MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY SubCommittee on Government Affairs

 

Seventy-First Session

March 1, 2001

 

 

The Subcommittee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:11 a.m., on Thursday, March 1, 2001.  Chairman Douglas Bache presided in Room 3142 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.

 

 

SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mr.                     Roy Neighbors, Chairman

Mr.                     David Humke

 

SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:

 

Mr.                     Bob Price

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel

Dave Ziegler, Committee Policy Analyst

Glenda Jacques, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Andrew List, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties

Alan Glover, Lobbyist, County Fiscal Officer’s Association

George Flint, Owner, Wedding Chapels of Nevada

Kathryn Burke, Washoe County Recorder

Capt. James Nadeau, Washoe County and Nevada Sheriff’s Organization

Amy Harvey, Washoe County Clerk

Margaret Lowther, Recorder/Auditor, Storey County

Sue Meuschke, Executive Director, The Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence

Stephanie Licht, Lobbyist, Elko County

Tim Crowley, Lobbyist, Nevada Mining Association

 

Chairman Neighbors called the subcommittee to order and opened the discussion 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)

 

Andrew List, Nevada Association of Counties (NACO), read a letter from Robert Hadfield (Exhibit C).  The letter reviewed NACO’s support of A.B. 94 and the proposed amendments that assisted counties in offsetting the cost of providing services to the public.

 

Mr. List referred to Exhibit D and the proposed changes requested.  In Section 3, all fees charged by the sheriff for serving summons were increased to equal what the local constables had charged.  All charges for mileage and mailings were increased from $1 to $2 throughout the bill. 

 

All amendments proposed to Section 6 and Section 8 were removed because those fees would be covered in another bill.  Section 10 allowed a surcharge in Clark County that would create a recorder’s technology fund (Exhibit E).  On the last page of the bill fees for marriages were increased to $50.

 

Mr. Humke questioned what the increased fees would be used for.  Alan Glover, County Fiscal Officer’s Association, stated the changes to the bill were only concerned with county recorder fees.  The increased fees would not affect the Domestic Violence Association from getting their $15.

 

George Flint, Wedding Chapels of Nevada, explained the marriage license fee provided funding that flowed directly to The Committee to Aid Domestic Violence for Nevada’s 17 counties.  The increased marriage license fee would be equal to what other states charged.

 

Mr. Glover clarified the fee increase affected county fees only.  Section 9, paragraph 4, outlined the $15 for the domestic violence account would be collected at the time a license was granted.  The proposed changes would not affect that.

 

Mr. Humke asked if recipients of those funds had requested an increase in their share.  Mr. Glover replied he was not aware of any.

 

Mr. List confirmed their organization had not heard of any proposed increases by those organizations.  The money collected from the Clark County surcharge for the technology fund would be dedicated to buy technology equipment for the county recorder’s office.  Those were the only funds the bill dedicated to specific funds.

 

Chairman Neighbors questioned if laws existed for lower fees they would take precedence over the higher fees.  Mr. List agreed that Section 1, line 2, covered that.

 

Mr. Flint said the domestic violence fund initiated by Clark County had received approximately $400,000 annually.  The increased tourist weddings in Las Vegas were projected to increase to approximately $2 million for FY-2001.  The $50 marriage fee would give $21 to the clerk, $10 to the county recorder, $15 to domestic violence, and $4 to the state general fund.  The county recorder and the clerk had not received a raise in 20 years.

 

Chairman Neighbors wondered what the $4 to the general fund was used for.  Mr. Flint responded he did not know and when he suggested a few years ago that there might be a better place to put the $4 he was told to stay out of the issue.

 

Mr. Humke questioned if the technology fund surcharge was specific to Clark County.  Mr. Glover stated other counties would appreciate a similar fee.  All counties needed to update their computer equipment to keep up with advanced technology.  If the population cap figures were removed the amendment could be applied to all counties.

 

Mr. Humke thought the fund would be prudent for all counties.  Kathryn Burke, Washoe County Recorder, said they would appreciate additional funding for technology upgrades.

 

Mr. List stated smaller counties would like to take advantage of the surcharge and the Nevada Association of Counties (NACO) would recommend the removal of the population cap.  The language of the bill was permissive and allowed counties the option to not start the fund if they chose to not participate.

 

Mr. Humke questioned the difference between the service of a constable and that of a sheriff.  Captain James Nadeau, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office and the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, answered the constable was the officer of the justice or lower courts and the sheriff was the officer of the district courts.  Over the last 10 years legislative changes had allowed the duties to merge.  Currently there existed constables in Clark County and one constable in Washoe County serving the Incline/Crystal Bay area.  The fee schedule had to remain comparable or someone would end up becoming the “bargain” service process.

 

Mr. Humke questioned if constables were elected.  Mr. Nadeau replied they were elected by the township to which they were responsible.

 

Mr. Humke wanted to know how the constable office was eliminated in other counties.  Mr. Nadeau responded that in the Sixty-ninth Session legislation had passed which allowed counties to eliminate the constable position as it related to specific issues.  The civil duties of the constable were taken over by the sheriff. 

 

Mr. Humke commented that maybe the process could be streamlined by removing all constables.

 

Chairman Neighbors questioned why there had been so many fee changes after the bill had been printed.  Mr. Nadeau said they were unaware the bill was coming forward.  When they saw the disparity in fees they felt an amendment would address the issue easier than a new bill.

 

Mr. List said that in Section 4 the constable fees suggested had been originally asked for in the 1993 fee bill.  During the Sixty-seventh Session the constable fees were not approved.  A.B. 94 would make the fees equal to each other. 

 

Amy Harvey, Washoe County Clerk, said Washoe County issued 27,000 marriage licenses in 2000 and they would support the increase in the marriage license fee.

 

Mr. Humke stated he thought a bill recently introduced by the Assembly Judiciary Committee on filing fees would cover fee changes listed in Section 8.  If the bill did not pass the fees would remain the same.

 

Ms. Burke clarified the county recorder would receive an additional $3 when each marriage license was issued.  The recorder had not received an increase in fees for over 30 years and wanted to increase all filing fees to $10. 

 

Ms. Burke explained the $4 filing fee had originated when marriage certificates were issued and the paperwork was filmed and sent to the state recorder’s office.  The state would re-enter the documents into the statewide system that resulted in a duplication of services.  The practice was updated when the county recorders did all the work and sent the state a magnetic tape of their work.

 

Mr. Humke wondered what the $4 revenue source was to the state.  Mr. Flint responded that it conservatively created $500,000 annually.  Mr. Humke said this was not a year to remove the money from the state budget.

 

Mr. Humke commented the funding of domestic violence through marriage license fees could raise an issue of policy.  Many domestic violence cases had nothing to do with married couples and possibly the funds should be derived from somewhere else.

 

Mr. Flint responded the concept of funding domestic violence through marriage license fees began about 20-25 years ago from a national group.  Gradually the practice spread to all 50 states.  With 93 percent of Nevada weddings being performed for tourists, more money had been raised than through the normal process.

 

Chairman Neighbors questioned what hours the clerk’s office was open.  Ms. Harvey answered they were mandated to stay open 365 days a year, from 8:00 a.m. to midnight. 

 

Mr. Flint explained the legislature established policy in 1969 that allowed Clark and Washoe County to stay open 8:00 am to midnight, 365 days a year.  Clark County kept a 24-hour operation on weekends and holidays.  Other county hours were governed by local commissions.  Currently, there existed a fiscal problem in maintaining those hours on current county budgets.

 

Mr. Flint referred to his proposed amendment (Exhibit F), stating he was unaware the marriage license fee increase had already been proposed by NACO.  Previous legislation prohibited justices of the peace from performing marriages for profit during judicial hours.  The marriage commission office was established as an extension of the county clerk’s office.  By statute, the Clark County marriage commission office must be opened when the marriage license bureau was open.  In 2000, Clark County performed 25,000 marriages through that office and Washoe County had 3,000.  The increase would help county offices become fiscally responsible and allow the commercial wedding industry to charge more than $35 for a wedding.  Mr. Flint’s amendment would allow an additional $5 to go to the domestic violence fund.  The addition to the fund would be in memory of Jan Evans, a strong supporter of prevention of domestic violence.  Whether or not the committee approved the additional $5 to the fund, the marriage license fee should be increased to $50 to benefit the industry.

 

Chairman Neighbors questioned how the domestic violence fund was dispersed to individual counties. Margaret Lowther, Recorder/Auditor of Storey County, responded the money was dedicated and sent to the state on a regular basis.  Money in a special designated fund would roll over the following year to the same fund and could not be spent by other organizations.

 

Sue Meuschke, Executive Director of The Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence, explained the funding money came from each county and was deposited in a special fund at the state level.  Those funds were granted to programs covering the 17 counties in Nevada that followed a formula created by the legislature.  Base funding was required for all counties and then there was a per-capita amount for larger counties.  If the revenue amounts exceeded the grant money for one year the money would roll over and was granted the following year.

 

Mary Walker, Carson City, Douglas County and Lyon County, supported the bill and the proposed amendments.  It was their desire that legislation regarding the recorder’s technology fund be distributed to all communities.

 

Stephanie Licht, Elko County, supported the bill, the proposed amendments, and the proposed technology fund.

 

Ms. Meuschke expressed her concern about Section 9 and the impact A.B. 94 had on funding for domestic violence programs.  They were worried the marriage license fee increase would affect the volume of marriage licenses sold.  Any decrease in the amount of licenses sold would result in a decrease of funds for domestic violence.  There was no decrease in the amount of work that domestic violence programs had to perform.  The proposed 40 percent increase might compromise the program’s ability to go to the legislature and petition for additional general fund appropriations.  Domestic violence programs had seen a 300 percent increase over the last 20 years and could not afford to have their monies decreased.

 

The proposed fund increase of $5 would not affect the rural counties where domestic violence programs had the hardest time providing basic programs.  If there were a diminishing number of licenses sold and no additional funds to the domestic violence program, there would be a problem.  Ms. Meuschke sympathized with the recorders and clerks who had not had a fee increase, but she was concerned about the potential problems that could occur with the proposed fee increase.  There could be significant problems if no other revenue could be generated.

 

Mr. Humke reiterated Mr. Flint’s testimony that 93 percent of the marriage revenue was from tourists.  People getting married were happy and the fee did not come into play.  The number of Washoe County marriage licenses was decreasing while Clark County’s was increasing.  Statewide marriage licenses were increasing.

 

Ms. Meuschke explained the domestic violence programs had experienced a flat growth in the amount of money that came to them.  They wanted to continue to provide services to domestic violence needs throughout the state.  The fees had been a good source of revenue and had allowed the state to not use general funds for the program.

 

Mr. Humke emphasized that from a policy analysis perspective maybe the marriage license program should not cover domestic violence programs that did not involve married people.  Possibly there were other sources that should be made available to domestic violence programs.

 

Ms. Meuschke replied maybe there should be other funding involved for the domestic violence program.  The program struggled constantly from lack of funding.  Marriage license funding had provided the base funding for all domestic violence programs in the state.  It allowed for hot lines, emergency shelters, and other program necessities.  Community donations, grants, and other funding sources were continually looked at for additional funding sources.  The funding source had allowed the program to perform its obligations and they were concerned the proposed change could have serious repercussions.  Their priority was to provide the services and protect those services from being jeopardized.

 

Chairman Neighbors appreciated Ms. Meuschke’s concerns, but felt the volume of marriage licenses would not diminish.

 

Mr. Flint claimed the $15 increase in marriage license fees would not negatively impact sales.  The same number of people would come to the state to get married.  He remarked the domestic violence program did not own that source of funding.  Clerks and county recorders had not had a raise, while the domestic violence programs had been given three raises.  Washoe and Clark County were required to stay open 24 hours and their ability to do that could be jeopardized without the proposed fee increase.  If the recorder’s office had to stay open fewer hours it would affect the amount of licenses sold and would also affect the amount of money the domestic violence fund was receiving.  The decrease in marriage licenses in Washoe County had been proportionate to the increases in Clark County.  There had not been a decrease in domestic violence money but a steady, gradual increase.  Mr. Flint felt Washoe County had bottomed out and they expected their sale of licenses to increase.  Domestic violence had not asked for an increase but the proposed amendment had found a place to give them a raise.  A $50 increase in marriage license fees would not affect tourism or the 93 percent of marriage license sales.  The marriage industry would continue to work with domestic violence to fund those needs.

 

Mr. Humke reiterated the bill was for clerks and county recorders.  Fiscal conservatives did not feel funding sources should be earmarked for specific programs.  All money would be deposited in the general fund and the legislative body would make decisions on how the money was spent. 

 

Tim Crowley, Nevada Mining Association, stated Section 2 pertained to mining claim fee increases from $1 to $2.  Recording mining claims was an essential part of administering a very complex mining system.  They appreciated the service and wanted to make sure it was appropriately funded.  The association wanted justification for the increase.

 

Mining claims had decreased roughly 5 to 6 percent over the past 5 years.  There were currently about 112,000 mining claims in existence in Nevada.  With the proposed fee increase the mining industry would be impacted roughly $200,000 per year.  Even though the increase was small, the industry had made tough business decisions to conserve costs.  Possibly there needed to be an assessment to determine if the increase was necessary. 

 

Mr. Humke questioned whether the mining fee was a one-time or annual fee.  Mr. Crowley clarified that to maintain a mining claim one must file a claim with the recorders office annually.  Any sell, transfer or merging of claims required additional filing.

 

Mr. Humke questioned what the split between small, one-time miners was versus full-time miners.  Mr. Crowley did not have that information available but would get it for Mr. Humke.  Currently, the vast majority of claims were held by corporations.

 

Ms. Burke claimed the recorder’s office spent the same amount of time on processing mining claims as they did for other documents.  The recorder had to keep separate records for the mining industry.  The $1 increase would help maintain the additional workload.  Currently, Washoe County did not have many unpatented mining claims.  The additional fee increase would project out at $2,800 annually.

 

Chairman Neighbors asked how many patent mining claims were in Nevada.  Ms. Lowther explained the patent mining claims were the same as owning land and property taxes or mineral taxes were paid to the assessor’s office.  In the 1870s the fee for those claims was based upon the assessed value of the claim.  Once a patent was established the taxes on the claim were paid like those paid on a home.  The assessor would appraise and tax the claim accordingly.

 

Mr. Humke questioned whether the Clark County technology fund surcharge applied to the mining claim recorder fees.  Ms. Burke replied the technology fund surcharge applied to NRS 278 and would not affect the recording of mining claim maps.

 

Mr. Humke asked if the technology fund would apply only to “straight real estate deals.”  Ms. Burke clarified the technology fund surcharge applied to subdivision, plats, land, and survey maps filed in the recorder’s office.

 

Ms. Lauther stated the equipment, employee, insurance, and all other administrative costs had increased dramatically over the past decade.  Although mining costs had increased, administrative costs to process and file claims had raised also.

 

Mr. Humke wondered whether it was worth writing a receipt and processing the paperwork for a $1 fee.  Ms. Lauther responded there were other fees involved at the time of filing and those were written up together.

 

Chairman Neighbors questioned whether 75 percent of Storey County was privately owned.  Ms. Lauther responded affirmatively.  Large corporations owned many patented mining claims in Storey County and mining fees had almost become non-existent in the county.  Storey County had about 1,000 mining fees and Pershing County had about 40,000 in FY 2000.  Some counties had a tremendous volume of mining claims filed and it involved a great deal of the recorders time.

 

Chairman Neighbors seeing no one else to testify on A.B. 94, adjourned the meeting at 10:12 a.m.

 

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Glenda Jacques

Committee Secretary

 

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Assemblyman Roy Neighbors, Chairman

 

DATE: