowly. He suggested a few of the attorneys should come to the legislature for a discussion on interpretation. Mr. Spinello replied that the counties did find that to be a problem on occasion; however, in general, the Dillon’s Rule was very broad.

Mrs. Parnell reminded the committee that the issues were not just about Clark County, but about all of the other counties in Nevada as well. She indicated her frustrations on a citizen level having to hear the reasons from counties why something could not get done. She indicated she was in support of giving counties more authority to make administrative decisions. The legislators were elected by the citizens, who expect issues to be taken care of in a timely fashion in their community. She offered her assistance to the counties to help them help their citizens.

Karen Kavanau, Director, Administrative Office of the Courts, offered an amendment to A.B. 92, specifically to Section 3, that would impact fees collected by the courts for misdemeanors. The court wanted to amend the bill according to Exhibit D.

Ms. Von Tobel wanted to know if the Subsection was 3 or Subsection 4. Ms.

Kavanau thanked her for the clarification; it was Subsection 4 of Section 1.

Assemblyman Mortenson queried if there were any assessments on civil penalties. Ms. Kavanau replied the assessments were levied on misdemeanors that involved criminal actions. Mr. Mortenson replied there would be an additional tax added in this case. Ms. Kavanau stated this additional tax would only be in the case where an administrative tax was already assessed on the violation. The example given in previous testimony on the issue of dog barking illustrated how a violation could pass from criminal, as was the case in the county currently, to a civil violation if A.B. 92 passed. The proposed amendment would cover the issue of assessing the administrative assessments for a previously considered criminal charge.

John J. Slaughter, Strategic Planning Manager, Washoe County, Nevada, stated Washoe County’s support for A.B. 92 and noted the previous comments in regard to strengthening the bill. He offered his support to help Clark County in the effort to pass the bill.

Carole Vilardo, President, Nevada Taxpayers Association, voiced her organization’s support of A.B. 92 with better delineation as discussed. She discussed the need for balance between large issues, addressed by legislature, and immediate needs of counties small and large that could not wait for even one year to be handled for the citizens. Section 2 required a one-word amendment. She suggested the word “fee” should be added after the word “tax.”

Chairman Bache asked for any further testimony on A.B. 92 and seeing none he opened the hearing on A.B. 94.

Assembly Bill No. 94: Increases amount of certain fees certain officials of local governments are authorized to charge and collect. (BDR 20-419)

Ms. Gibbons opened the hearing by suggesting there was a possible conflict on the proposed bill. The initial issue was a two-thirds majority vote on raising taxes. The other possible conflict was her involvement with a wedding business in downtown Reno. She indicated she had no problem with the portion of A.B. 94 that raised the fee on marriage licenses. She stressed how important the work of Assemblywoman Jan Evans was and adding another $5 to the marriage license to support her work was important and necessary. Ms. Gibbons stated, “for the record, I support it and I also support Mr. Hadfield’s increases.” She knew the county recorders to be conservative people and suggested they would not ask for increased fees unless they were necessary.

Chairman Bache suspended temporarily the hearing on A.B. 94 for a guest from the Attorney General’s Office who wished to speak on A.B. 128.

Assembly Bill No. 128: Requires approval by attorney general of certain contracts and leases before such contracts and leases take effect. (BDR 22-479)

Deputy Attorney General Kimberly Rushton spoke on behalf of A.B. 128. The matter before the committee, she indicated, was simply a codification of what was already done by the Attorney General’s Office as a practical matter. She clarified as litigants for the state of Nevada it was common practice to litigate those matters that were not resolved contractually or matters that were not noticed in contractual relationships that were established by the Attorney General’s Office or other state agencies. She proposed this bill would allow the Attorney General’s Office the opportunity to review all of the contracts entered into on behalf of state agencies as a preventative measure to ensure the provisions contained in the contracts were lawful and represented the interests of both sides. This bill could prevent the possibility of further litigation.

Deputy Attorney General Rushton introduced Jim Spencer, Deputy Attorney General. He added further testimony to clarify the issue was already a state administrative policy. He added by codification in a statute it would provide the state an additional defense if a contract was entered into without a chance for the Attorney General’s Office to review for legality and protection to the state agency involved. The Attorney General’s Office in this instance would be able to defend the issue as contrary to state law if procedure was not followed.

Chairman Bache asked for any further testimony on A.B. 128 and seeing none he closed the hearing. Mr. Bache stated he would entertain a motion if the committee wanted to do so.

ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 128.

MOTION SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYMAN LEE.

MOTION CARRIED WITH ALL MEMBERS PRESENT VOTING AYE.

********

The Chair reopened the hearing on A.B. 94. Mr. Bache stated there had been significant comments on the bill in question. Before testimony began he referred A.B. 94 to a subcommittee.

Assembly Bill No. 94: Increases amount of certain fees certain officials of local governments are authorized to charge and collect. (BDR 20-419)

Robert Hadfield, Executive Director of NACO testified on the history of fees collected in the state of Nevada (Exhibit E). Prior to 1993, NACO contracted with Frank Daykin for a study of all fees in the statutes. As a result of the study, NACO in 1993 proposed a comprehensive bill, A.B. 592 of the Sixty-Seventh Session. The study also revealed many of the fees had not been increased since 1911. The original intent of the bill was to strike a balance between the operational costs of county government and the issue of whether the county’s tax rate should be solely responsible for the operation of county governments or whether the agencies who performed the services should bear the proportional cost of providing the fees. A.B. 592 was pared down, he stated, and some of the fees were removed from the bill. He stated A.B. 94 was essentially the same bill that was presented in 1993. The fees represented in A.B. 94 were the results of the study performed in 1993. There was no escalation of fees from the 1993 bill.

He concurred with Chairman Bache concerning the placement of A.B. 94 into a subcommittee. Mr. Hadfield conceded the attempts made in 1993 in presenting a single bill did not work and probably would not work in 2001. There were too many varied interests involved in the fees at this point. He related there were numerous fee bills before the legislature from various agencies that would cause this bill to be amended.

He stressed county fees were critical to the support of county government. Over the years the agencies that performed the services have had to rely more on general funds to help subsidize the cost of providing the service. He maintained this fact had led to substandard technology and equipment in many of the counties in Nevada. Counties needed to strike a balance and were asking the legislature to allow the counties to increase some of the fees. The lack of general fund revenue did not allow additional subsidizing of agencies that performed the services. County revenues had fallen, he stated, as a result of lower assessed valuation. As an example, Mr. Hadfield stated if Governor Gray Davis of California decided to take over the power lines for the power companies, Nevada’s tax revenue would drop, especially in Nevada’s rural counties. Nevada’s county governments who had traditionally relied on property taxes until the tax shift now relied more on sales tax.

Mr. Hadfield stated Nevada had a very complicated revenue structure with tax caps. Nevada’s counties needed to get back to a balance where fees were charged for the service required of the county government. A.B. 94 was a series of fee increases throughout the Statutes of Nevada that would be adjusted through the process authorized by the Chairman. NACO was not in opposition to the fees proposed if used for critical services; however, the counties needed to get a real increase as the services were provided by the counties. He concluded NACO felt it was important the county’s share of fees be given to the county.

Assemblywoman Freeman asked Mr. Hadfield to submit to committee a copy of actual cost in producing copies of records. She indicated that would allow her to vote with justification as to the actual cost. Mr. Hadfield replied he would supply information prepared from 1993. Ms. Freeman stated she would like information more recent than 1993.

Chairman Bache needed clarification on the issue of deleting Section 6 and Section 8. Mr. Hadfield said his understanding was the two sections would be covered by the Judiciary Committee.

Alan Glover, Carson City Clerk and Recorder, and County Fiscal Officers Association Representative, spoke on sections in A.B. 94 that involved the clerks, recorders and auditors. He emphasized the importance of increased fees to the areas he represented such as clerks and recorders. He stated the clerks and recorders were trying to move into the 21^st century with technology. E-commerce, scanning, the Internet and the ability to provide the services in the future to the public at no cost, would take substantial money and work. It would be very difficult for clerks and recorders to go to county commissioners for funds with the priorities of police, fire, medical indigents, etc. A.B. 94 would help make the specific departments self-sufficient. The fees in A.B. 94 were reasonable. The departments had interviewed the public and found little controversy. It presently costs more money to keep departments solvent than in 1993. Mr. Glover stated the marriage department wanted to keep the doors open to the public to sell marriage licenses so the economy of Nevada could enjoy the benefits of people buying food, gambling, using hotel rooms, etc.

John Slaughter stated his department supported the bill and would support the subcommittee.

Barbara Reed, Douglas County Recorder, Douglas County, Nevada, stated she did not have comments at this time and welcomed the sub-committee.

George Flint, Representative, Wedding Chapels, State of Nevada, indicated the wedding businesses had resisted increasing the marriage license fees for the last several years based on the importance of weddings to the state of Nevada’s economy. He informed the committee there were 150,000 weddings in the state every year, which meant 300,000 people, and 3,000,000 visitors that represented 15 percent of Nevada’s tourist economy. His group reported to NACO they would support a marriage license increase in 2001. The last three raises had not included increases to the county clerks nor recorders and, by statute, Washoe and Clark County must keep the marriage bureaus open every day of the year from 8:00 a.m. until midnight. Since 1978, northern Nevada’s marriage licenses had dropped by 50 percent, he noted. Washoe County has had a drop since 1978 from 38,000 marriage licenses to 22,000 and a $9.00 increase to county clerks would help offset the cost of keeping offices open 16 hours a day.

Mr. Flint reiterated the wedding industry’s support and offered an amendment to A.B. 94 (Exhibit F). The justices of the peace in counties with populations over 400,000 were no longer able to perform marriages. He proposed marriage commissioners receive an increase in fees from $35 to $50. The wedding industry in this state was a tremendous draw for overall tourism without any advertising or support from the state. In the last 20 years Clark County had doubled their marriages to over 100,000 per year, he stated. Washoe County had been hurt by the increase in Clark County: however, some of the problems could be solved by A.B. 94. The increased funds for Washoe County would be approximately $200,000 and that would help enable the marriage bureau to remain open.

Mr. Humke questioned about the reasons for the drop in issuance of marriage licenses. Mr. Flint replied Las Vegas had promoted trips from all of California to Las Vegas cheaper than a trip to Reno. There had been a tremendous drop in marriages from certain geographical areas in California that normally have made a trip to Reno; i.e., Sacramento, San Francisco and northern California. The Internet had helped northern Nevada in some aspects because the chapels were advertising on web pages. Northern Nevada, he stated, could not compete with Las Vegas.

Mr. Humke queried at what price point would it hurt northern Nevada even more. Mr. Flint replied northern Nevada could sustain the number of marriages even with the $50 fee because in California the license fees varied between $60 and $90. He stated he had a hard time justifying the increase to other wedding businesses; however, he felt if they did not support the increase, Washoe County would probably have to reduce their operating hours.

Assemblyman Lee asked if Carson City would rather have different hours for their marriage license bureau. Mr. Flint replied Carson City, by statute, did not have to operate the extended hours of the larger counties. Mr. Lee commented perhaps the marketing approach northern Nevada used needed to be more effective.

Assemblyman Price asked if it was feasible to get a marriage license on the Internet. Mr. Flint answered there had been a study by the technology department of Washoe County to take the application for marriage over the Internet. He added it would have a negative impact on the wedding business because it could also be done by other states as well. He remarked the drop in the wedding business in northern Nevada was a mirror to the entire tourism drop.

Margaret Lowther, Recorder/Auditor, Storey County, Nevada, read from Exhibit G in support of A.B. 94. She stated a five-state survey eight years ago showed Storey County’s fees were below all others studied. Storey County had been advised by other states that new methods of filing were imminent; the increase in fees was very necessary, and was still lower than the rest of the states.

Tim Crowley, Representative, Nevada Mining Association stated his association would be in support of A.B. 94. He noted Section 3 of the bill increased the mining-claim recording fee from $1 to $2. While the amount did not seem significant, he noted the mining industry was in a negative position where they were watching every dollar. The mining industry would want to meet with the subcommittee to be assured that the need was fully justified.

Raymond Masayko, Mayor of Carson City and President of the Nevada Association of Counties spoke in support of Mr. Hadfield’s representations regarding A.B. 94. He indicated he would be visiting the committee on a regular basis.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 94. Mr. Bache noted A.B. 11, handled by Mr. Carpenter and A.B. 22, handled by Mr. Lee would be presented on the Assembly floor. There was no further business and the Chair adjourned the meeting at 10:25 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Cheryl Meyers

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman

DATE: