MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Subcommittee on Government Affairs

 

Seventy-First Session

March 21, 2001

 

 

The Subcommittee on Government Affairswas called to order at 9:12 a.m., on Wednesday, March 21, 2001.  Chairman Roy Neighbors 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.

 

SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mr.                     Roy Neighbors, Chairman

Mr.                     David Humke

Mr.                     Bob Price

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

Assemblywoman Debbie Smith

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel

Dave Ziegler, Committee Policy Analyst

Glenda Jacques, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Robert Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties

Ray Masayko, President, Nevada Association of Counties

Sue Meuschke, Executive Director, Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence

Barbara Reed, Treasurer, Douglas County

George Flint, Lobbyist, Wedding Chapels of Nevada

Kathryn Burke, County Recorder, Washoe County

Joni Kaiser, Executive Director, Committee to Aid Abused Women

Kimberly Maxson-Rushton, Chief Deputy Attorney General

Amy Harvey, County Clerk, Washoe County

 

Assembly Bill 94:  Increases amount of certain fees certain officials of local governments are authorized to charge and collect. (BDR 20-419)

 

Chairman Neighbors suggested Robert Hadfield, the sponsor of A.B. 94, review the bill for those present.

 

Robert Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties (NACO), introduced the president of NACO, Mayor Ray Masayko.

 

Mayor Ray Masayko of Carson City, President, NACO, felt the fee increases were important to the financial stability of many counties.  The fees were intended to provide cost recovering of special services that were provided to the taxpayers.  Thirty-seven of the fifty-one fees had not been increased since 1991.  Counties did not want to increase taxes, and fee schedules had to be reviewed. 

 

Mr. Hadfield explained A.B. 592 of the Sixty-Seventh Session was the last fee comprehensive bill brought before the Legislature.  Through compromise, NACO had received approximately 50 percent of what they had asked for.  The proposed fees were outlined in table format reflecting the past and present fee requests (Exhibit C).  Mr. Hadfield had met with Assemblyman Bernie Anderson and Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley, Assembly Committee on Judiciary, and discussed fee proposals that might affect A.B. 94.  The discussion resulted in changes to the original bill (Exhibit D).

 

Mr. Hadfield outlined the changes in Exhibit D so the subcommittee would understand the fee proposals.  The fee increases were intended to recoup some of the county costs.  Section 1 increased county recorder fees, which had not been increased since 1993.  Section 2 addressed equalization of fees between the sheriff and constable.  The major changes in Section 6 reflected the deletion of proposed increases because the Assembly Committee on Judiciary had a bill that would specifically address judicial fees.

 

Mr. Price clarified there were no changes being made to Section 6 of the bill.  Mr. Hadfield replied affirmatively.

 

Mr. Hadfield said the fee increases had been removed from Section 8 except for line 19.  The proposed county fee increase in Section 9 had not been increased since 1979.  Those county fees kept the office open.  In 1981, Nevada created a $5 domestic violence fund fee and raised it to $10 in 1991.  In 1994, the fund received $12 per marriage license issued and $15 in 1996.  The increases to the domestic violence fund had been a result of decreased state fees that were an addition to county recorder fees.  The proposed bill increases were what the county offices needed to stay solvent.  Section 10 added the language for the Recorders Technology Fund amendment (Exhibit E).  The amendment at the bottom of Exhibit D, page 12, increased the commissioner of civil marriage fee to $50.

 

Chairman Neighbors presented an overview of the distribution of marriage license fees (Exhibit F).  The $4 going to the General Fund was unrestricted revenue and raised approximately $618,253 annually.  If $5 of the proposed commissioner of civil marriage fee increase went to the domestic violence fund it would add approximately $615,000 annually.

 

Assemblywoman Debbie Smith, Assembly District No. 30, supported the fee increases the counties needed.  She had submitted an amendment to increase the marriage license fee from $50 to $60.  The additional $10 would go to the domestic violence trust fund.  She felt the proposed $5 from the civil marriage commissioner fee would not be sufficient.  She read a memo dated January 3, 2000 to Lorne Malkiewich from Charlotte Crawford, Director of the Department of Human Resources, which referred to the biennial report to the Nevada Legislature, “Programs for Assistance to Victims of Domestic Violence.”

 

This report reflects activities surrounding the granting of marriage license funds targeted for domestic violence.  Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) has administered this program in the past two bienniums during which time we have seen an enhancement of domestic violence services statewide.  More victims are currently being served than in any other time in the history of this program.  Nevada can be proud that it has taken such a pro-active approach to the problems surrounding domestic violence.

 

She said it was incumbent upon them to adequately fund the trust fund and look to the future.  The significant increase would be competitive with fees charged in California.

 

Mr. Humke questioned whether Ms. Smith was requesting the marriage fee be increased instead of the amendment NACO presented that increased the marriage commissioner fee.  Ms. Smith replied affirmatively.  She felt the fees generated from marriages performed by the commissioner of civil marriages versus the number of marriages performed in the private industry would not be significant. 

 

Mr. Humke did not know what the total revenue reported by the commissioner of marriages was.  For the record, he felt the subcommittee had a job to not raise marriage fees to a level that would be a detriment to tourism.

 

Chairman Neighbors said a $25 fee increase would be a 60 percent increase.

 

Mr. Humke stated that he worked for a private nonprofit organization called “Volunteer Lawyers of Washoe County” and believed they were funded in part through the domestic violence trust fund.  He declared a potential conflict and would check further on that.

 

Sue Meuschke, Executive Director, Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence (NNADV), explained the bill’s domestic violence fund supported community based nonprofit domestic violence programs in 17 counties of Nevada.  “Volunteer Lawyers” was not funded with those programs.

 

Ms. Meuschke discussed the domestic violence fund and the continued need for increased services (Exhibit G).  The community programs were critical to the communities’ safety net and often times provided the only “24-hour crisis intervention service.”  The trust fund had never received general revenue funds.

 

Barbara Reed, Douglas County Clerk Treasurer, stated the marriage fees in California were set by the counties and in Nevada they were set by the state.  The $75 marriage fee charged in Sacramento was not statewide.  El Dorado County bordered Nevada and their fees were less than Douglas County.  She was concerned the proposed increase would discourage people from getting married in South Lake Tahoe.  Licenses issued in Douglas County had been eroding because the confidential marriage license could be obtained in California.  Douglas County had decreased 25 percent over the last six years.

 

George Flint, Lobbyist, Wedding Chapels of Nevada, felt an additional $10 fee increase would be detrimental to the wedding industry.  People came to Nevada to get married and had limited amounts of money to spend.  The private wedding industry profit margin had decreased.  The domestic violence fund currently received approximately $3 million dollars annually.  He felt the marriage license fee did not belong exclusively to domestic violence.  The domestic violence fund increased annually because marriages increased.  Clark County had sold 55,000 licenses in 1978 and 156,000 in 2000.  They were the only committee that did not have to ask the Ways and Means Committee for increases.

 

He stated that everything was delicate in relation to tourism.  The average wedding, in America, cost $12,000 and the average cost in Nevada was under $200.  He had seen couples in Nevada get married with quarters because of their limited budget.  A fee increase from $35 to $60 was asking the wedding industry to fund the domestic violence fund.  The wedding industry could not afford that.  Those arbitrary, capricious, aggressive increases could negatively affect tourism.  Fifteen percent of the tourism economy in Nevada was from the wedding industry.  If the domestic violence fee of $15 was not adequate, than maybe they should approach the state budget process and not look to private industry to fund them.  When the wedding tourism industry flourished the domestic violence fund would benefit.

 

Kathryn Burke, Recorder, Washoe County, supported the NACO amended bill.

 

Joni Kaiser, Executive Director, Committee to Aid Abused Women, stated her support of Assemblywoman Smith’s amendment that increased the marriage license fee to $60 (Exhibit H).  In FY2000, her organization responded to 10,951 requests for assistance and provided 10,699 bed nights.  With additional funds they could provide additional services.  Domestic violence programs would not exist in 15 rural counties without funding.

 

Chairman Neighbors said the domestic violence funds had been well spent and the issue was not the great work they accomplished.

 

Kimberly Maxson-Rushton, Chief Deputy Attorney General, appeared on behalf of Attorney General, Frankie Sue Del Pappa.  The Attorney General supported any increase to the domestic violence fund.  Services provided to domestic violence victims had increased over the last few years.

 

Mr. Hadfield said they wanted to make sure NACO had answered any questions the committee had.  Mr. Humke wanted clarification on the history of the bill.  The Clark County Technology Fund amendment was introduced and suggested to be taken statewide.  He asked Mr. Hadfield if the marriage commissioner fee increase from $35 to $50 was in the original bill proposal.

 

Mr. Hadfield answered it was not part of the original bill and had been added after the full committee’s discussion of A.B. 94.  Mr. Humke questioned whether Mr. Flint’s remarks about parity between a regular license and the commissioner of civil marriage licenses prompted the amendment.

 

Mr. Hadfield said he remembered Assemblywoman Gibbons suggested the increase.  Mr. Humke said because the increase had not been calculated in the original bill it would be “found” money to the counties.  He questioned whether NACO objected to the $15 increase going to the domestic violence trust fund.

 

Mr. Hadfield said they agreed to part of the increase going to the fund.  The additional money was needed to help keep the county offices open.

 

Mr. Humke referred to Exhibit F and suggested the state’s $4 fee could go to the fund.  Mr. Hadfield said they would approve anything the state wanted to do with their money.

 

Amy Harvey, Clerk, Washoe County, said the civil commissioner of marriages office in Washoe County was over $100,000 in the hole.  Currently their office performed between 6 to 7 percent of the marriage licenses that were performed annually.  They could not afford to have the increase go totally to the domestic violence fund because the $50 increase would offset the costs of the office.

 

Mr. Humke questioned what counties had a civil marriage commission.  Ms. Harvey answered the larger counties had them and the county commissions set the hours of those offices.  Recently, Washoe County commissioners had cut the hours of operation because of costs.  They were closed on Tuesdays and Wednesdays and open 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. the other five days.  The constituents of the county were footing the bill of that service.

 

Mr. Humke thanked NACO for their detailed historical analysis and justification of the general increases and would support their request.  He said there were no statistics that showed what funds would be created by increasing the domestic violence fund by $10 and was not ready to vote on that amendment.

 

The Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence presented Mr. Price with domestic violence fund figures (Exhibit I).  Chairman Neighbors thanked them and felt it would be appropriate to get figures from an independent source.

 

Mr. Humke said they were a citizen Legislature and were accountable to taxpayers.  He suggested the subcommittee approve the NACO bill and send a letter to the full committee stating they did not have time to study the issue completely in regards to revenue figures.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MADE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO THE             FULL ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS AN AMEND             AND DO PASS A.B. 94.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN PRICE SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS AGREED UNANIMOUSLY WITH THE             RECOMMENDATION.

 

Chairman Neighbors thanked NACO for their excellent work on the bill and asked Dave Ziegler, policy analyst, to gather domestic violence figures for the full committee.  The subcommittee would support the domestic violence fund increase to the full committee.

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Glenda Jacques

Committee Secretary

 

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Assemblyman Roy Neighbors, Subcommittee Chairman

 

 

 

DATE:           

 

 

 

 

 

 

                       

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman

 

 

 

DATE: