MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-First Session
April 3, 2001
The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:10 a.m., on Tuesday, April 3, 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
Mrs. Dawn Gibbons
Mr. David Humke
Mr. Harry Mortenson
Mr. Roy Neighbors
Ms. Bonnie Parnell
Mr. Bob Price
Mrs. Debbie Smith
Ms. Kathy Von Tobel
COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:
Mr. Wendell Williams
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Speaker Richard Perkins
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel
Dave Ziegler, Committee Policy Analyst
Virginia Letts, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Scott Craigie, Henderson Library District
Captain Jim Nadeau, Washoe County Sheriff
Daniel L. Walters, Executive Director, Las Vegas-Clark County Library District
Richard Clark, Executive Director, Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST)
Brigadier General Giles Vanderhoof, Adjutant General, State of Nevada
Ron Dreher, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada (PORAN)
Joan Kerschner, Henderson District Public Libraries
Duncan R. McCoy, Boulder City Library District
Paul Iverson, Department of Agriculture
Secretary of State Dean Heller
Renee Lacey, Chief Deputy Secretary of State
Bob Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association
Sue Meuschke, Executive Director, Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence
David Pennington, Lieutenant Colonel, Nevada Judge Advocate, Nevada National Guard
Gary Wolff, representing the Nevada Highway Patrol Associates
Mike Jensen, Deputy Attorney General, representing the Police Officers Standards and Training (POST)
Assembly Bill 441: Revises provisions relating to library districts. (BDR 33-980)
Speaker Richard Perkins, Assembly District 33, stated he introduced the bill to establish a way for boundaries of certain library districts to be altered if the participating districts agreed. He said there were several entities wanting to testify on the bill and he would prefer to let them testify and answer any questions the committee might have.
Scott Craigie, Henderson Library District, testified he had worked with the consolidated library district in drafting language for proposed legislation. Over the last decade there were a series of disputes that developed between the city library district and the consolidated district. In working together they had addressed most concerns, which resulted in A.B. 441. There were large territories in southern Nevada that had not been developed, some were Bureau of Land Management and some were undeveloped areas inside territories. An area call Anthem had just been developed by Del Webb and was what triggered the bill. In working together, the districts worked out compromises, which not only solved the Anthem issue, but also created a long-term plan for the districts. Section 1 dealt with annexation from one library district into another, allowing boundaries to change. A request would be submitted to the trustees of the district requesting to be moved into another territory. The trustees would conduct a study to determine whether the library district had the financial capability to provide extended library services. If a district did not want to provide services or did not have the financial capability the county library district would submit the matter to the board of county commissioners for their determination. Provisions in the bill allowed for county determination rather than bringing each matter before the Legislature for resolution. The bill also allowed for input from citizens to see if there was local support for changes. Provisions in the bill protected bond revenue, as it was important not to move a revenue stream out, which was being used to support bonds that were already let.
Mr. Craigie indicated a subsection in Section 2 was added to define boundaries of a consolidated library district. That language would allow the annexation of any area where a new library was built. It was important legislation for the city of Henderson so they could build a library within Anthem to serve that area.
Mrs. Berman asked Mr. Craigie if the language in A.B. 441 had been in effect, would it have helped any other district prior to the request for Anthem. Mr. Craigie replied he would leave that response for the library people. He did know that the language in the bill would have helped immensely with the North Las Vegas issue. It would have required districts to come up with a workable solution rather than bringing that dispute to the Legislature for resolution.
Mr. Brown wondered if there was a formula or prorated type of distribution between districts. Mr. Craigie responded it was 50-50, and there could be an amendment drafted clarifying that matter.
Joan Kerschner, Director, Henderson District Public Libraries, stated she was in support of the bill. There had been problems in the past defining where district boundaries needed adjustment due to the rapid growth in the southern part of the state. It was difficult to define which areas a library district should serve, because of merging and annexing territories. The bill would also help with the situation in Nye County because that was the only other county with library districts. Each county commission or local government supervised libraries in their county. The proposed legislation would allow changing library boundaries so issues could be resolved locally. In putting together their tax issues, it was found that sometimes voting boundaries were changed, and people in one area were paying for something they could not use. In the case of Green Valley taxes were split between Las Vegas-Clark County and Henderson districts.
Daniel Walters, Executive Director of the Las Vegas-Clark County Library District was appearing in support of the proposed legislation. It was intended to provide a mechanism within local government to resolve service and taxing issues locally, since library districts were established by petition. It was desirable for library boards to work with one another in adjusting boundaries, so that they were driven by service needs and not by one district raiding the commercial assessed value to bring it into another district. The need for legislation was brought to the forefront with the Anthem development. After studying the financial impact, it made more sense for Henderson to develop the library because it was an area adjacent to the Henderson library district.
Mrs. Berman asked what the approximate value was of the package where the library would be placed in Anthem, and how it would affect the tax assessment. Mr. Walters replied Henderson would develop the library at Anthem. It appeared that the consolidated district would forfeit, over a six-year period, approximately $600,000, but it was determined it would be more expensive for his agency to undertake development. The library would serve only those residents at Anthem who predominantly resided in the Henderson Library District.
Ms. Kerschner interjected there was a current planning process for developing a library at Anthem and the land had been donated to the city of Henderson by the Del Webb Corporation, for the express purpose of building a library. The building would encompass about 15,000 square feet, at a cost of about $1.50 a square foot and it was determined there would not be enough revenue raised in Anthem to support the facility. The property was bordered on two sides by the Henderson territory and the revenue raised by residents in those two areas would counterbalance the outlay. The library would sit on a knoll, just inside the grand entrance to Anthem, so residents outside that area would have full visibility of the library from the planned developments in the area.
Mrs. Berman stated two other taxing districts were paying for the library and she wanted to make sure it was accessible to everyone. Ms. Kerschner added all areas were included in preliminary planning for the library.
Duncan McCoy, Director of the Boulder City Library District, said he was overjoyed to see the bill. Because of problems in the past dealing with boundaries he felt the legislation would alleviate concerns that had been specific to the Boulder City Library District. Boulder City Library was established in 1943 and was still operating within the original 1943 boundaries. Although Boulder City needed to expand library boundaries there was no mechanism under statute allowing for expansion of the district. Physical boundaries of Boulder City had expanded in the 1950s and it was now the largest municipality in the state, called El Dorado, extending almost to Searchlight. If residential development occurred within El Dorado Valley it would naturally gravitate toward the Boulder City district for services, and the city would like to have those citizens in their tax base.
Chairman Bache said Ms. O’Grady had a concern on some language in the bill. Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel, indicated the language just allowed the trustees of a county library district to request provision of services in another territory, and wondered if the language was too limiting.
Ms. Kerschner responded in Clark County there were consolidated districts, county districts, North Las Vegas, and all undeveloped territory was in the Las Vegas-Clark County library district to be developed by either North Las Vegas, Boulder City or Henderson, so it would be a two-way discussion. The only territory giving up land as it was developed would be the Las Vegas-Clark County consolidated district and she believed that was specified in the bill.
Mr. Walters felt language in the bill would clearly accommodate an adjustment of boundaries between two county library districts. There was another statute, which already addressed the city chartered library district of North Las Vegas, and not covered by NRS 379.105.
MR. PRICE MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS A.B. 441.
MR. NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
********
Chairman Bache opened the hearing on A.B. 536.
Assembly Bill 536: Makes various changes to provisions relating to secretary of state. (BDR 18-1337)
Dean Heller, Secretary of State, introduced Renee Lacy, Chief Deputy Secretary of State, and indicated she would answer any technical questions the committee might have. He stated he was not looking for wholesale change within the office of moving employees from classified to nonclassified positions. What he was trying to accomplish was resolving conflicts between the unclassified pay bill and statutes. The office filed approximately one-quarter of a million documents a year, with the bulk of business in the southern part of the state. The unclassified pay bill authorized four positions, but in looking at the statute, only three were authorized. A.B. 536 would alleviate some problems with unclassified positions. He offered an amendment, which resulted from working with the employees association so there were no conflicting positions (Exhibit C). He was asking to appoint an executive assistant, a chief deputy, and not more than ten additional deputies. Presently, there was no chief deputy in southern Nevada or Washoe County, causing problems when signatures were required. A courier had to be dispatched to bring papers to Carson City or he had to fly to Las Vegas. The administrative securities position was to be moved into the classified service and he planned on placing his executive assistant in unclassified service. All executive assistants in other executive branches were in unclassified positions, so in requesting that change it would bring the position in line with similar positions in the executive branch.
He indicated they were also requesting a Section 4 be added to the bill as indicated in Exhibit C, it would prohibit the office from converting any position currently existing on the staff to be moved from classified service into an unclassified deputy position. The addition was the culmination of talks with Mr. Bob Gagnier.
Ms. Parnell stated she had served on the interim committee urging business to locate in Nevada, and wondered if the bill dealt with any of the recommendations from that committee. Mr. Heller said those recommendations dealing with commercial recordings were being processed through the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Ms. Parnell indicated the addition of deputies was one of the issues that had been discussed in that committee. Mr. Heller replied those additional positions were all submitted in the Secretary of State’s budget for the Governor’s review.
Mr. Lee asked if the office currently required bonds for each deputy. Mr. Heller responded they did not. The treasurer’s office required bonding but his office did not deal with large amounts of money, so he had never required a bond for his deputies.
Bob Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association (SNEA), testified he had met with the Secretary of State and his assistant and agreed on the amendments that had been submitted to the committee. Those amendments solved concerns of the association. Some requests were for a nonclassified designation, mostly by the Executive Branch. The original request for ten deputies was reduced to two with the amendments, and because they were unnamed, SNEA requested a new section be added to protect those employees that were already in those positions.
Ms. Berman requested a description of the difference between classified and un-classified positions. Mr. Gagnier responded NRS 284, the State Personnel Act, set up two different types of employees in the executive branch of government. Unclassified employees consisted of approximately 640 positions with the rest termed classified. Unclassified served at the pleasure of their appointing authority, could be removed without cause, and did not have the benefit package of classified employees. If those employees met certain criteria in the Fair Labor Standards Act they received no overtime compensation. There were 1,300 vacant positions within the state requiring a lot of overtime in some of those agencies having vacancies. Unclassified were paid an annual salary, while classified employees received hourly wages.
Chairman Bache said the nonclassified issue had been addressed in another bill, but perhaps Mr. Gagnier could clarify the matter. Mr. Gagnier replied prior to the Seventieth Session, the only nonclassified employees designated by law and regulation were employees of the Legislative Counsel Bureau and Supreme Court and referenced in statute but not mentioned as nonclassified. During the Seventieth Session the Governor proposed removing his staff from the un-classified service. In that legislation they had simply been referenced as “the governor may employ persons as he deems necessary, and such person was not in the classified or unclassified service of the state and serves at the pleasure of the Governor.” That language removed his employees from the unclassified pay bill so he could set the salary of those employees. He pointed out none of the other elected officials’ employees, outside of the Governor, were exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act. Their largest concern had been possible proliferation of the nonclassified designation and several elected offices were requesting nonclassified status for their employees.
MR. HUMKE MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 536.
MR. BROWN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE BILL PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE MEMBERS PRESENT.
********
Assembly Bill 560: Revises certain provisions regarding peace officers. (BDR 23-1461)
Paul Iverson, Department of Agriculture, stated the bill primarily gave his department the opportunity to use their law enforcement officers to pull over vehicles carrying livestock and carcasses to verify those vehicles were carrying what they were supposed to be carrying with health certificates and information as required by law. There was a proposal in the Executive Budget to move all of their law enforcement officers into a new category, where they would be actual agriculture inspectors. There were no border stations in Nevada so it would provide them the opportunity to pull over vehicles, ensuring that all the current requirements and regulations were met. The department’s largest concern was invasive species, such as fire ants, which had become a worldwide problem. Currently there were three full-time and three part-time category 1 inspectors and one full-time category 2 inspector with a lady currently in Las Vegas in Police Officer Standards and Training (POST) and would be placed in their nursery inspections on completion of her training. Traditionally when something was being transported that was detrimental to the state, an emergency order had to be issued which all inspectors carried with them.
Mr. Lee asked if there was ever a reason to pull over someone who was weaving or speeding. Mr. Iverson replied that was not their priority, but they would be remiss if they saw someone violating traffic laws so they would notify the Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP). Many times because NHP was involved in other matters they would ask his agency to hold the offender until they arrived. Because agriculture vehicles were different, they were not normally recognized as law enforcement vehicles.
Ms. Parnell stated in the previous year there had been a problem with dead chickens being transported into the state, and wondered if more could be done to correct situations like that. Mr. Iverson said major changes had been made in the transporting of that type of chicken. They did have the authority, with the cooperation of NHP and sheriff’s department, to charge those people with animal cruelty.
Mr. Mortenson questioned if they had the ability to pull people over, he was concerned if markings on those vehicles gave them official status and were clearly identifiable. Mr. Iverson responded all of their vehicles had an emblem on the side that reflected brand inspector and were equipped with emergency lights and sirens. If the bill passed the insignia would be changed reflecting agriculture inspector designation.
Mr. Brown asked what the criteria was for stopping a vehicle, and if the standards were subjective. Mr. Iverson declared there had to be just cause and if it was marked as nursery it definitely would be stopped. All cattle trucks, horse trailers, trucks carrying agriculture products or livestock were also checked.
Mr. Humke wondered if the bill passed, could agriculture stations be constructed such as those in California and Arizona. Mr. Iverson pointed out they had a very small staff. There had been a suggestion from one of the Senators to look into the possibility of establishing a border checkpoint, as there had been a large increase in transportation of all kinds of items across the border. California and Arizona stopped vehicles because of illegal stock and they would turn them around and send them back through Nevada. NHP helped, but their focus was different than that of the Department of Agriculture.
Mr. Humke asked if the “bug stations” were primarily inspecting for pests affecting fruit and vegetable crops. Mr. Iverson indicated they checked for both, but at the moment there were major problems with insects and disease.
Mr. Price wondered if there were problems either in the north or south with people bringing horses and cattle into the state to attend rodeo activities. Mr. Iverson replied the livestock industry throughout the state was a major industry and legitimate livestock owners welcomed protection. A good example was the National Rodeo Finals held in Las Vegas. Some animals were worth $15,000, and up; those owners certainly did not want them exposed to even one sick animal because there could be millions of dollars worth of damage.
Ms. Von Tobel stated there were inspection stations along I-15 that had been closed since about 1979 and wondered if they were ever open. Mr. Iverson pointed out those stations were run primarily by the NHP. Every time NHP set up a check site his agency became involved, but they were only open on an intermittent basis as there was not enough funding available.
Ron Dreher, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada (PORAN) and Professional Peace Officers of Nevada, thanked Chairman Bache for enabling his group to participate in drafting the bill. Those provisions related to POST and how they dealt with the tribal police. Currently tribal police officers were not covered under NRS 289.010; however, many tribal police did request POST certification in order to be employed. The original requestors were from White Pine County and the Shoshone Tribe, as there had been several incidents where the council would hire POST certified officers, but those certifications expired after two years. Because of sovereign immunity enjoyed by the tribes in Nevada it was impossible to bring them under NRS 289 to make them peace officers under state statutes because of a liability problem. He had met with the Chief’s and Sheriff’s Association and the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training and he was submitting an amendment for committee review. The first change was to add, “May enter into inter-local agreements to provide for the training and certification of tribal law enforcement officers” in Section 3. The intent was to allow the tribe to confer with POST on how certificates were handled for tribal police. When an officer was hired in the state there were certain guidelines for obtaining certification and when a tribal peace officer was hired, he must have a basic POST certificate.
Richard Clark, Executive Director for the Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training, stated they were in support of the amendments to the bill. The way the bill was originally written there were some jurisdictional concerns. There was also a parallel bill sponsored by Senator Townsend who was trying to help tribal officers with their training and certification programs. He pointed out they would not support any expansion of jurisdictional issues and were neutral on the part of the bill addressing the Department of Agriculture but they wanted to be certain that anyone that was a peace officer was certified and met the minimum standards.
Mike Jensen, Deputy Attorney General representing the POST Commission, believed Mr. Clark covered most issues of concern. Regarding tribal certification there was a question if POST could certify tribal law enforcement officers under NRS 289 because they were a sovereign entity. An opinion was issued by both the LCB and the Attorney General’s Office stating the statute was not clear on POST Commission authority but could authorize certifying of tribal peace officers through inter-local agreements with the different tribes. The Commission felt uncomfortable proceeding under that authority and wanted the Legislature’s assurance that it was something they had authority to do before proceeding with tribal training and certifying. Because of sovereignty issues the state could not mandate training of any tribal law enforcement officers. Unfortunately under statutes there were no consequences to tribal individuals that were in law enforcement positions and not certified. He had checked into how surrounding states handled similar situations and almost without exception each of those states dealt with it by requiring certification within a specific period of time. If they failed to become certified within a specified time, they lost their peace officer authority and there could be severe liability issues as well as some criminal charges being filed.
Mr. Lee questioned the state giving California correctional officers peace officer powers in Nevada. Mr. Jensen responded there were some provisions within NRS that allowed peace officer powers within the state of Nevada on a temporary basis or under certain jurisdictional issues. Quite often California correctional officers needed to pick up prisoners in Nevada and were provisionally allowed peace officer status.
Captain Jim Nadeau, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office and representing the Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association, stated they were originally against the bill, but with the amendments they were in full support of the legislation. His organizations had worked with Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada (PORAN) and tribal leaders and agreed the amended language would work for everyone concerned. He added Lt. Olson from the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department was in another committee, but he wanted to go on record as supporting the bill.
Mrs. Berman questioned if the new language addressing tribal law enforcement officers had the same meaning as old language that referred to “Indian officers.” Mr. Nadeau responded that the language in statute indicated law enforcement officers must be POST certified and felt that was why the term “tribal law enforcement” was being used. Mr. Dreher interjected the language was written by LCB staff, their intent had been just to designate “peace officer” or “tribal peace officer.”
Gary Wolff, Nevada Highway Patrol Association, testified he wanted to put a plug in for the Brand Inspectors. For years he had been assigned to commercial enforcement activity with the NHP and knew the department conducted themselves in a highly professional way. As far as the check sites at Apex and Sloan in southern Nevada, there was a shortage of manpower so they only had them open periodically when there were extra officers available. In the southern part of the state each trooper was working about 1,000 accidents a month just on the Interstates.
Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 560 and opened the hearing on A.B. 561.
Assembly Bill 561: Authorizes governor to promote adjutant general to grade of lieutenant general under certain circumstances. (BDR 36-567)
Brigadier General Giles Vanderhoof, Adjutant General, State of Nevada, testified he was in support of A.B. 561, which had been submitted by General Clark, who was the previous Adjutant General. The bill proposed to increase the authorized military grade of the Adjutant General of Nevada from Major General, which was two stars, to Lieutenant General, which was three stars. Since the Gulf War the U.S. Armed Forces had been downsizing with reliance on National Guard forces increasing. Every year part of the Guard was serving somewhere overseas so it was no longer simply two days a month and 15 days a year that they were active. In recognition of problems, Congress restructured the Guard in 1994 and one aspect was to increase the grade of the chief of the National Guard Bureau to Lieutenant General. The National Guard Bureau had no authority over the National Guard with the Adjutant General serving as the commander in each state. Recently the Director of the Air Guard and Director of the Army Guard were both upgraded by Congress to Lieutenant General. The Adjutant General’s Association felt they did not have the ability to represent their states in the same manner as they did prior to upgrades at the bureau.
It was not the prerogative of Congress to determine the grade. It was a state matter and what was proposed was the authority to promote the position up to Lieutenant General. He pointed out the only stars allowed were those federally recognized and if they were not promoted federally they could not wear the star. He had the time and grade when he was appointed Adjutant General, to become Major General but it was a lengthy process and took about a year. By passing the legislation it would not automatically give him a promotion, it was only enabling. Presently only 29 states and territories limited the grade of Adjutant General to Major General or below, and they were all considering legislation much like A.B. 561. If the bill passed it would have no impact on the Adjutant Generals, it addressed military rank and nothing more.
Mr. Neighbors asked if outside the state of Nevada the rank would be recognized. Adjutant General Vanderhoof responded if there was federal recognition. He added he was wearing one star and had requested a promotion in January with all paperwork submitted to the National Guard Bureau, which then must be approved by all the military boards, the White House, and Senate. The paperwork would not even begin to be processed until the state promotion was completed.
Mr. Price questioned if the Governor was the one to instigate the process. Adj. Gen. Vanderhoof replied if he had service time, proper grade, and met all eligibility requirements, the Governor would then have a state order cut and prepare a promotion package to be forwarded to the appropriate agency.
Mr. Price was curious if the highest ranked officer in the state would always be the Adjutant General. The General stated the Adjutant General was always the highest ranked in the Nevada Army or Air National Guard regardless of the size of the state or force.
Mr. Lee questioned how large was the Adjutant General’s command. The General said there were 600 active members and, including those serving part-time, the total figure was around 3,000.
Ms. Von Tobel understood retirement was based on rank and asked if the upgrade would affect retirement for his position. General Vanderhoof replied retirement started at age 60 for reservists and was based on the number of points accrued, which was one point for everyday of active service and one point for every unit training assembly that was served. The average retirement after 20 to 25 years in service was probably around 3,000 points, which was considerably less than what an active duty retiree would obtain.
Ms. Von Tobel questioned if the language in the bill actually changed their retirement. General Vanderhoof stated it would affect the military retirement. Ms. Von Tobel wanted an idea of the difference it would make in retirement. General Vanderhoof related it would not affect him, as he did not have enough time for any change in his retirement and if it should it would amount to about $75 to $100 per month. Many adjutant generals wished congress had not promoted the chief of the bureau and directors of the army and air guard and left them all major generals. Although it appeared self-serving, he assured the committee that was not the case. They just felt they owed it to their state to be on an equal level because they were not subordinate.
Ms. Von Tobel wanted it on the record that she did not use the term self-serving.
Ms. Parnell revealed she too had a problem with the bill. There was a tradition within the military and guard and felt it should not be up to a state to determine what rank an adjutant general should be. Federal guidelines were in place and as Congress had not addressed the issue she could not support the bill. In response, General Vanderhoof said Congress would not address the issue because adjutant generals were state-appointed, so determination should be left to the state.
Ms. Parnell wondered why no other states had changed the position. General Vanderhoof responded they were always ranked major generals, as were the director of Army and Air Guard and chief of the National Guard Bureau. It had never been contemplated until Congress increased those federal officers’ rank.
Mr. Lee felt it was a subordination issue. He queried if it was an ego thing or was it needed in case of a crisis. General Vanderhoof pointed out there were a lot of decisions made at the National Guard Bureau that affected states and up until the upgrade development the states felt they had authority to address all issues, as adjutant generals were the commanders of the guard. There was a matter of stars involved and the more stars, the more respect and was a mind-set of the military.
Mr. Price asked if the General was aware of the letter received from Congressman Gibbons along with a letter from the former chief of the National Guard Bureau, General Conway, and thought they should be read into the record. Chairman Bache stated they would be made part of the record (Exhibit D), but due to a time crunch they would not be read into the record.
The General explained that, despite the letter from Congressman Gibbons, a general would not be wearing a different rank unless he received federal recognition. He added that was why he was not wearing two stars, because his application had not gone through the entire process.
Mr. Humke stated he was also having a problem with the concept. He did not understand the absence of federal government in authorizing a third star for Nevada and leaving appointment up to the state. He recalled in his guard experience there was always tons of paperwork and wondered if there had been any written justification from the National Guard Bureau, such as a resolution that states were trying to process the issue nationally. The General replied the issue had been discussed in executive sessions and there were two states already authorizing Lieutenant General and those were California and Alabama, but they did not wear the third star because it had to be authorized by the state.
Lieutenant Colonel David Pennington, State Judge Advocate and military legal counsel to the Nevada National Guard, mentioned there were in fact five states, but he could only remember California and Alabama. The majority of states placed no limit upon the maximum authorized grade, they merely stated whatever the federal government authorized would be recognized. If the state did not authorize the grade of Lieutenant General it would not be an issue that would come up at the national level. The Adjutant Generals Association was working on the issue at the national level and may be proposing legislation in the near future. The question was not to promote the Adjutant General, only to pass legislation enabling the Governor to promote the Adjutant General if he so desired.
Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 561 and opened the hearing on A.B. 94.
Assembly Bill 94: Increases amount of certain fees certain officials of local governments are authorized to charge and collect. (BDR 20-419)
Assemblyman Roy Neighbors, Assembly District 36, testified he had information to pass out to the committee that had resulted from meetings with the subcommittee and would like to have Mr. Ziegler give some overview information.
Dave Ziegler, Research Analyst, stated at the second subcommittee meeting Mrs. Smith offered an amendment increasing the amount a county clerk must collect from $15 to $25 when issuing a marriage license, with the additional $10 going into an account for Domestic Violence. Currently county clerks collected a $15 fee generating over $2 million annually. The subcommittee did not want to make a recommendation and requested different revenue options. He referred to his handout (Exhibit E) regarding proposed amendments to the bill. The first amendment was submitted by Ms. Smith and dealt with the $10 additional fee, which would generate an estimated $1.38 million annually. The second amendment added a $5 fee for the commissioner of civil marriage, which they were already entitled to. It would only apply to Clark County and Washoe County and would generate about $125,000 annually for the domestic violence account. The final proposed amendment was the current collection of a $4 fee on each marriage license amounting to about $618,000 annually. That money was not dedicated and went directly into the General Fund and if that was to be placed in the Victims of Domestic Violence account it would increase by that amount.
Mr. Neighbors pointed out that at one time there was a service provided for the $4 fee but that was no longer the case. He indicated the subcommittee had met twice and in looking at fee increases found in previous submitted legislation, not all requests passed. A.B. 94 addressed fees that were not in the legislation passed eight years ago. Nevada Association of Counties (NACO) requested elimination of sections 6 and 8, but a $20 fee for the county clerk would remain in the bill. He indicated in Exhibit F the breakdown of the $35 fee collected by the issuance of marriage licenses. Those fees generated $5,361,000 annually with the Domestic Violence Trust Fund receiving $2,295,000. With the increase of the license fee to $55 with $5 of that going to Domestic Violence, the projected total annually would be $125,000. He felt Nevada could be proud as they generated more funding for Domestic Violence than almost any other western state and with the increase probably more than California. In adding additional proposed funding to what was collected annually, proceeds for the Domestic Violence Trust Fund would be $3,185,000. Exhibit G indicated the breakdown from other states of their annual funding that went to Domestic Violence, and as he had indicated Nevada was clearly first in their funding.
Mr. Lee was saddened that there were people that might qualify for the Domestic Violence Trust Fund. He wondered if people had to be married to qualify and if a person qualified, what the funding covered, and if the fund was presently short of money.
Mrs. Smith suggested Ms. Meuschke could address those questions. She pointed out that domestic violence was on the rise nationwide and by passing the bill there would be funding available to organizations that provided assistance.
Sue Meuschke, Executive Director, Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence, testified there were 17 programs in the state providing service for victims of domestic violence. The money went to fund services in those programs rather than directly to individuals. There was no requirement a person be married, and the services provided were hotlines, peer counseling, support groups, emergency shelter, food, clothing, legal and medical advice, social services advocacy, child and pet care, or whatever else was needed by one of their clients. As needs of individuals were varied they tried to meet those individual needs. Over the past ten years domestic violence programs had increased by 300 percent and the number of “bed-nights” had increased almost as much. The needs exceeded the population growth throughout the state, partly due to the fact there was more awareness and outreach programs.
Mr. Lee asked if the genesis of the bill tied violence somehow to marriage. Ms. Meuschke replied the genesis came in 1981. Senator Sue Wagner offered the original Domestic Violence legislation as a potential way of providing a stable source of funding for programs. She supposed there could be a tenuous link because violence generally occurred within an intimate relationship. In some other states funding was obtained from the general fund and other funding vehicles that provided for programs, in Nevada they were fortunate to only have to use funding generated by license fees.
Mr. Lee wondered if annual reports were submitted to the Legislature regarding how much money was received, and where it was used. Ms. Meuschke stated there was a handout (Exhibit H) showing how grant allocations were implemented and distributed. Every year programs applied for grants based on the amount of money available within the county. The Division of Child and Family Services administrated and reviewed applications and made decisions on who was awarded funding. All programs were required to submit financial reports and quarterly program reports. A biennial report was issued by the division before each legislative session, addressing the kinds of services and programs that were funded, so there was a great deal of reporting and accountability.
Ms. Von Tobel commented if the issue went before the Committee on Ways and Means they usually requested performance indicators and she assumed that would be the case with their funding. Ms. Meuschke replied the Division of Child and Family Services was the administrator of the grant fund and there were performance indicators the committee set that addressed local programs. Ms. Von Tobel stated that gave her a level of security that the funding was spent appropriately.
Mr. Neighbors reiterated the only funding that came from the General Fund was $4 that raised $618,000 for a service that was no longer provided. He pointed out that the way the bill was written he did not think there was any reason for it to go before the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. Humke said from serving on the subcommittee, he had come to a conclusion from a policy standpoint, funding domestic violence programs through marriage license fees was not a very good policy. He thought a better policy would be to fund programs from the General Fund. In Washoe County it seemed that the Justices of the Peace spent more time marrying people than sitting on the bench that led to the creation of the office of civil marriages and provided a low cost alternative.
MRS. SMITH MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 94.
MS. PARNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED BY THOSE PRESENT, WITH MRS. GIBBONS ABSTAINING.
********
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Virginia Letts
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman
DATE: