MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-First Session
February 27, 2001
The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:09 a.m., on Tuesday, February 27, 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
COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:
Mr. Wendell Williams
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel
Dave Ziegler, Committee Policy Analyst
Virginia Letts, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Marvin Leavitt, City of Las Vegas
Chris Knight, Manager, Planning and Development Department, City of Las Vegas
Phil Rosenquist, Assistant Director, Comprehensive Planning, Clark County
Colleen Wilson-Pappa, Legislative Team, Clark County
Ronald Dreher, PORAN/Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada
Richard Wilkie, Legislative Advocate, City of Henderson
Michael Gillins, Las Vegas Police Protective Association
Terra Yada, Las Vegas Protective Association Civilian Employees
Andy Anderson, Executive Director, Las Vegas Protective Association Metro, Inc.
Stan Olsen, Las Vegas Metro Police
Assembly Bill 179: Revises provisions governing annexation of territory by incorporated cities. (BDR 21-475)
Marvin Leavitt, City of Las Vegas, testified the bill was requested by the city and dealt with annexation. The request came about because over the years, through annexation and extension of boundaries to accommodate development, a situation developed where several islands had been created within the city, mainly in the northwest. He passed out a map of the areas involved (Exhibit C). Discussion had taken place over the years regarding annexation of those islands. He indicated some residents in those areas were reluctant to be annexed into the city. One reason was they were situated in an area outside the incorporated town with a lower tax rate based on fire protection. Depending on their location their rates could definitely increase with annexation. Some of the residents in those islands were also concerned about what they perceived as their rural lifestyle and wished it preserved. When the city council decided to consider annexation it was determined it would take place only on undeveloped property so no homes, businesses, or other developed property would be included in the annexation proposal. Normally, when property was annexed, the city would contact those affected and obtain their consent but the bill would allow the city to obtain property for annexation without their consent. The reasoning behind that thought was the city was the only entity able to provide services to those areas, and only the city had fire stations close to the areas. If an individual wanted to build a home on one of the islands the property owner would be required to sign an annexation agreement and the city would then provide sewer service, even though he was outside the boundaries of the city. Later, when the areas between the residence and the boundaries were annexed, the property would then be annexed into the city. A.B. 179 dealt only with undeveloped properties.
Mr. Leavitt went on to say the city suggested a couple of amendments to A.B. 179. On Page 3, Section 2, Subsection (b), needed clarification so there would not be any type of development on the acquired property. They would suggest, “On January 1, 2001, was undeveloped land and was bounded on at least 75% of its aggregate external boundaries.” He felt that would stress that the land must be undeveloped, so any structure placed on the land would prohibit annexation. They also wanted a provision stating services would be provided within a reasonable time and also similar language regarding Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land when requesting annexation. Section 2, subsection 3, listed the municipal services and the city felt “reasonable time” should be a part of the language as it did take time in providing services. He indicated on the map (Exhibit C) the areas shown in green were islands in the city that were essentially developed and would not qualify under the bill. The only areas annexation would apply to were the ones indicated in yellow, which were almost exclusively in the northwest. The total acreage of the islands was approximately 5,547 acres, of which 2,513 were already developed, leaving 2,391 undeveloped acres. He thought the bill was not meant to address just the city of Las Vegas. He introduced Chris Knight who would answer any technical questions relating to the bill.
Mr. Lee stated there were several islands in his area and he now had a sense of security knowing the city was obtaining only those undeveloped pieces of property, but he was concerned about the zoning. Mr. Leavitt responded one of the problems in the past was the fact there were different approval processes for different land uses. Even though residents were across the street from each other, one would be in the city and the other in the county. Use of the land could be very different if the resident was in the county rather than the city. He could not answer the zoning question and asked Mr. Knight to respond.
Chris Knight, Manager, Comprehensive Planning Commission, City of Las Vegas, stated with regard to land use planning in the northwest, there was a joint plan adopted in 1996 between the city of Las Vegas and Clark County. The recommendations for that area were the same but there was a difference in the approval process. In the city, an application would not be processed for particular zoning that did not conform to land use recommendations without first considering a change in the master plan. The county in the past had rezoned areas that were not in conformance with the land use specifications, and they seemed to be continuing that process. The city had always followed the recommendations for land use.
Mr. Lee questioned the rationale for the 75 percent of contiguous boundaries located within the city. Mr. Leavitt replied the provision did not eliminate the existing provisions for general annexation laws. It was a special situation where annexation could be done without approval of the property owner so the criteria must be very specific. The general provisions were much less stringent and could still be used for annexation for extension of city boundaries.
Mrs. Freeman wanted to comment she had been involved in the planning process in Washoe County and wondered about the creation of islands of city property in the county. Mr. Leavitt replied the city did not purposely create islands. Many times in the course of property development, because of the way a permit was issued, islands were unknowingly created. He stressed the annexation law was unique to Clark County and would not apply to any other county in the state.
Mrs. Freeman indicated she felt there needed to be some definite rules, as it seemed the county had no real policies in addressing the island issues. Mr. Leavitt agreed there did have to be some type of interaction between the county and all the cities involved. He felt those areas should be defined so the city of Las Vegas was not trying to address issues that could be better addressed by Henderson, North Las Vegas, or some other city.
Mrs. Berman wondered how much land the three large parcels indicated on the map encompassed. It appeared to run from Iron Mountain Road to Horse Road, Rainbow to Torrey Pines. Mr. Knight interjected he did not have individual acreage size only that of the entire county island.
Once it was zoned, Mrs. Berman asked if it could then be sold to a developer. Mr. Knight replied the land currently did not belong to the city; it was either privately owned or belonged to BLM. Mrs. Berman questioned if it was BLM land what could be done with the land. Mr. Knight declared it would have to go through the Public Lands Management Act disposal process and either be developed as private land or used for public purposes.
Mrs. Berman queried if there was a total assessed value for vacant land. As the one involved, it could be used for a large development. Mr. Leavitt replied the county assessor determined property evaluations, and he did not want to argue if those were higher or lower than other areas.
Mrs. Berman questioned if the parcels were BLM land, could they be sold as developable parcels. Mr. Leavitt noted the city was not in the business of buying property for development. If the city did acquire any property because of BLM annexation it would be used for city facilities.
Mrs. Berman asked if she could be provided with the actual acreage involved in the three largest parcels indicated on the map. Mr. Knight informed her he would provide her with the actual figures. He clarified the city only acquired land that had been identified for public use. All other BLM lands had to go through the disposal process and put out for bid for private acquisition.
Earlier Mr. Leavitt had identified a parcel where there might be a private home in an island, and Mr. Mortensen wondered if the city would be able to shrink that island down to only encompass that private home. Mr. Leavitt replied that was correct. If a private home sat in the middle of undeveloped property, it was conceivable the area surrounding the home could be annexed.
Mr. Mortensen queried if that posed worse problems for the city, because in obtaining sewer service, the home itself would remain an island. Mr. Leavitt reiterated if they were eligible to be annexed the homeowner would be required to sign an annexation agreement before service was provided. Many times they were not eligible for annexation because they were not next to vacant property. In annexing the surrounding property, those annexation agreements would then take effect.
Mr. Knight interjected if an individual property owner came to the city and asked for sewer service, they would receive it through an inter-local agreement. At the time they were eligible for annexation, they would be annexed to the city.
Mr. Price reported there had been a large segment on a news program regarding Las Vegas and there had been a proposal by the mayor to annex the part of Las Vegas Boulevard known as “The Strip.” Mr. Leavitt responded the bill was not designed to annex the strip. It was located within the boundaries of an unincorporated town, which had been established in 1983 and was not eligible for annexation.
Ms. Gibbons asked why the bill did not address any other city than Las Vegas. Mr. Leavitt replied because of separate annexation laws the bill could apply to other cities in Clark County, but only to cities within county boundaries.
Mr. Brown indicated possible amendments had been mentioned and voiced his concern over the language regarding the use of “structure.” Mr. Leavitt related the existing language in statute referred to undeveloped land and the reasoning was that if homes did not meet a certain density criteria they would be included in “undeveloped” land.
Mr. Brown wondered if there should be a definition of undeveloped land included in an amendment. He was unclear if it was only raw land or had there been consideration of any underground utility improvements. Mr. Leavitt revealed the terminology “unimproved land” could be substituted, as that had a specific meaning in relation to assessment of the property.
Mr. Brown pondered if a utility was installed by a public entity that would be one thing, but if it was a private landowner he questioned if that property still fell under the proposal. Mr. Leavitt replied if a person had put in utilities and improvements to the property, it would preclude the city from annexing that property and would not fall under the provisions in the bill.
Mr. Knight explained the term “undeveloped land” meant if a building permit had been issued for a piece of property as a primary residence or commercial residence and was in a stage of improvement, the city would not consider annexing that property. What the city was targeting were those lands with no structure on them, even with fences and horses the property was considered vacant under a land use category.
Mr. Brown felt the language “undeveloped land” needed to be clarified in the statute. Mr. Knight thought definitions could be developed addressing concerns of the committee.
Ms. Von Tobel disclosed she was the legislator representing the blue and yellow areas and was aware of the concerns in the northwest. She had heard from constituents who had built a house in an unincorporated part of the county, while right across the street their neighbor was within the city limits. As they were not aware of the building requirements, the house sat four feet higher and there was a real problem with drainage. She felt there was no coordination between the city and the county. She also wanted clarification about the remark of a field with horses, as some of the residents in that area had open range areas on their property. If there was a home on part of the land and the rest was open fields for the livestock, she wondered if the open area could be annexed. When her property was annexed into the city, her taxes went up and she asked if the taxes would also go up on unimproved land.
Mr. Leavitt pointed out the assessed value should not change because of annexation. The assessor decided the value so the rate of taxes might increase, but not the assessed value of the property. As an area increased in development, the land would become more valuable and so the assessed value would also increase.
Ms. Von Tobel said some of the property owners had up to 20 acres with horses and cattle, and requested specifics regarding the affect on those pieces of property. Mr. Leavitt thought where a parcel was used mainly for a residence, and there were horses located on the property, he doubted the city would want to annex that property. If a residence was situated on a small corner of a 1,000 acre piece of property, that would be a different situation.
Mr. Knight added where it was a fenced parcel, it was assumed to be improved property. From the standpoint of the city, it was considered vacant land until a building permit for a single family home or business was issued. It was not the city’s position in trying to annex all the horse properties, as they realized rural living was a major concern to the residents in the northwest. City planning in that area considered a project called “Town Center” which would centralize commercial areas. The city was only looking for vacant land that was targeted for development.
Ms. Von Tobel requested she be provided with an example of a property tax bill, and what the cost currently was for county taxes versus what they would be once the property was annexed into the city. Mr. Leavitt replied he would provide the information on the largest parcel. One reason the unimproved land was being selected was because the assessed valuation was much lower than those in areas with improvements.
Mr. Brown questioned the ratio difference between privately held and BLM land in the islands. Mr. Knight replied he was not sure. However, when mapping was done for the BLM the bulk of the area east of U.S. 95 Highway was privately owned so he assumed the figure would be about 95 percent. The only exception would be Floyd Lamb Park in the northwest.
Mr. Humke asked if, as an alternative to annexation, services could be provided to the residents in the form of a municipal services tax, which had been considered by the city of Reno. Mr. Leavitt replied that had not been considered, the principal reason being the residents lived in “the best of two worlds.” They essentially received the same services, but did not pay the higher tax rate others in the area paid.
Mrs. Berman stated she had calculated out the largest parcel indicated on the map and it was approximately 624 acres. At the current rate for improved land with water, sewer, etc., she wondered if the owner would be paying three times as much tax as if the land was left unimproved. Mr. Leavitt explained the tax differential between city and county was not that large. The city in round terms levied a total tax between $3.00 and $3.25, and if the property were in a fire protection district there was also a levy of .15 cents. The county was close to the same. He added for Mrs. Berman’s information the entire area had an assessed valuation of $45 million.
Colleen Wilson-Pappa, Legislative Team, Clark County, introduced Phil Rosenquist, Assistant Director, Comprehensive Planning, Clark County, and then testified although they understood the concerns of the city of Las Vegas, the county opposed the bill. She told the committee Mr. Rosenquist would address those concerns.
Mr. Rosenquist explained he had passed out written testimony (Exhibit D), which included proposed amendments. Present annexation laws included two different ways of implementing the process. There was the ability to bring property owners into a city against their will by having 75 percent of property owners in an area agree to annexation, the other 25 percent would be forced to be annexed. There was another statute allowing a different procedure and that was the section they were asking to be amended. The property owners would have a voice in either petitioning for annexation or would have the opportunity to protest it. He went on to say the second handout was a copy of the inter-local agreement Clark County had entered into with the city of Henderson (Exhibit E). Discussion had taken place with the city of Henderson, resulting in an extensive annexation petition. He pointed out a lot of the islands were indicated as rural preservation neighborhoods, and residents in the northwest area did rely on county commissioners to protect their rural lifestyle. The county was proposing the same course of action in other areas of the Las Vegas Valley because any changes to the annexation provisions affected all areas of the county.
Mrs. Freeman asked if the definition of undeveloped land had been defined sufficiently in the statutes so citizens knew the difference between what was considered developed land. Mr. Rosenquist felt there needed to be clarification so there was no question what the two terms meant. He pointed out one of the provisions needing a clear definition of what “within a reasonable time” meant in providing services to the city.
Mrs. Freeman stated she realized it was difficult to make clear definitions but something needed to be done, otherwise it would be an ongoing argument. She hoped at sometime in the near future, all the counties could agree on a course of action, as there was a lot of wasted time and energy by counties constantly fighting one another on issues.
Mr. Lee questioned who was responsible for the petition, as he was not clear how it operated. He also felt if 75 percent wanted annexation and 25 percent did not, that 25 percent had their property rights taken away.
Mr. Rosenquist thought the way the current annexation laws were written there was a provision that basically said a governing body could annex any area. In those cases the reluctant 25 percent were forced to annex along with the other 75 percent wishing annexation.
Mr. Bache queried Mr. Rosenquist on the BLM issue, and wondered if there was a problem with that part of the bill. Mr. Rosenquist stressed there were some concerns with the BLM issue, because there was no limit on undeveloped land as far as continuity or adjacency requirements. He felt a lot of their concerns had been addressed in the city’s proposed amendments. There was concern regarding the language addressing BLM land in the northwest, as their ownership was extensive in that area. It seemed the more land involved the more creative the borders became in obtaining the 75 percent required for annexation.
Russ McAllister, representing the Professional Firefighters of Nevada, explained he was not aware of the tax and zoning issues. The concern of the firefighters association was a fire suppression issue. Currently there were mutual aid agreements between the city and county fire departments, which operated well along the city/county line. The problem in the northwest was the closest Clark County firehouses were at Spring Mountain and Valley View, and Flamingo and Rainbow, and both were city stations. If there was a fire in the island area, three city fire engines, a city ladder truck, a city rescue unit, and a city battalion chief were dispatched. In those instances where it was determined a fire was in a county island, the city responders had to wait on scene until the county sent fire investigators from the south end of the valley. City units could be tied up for at least two hours without being able to do any of the normal cleanup once the fire was out, because nothing could be touched until the investigation was finished. As an example, a while back a barn burned down with a horse inside which perished. The city units had to remain on scene until public works was notified and a loader and dump truck were dispatched to remove the horse and the debris. Such an incident could place a burden on the citizens in the area of the responding city firehouse, because they were without protection. Currently when the county charged taxes for fire protection, which all residents paid for, those island areas had no protection.
Mr. McAllister pointed out that presently fire protection agencies were way behind on the funding curve. There was a tax initiative placed on the last ballot, approved by the voters, providing for 4 new stations and 100 fire personnel all to be located in the northwest area. The residents of the island areas would benefit from those stations even though their tax dollars went to the county fire departments. He added there had been a fire station approved several years back for the northwest area but a piece of property could not be found, so someone finally donated a parcel. One of the island residents living along the main thoroughfare where the donated parcel was located went to the county commission and asked the station be denied because of a noise issue. The county then vacated the north/south road so the designated parcel for the station became worthless, as there was no other direct route from the area.
Mr. Lee asked if the structure problems they currently experienced would continue. His understanding was there was an agreement between the city and county to provide services and the costs were also split. Mr. McAllister responded he was not familiar with the funding part, he only knew there was a mutual aid agreement between the city and county. If the residents waited for the county to respond the structure would be completely gone.
Mr. Price questioned if the rules to stay on the scene until the county arrived was an interagency rule between the fire departments. Mr. McAllister stated the requirement to stay on scene was due to the fact a county investigator had to secure county property and the city had no authorization. Once the fire was extinguished the city department could only clean up after the county investigator had released the scene so evidence was not destroyed.
Mr. Bache closed the meeting on A.B. 179 and opened the hearing on A.B. 180.
Assembly Bill 180: Amends charter of City of Henderson to make various changes concerning municipal judges. (BDR S-489)
Richard Wilkie, Legislative Advocate, City of Henderson, testified A.B. 180 made four changes to city charter of Henderson (Exhibit F). The first change allowed selection by a majority of the sitting judges for a two-year term. The second allowed the salary of municipal judges to be increased during their terms, which was already in law for the cities of Las Vegas and Sparks. The third change required any new municipal judge to be a duly licensed member in good standing with the State Bar of Nevada. The last change required a change in the term of office, extending the term for a municipal judge to six years.
Ms. Gibbons asked if there was a problem with placing the dates June 2001, June 2003, and June 2005 in case the city changed election date. Mr. Wilkie deferred to legal counsel, as he could not respond. Mrs. O’Grady pointed out it currently was the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June.
Mr. Bache added it corresponded with legislation submitted by the League of Cities.
Mr. Price wanted a description of the State Bar; as he perceived it, it was an organization similar to a union. Mr. Brown articulated the State Bar was not a union, it was an entity placed in a position as almost a policing entity, handling admissions, examinations and complaints issued to and through the State Bar.
Mr. Price interpreted the language as saying if a person was selected as a judge in Henderson he would have to belong to the Bar. Mr. Wilkie related there were currently two sitting municipal judges and one of them was not an attorney. Henderson was in a major growth spurt and the requirement of belonging to the State Bar indicated that the person being appointed had some knowledge of law. It was a charter change that would not affect any other municipality. It was a proactive approach in selecting future judges so there was no impact on current sitting judges.
Mr. Humke clarified the State Bar was a private corporation, which was recognized by state statute and the Nevada Supreme Court Rules. The Bar supervised the admission process of attorneys and supervised examination of educational requirements of the institutions that the prospective Bar members attended. They also conducted and carried out the Bar examinations for prospective members and was akin to the State Board of Medical Examiners. There was a delegation of authority in the statutes regulating the practice of law to the State Bar and there were similar requirements for chiropractic, engineering, and architecture in regulating professional procedures. The cities and counties decided when it was time to require law-trained judges to sit in positions of municipal court judges or justice court judges.
Mr. Lee asked the reasoning for changing six years to five years in the bill. Mr. Wilkie responded because the elections were staggered for municipal court judges and the city legal staff decided five years would determine where the reelections fell. There would be a third judge appointed in the near future so the five years would track the elections.
Ms. Von Tobel wanted to clarify, on page 2, lines 22 and 26, because usually the law did not permit salary increases for sitting judges. She asked if they were municipal judges, were they treated differently than other judges. Mr. Bache added the language paralleled the language in the charter of the city of Las Vegas regarding municipal judges.
Mrs. Smith wondered if the city of Henderson had a charter committee and if there was citizen input when making charter changes. Mr. Wilkie responded the city was currently going through the Legislature for any changes. The intention of the bill was, because of expanded growth, the issues coming before the municipal judges were becoming more complex. The city felt they needed to go forward with the charter change.
Mrs. Smith clarified she was asking because the city of Sparks had a charter committee that generated ideas and then went through an approval process with citizen input. Mr. Bache assumed there had been meetings with the city council where the issues in the bill draft were addressed and testimony had been taken from the public before the council voted to approve the language.
Mr. Wilkie stated the bill draft had been brought before the council and was noticed in accordance with the open meeting law, so there was an opportunity for public input. He added as a rule, city council meetings were very well attended.
Mr. Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 180 and opened the hearing on A.B. 202 and in so doing handed the gavel to Mr. Lee to chair the hearing on A.B. 202.
Assembly Bill 202: Revises provisions governing metropolitan police departments. (BDR 22-47)
Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Assembly District 11, Clark County, testified the bill was the result of issues arising within the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (Metro) approximately one year ago of withdrawing from, or dissolving Metro by the city of Las Vegas. In most statutes dealing with dissolving or withdrawing from a unit, it usually required a vote of the people. In researching another bill he had been working on he discovered in most states dissolving or changing a governmental entity required a vote of the people. There were some technical aspects because Metro currently only consisted of the city of Las Vegas and the unincorporated Clark County. The first issue dealt with withdrawal from a metropolitan police department and the second with dissolution, which was handled slightly differently. Currently there were only two members involved but he wanted to insure the language covered any situation for future participation should the cities of North Las Vegas, Henderson, Mesquite or Boulder City decide to participate. Withdrawal involved a vote of the people in the jurisdiction of the entity wishing to withdraw.
Mr. Bache pointed out the second issue was dissolution. As it was currently formed there were only two members; however, if there were more than three members, and all members wished to dissolve the department, the question would be placed on the ballot for a vote by all the people. Withdrawal would be a vote of only the entity affected, while dissolution required a vote of all the people in the affected jurisdictions. Since the city of Las Vegas and Clark County were the only current members it would be similar to a divorce. In looking at the sign-in sheet he thought the city of Las Vegas would be testifying against the bill, because even in dissolution only members of the city should be voting on the question. The remainder of the language dealt with splitting the assets at the same percentage, based on the percentage of monies contributed to the budget by the two entities. He felt even with the language if there ever should be withdrawal or dissolution it would turn into an “ugly fight.” The key issue was changing it from a vote of the governing body to a vote of the people.
Mr. Neighbors asked if the Metropolitan Police Department was originally set up by the Legislature in the early 1970s. Mr. Bache believed it was established in 1975 by the Legislature. The legislation gave them the authority to enter into an agreement between the city council and the county commission. Since that legislation was enacted the department had worked very well. The first time there had been any discussions about withdrawing from Metro was during the previous year. Other entities such as Henderson, Boulder City, Mesquite, etc., could still enter into inter-local agreements to join Metro.
Mr. Neighbors questioned if North Las Vegas had been a part of the department. Mr. Bache responded all the other cities within Clark County had their own police force. He had heard there had been an interest shown by North Las Vegas, but so far they had not joined. The bill would not force an entity in any manner to join; it was up to the entity if they wished to join the Metropolitan Police Department.
Mr. Mortensen wondered how the hierarchy was established in cases where other entities had their own police forces. Was the police chief elected or appointed by the city council? Mr. Bache thought the city council hired a police chief while the city had contracts with their police officers. He felt the governmental entities might wish to address that issue.
Mr. Mortensen felt Las Vegas and Clark County were unique because they elected the head of their police force. Mr. Bache noted before the merger the city of Las Vegas had its own police chief and the Sheriff had always been the head of the county force. When the merger occurred the Sheriff became the head of the Metropolitan Police Department since it was a combination of the city and county. Had the county not joined, only cities, he believed there would have been a different mechanism in choosing the head.
Mr. Brown asked in the bill on page 2, line 16 in Section 3, where it read “withdrawal of a participating political subdivision from the department, the committee . . .” what was meant by “the committee.” Mr. Bache felt that referred to the Metro Fiscal Affairs Committee. Because currently there were only two entities involved, withdrawal would not be applied. The language was needed, in case more entities joined and was a proactive approach to the issue.
Mr. Brown wanted clarification regarding rank and grade as well as the duties and responsibilities. He asked if an entity was dissatisfied with how Metro was managing the rank and grade, was there an ability to modify those positions, as there could be some abuses at a future time. Mr. Bache replied there had never been any problems with rank or grade. Part of the discussion when the city of Las Vegas was possibly considering withdrawing was about the concerns over reassigning people to certain areas. In the transition process to another entity they would be guaranteed the same or a similar position.
In response to Mr. Lee’s question regarding the voting, Mr. Bache reiterated withdrawal and dissolution were two separate issues. Withdrawal was if there were three or more entities involved, and one entity wished to withdraw, that would go to a vote of just those constituents. If there were only two and they wished to dissolve, it would go to a vote of all the people affected. If there was dissolution, presently only the city of Las Vegas residents had a voice and he did not feel that was fair in determining whether or not the department was dissolved. Whatever happened in the metropolitan areas should be decided by all the people residing in that area. There needed to be a combined vote of both the city and county in determining the outcome.
Ms. Gibbons wondered if there needed to be an amendment to the bill regarding the participating voters of a county at the general election. Mr. Bache responded the merger language was existing language. Other entities could join and the language in statute seemed clear. Other entities would have to address whether they wanted to join. He was looking at the problem of dissolution, not who or how another entity could join the department.
Marvin Leavitt, representing the city of Las Vegas, testified he was not in opposition to the bill, but there was a concern over the provisions relating to two political subdivisions participating in the police department when one wished to withdraw. The city wanted assurance there would be a vote of all participating entities. Under the bill if there was a very small entity involved such as the city of Mesquite and the county was unhappy with the arrangement and Mesquite wanted to withdraw it would essentially be impossible for them to do so.
Ms. Gibbons was curious about the “30 days after dissolution” language. She wondered if that was 30 days after the general election. Mr. Bache responded he thought it was 30 days after the certification of the election. Mrs. O’Grady pointed out on lines 12 through 14 on page 2 of the bill it stated “providing for the merger was void on the commencement of the fiscal year immediately following the general election after the question was approved.” Her belief was it would be 30 days after July 1 of the year of the election.
Ron Dreher, President, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada, testified his organization represented approximately 25 law enforcement associations throughout the state of Nevada. He was speaking in support of the bill. NRS 280 lacked the language addressing dissolution and it definitely needed to be there, not only because of the situation in southern Nevada, but also because of possible consolidation in Washoe County.
Andy Anderson, Executive Director, Police Protective Association, introduced Mick Gillins and Terra Yada who would also be speaking on the bill. They were all in support of the legislation and represented both civilian employees and law enforcement employees. During the last deconsolidation all the members were concerned about their future, as they did not know if they would be working for the city or county and what their benefits would be. He felt the legislation addressed those concerns and was needed should deconsolidation ever occur.
Mick Gillins, Secretary/Treasurer of the Las Vegas Police Protective Association, testified he was representing members of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, City of Las Vegas Detention Employees, and the City of Las Vegas Marshals. The general feeling among the members was deconsolidation was a bad idea. The language presented in the bill gave the members comfort in knowing there were additional steps, so no political sub-group could withdraw without the issue being placed before the voters. He thought it was important that the citizens who were served had the right in deciding if the department should stay unified. The bill also had provisions safeguarding positions because law enforcement personnel had spent a lot of time furthering their careers and if deconsolidation occurred they would be cast aside.
Terra Yada, Vice President of Police Protective Association for Civilian Employees, stated when the question of deconsolidation arose there was concern because although police officers were needed, the support staff, consisting of approximately 1,200 members, was also critical to the operation of the force. Her organization was in support of the bill, as it allowed for absorption into other areas should deconsolidation become a reality.
Ms. Gibbons asked for a breakdown of the 1,200 members regarding types of jobs. Ms. Yada responded the positions ranged from fleet services to office assistants to crime scene analysts to latent fingerprint employees who also issued work cards. There were also investigators, employees in the records bureau, county detention, and commissary employees, but the largest group of members was in the clerical series.
Mr. Mortensen questioned if some investigators were civilian employees. Ms. Yada replied there was a classification designated as investigative specialists or assistants who aided detectives with their caseload.
Stan Olsen, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, testified they were in support of the bill. Metro was formed in 1966 when the City of Las Vegas and the county looked at consolidating certain operations. Initially it was the crime lab and records, followed by computerized records. When looking into the process they realized it was more complicated than they first thought and the two entities decided it had to be a complete consolidation. During the 1971 legislative session consolidation was approved and Metro was formed in July of 1973. Over the years there were discussions between the city and county on the funding of Metro and due to further legislation there was now a complex funding formula that shifted and changed constantly, based on population and demands for service. There had been discussions previously about deconsolidation, based on anything from political whim to belief there could be cost savings to the community. In researching the issue it was found the costs to deconsolidate would be in the millions because of replacing things from badges and uniforms to cars. The underlying concern, however, was the loss of contracts to the business community that were let by Metro which was estimated to be around $70 million in the first fiscal year. The only way in which both sides could be heard was to place the issue before the voters and Metro stood in support of that portion of the bill. They had a suggested amendment in the bill concerning when the vote was held. The election in the city of Las Vegas was held in the spring with new fiscal years beginning on July 1 of each year. The requested language was “the general election would be held a minimum of six months prior to the fiscal year.” If deconsolidation were considered, both entities would need to plan for the breakup and pay off the short-term obligations.
Chairman Bache asked if there were any technical issues that needed to be addressed that he might have overlooked. He pointed out when he asked for the bill his intent was the vote would be held at the November general election, giving the entities enough time before the next fiscal year began. He wondered if the division of property needed to be spelled out in the bill. Mr. Olsen asserted the six-month clarification would help. He felt the division of property would be an extensive undertaking and indicated the committee might want to consider a third party organization to oversee the value and inventory of the property for division, if deconsolidation should occur. He added the fiscal affairs committee consisted of two members of the Clark County Commission, two members of the city of Las Vegas Council, and one member selected at-large from the community. The at-large member was historically the chairman of the committee.
Ms. Gibbons thought there should be clarification about the elections as the city and county elections were different. She asked if the different political subdivisions had the same type of equipment. Mr. Olsen replied most of the equipment was different. As an example, Metro used a different type of radio than North Las Vegas or Henderson. There was a common channel that all the cities as well as Metro used, so if there was a major incident there was the availability of a common channel. Cars were purchased through an individual bidding process and firearms were purchased on an individual entity basis.
Ms. Gibbons stated an independent third party would probably be the best way to divide up the assets. If the city oversaw it, the county would be at a disadvantage and vice versa.
Mr. Mortensen asked for an explanation of the loss of the contracts, which had been alluded to in earlier testimony. Mr. Olsen indicated Metro operated like a business with the private sector contracts covering everything from maintenance contracts to purchasing of radio equipment. There were also contracts with cleaning services in cleaning up crime scenes as well as contracts with area labs for disposing hazardous waste.
Sheriff Jerry Keller, Clark County and the elected Chief Executive Officer of Metro, said he had served in that capacity for the past six and one-half years and had been in law enforcement in the area since September of 1969. He had experienced the consolidation efforts in 1973 and was often asked in speaking throughout the country about the benefits of consolidation. While there were monetary costs to both consolidation and deconsolidation the greatest loss of deconsolidation in Las Vegas Metro would be the operational and fiscal economy. Metro covered the city of Las Vegas and all of the unincorporated areas of Clark County for half per capita of what another smaller agency would spend. The advantage was in placing the authority with an executive and large agency to place long-term strategy for quality of life. There was also the investigative economy to be considered, such as detectives and broader spectrums in recognizing offenders. Currently they worked closely with the cities of Henderson, Mesquite, Boulder City, North Las Vegas and the Highway Patrol as well as smaller law enforcement agencies. In the 5 five years, felonies in Las Vegas Metro’s jurisdiction had dropped 52 percent, and the property crimes dropped 40 percent. While statistically those crimes had gone down nationwide, no city was growing at the rate of Las Vegas. The present net growth per month in the Las Vegas Valley was 6,281 individuals per month. He felt Metro was a fine example of consolidated government.
Ms. Gibbons asked if there could be a possible hiring freeze and if deconsolidation might hurt the citizens of the county as she had concerns with that issue. She wondered how the executive officer was chosen. Sheriff Keller replied at the time of consolidation of Metro the Sheriff, as senior agent in the county, was retained as the elected head of the consolidated agency. The Chief of Police was designated the under-sheriff and the former under-sheriff and assistant chief became a new rank of assistant sheriff. The deputy chiefs were folded into two ranks of commander to provide structure. By consolidating positions, one running the uniformed police side and one running the administrative scientific side, $1 million had been saved in salaries, benefits, secretaries, office space, and other areas. The savings allowed additional vehicles and officers in eroded neighborhoods. He had recently re-implemented the office of commander because when taking into account full and part time positions, there were now almost 4,000 employees in Metro. When consolidating in 1973 there was a lot of duplication of rank structure at the higher end. The primary role of the agency was protection and the main goal was to place officers in enforcement positions and civilian experts in the fields of administration, management, science and technology.
Ms. Gibbons added she worried when a city and county merged and money was being saved on police where positions were not filled. She felt there was a disparity between the city and county. Sheriff Keller related their function was to not only save dollars, but to provide service. Even when providing highest speed technology to an agency it did not mean less people were needed, it merely meant more people were needed to drive the technology. Metro was operating at one of the lowest ratios in America for policing a community their size. That had been done through economy of scale at targeted positions, and putting a focus on every unit. When consolidation took place every employee was guaranteed a job. One of the hardest jobs was attracting qualified candidates and one benefit at Metro was good benefits and great salary. One of the benefits of consolidation was their agency was recognized as one of the top police agencies in America.
Mr. Brown asked how large an area Metro area covered after consolidation. Sheriff Keller replied at the time there were approximately 800 total employees between corrections, civilian and commissioned officers. The current staffing was about 4,000 total.
Mr. Brown wondered about the population of the Metro area. Sheriff Keller thought it was about 240,000. His mother had a map and the city population was about 28,000 in 1950. The present valley population was 1.4 million, not including the tourist volume, which had exceeded 35 million in 2000.
Mr. Brown understood the concept of economy of scale but at some point in time it planed out, and if the city seceded he questioned would there still be the economy of scale. Sheriff Keller replied when considering deconsolidation they looked at the cost to the citizens of Las Vegas and Clark County, and the cost would be in millions of dollars. While he was adamant about the quality of work done by Metro, he pointed out he would still have been the sheriff even without consolidation. Metro was about the fifteenth largest police department in America and served a jurisdiction a little larger than the state of New Jersey. In 2000 they were recognized as having the best Web site in American policing and were also first in several areas of policing. They were also a member of the national chief’s organization, which met 3 times a year. Because of Metro’s prominence and excellence they had input into national strategies of local policing.
Vice Chairman Lee closed the hearing on A.B. 202 and turned the gavel back to Chairman Bache.
Chairman Bache adjourned the meeting at 10:55 a.m.
Virginia Letts
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman
DATE: