MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-First Session
April 25, 2001
The Senate Committee on Government Affairswas called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:11 p.m., on Wednesday, April 25, 2001, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
Senator William R. O’Donnell
Senator Jon C. Porter
Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Terry Care
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator William J. Raggio, Vice Chairman (Excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman John C. Carpenter, Elko County (part) Assembly District No. 33
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Kimberly Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel
Juliann K. Jenson, Committee Policy Analyst
Sherry Rodriguez, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Stephanie Licht, Lobbyist, Board of County Commissioners, Elko County
Richard Matthews, Legal Counsel, Elko Convention & Visitors Authority
Ralph McMullen, Executive Director, Elko Convention & Visitors Authority
Thomas J. Grady, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities
Mary Walker, Lobbyist, City of Carson City, Lyon County
Ray Masayko, Mayor, Carson City
Chairman O’Connell:
We will go ahead and open the hearing with Assembly Bill (A.B.) 11.
ASSEMBLY BILL 11: Revises charter of City of Elko. (BDR S-805)
Assemblyman John C. Carpenter, Elko County (Part) Assembly District No. 33:
I am here today to testify on A.B. 11. It renames the board of supervisors as the Elko City Council and it allows appointment of council members to be liaison positions with the various city departments, which they have done for many years. It also revises the provision of special emergency meetings to comply with the spirit and intent of the open meeting law. We also amended it in all aspects so it does comply with the open meeting law. And, it removes the designation of the county assessor as the ex officio city assessor because that is part of his duties anyway.
There were two public meetings on this, and there was no opposition. It received a very positive response because most people call it the city council instead of the board of supervisors.
Chairman O’Connell:
Why did they decide to change this name? Was there any pressing reason for it?
Assemblyman Carpenter:
Mainly, in the City of Elko, we call the board of supervisors the city council. So, they just felt it was best to change it to avoid any confusion. There were a few other things I mentioned here that needed to be taken care of in their charter so, we felt it was best to do it all at this time.
Chairman O’Connell:
It is just general housekeeping?
Assemblyman Carpenter:
That is right.
Chairman O’Connell:
Is there another board that is referred to as the board of supervisors?
Assemblyman Carpenter:
To my knowledge, there is not.
Stephanie Licht, Lobbyist, Board of Commissioners, Elko County:
Although, I do not represent the City of Elko, I was in attendance at the meeting where Mayor Franzoia said he was in favor of the bill.
Chairman O’Connell:
We will close the hearing on A.B. 11 and open the hearing on A.B. 406.
ASSEMBLY BILL 406: Makes various changes to provisions governing Elko Convention and Visitors Authority. (BDR S-656)
Assemblyman Carpenter:
For the record, I have with me Ralph McMullen who is the Executive Director of the Elko Convention and Visitors Authority and Richard Matthews who is Legal Counsel for the Elko Convention and Visitors Authority.
I am here today to testify on behalf of A.B. 406, which makes various changes governing the Elko Convention and Visitors Authority. We have had a few problems in Elko since the original legislation was passed. Although the county commissioners attempted to make these changes, the attorney general said they could not do that, and we had to go back to the Legislature and get those changes made. I would like to say, the bonds which created the convention center are all paid off and, it is a very successful operation.
Chairman O’Connell:
I would like to congratulate you all. You do such a terrific job of pay as you go, and making sure you have a very efficiently run government. We appreciate that. Although we are at the other end of the state and working with the different counties, it is always good to hear from Elko because they are never in debt, and they are always right up to speed on everything.
Richard Matthews, Legal Counsel, Elko Convention and Visitors Authority:
Thank you, Madam Chairman. I have prepared a handout (Exhibit C) for this committee on A.B. 406. There are three different reasons behind this proposed legislation. The primary one is to correct a situation where the voting precinct boundaries conflict with the district boundaries. This is causing our county clerk a great deal of difficulty in ascertaining those eligible to vote for the members of the board of governors as those election terms rotate.
The secondary reason for this proposed legislation is to help the county assessor to track lands within the district, and it also streamlines the process for bringing new land into the district to enable it to grow. The cumbersome process in the old legislation for allowing the district to grow became so unworkable, the Elko County commissioners attempted to bypass it altogether with a remedial ordinance, which, alas, they did not have the authority to enact.
Those are the principle objectives behind the bill. I think it is fair to report to this committee, the last election was a very close call, in that it probably was legally challengeable due to the clerk’s inability to completely and accurately track the eligible voters. I think it is a credit to all candidates in the last election for the board of governors, winners and losers especially, they did not bring a legal challenge to the election. We do not want to have this hanging over our heads in the future.
Senator Neal:
Pardon me if you have addressed this, but the boundaries of authority you seem to be striking out in section 4, regarding the town of Lamoille and Humboldt River Ranchos Incorporated; why is that? Are you reincorporating up to Carlin? What is happening?
Assemblyman Carpenter:
What happened in the original legislation when it was passed, in regard to the bond issue, the City of Carlin was so close to the cap we felt it was not prudent to put Carlin in the district and jeopardize their tax rate.
Senator Neal:
Would you still have some type of dealing with Carlin since it is only 20 miles down the road from Elko?
Assemblyman Carpenter:
The people in Carlin definitely use our convention center and we welcome them. They are in the heart of gold mining and take great advantage of our convention center. Their school comes over and uses our convention center but we feel, at this time, it is not prudent to include them in the convention center taxing district.
Ralph McMullen, Executive Director, Elko Convention and Visitors Authority:
Just a couple of things about the convention center. I manage the largest convention center in all of rural Nevada, outside of Reno and Las Vegas. I was honored to see we had Senator Neal there recently, for a public hearing. He viewed first hand our stage and everything else we have. It is a 1000 seat auditorium, and the convention center hosts 225,000 people every year, with events including the world famous “Cowboy Poetry” which draws close to 8,000 people. We also host the “Mining Expo” which brings in another 10,000 people. The convention center is used by people from all over northeastern Nevada, including Carlin.
The convention center has strong support; we have received support from the Elko Chamber of Commerce, the board of directors, and there are other resolutions of support in the exhibit. We have not had any opposition, and we have had three or four public hearings on A.B. 406. The convention center is a great facility and is widely used by the people throughout northeastern Nevada.
Chairman O’Connell:
You hosted the committee on Academic Standards out there when we came out there for a public hearing, and we enjoyed your hospitality.
Mr. McMullen:
Well, thank you very much. We have different things like Science Fairs, Art Forums, and other things which take place there on a constant basis. It gets a lot of use and serves as a good public facility to bring people together.
Senator Care:
I was looking in the supporting materials and section 2 of the bill. What is the purpose for the proposed deletion to language in the current statute, “the board shall reimburse the county clerk for all costs of each general authority election?”
Mr. Matthews:
That is seen by the board of governors at the convention center to be more in the nature of a housekeeping type of an amendment to include with the more important amendments. Since the beginning of the convention center in 1975, that portion of chapter 227 of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) has been in the original organic act for the center.
In the 26 years of elections, the county clerk has never sought reimbursement from the district for the costs associated with district elections. The reason for this is, because the district elections and the board of governor’s elections coincide with other county elections or statewide elections going on at the same time. It was impracticable, perhaps impossible, for the county clerk to attempt to differentiate the cost associated with the district balloting versus the other simultaneous balloting. So, it was never pursued by the clerk, and we consider it inaccurate at this point in time, and thought while we were here before the Legislature, we would like to get that cleaned up also.
I might also add, the county clerk, as well as the assessor, has been instrumental in helping shape this proposed legislation and has reviewed the proposed you have before you.
Kimberly Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel:
Excuse me, Madam Chairman, I just wanted to let the committee know my office received a letter from counsel to the visitors authority which requested a small change to the legal description regarding the boundaries of the authority. On page 4, line 16, they would like to include the word “extended,” so it would read, “to its intersection with a line perpendicular to the extended northern boundary of the City of Carlin.”
The letter from the attorney suggests the change be made to correct a geometric impossibility in the boundary description of the proposed new district. I will have copies of the request for the committee for work session. I just wanted to make the committee aware of that.
Senator Neal:
What is the significance of that language?
Ms. Guinasso:
Senator Neal, I have to check it and make sure, but I believe the northern boundary of the City of Carlin, as set forth there in lines 16, 17, and 18, is referred to twice. I believe the intersection of the northern boundary of the city of Carlin with the boundary common to Elko and the Eureka counties, actually intersects to an extended boundary of the City of Carlin; I need to check it out. I wanted to make the committee aware of this request because I did not hear the gentlemen bring it to your attention.
Mr. Matthews:
One of the members of our board of governors has been in the surveying business for years. He was initially critical of the wording in the legal description prepared by the Elko County engineer, which Ms. Guinasso was just referring to. This caused me to write the letter, just referred to, to the Legislative Counsel Bureau. Since I wrote that letter, Mr. Bill Nisbit, who is on our board of governors, has reconciled his criticism with the present wording of the proposed act and, has asked me, in order not to impede this legislative process, to withdraw our request for an amendment. That is why I did so, and it is not part of this packet. Apparently, he has satisfied his professional surveying discomfort with the way the county engineer had worded it. So, we are officially withdrawing that requested amendment.
Ms. Licht:
As you heard in the testimony, this basically realigns the voting precinct boundaries with the convention center district boundaries, which was a real headache for the county clerk. Both our county clerk and our auditor are in full support of this, as is the commission. We appreciate your time in considering this. Thank you.
Senator Neal:
Does that mean you pick up more money?
Ms. Licht:
Since the precinct and the district boundaries are now overlapping, it would only be slightly more revenue, as far as I understand. I will let Mr. Matthews answer that further.
Mr. Matthews:
It is fair to say the redistricted boundary would yield more revenue to the district. It is equally fair to say we have been losing revenue irretrievably in the past, due to the inability of the district to properly grow under the old method. Also, I think it is fair to say one challenge to a board of governor’s elections would probably cost the taxpayers more than any increase in revenue we stand to gain from this bill.
Chairman O’Connell:
We will close the hearing on A.B. 406 and open the hearing on A.B. 155.
ASSEMBLY BILL 155: Revises provisions governing substitution of subcontractor who is named in bid for public work or improvement. (BDR 28-366)
Thomas J. Grady, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities:
Assembly Bill 155, when this was brought to the league, and the league unanimously supported it, we felt it was a win-win situation for everyone. In a situation where it was necessary to substitute a subcontractor, to save the time of going back before a city council, the city council could designate a person, such as a city manager, who would have the authority to work with the contractors, through a contract.
We have worked with the Associated General Contractors of America (AGC); we have also worked with the labor folks. They offered an amendment which defines general terms. This was agreed upon by everyone involved in making this a better bill. I can tell you everyone is now in full support of this bill. It passed the assembly with a vote of 41 to 0, with one excused vote.
Chairman O’Connell:
We will close the hearing on A.B. 155 and open the hearing on A.B. 181.
ASSEMBLY BILL 181: Revises membership of county fair and recreation board in certain less populous counties. (BDR 20-336)
Mary Walker, Lobbyist, Carson City, Lyon County:
I would like to apologize to you, because we would have had our other legislators here as well as Lyon County officials, but today is Senator Jacobsen’s rural tour. Lyon County is one of the hosts of that tour so our legislators and our county commissioners are there.
Basically, A.B. 181 expands the membership of the fair and recreation board in Lyon County, from five members to seven members. What precipitated this was, Lyon County now has two incorporated cities. Due to the incorporation, Lyon County wished to have one member from each city on the fair and recreation board. Also, there would be two members representing the hotel or motel operators, one member representing commercial interest, one member representing the county at large, and one member from the board of county commissioners.
So, basically it would come up to seven members. It is to provide a better representation in the county, which is a very large county. Some of the population centers are an hour to an hour and twenty minutes away from each other, and we need representation throughout the county.
Senator Neal:
Why the change in the representation? Is it due to the number of cities being in the county?
Ms. Walker:
Under the old statute, there was one person from the incorporated city. So, rather than having to decide between one city or the other, they wanted to make sure each city had representation on the board.
Senator Neal:
As I read the language, you seem to be talking about two different boards here.
Chairman O’Connell:
It only affects Lyon County, is that correct?
Ms. Walker:
That is correct, it only affects Lyon County. We left the language the same to make sure all the other areas kept the same representation they have now.
Chairman O’Connell:
Lyon County is growing so much because of Fernley? Is that the only city out there producing growth?
Ms. Walker:
Fernley is the major catalyst, but Dayton, which is a town, is growing very much also. Dayton is about 7 miles away from the border of Carson City. It is a 1-hour drive between Fernley and Dayton. We just have to make sure the entire county is represented, because it is very diverse. You have a very rural agricultural area and then Fernley, which is really getting into manufacturing and warehousing with Amazon.com, and those types of things. They want to make sure there is proper representation throughout the county.
Chairman O’Connell:
Are they going to be able to do anything to build their tax base, especially where the sales tax is concerned?
Ms. Walker:
They have been, and that is one of the things I was going to go back and look at. I have done a couple of studies. One was in 1991 when we did the fair share and, then again in 1999. In 1991, when we put in the fair share law, Lyon County was receiving $4 to every $1 it generates. Now, it only receives $2 to every $1 it generates. So, slowly through time, they are getting more businesses, and we are really encouraging that because it gives them the self-reliance they need.
Chairman O’Connell:
I know that is one of the growing counties. Yet there is still a lack of a tax base for Pershing, Lyon, and Nye Counties.
Ms. Walker:
Lyon County is a poor county. If you go out to Silver Springs, the predominant housing, for the most part throughout Lyon County, exclusive of Fernley, is mobile homes. You know the tax situation with mobile homes, where they were dealt with as personal property, and some of those homes are being taxed less than the amount it costs you to give out the bill.
Chairman O’Connell:
We will close the hearing on A.B. 181 and open the hearing on A.B. 570.
ASSEMBLY BILL 570: Makes various changes relating to charter of Carson City. (BDR S-385)
Ray Masayko, Mayor, Carson City:
We are here this afternoon to offer three changes to the Carson City charter. These changes are in response to the issues addressed and undertaken by the charter review committee, which consists of 11 members in Carson City representing the 5 members of the board of supervisors and the 6 members of the State Legislature who represent this political subdivision. They met a number of times, and all meetings were public. They debated and deliberated, and brought the changes before the Carson City Board of Supervisors in addition to more public testimony and deliberation. The three changes represented here today have been approved by both the Carson City Board of Supervisors, unanimously, and the Carson City Charter Review Committee.
With your permission, I will indicate the changes to you. As you go through the bill, section 3.140 indicates removal from a public board. Although Carson City ordinances require members of the board of supervisors be appointed and sit on one of our own advisory committees, the term of the appointment expires concurrent with the expiration of their elective office. However, it is not always the case with other multi-county, or regional, or other appointments. There was an issue with a former member of the board of supervisors continuing to hold a position on a multi-regional board after his term of office expired. There was nothing Carson City could do about it. In looking at the statutes, there are a number of other regional boards, committees, and commissions with the same issue, and we thought the most appropriate way to handle it was to imbed the understanding in our Carson City charter so those particular entities would understand, and a member of the board of supervisors would understand, when that appointment was made it was made only for the duration of their term.
We are seeking to add a sentence to section 2.320 of the Carson City charter, “A person serving on an advisory board which only serves Carson City must be a resident of Carson City and registered to vote in Carson City.”
Again, it is the same circumstances, and the same issues. This has been the board of supervisor’s policy for quite some time. We felt it was appropriate to embed that into our charter.
The third and final change occurs at section 3.077 and, this one is a housekeeping measure. The charter review committee pointed out to the members of the board of supervisors and the city manager, the office of purchasing and contracts was eliminated and those accountabilities and duties were reassigned between the director of finance and the director of development services. So, in order to correct this particular anomaly, section 3.077 becomes permissive as opposed to mandatory.
I will indicate to you, A.B. 570 was heard on the assembly side, the Government Affairs Committee gave unanimous approval to move it forward, and it was also heard on the floor of the Assembly. I believe the vote was 41 to 0, with one absence.
Senator Care:
I gather there is a statute or mechanism in place to address the placements for these people who would be removed after the expiration of the term. Although the draft of the bill does not address it, and I cannot foresee it happening; does it contemplate the case where the elected official is removed from office involuntarily or resigns from office, but does not resign from the board to which he has been appointed?
Mayor Masayko:
That is exactly the situation it contemplates, along with the expiration of the term. It says after their term of office has expired, I guess legal counsel could say if they resigned or were removed, the term of office would be considered expired. That is our intent.
Chairman O’Connell:
Senator Care has Senate Bill (S.B.) 329, and could review it for Mayor Masayko, and ask if they have ever experienced a problem with having a majority.
SENATE BILL 329: Prohibits certain public bodies from taking action by vote without affirmative vote of majority of entire public body. (BDR 19-640)
Senator Care:
Mayor Masayko, do you know the bill we referenced?
Mayor Masayko:
I think I do, let me paraphrase it; it says an action taken by a board must represent the majority of the total board members, and not just those present in voting. We discussed that at the board of supervisors, and there was an issue dealing with the approval of Carson City’s budget where there were three members of the board of supervisors present and two members were absent. One member of the board of supervisors was bound and determined not to vote for the budget and the budget was sent to the Department of Taxation on a two to one vote. I guess I would say to you, as the presiding officer, if we were going to have circumstances like that on important issues, I believe I could use my discretion there, or the authority to make sure we had a full board, or enough members of the board to make sure we could, in fact, get that vote, or if not, it would be "re-agendized" for the vote before taking effect. I do not have any problems with taking that approach. That seems to make good common sense and good government sense.
Senator Care:
The idea is, if you run for office and you get elected, you have to show up and you have to vote. We did say, in the event that you have four members of a seven-member body present, and you have reason to believe it is going to be a two to two vote, there is nothing that says they cannot vote unanimously to carry it on to the next agenda. At any rate, when the time comes to vote on the action itself, there must be a majority.
Mayor Masayko:
Or, to some extent, if I, as a residing officer felt there was going to be a split vote, or there was not going to be enough votes to carry the day with a majority, then again, I could use my discretionary power to defer the matter until a later meeting or later date when I felt a larger representation of the board would be present.
Chairman O’Connell:
We thought it was an important issue, and I think it is important to see how the people who are going to have to deal with it, as well as ourselves, feel about it. I think it is a very good point.
Mayor Masayko:
Chairman O’Connell, yes, we had discussed it and considered it. I think it is good legislation.
Chairman O’Connell:
Is there anyone else who wishes to address A.B. 570? If not, we will close the hearing.
Chairman O’Connell adjourned the meeting at 2:54 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Sherry Rodriguez,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE: