MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-First Session
April 4, 2001
The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:14 a.m., on Wednesday, April 4, 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
Ms. Kathy Von Tobel
COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:
Mr. Bob Price
Mr. Wendell Williams
Ms. Debbie Smith
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman Lynn Hettrick, Assembly District No. 39
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
Mayor Ray Masayko, President, Nevada Association of Counties
Jim Spinello, Lobbyist, Clark County
Mark Schofield, Clark County Assessor, Nevada Assessor’s Association
Celeste Hamilton, Pershing County Assessor
Stewart Bell, Clark County District Attorney, and President, Nevada District Attorney’s Association
Arthur Mallory, Churchill County District Attorney, and Vice President, Nevada District Attorney’s Association
Richard Gammick, District Attorney, Washoe County
Stan Olsen, Lieutenant, Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association
Rod Banister, Sheriff, Carson City
Ron Pierini, Sheriff, Douglas County
Alan Glover, President, Nevada Association of County Clerks and County Election Officials
Barbara Reed, Douglas County Clerk/Treasurer
Susan Harrer, Humboldt County Clerk, President, County Fiscal Officer’s Association of the State of Nevada
Margaret Lauther, Recorder/Auditor, Storey County
Lynn Lawton, Commissioner, Esmeralda County
Jim Ithurralde, Eureka County
Mary Milligan, Lyon County Recorder
Bjorn Selinder, Churchill County Manager
Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association
Bill Berrum, Treasurer, Washoe County
Steve Weissinger, Commissioner, Douglas County
Bernard Curtis, Commissioner, Douglas County
Ted J. Olivas, Purchasing Manager, General Services Department, Clark County
Justine Chambers, Contract Administrator, Carson City
Mike Gifford, Purchasing Agent, Las Vegas Housing Authority
Bill Moell, Administrator, Purchasing Division, State of Nevada
Janelle Kraft, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas
Candice Rohr, General Manager, Kingsbury General Improvement District
Debbie Burkett, Administrator, Kingsbury General Improvement District
Larry Schussel, Chairman, Kingsbury General Improvement District
Carolyn Treanor, Board Trustee, Kingsbury General Improvement District
Fred Hillerby, Lobbyist, Sun Valley General Improvement District
Steve Watson, Chairman, State Deferred Compensation Plan
Mary Keating, Manager, Department of Administration
Madelyn Shipman, Assistant District Attorney, Washoe County
Darrell Craig, Chairman, Washoe County Deferred Compensation Committee
Assembly Bill 256: Increases annual salaries of certain elected county officers. (BDR 20-420)
Robert Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties (NACO), introduced Carson City Mayor, Ray Masayko. They would go through the list of witnesses as outlined in Exhibit C.
Mayor Ray Masayko, President, NACO, supported A.B. 256. In 1985 NACO took the lead in elected officials’ pay issues. Governor Kenny Guinn formed the Salary Compensation Task Force in November 2000. The task force consisted of five appointed statewide members. On January 1, 2001, the NACO board voted unanimously to adopt the recommendations of the Governor’s Salary Task Force. A.B. 256 reflected a six-year retroactive pay increase of 27 percent, or slightly less than 4 percent compounded annually. The task force recommended Clark and Washoe County have their salary structure “re-based” because of dynamics, complexity of duties, size and salary of staff. The bill addressed that issue and eliminated the need to come before the Legislature for retroactive increases. The salary levels would be increased annually by the Employment Security Division average weekly industrial wage or the average percentage of all employee salaries increased by the Board of Commissioners. The provision eliminated the counties coming back every six years for retroactive salary increases. The bill allowed counties that could not fund the pay increase to apply for a waiver from the commissioner of local government finance.
Mrs. Freeman questioned what the definition of “re-base” was. Mayor Masayko responded it would change the definition of the “base.” The 27 percent proposed pay increase was out of step for officials in Washoe and Clark County because of the complicated job responsibilities.
Mrs. Freeman noted the fiscal note referred to “Unfunded Mandate requested by affected local government” and questioned if the mandate was necessary because of page 3, line 13, that stated, “local government finance shall grant such a waiver if it finds that the financial resources of the county are insufficient to pay the increase in the next fiscal year.”
Mayor Masayko replied the “unfunded mandate” situation did not exist because of the provision on page 3.
Mr. Hadfield referred to the document provided the committee on March 26, 2001 (Exhibit D), that reflected commonly asked questions about county elected officials’ salaries. Historically, the counties came before the Legislature for retroactive pay increases every six years because the Nevada Constitution assigned the Legislature to set the elected official salaries. The Governor’s Salary Compensation Task Force addressed county elected officials, judicial, and legislative salaries. Exhibit E condensed the task force report and referred to those sections that specifically affected counties. The task force looked at all salaries and used basic principles to arrive at recommendations. The principles that guided their deliberations were “equal pay for equal work” and the inequity of the six-year retroactive compensation. Collective bargaining and long-term contracts were negotiated with county employees and placed elected officials at a disadvantage. The elected officials had the top responsibilities but not the top pay. The task force realized Clark and Washoe County were unique and needed their salary structure re-based.
The 27 percent salary increase was based upon the average wage increase of 800,000 private sector employees throughout Nevada. The salary ranges were taken from The Nevada Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation’s Research and Analysis Report and the 2000 Nevada OES Wage Data report. The task force asked legislative counsel to review and research if a system could be enacted that allowed annual increases for county elected officials. They recommended an “indexing” system that tied the increase to the success of the private citizens of the county. The increase would be the lesser of the average annual increase of all public employees or the industrial wage rate of that particular county. “Indexing” would prevent uncontrollable future increases related to things outside the control of the state. They rejected the Consumer Price Index (CPI) because it did not relate to Nevada and was too volatile. The private sector gauge stated county public figures would not get an increase if the private sectors were not doing well. The bill allowed for waivers if the county was financially impaired and could not support a wage increase. The Committee of Local Government Finance consisted of county, city, school board officials and members of the public accountancy profession who provided expertise and realistic reviews of the ability to pay. The provision applied to any requested increase.
Mr. Hadfield explained the NACO projected increases were based upon recommendations from the Salary Task Force. The salary table on page 2 of the bill reflected the attempt for uniformity among the counties. Washoe and Clark County were unique and had their own salary structure. Class “re-basing” was done for several positions in Washoe and all of Clark County because the present salary was no longer a representative of a realistic “base” salary. A.B. 256 moved Storey County from class six to class five and allowed for a full-time District Attorney. Humboldt County was also moved up a class.
Mr. Lee asked why some counties did not have county treasurers or public administrators. Mr. Hadfield responded many smaller counties had combined positions, such as a recorder/treasurer. Only Clark and Washoe County had public administrators.
Mr. Brown questioned the percentage of salary increase in the public sector for the previous six years. Mr. Hadfield replied he did not know because collective bargaining varied significantly from county to county. He would get Mr. Brown a copy of the annual wage survey that spot-checked labor contracts.
Mr. Brown asked what the increase was six years ago. Mr. Hadfield replied it was 24 percent.
Mr. Brown stated he felt the raises were due, but the last six years had reflected an unprecedented private sector growth that might not accurately reflect accurate salary increases.
Mr. Humke asked how many county officials had deputies with salaries that exceeded their own. Mr. Hadfield replied he did not know and would defer to the other witnesses.
Mr. Humke wanted the information because it concerned elected officials.
Jim Spinello, lobbyist, Clark County, stated he would talk about “re-basing” and Clark County. Clark County officials had unique problems because they increased an additional city size annually. City councils handled their adjustments and compensation issues and the counties had to come before the Legislature.
In 1995 the County Commissioner salary was $54,000. From 1995 through July 1998 the CPI increased 7.1 percent and population growth increased 21.1 percent. The total, 28.2 percent, was applied to $54,000 and netted an increase of $69,215. Contract employee salaries and typical merit salary increases from 1995 through July 1999 were applied and netted a salary of $71,010. Clark County started with the base of $54,000 and looked at bargaining agreements of county employees and added in a 3 percent average annual merit increase. The result was an annual salary of $75,400. An average county employee with a salary of $54,000 in July 1995 would reasonably expect their salary to increase to $75,400 by July 2000. The figure was rounded down to $75,000 and reflected a thirty-nine percent increase.
A NACO publication compared 1998 County Commissioner salaries with populations similar to Clark County:
Dallas County, TX 2 million $90,936
Clark County, NV 1.5 million $54,000
Spokane County, WA 404,920 $59,158
Snohomish County, WA 546,000 $56,000
Utah County, UT 319,000 $60,606
Clackamas County, OR 324,000 $64,089
Ada County, ID 260,000 $64,617
Denton County, TX 348,453 $64,071
Mr. Spinello stated private industry boards of directors’ salaries were hard to compare because of stock options and other compensations. The Mirage Corporation Board of Directors was paid $85,000 annually, plus benefits and stock options. The Gaming Commission Board of Directors made $42,000 annually and met once a month. A mid-range department head made $107,600 annually and was classified at range 38, the same range as an assessor, recorder, treasurer or county public administrator.
Mr. Spinello explained the salaries requested were reasonable because the 2000 census stated Clark County was the fasted growing metropolitan area in the nation. Annual population increases of 60,000 created additional county responsibilities and burdens. The salary increase seemed significant because it was retroactive.
Mr. Lee commented he realized the county officials did a tremendous amount of work, but felt Nevada did not need full-time commissioners.
Mr. Spinello responded future commissioners would need to realize the job was extremely demanding and could become full-time. The commissioners had discussed the issue and decided nothing. Circumstances would take care of those problems.
Ms. Berman stated the county commissioners deserved a salary increase, but the economy faced a down turn and the budget was tight. A firm in Arizona published a report stating the next year’s economic slow down would be from $14 to $24 million. She questioned if the demand on the tax base had been filtered into the projections.
Mr. Spinello responded they had been factored in. The counties were seeing an economic slow down. As the economic situation worsened people tended to look to government for help. Counties provided indigent care and social services.
Ms. Berman realized services would increase but questioned whether the counties could handle the increased tax burden in a soft economy.
Mr. Spinello answered the proposed increases in Clark County could be handled easily. The safety feature in the bill allowed financially impaired counties to waive the increase.
Ms. Von Tobel stated the majority of jobs in Nevada were in the service sector and the economy was currently at a three and a half year low. She questioned whether this was a prudent time to ask for salary concessions.
Mr. Hadfield responded others had enjoyed the success of Nevada’s economy for the past six years. The retroactive attempt would place commissioners in line with similar positions. All counties had budgeted for the salary increase. If passed, A.B. 256 would get rid of the large retroactive pay raise and future annual pay increases would be directly related to how well the county was doing.
Ms. Von Tobel stated the previous six-year economic growth had slowed down and the Legislature did not want to be responsible for large pay increases in a soft economy. She questioned if the commissioners would come back and request a decrease in salary if the economy declined drastically.
Mr. Hadfield answered he was not sure he could address all of her concerns but indicated the local elected officials were accountable to the local communities. The counties were the only local government that came to the Legislature for raises and they did not enjoy it. The bill abolished the retroactive issue and elected officials would answer to their constituents about salary increases. All county officials were prepared to take the heat related to salary increases. The county jobs were career jobs and needed qualified people to handle the responsibilities. Nevada was losing elected officials because they could not survive on the low pay. The allocation of local resources was something county commissioners had to deal with.
Ms. Von Tobel appreciated the responsibilities the commissioners had and the problems the counties had, but felt it was not a good time to ask for a salary increase.
Mr. Mortenson stated the county commissioner job was a part-time job and were the commissioners looking for lucrative jobs or were they looking to serve the community. He questioned the scheduled meeting times of a commissioner.
Mr. Spinello responded the seven Clark County commissioners were extremely devoted to their job. The Clark County Board of Commissioners served on the following boards: zoning, University Medical Center, liquor and gaming, Regional Transportation Commission, Regional Flood Control District, Las Vegas Valley Water District, Southern Nevada Water Authority, Kyle Cannon Water District, Big Bend Water District, Clark County Conservation District, Clark County Board of Health, Clark County Sanitation District, Debt Management Commission, Metropolitan Police Committee on Fiscal Affairs, Mt. Charleston Fire District, Nevada Development Authority, Nevada Test Site Development Corporation, Family and Youth Service Fiscal Advisory Commission, and the Clark County Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee. The following commissioners served on various boards and commissions:
Chairman Herrera 16 boards 221 hours per year
Vice-chairman Williams 18 boards 218 hours per year
Commissioner Gates 17 boards 206 hours per year
Commissioner Kenny 15 boards 197 hours per year
Commissioner Woodbury 14 boards 206 hours per year
Commissioner Kincaid 16 boards 210 hours per year
Commissioner Maxfield 15 boards 206 hours per year
Mr. Mortenson questioned how many meeting hours were scheduled per week. Mr. Spinello responded the meetings varied and he would get the information to him.
Chairman Bache commented that Mr. Spinello did not describe hours spent on constituent phone calls, talking to other elected officials and undocumented time that was not directly related to meetings.
Mr. Spinello added many commissioners spent personal and family time to address constituent concerns. All meetings required a certain amount of preparation time.
Mrs. Freeman stated no human could reasonably accomplish what the commissioners were expected to do and felt additional commissioners were needed.
Mr. Hadfield said county organizations were here to testify if the committee had time.
Mark Schofield, Clark County Assessor, Nevada Assessor’s Association, stated the issues at hand had been articulated. They supported the passage of A.B. 256 and would answer any questions.
Celeste Hamilton, Pershing County Assessor, supported the passage of A.B. 256.
Stew Bell, Clark County District Attorney (DA) and President of the Nevada District Attorney’s Association, stated his association unanimously supported the NACO bill. The bill was fair and necessary to attract qualified employees. Currently the Clark County District Attorney’s salary was $100,800 annually. The Clark County public defender was just under $152,000. The public defender made 51 percent more than the District Attorney. The DA had a staff of 550 and the public defender under 100. The DA’s office handled 20,000 felonies and the public defender handled about 12,000. The DA handled 30,000 misdemeanors, 30,000 juvenile matters and had an active caseload of 110,000. The public defender handled 2,000 misdemeanors, 5,000 juvenile matters and had an active caseload of 12,000 annually. The DA handled all county civil business and collected $65 million in child support and the public defender was not involved. The DA’s office was roughly five times the size and responsibility of the public defender’s office and the public defender was paid 51 percent more. If “re-basing” and the salary increase were passed the DA would make less than the current public defender. The DA’s office had 128 deputies and he ranked seventieth in salary comparison. He had the responsibility for the cases, personnel, media relations, and had to answer to the public and the Legislature. There were 69 lawyers that made more than the DA and 59 lawyers that made less. Under the concept of “equal pay for equal work” there was justification for “re-basing.” A consequence of not paying a fair salary was that 25 to 30 very qualified people in the District Attorney’s office would not run for the DA’s job because their job was guaranteed, had less stress, and paid 40 percent more. A fair salary encouraged quality people to seek those offices.
Richard Gammick, District Attorney, Washoe County, stated his salary was $96,000 annually and the public defender’s was $119,496. The Washoe County DA’s office had 51 attorneys and a staff of 196. The public defenders office had 17 attorneys and a staff of 44. Washoe County had 13 other department heads that were paid more than the DA. An outside consultant rated the Washoe County DA’s office as one of the most complicated departments in the county. The Washoe County Board of Commissioners had voted to accept the pay increase and had incorporated it into their upcoming budget. The Reno Gazette-Journal ran an article in March 2001 that favored the bill (Exhibit F).
Arthur Mallory, District Attorney, Churchill County, stated quality legal representation in the rural counties saved money in the long run. Preventive measures solved problems and prevented litigation costs. He seconded the previous statements and supported the passage of A.B. 256.
Mr. Humke questioned if public defenders were county employees. Mr. Bell answered the public defender was a county department head and was subject to collective bargaining agreements. The Clark County public defender had the same status as the DA and about one-fifth of the responsibility, 10 percent of the caseload and 51 percent more salary.
Mr. Gammick explained the Washoe County public defender was an appointed department head.
Mr. Mallory clarified the Churchill County public defender was under contract and made $150,000 annually and had one part-time assistant. The Lyon County public defender’s contract was $280,000 annually and split among three attorneys.
Mr. Humke wondered if there was precedent in the country for elected public defenders. Mr. Bell replied it was not common but there were some.
Mrs. Gibbons asked why the Washoe County DA’s office was rated the most complicated.
Mr. Gammick responded the consultant went through 24 county departments and would not go through the DA’s office because it was too complicated. The office tied into 69 police agencies, 20 courts and 70 civil clients and the paperwork was a mess.
Mr. Humke questioned the child support efforts of the DA.
Mr. Bell answered the Clark County DA collected child support from 45,000 noncustodial parents for approximately 70,000 children. Two hundred people staffed the child support division and collected about $5.5 million monthly. Federal requirements necessitated a high level of success to obtain federal funding. It was the largest division in the Clark County DA’s office.
Mr. Gammick stated Washoe County had about 17,000 active child support cases and 62 staff. In 1999 they collected $24 million from noncustodial parents. The last three years had been involved with locating “nomad” parents.
Mr. Mallory responded one-third of all Churchill County resources went toward child support issues. It was crucial in rural areas that the burden of those children did not fall upon the county or state.
Mr. Brown questioned what the Clark County DA’s annual budget was. Mr. Bell replied their annual budget was approximately $33 million and an extra salary increase of $44,000 would not affect the budget.
Ms. Parnell stated NRS did not specify the sheriff as a full-time position and questioned how many hours they worked.
Chairman Bache clarified the sheriffs would be speaking next and maybe they would be the best to answer the question.
Mr. Bell answered the sheriff in Clark County was more than a full-time position because he managed 3,000 people and was grossly underpaid.
Stan Olsen, Lieutenant, Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, referred to Exhibit G. Las Vegas Metro had 3,620 personnel and 2,000 commissioned police officers and handled approximately 48,000 service calls per month. The national average was 2.5 officers per thousand and Metro had 1.8. They added 250 officers and 125 support personnel annually. Henderson and Boulder city had 475 and 28 sheriffs, respectively, and the Boulder City chief made $9000 more annually. All captains, civilian directors and mid-level seniority lieutenants within Metro made more than the sheriff. The sheriff had unique responsibilities. The sheriff handled all concealed weapons for the county and jailing of all felons.
Rod Banister, Sheriff, Carson City, stated the Nevada Sheriff and Chiefs Association voted to support A.B. 256. In 1994, Mr. Banister took an $8,000 cut in pay to be the sheriff. He earned $12,000 more in the lieutenant position he left. Lieutenants, captains, chief deputies, and under sheriffs made considerably more than the sheriff. It was a legitimate argument to say those who ran for sheriff were aware of the salary, but it was getting harder to get qualified people to run for the office.
Ron Pierini, Sheriff, Douglas County, stated the Douglas County statistics were basically the same. Three-and-a-half years ago the Sheriff’s promotion cost him $6,000 annually. His chief deputies made $10,000 more annually. The Douglas County sheriff’s office had 117 employees. He worked over 50 hours a week and ran a 24-hour, 7-day office.
Mr. Lee felt the sheriff should make the same pay as the District Attorney. Mr. Bell responded he would agree with the committee. The sheriff and the DA were two separate organizations that dealt with the safety of the community. Both jobs relied on each other and were critical to the community.
Mr. Banister answered he had no problem with that and the proposed raise would make the sheriff and the chief deputy equal.
Ms. Parnell stated she received phone calls about the statutory description of the sheriff hours. Mr. Bell replied in thirty years of law enforcement he had always been able to reach sheriffs. He felt they served well in excess of 40 hours a week.
Mr. Neighbors concurred with Mr. Bell that sheriffs were on call 24-hours, 7‑days a week and the small county sheriffs worked as hard as the larger ones.
Alan Glover, President, Nevada Association of County Clerks and County Election Officials, stated he appreciated the Governor’s Task force addressing the salary issue (Exhibit H). The Governor’s Task Force had placed the assessors in the middle salary range. All rural counties supported the “re‑basing” for Clark and Washoe County.
Barbara Reed, Douglas County Clerk/Treasurer, said it was crucial to keep qualified elected officials. Nevada had never had an election mix-up like the past presidential election in Florida. The Douglas County commissioners supported the increase and included it in their upcoming budget.
Susan Harrer, Humboldt County Clerk, President, County Fiscal Officer’s Association of the State of Nevada, expressed the association’s support of the bill (Exhibit I).
Margaret Lauther, Recorder/Auditor, Storey County, said the election official was perceived to be a manager. The bulk of Nevada’s counties were rural and the elected officials worked alongside employees and filled in when necessary. She stated there was a national trend for elected officials to be certified and attracting that caliber of people was directly related to adequate salary compensation.
Mrs. Gibbons asked what the duties of the Washoe County clerk office was. Ms. Reed answered she had the combined responsibility of clerk/treasurer for Douglas County. The office was open until 9 p.m. Monday thru Saturday, and 5 p.m. Sundays and holidays for the issuance of marriage licenses. She maintained four separate office locations and had a staff of twenty-six full- and part-time employees. She handled the county investment portfolio, clerked for the commissioners and district court judges, and handled the elections. She attended county commissioner night meetings.
Chairman Bache read through the sign-in sheet and allowed the audience to state their support or nonsupport of A.B. 256.
Lynn Lawton, Commissioner, Esmeralda County, supported the bill.
Jim Ithurralde, Eureka County, supported the bill.
Mary Milligan, Lyon County Recorder, supported the bill.
Bjorn Selinder, Churchill County Manager, supported the bill and all of the previous testimony. The county board of commissioners had included the proposed raise in their upcoming budget.
Roger Mancibo, Pershing County Assessor, supported the bill.
Norma Green, Churchill County Assessor, supported the bill.
Carole Vilardo, lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association, supported the bill with a proposed amendment. The policy question had risen whether the Legislature should set the salaries of county elected officials or whether they should be set at a local level. The city officials based their salaries upon the economy level of their community. She attended the Governor’s Salary Task force meeting and felt the ranges of the proposed increases were fair. She felt the waiver for financially impaired counties was a good idea because it put the decision at the local level.
She suggested a new subsection 5 that would state, “At the first county commission meeting in June, the county shall notice for the ratification, salaries as proposed pursuant to subsection 1 or as adjusted by subsection 3 or 4.” The Legislature was often put in unfavorable light by the media when they gave county officials a raise. At the local level, the county officials could justify to the public their raise or why they did not take one.
Ms. Vilardo suggested longevity pay should not be allowed if indexing was allowed. It would become effective on the date of passage and not be retroactive. She clarified previous legislative sessions had proven there was no “average industrial hourly wage” calculated in the state. The employment security division calculated an “average hourly wage.”
Chairman Bache asked if Ms. Vilardo had the amendments in writing. Ms. Vilardo responded she would type them and get them to the committee.
Ms. Gibbons questioned if individual counties should decide their elected officials’ salaries. Ms. Vilardo responded affirmatively. Currently, the Nevada constitution required the Legislature to set county officials’ salaries. Nevada had grown up enough that decisions could be made at the local level. She generally did not like indexing because it self-perpetuated, but liked the provision for waivers.
Ms. Gibbons asked if a salary increase was waived could it be reinstated retroactively. Ms. Vilardo replied the bill was not retroactive and the waiver needed to be applied for each year.
Mr. Neighbors said the longevity pay was initiated to help elected officials out between legislative sessions. Ms. Vilardo responded indexing would accomplish the same thing and both were not needed.
Ms. Gibbons was concerned that without longevity pay elected officials would move from county to county. Ms. Vilardo answered indexing was better because it kept pace with private industry. Many rural counties contracted out duties because they did not have the level of expertise needed.
Bill Berrum, Treasurer, Washoe County, stated indexing was intended to keep up with the cost of living and the longevity pay was a reward for staying in a job. The elected officials should keep both because hired employees received cost of living raises and were rewarded for staying in their jobs. He clarified the chief deputy of Washoe County made more money than the assessor, Mr. Bill McGowan.
Steve Weissinger, Commissioner, Douglas County, stated the county had done a compensation and classification study for all county employees and the commissioner’s salary fell between a night janitor and a dishwasher at the Senior Center. He spent between 40 and 50 hours a week on his commissioner duties and netted $7.50 an hour.
Bernard Curtis, Commissioner, Douglas County, felt it was unfair for the chief deputy or the under sheriff to make more than their boss.
Mr. Weissinger said the board of commissioners had voted to include the raise in their tentative budget and it would not cause an adverse affect to their county.
Ms. Gibbons commented when she was questioned by the media to explain the pay increases she would tell them the elected officials had lobbied for them.
Mr. Curtis explained all Douglas County elected officials felt the raise was appropriate and would answer any questions the media had.
Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 256 and opened the hearing on A.B. 649.
Assembly Bill 649: Revises certain provisions regarding governmental purchasing. (BDR 27-1127)
Ted J. Olivas, Purchasing and Contracts Manager, Clark County, stated he was there to represent the Nevada Public Study Commission. NRS 332.215 established the study commission group and made recommendations to purchasing laws within the state. A.B. 649 cleaned up various sections of purchasing law to expedite the procurement process and maintain appropriate checks and balances. Exhibit J provided a brief summary of what the proposed changes were. Section 1 added the ability to do on-line bidding and receive bids electronically. Section 2 defined an “authorized representative” and an “evaluator.” Section 3 related to proprietary information. Section 4 clarified the advertising and notification process. Section 5 and 6 dealt with contract procurements and their representatives. Section 7 added the provision to receive goods or services from organizations that employed the handicap and provisions for competitive bidding energy exception. Energy was added because no one had been able to adequately define everything that was required to buy energy. Energy was very volatile and required the purchase professional services. A “best package” proposal was needed. Section 8 clarified public auction purchases. Section 9 stated an evaluator could not have a conflict of interest in the bidding process. Section 10 and 11 related to the bid process disclosure. Section 13 clarified the disposal of surplus property. Section 15 and 16 related to public purchasing laws. Section 17 passed credit card fees to the cardholder.
Justine Chambers, Contract Administrator, Carson City, supported the bill in its entirety.
Mr. Brown questioned the rules and regulations about a “down” system and on-line bidding.
Mr. Olivas said they would incorporate a clause that stated Nevada was not liable for any computer system malfunction. A backup, uninterruptible power source (UPS) would be provided for bids submitted by computer.
Mr. Brown questioned what “GSA” stood for. Mr. Olivas responded that “GSA” was the Federal General Services Administration, which contracted for goods and services nationwide.
Ms. Parnell questioned why energy was put into Section 5 of the bill. Mr. Olivas responded a formal bid required formal definition of all of the terms and requirements provided. A submitted bid must meet the minimum requirements defined. The purchasing division did not know how to define energy, the transmission process, the infrastructure required, or the metering. A contracted company would provide a “full-service” contract that covered all the areas.
Mr. Lee questioned why the term “evaluator” replaced “purchasing officer.”
Mike Gifford, purchasing agent, Las Vegas Housing Authority, stated other people than the purchasing officer made purchasing decisions. The term “evaluator” included them and defined what laws and regulations were to be followed. His office supported the bill.
Mr. Hadfield supported A.B. 649 because it gave counties the tools to advance into the twenty-first century. Section 17 provided convenience and allowed counties to recoup cost of the service.
Bill Moell, Administrator, State of Nevada Purchasing Division, stated the original bill allowed for reverse auctioning and Section 15 was inadvertently amended (Exhibit K). He proposed an amendment to Section 15 that added a “formal bid” to the process (Exhibit L). Proposed additions to NRS 333 allowed the state to choose the best GSA contracts (Exhibit K).
Ms. Vilardo voiced her concerns over Section 7 and the amount of professional contracts that did not go to bid. Lack of sophistication in energy areas made it premature to add to the bill. Page 7, lines 18 through 20, needed further clarification. Possible language could be “any manner that could bring the best price, including without limitation . . .” She felt a credit card service provided by government could negotiate reduced rates. She questioned whether the fees should be passed on when the service was efficient and saved the government money.
Mr. Lee said previous legislation had proposed the donation of surplus supplies to worthy, nonprofit organizations. Ms. Vilardo said she supported the idea and reiterated the bill needed additional clarification that allowed “for profit” or “donation to nonprofit organizations.”
Mr. Mortenson requested a printed list of the proposed amendments. Ms. Vilardo responded she would provide them as soon as she could.
Janelle Kraft, lobbyist, Las Vegas, supported A.B. 649 because it addressed the technology used by private industry and implementation of efficient processes. She defended the fees listed in Section 17 because sometimes the fees outweighed the benefits of using credit cards. Sometimes it was difficult to store and dispose of excess supplies that had little or no value and she would work with Ms. Vilardo on appropriate language.
Mr. Mortenson questioned if the state could negotiate the credit card interest rate. Mr. Moell replied contracts for Discover and American Express had gone to the Board of Examiners on Tuesday and the existing Visa and MasterCard contract would be transferred to state purchasing for government usage.
Mr. Mortenson said government served the people and he hated to see the credit card fee charged to the consumer.
Ms. Von Tobel asked if debit cards had fees. Ms. Kraft responded credit and debit cards had negotiated fees.
Chairman Bache stated his bill, A.B. 150 of the Sixty-Ninth Session, allowed state and local governments to accept payments by credit cards and the Assembly Ways and Means Committee had amended it to accept debit cards.
Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 649 and opened the hearing on A.B. 563. Because of a scheduling conflict he closed the hearing on A.B. 563 and opened the hearing on A.B. 430.
Assembly Bill 430: Authorizes general improvement districts to charge owners of suspected dwelling units for services provided by district. (BDR 25-1275)
Assemblyman Lynn Hettrick, Assembly District No. 39, introduced A.B. 430 and explained general improvement districts needed to be able to charge for services provided.
Candice Rohr, general manager, Kingsbury General Improvement District (KGID), presented a letter written by their counsel, Hon. Noel E. Manoukian, that addressed concerns of the KGID district that related to “illegal” dwelling units (Exhibit M). They were unauthorized dwelling units created by owners of existing homes, condominiums, or town houses. The units produced rental income and used district water, sewer, and snow removal services without paying for them. The added cost of the additional service was passed on to KGID owners of legal dwellings. It was a matter of equity that KGID and other general improvement districts (GIDs) were able to charge such units until they were abated by appropriate legal authority or the property owner demonstrated clear evidence the unit had been eliminated.
Debbie Burkett, administrator project manager, Kingsbury General Improvement District, stated between 1991 and 1993 she identified 200 suspected illegal dwelling units within the boundaries of KGID. Those illegal dwellings had cost KGID over $200,000 annually in lost revenue. A typical illegal unit could be added to a townhouse or condominium by enclosing the substructure area of the building. Large homes could be subdivided into two or three units with kitchenettes. The townhouse or condominium had the same front door and appeared as a single dwelling. Sometimes a detached shed, playhouse, or garage was converted to studio apartments. Occasionally, the owner rented out their home and maintained a “second” dwelling for himself when he vacationed at Lake Tahoe. One single-family home had been turned into five rental units. The illegal dwelling units were quite lucrative and always rented because of the lack of affordable housing in KGID.
One of the problems created by the unit was the lack of vehicle parking for the number of individuals renting the units. Snow removal was a problem in the winter months. The Douglas County District Attorney sympathized with KGID but could not provide staff to assist in prosecution. Any owner of a suspected illegal dwelling was given several days’ notice before the inspection and had time to disguise the unit. Owners would go to great lengths to avoid paying KGID for services provided and it had been a long, frustrating process for KGID.
Ms. Rohr explained they had the support of the Douglas County DA to charge for the illegal dwelling units. Without the requested legislation services to illegals did not clearly fall under NRS 318 and GIDs would not have the authority to enforce payment for services provided.
Larry Schussel, Chairman, Kingsbury General Improvement District, explained the district was small and struggled to provide services. Many residents did not pay their fair share and the lost revenue hurt KGID.
Carolyn Treanor, board trustee, Kingsbury General Improvement District, stated approximately fifty illegal dwelling units were located in her condominium village. The high number of illegal units had an adverse affect on the homeowner’s public safety. The units were not constructed in compliance with Douglas County building codes. The approximate lost revenue of $207,000 to KGID was an unfair burden to pass on to customers of the district who had complied with the law. The passage of A.B. 430 would help KGID correct the inequity.
Mr. Lee questioned what the penalties would be if someone did not want to have KGID inspect their home. Ms. Rohr said a penalty charge would accrue on the utility bill and when it became high enough, service would be interrupted.
Chairman Bache asked what services KGID offered to residences of the district. Ms. Rohr replied they provided water service, collection of sewage, snow removal and road maintenance. The fees in the bill were for water, sewer and snow removal. Customers were not metered for water and had a flat “fee per unit” service. The bill defined each unit that received service.
Mr. Mortenson objected to the wording of the bill because the district went after “suspected” illegal dwellings. He felt due process and certainty were required before the district charged additional fees.
Ms. Rohr assured Mr. Mortenson the KGID took their “due process” responsibility very serious. The bill provided for due process. The units addressed had a strong suspicion of illegal units in them. The bill provided for a certified notice to be sent giving them five days to respond. They had an additional five days to let the district come in and inspect the unit. The short time period was important because homeowners went to great lengths to hide the units. Douglas County had the authority to search the units but did not have the manpower. KGID needed the authority to do inspections.
Mr. Mortenson worried a large house with friends visiting could be deemed an illegal unit. Ms. Rohr said the bill’s definition stated the unit must be separate, had the ability to be locked off, and had a separate place for preparation, cooking, and refrigeration of food.
Ms. Berman asked if income revenue was taken away from citizens would homeowners be able to obtain building permits for secondary dwellings. Ms. Rohr responded in most cases the secondary dwelling would not be allowed because it violated zoning laws.
Mr. Mortenson asked if “mother-in-law” set-ups were allowed under current zoning laws. Ms. Rohr replied she was not sure what the Douglas County zoning laws were, but KGID would recognize any unit that was legal.
Mr. Lee questioned the size of KGID. Ms. Rohr responded they went from south shore Lake Tahoe to Roundhill, via Kingsbury Grade. They had 2333 water customers and 1800 sewer customers.
Mr. Lee asked if gated communities were in the area. Ms. Rohr responded negatively.
Chairman Bache questioned why the county did not prosecute dwellings that were constructed without building permits.
Ms. Rohr replied that all illegal dwellings were built without building permits. Many residents lived on steep hills and closed in the bottom of their home to create an additional unit. Homeowners had the right to have as many people as they wanted in their homes. The issue was units that had been sectioned off as rental units and did not pay for additional services.
Chairman Bache asked if there were residential water meters. Ms. Rohr clarified only commercial customers had meters.
Ms. Von Tobel asked what counties the bill would affect. Ms. Rohr responded the bill applied to all general improvement districts: Roundhill, Sun Valley, Gardnerville Ranchos, and Kingsbury.
Nita Summers, citizen, Kingsbury District, stated the problems had existed in her neighborhood for over twenty-five years. She currently had seven illegal dwellings in her neighborhood and had done legwork to have two removed. KGID had proposed a rate hike and she felt it was unfair for “legal” residences to bear this burden.
Fred Hillerby, lobbyist, Sun Valley General Improvement District, supported the passage of the bill.
Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 430. He felt the committee liked the concept of the bill but was concerned about specific language. He suggested maybe an amendment could address the language related to privacy rights of citizens.
Mr. Hillerby stated he would be happy to do that. The bill did not give GIDs the right to remove illegal dwellings but allowed them to charge for services rendered. Section 1, subparagraph 4, allowed homeowners a hearing. Legitimate homeowners should not be burdened paying for services to illegal residences.
Mr. Mortenson objected to the word “suspected” persons and felt it should be “confirmed” persons.
Ms. Von Tobel did not want homeowners charged for additional sewage when they drained their pools. Mr. Hillerby responded the bill did not address “suspected” additional use of water or sewage. He reiterated “illegal” dwellings had specific criteria that had to be met.
Mr. Neighbors questioned how many parcels had water meters. Ms. Rohr responded none of their 2333 residential customers had water meters.
Mr. Neighbors asked if the district should put in water meters to reduce illegal water waste. Ms. Rohr replied KGID had talked about it but it was a multi-million dollar project because they sat on a granite hill. The district did not look at the rate of water usage or sewage flow, but looked at residential dwelling units that could be clearly defined.
Ms. Rohr explained the bill was drafted with “suspected” because property owners could choose to not give KGID the authority to “confirm.” Homeowners who had illegal dwellings would not be willing to let KGID inspect their property.
Ms. Von Tobel questioned if the problem was the flow of sewage and water or the hook-up fees. Ms. Rohr said any illegal dwelling increased the flow; however, they were not basing their charges on the flow but on individual residences. The district had a “flat rate” per residential unit.
Ms. Von Tobel questioned if a guesthouse would receive additional fees. Ms. Rohr answered the guest house would have additional fees if it was not recognized by the county as part of the allowed dwelling. The county allowed certain sizes of properties to have guesthouses and they would not receive additional fees.
Ms. Von Tobel suggested the bill should have population caps because larger counties had water meters. Chairman Bache responded urban areas of Clark County sewer district were not “general improvement districts” and would not be affected by the bill.
Mr. Hillerby stated no general improvement districts provided water or sewage in Clark County. Mr. Lee clarified there might be some general improvement districts in rural Clark County and he would appreciate someone checking on that.
Mr. Neighbors questioned if a lien could be placed on the property if a bill was not paid. Ms. Rohr replied a lien could be placed on the property in addition to having the water service interrupted.
Ms. Von Tobel stated Overton Power was a general improvement district and she was concerned the bill would create additional problems for the residents.
Chairman Bache commented the installation of water meters would solve the problem without changing legislation. Ms. Rohr replied all metered rates had a base rate plus usage. The bill benefited them because they could assess each unit a base rate.
Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 430 and opened the hearing on A.B. 563.
Assembly Bill 563: Authorizes additional deferred compensation plan for state employees and employees of political subdivisions. (BDR 23-1345)
Steve Watson, Chairman of the State Deferred Compensation Plan, explained they wanted to add a section to legislative law that allowed for a 401(a) program.
Mary Keating, past president, State Employees Deferred Compensation Committee, voted last year to have legislation brought forward that established a 401(a) plan. A 401(a) plan allowed employees to defer part of their wages as part of a supplemental retirement plan. Nevada had 8,000 to 9,000 participants in a 457 plan valued at $250 million. The plan had been very successful. A 401(a) plan enhanced employee’s supplemental retirement. Agencies could match the 401(a) plan. A 457 plan was limited to $8500 per year and a 401(a) was 25 percent or $30,000 annually. Other counties and states had success in the plans and had lots of participation.
Ms. Von Tobel asked if the participant could choose the investment plans they wanted to invest in.
Mrs. Keating said it was similar to private industry 401(k) plans because of investment options. The 401(a) plan was for governmental agencies and had different withdrawal options.
Madelyn Shipman, Assistant District Attorney, Washoe County, supported the bill with proposed amendments (Exhibit N). They wanted to make it clear that the participant could invest in either or both deferred compensation programs. The reference to 401(k) plans existed in language and no “public” employee had participated in one since 1986.
Darrell Craig, Chairman, Washoe County Deferred Compensation Committee, stated the fundamental difference between the two plans was money invested in a 457 plan could be withdrawn at any age upon employment termination and the 401(a) had penalties for money withdrawn before the age of fifty-nine and a half. Each employee could choose the plan or combination of plans that best suited their retirement needs.
Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 563 and opened the hearing on A.B. 542.
Assembly Bill 542: Makes various changes relating to personal property of state. (BDR 27-528)
Bill Moell, Administrator, Nevada Purchasing Agency, stated the bill was an agency housekeeping bill that accomplished three things. Section 1 allowed the board of examiners to determine the value of personal property to be managed by the state’s fixed asset inventory. Section 2 allowed purchasing to notify vendors of bidding through e-mail, Internet, and faxes. Section 3 allowed federal surplus property to be accounted for in the Purchasing Fund (Exhibit O). All other changes in the bill were wording modifications initiated by bill draft.
Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 542 and opened the hearing on A.B. 568.
Assembly Bill 568: Makes various changes relating to county recorders. (BDR 20-267)
Alan Glover, Recorder, Carson City, stated A.B. 568 was a complete rewrite of NRS Chapter 247. The section had been amended several times, but this was the first complete rewrite in modern language since 1923. “Recorded” and “document” were common changes. Archaic and outdated language had been deleted. Mr. Glover went through all of the changes made to NRS 247 (Exhibit P). Many changes were done in anticipation of automated systems. A proposed amendment was presented to correct bill draft language (Exhibit Q).
Kathryn Burke, Recorder, Washoe County, suggested an additional amendment that allowed the recording of lis pendens from the Nevada Welfare Division at no charge. This would stop any action before any final recording. Section 24, subsection 2, paragraph b (3), would be changed to “…imposes a lien or is a notice of pendency of action in favor of the state or that city or town…” and paragraph b (4) would be removed.
Mr. Glover stated they were in favor of the change because it benefited the Welfare Department and brought consistency to the counties.
Chairman Bache requested clarification of “lis pendens” and “pendens.” Ms. Shipman explained “lis pendens” was a pleading or a filing that stated there was an action pending that could affect the title of property. They were generally done when an action was pending before a judgment was obtained. The actual lien filing was done when a judgment was received.
Mr. Lee questioned why the county recorder penalties were $500 or $1000 in different sections. Mr. Glover said the penalties pertained to different violations of different NRS sections and were set up at the turn of the century. He had never seen penalties charged in his years of service.
Vice Chairman Lee closed the hearing on A.B. 568.
Chairman Bache requested any proposed amendments be typewritten so they could be processed. The chair excused Mrs. Smith and Mr. Williams and seeing no further business adjourned the meeting at 12:25 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Glenda Jacques
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman
DATE: