MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-Second Session
February 14, 2003
The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:11 a.m., on Friday, February 14, 2003. Chairman Mark Manendo 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. Mark Manendo, Chairman
Mr. Wendell P. Williams, Vice Chairman
Mr. Kelvin Atkinson
Mr. Chad Christensen
Mr. Tom Collins
Mr. Pete Goicoechea
Mr. Tom Grady
Mr. Joe Hardy
Mr. Ron Knecht
Mrs. Ellen Koivisto
Mr. Bob McCleary
Ms. Peggy Pierce
Ms. Valerie Weber
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Washoe County, District No. 31, Former Cochairman of the Sparks Charter Committee
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst
Eileen O'Grady, Committee Counsel
JoAnn Aldrich, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Thomas P. Lean, Chairman, Sparks Charter Committee, City of Sparks
Stephen W. Driscoll, Assistant City Manager, City of Sparks
Richard “Skip” Daly, testifying as a citizen of Sparks and former member of the Sparks Charter Committee
Joan Lambert, representing Washoe County; former Assemblywoman and former member of the Government Affairs Committee
Assembly Bill 56: Amends provision of Charter of City of Sparks governing boundaries of wards. (BDR S-211)
Chairman Manendo introduced Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, representing Washoe County, District No. 31, and sponsor of A.B. 56, who said he brought forward A.B. 56 at the request of the Sparks Charter Committee.
Assemblyman Anderson asked Thomas P. Lean, Chairman of the Sparks Charter Committee, to join him at the witness stand. Mr. Anderson explained that the Sparks Charter Committee had the sole responsibility for making changes to the City Charter. He commended the City of Sparks for encouraging public participation in city government and for extending such opportunities to the Sparks Charter Committee.
Mr. Anderson said he was asked by the City of Sparks to sponsor A.B. 56 after the Sparks Charter Committee spent several months determining what amendments were necessary to ensure compliance with federal law. He thanked the volunteers and city staff for their hard work.
Assemblyman Anderson explained that passage of the proposed amendment to A.B. 56 would change the basis for determining ward boundaries from registered voters to population. The amendment also included provisions for monitoring population over the decade between censuses (Exhibit C).
As with other cities, ward boundaries could be changed by ordinance as needed, often in response to population changes caused by annexation or growth. In his opinion, Sparks was overdue in changing the basis of ward boundaries to population, since other charter cities had already made those changes and the current language was probably unconstitutional. He stated that the proposed amendment to A.B. 56 would resolve the constitutional question and was the legally correct thing to do to ensure that Sparks was in compliance with federal law. He stated that the City of Sparks should be responsible to all citizens not just to registered voters.
Assemblyman Anderson said that the other provisions in the amendment should have been included in the original draft of the bill, that he had reviewed the amendment, and that he fully supported the proposed amendment that Mr. Lean would present to the Committee today (Exhibit D).
Assemblyman Anderson introduced Mr. Lean, Chairman of the Sparks Charter Committee, who provided additional background on A.B. 56 and answered questions from the Committee.
Mr. Lean testified that the Sparks Charter Committee first convened in February 2002 and concluded its recommendations to the Sparks City Council in August 2002. After numerous public meetings, debates, discussions, and research, the Sparks Charter Committee recommended additional changes to three sections of the City Charter:
· Article 1, Section 1.040. Wards.
· Article 2, Section 3.010. Mayor: Duties; mayor pro-tempore.
· Article 1, Section 1.060. Elective Officers: Qualifications; salaries and terms of office.
Mr. Lean then gave a brief description of the changes included in the proposed amendment (Exhibit D) to A.B. 56:
The Sparks Charter Committee recommended changing the original language in Article 1, Section 1.040 of the Sparks Charter to prevent legal challenges questioning its constitutionality.
Mr. Lean said that the City of Sparks was the only city that used registered voters as a basis for redistricting and the Registrar of Voters as the mechanism to change wards. The current Sparks City Charter assigned the responsibility for changing wards solely to the Registrar of Voters. The City of Sparks did not have a procedure for approval of the final redistricting plan, similar to the process implemented by the Washoe County Registrar. In order to avoid potential litigation over Article 1, Section 1.040 of the City Charter, the Sparks Charter Committee submitted an amendment to Article 1, Section 1.040.
The second revision proposed changes to Article 3, Section 3.010 of the City Charter. Mr. Lean described the background of that section to the Committee. In 2001, the Legislature amended Nevada’s Open Meeting Law and declared that a measure may not be approved by a public body unless a majority of the members voted in favor of the action. In 1996, the Nevada Attorney General issued Opinion No. 1996-23 after reviewing case law from various jurisdictions, as well as city charters and pertinent state statutes. Opinion No. 1996-23 found that a governing body was comprised of individuals who were elected to perform legislative duties, to make policies for a municipality, and to make final decisions on behalf of that municipality. Opinion No. 1996-23 determined that sitting mayors who performed only an executive function were not part of a governing body.
Article 3, Section 3.010 of the Sparks City Charter stated that the mayor was part of the executive branch of government and was not part of the legislative branch because the mayor presided over meetings of the city, could not vote on proposed ordinances, and was allowed to vote only in case of a tie. Both the Sparks City Charter Committee and the City Attorney supported the opinion that the Sparks City Charter did not confer legislative authority on the elected mayor of the City of Sparks, and that the mayor was not a legitimate member of a public body, as described in the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 241.0355.
Mr. Lean submitted Article 3, Section 3.010 as amended (Exhibit D).
The Sparks City Charter Committee came to a consensus that they needed to eliminate the Sparks City Council’s authority to set salaries for the Sparks Mayor and the Sparks City Council by ordinance, as was currently the case. The Sparks Charter Committee proposed changes to Article 1, Section 1.060 for a number of reasons:
1. Based on the number of hours their respective jobs currently required, the Sparks Charter Committee decided that the Mayor and City Council’s salaries were inadequate.
2. The Sparks Charter Committee conducted interviews with councilmen and with the Mayor and discovered that the City Council would not raise their own salaries.
3. The last pay raise was voted on in 1996.
4. Sparks had a growing population and was the fifth largest city in Nevada.
A $60,311 per year increase was proposed for mayor and council members, which equaled 0.05 percent of the City of Sparks General Fund, which amounted to $118,438,000 this year.
Mr. Lean submitted Article 1, Section 1.060 as amended, and said he would be happy to answer questions.
Assemblyman Hardy asked Mr. Lean if he said that a $60,311 per year salary increase equaled 0.05 percent of the General Fund. Mr. Lean affirmed that was correct.
Mr. Hardy asked what current salaries were in terms of percentage of the General Fund. Mr. Lean said he would defer to Mr. Steve Driscoll, Assistant City Manager, City of Spark, to answer that question.
Mr. Hardy explained that the reason he asked that question was that he had gone through the same process with Boulder City, and he thought that the Sparks City Charter Committee’s approach might prove to be a very wise political approach.
Assemblyman Knecht sought confirmation from Mr. Lean. He questioned whether it was correct to conclude that the City of Sparks General Fund must contain around $120 million since Mr. Lean said that the proposed salary increase was 0.05 percent of the General Fund.
Mr. Lean informed Mr. Knecht that the General Fund was $118 million this year.
Assemblyman Knecht said that he was not concerned with the dollars involved. Neither was he concerned about city officials raising compensation levels, because he thought they were underpaid like many state officials. He emphasized that the size of the raise did not concern him. Assemblyman Knecht stated that his main concern was Mr. Lean’s statement that local officials would not vote on their own salary increases. He did not feel that inaction by the Sparks City Council should obligate the Legislature to act, since decisions ought to be made by the governmental body closest to the people affected. Mr. Knecht asked Mr. Lean why legislators should do the deed, just because the Sparks City Council would not.
Mr. Lean replied that the only reason he could give Assemblyman Knecht was that the Sparks Charter Committee was trying to tie the proposed salary increases to the Washoe County Commissioners’ pay raises, which was tied to the Assembly and to the Legislature. Mr. Lean added that it would “be political suicide for the City Councilmen” to take action, and that he understood this was their main concern.
Assemblyman Anderson replied to Assemblyman Knecht’s question by stating that he served as chairman of the Sparks Charter Committee for 10 years, from 1980 through 1990, during the time they conducted their second major review of the City Charter. He said he was embarrassed that that committee did not discover and address the population problem at that time. As chairman, one of his duties had been to recommend an appropriate salary level to the city council members. During his tenure as chairman, Mr. Anderson made several recommendations to increase their salaries, but they were not able to accomplish meaningful salary raises. During those discussions, Sparks residents voted to change the entire city council, not because of any other issue, but because of the compensation level.
Assemblyman Anderson said that the proposed amendment was carefully crafted and the pay scale proposed by the amendment would be determined by performance. By tying the salary increase to an automatic dollar fluctuation, thus partially removing politics from the decision, he thought that political positions would be retained. Mr. Anderson said that the mayor and council positions were very time-consuming, as anyone who had ever served on a council would know.
In addition, Mr. Anderson said that the City of Sparks had already made changes to the City Charter that would prevent current officials from being affected by salary changes while seated in their current positions. He said that the proposed amendment had taken over 20 years to evolve into a solution.
Assemblyman Knecht said he understood the time requirements, and the sacrifices that people made to serve. However, he said he was not yet comfortable with the proposal and was looking for political accountability. He suggested to Chairman Manendo that he would like a few days to think about the measure and possible alternatives.
Assemblyman McCleary said he was comfortable with the amendment and thought it was well done. He commended their addressing the population problem. The only question he had was regarding the actual amount of current salaries. He asked what the difference would be between current salaries and proposed salaries.
Mr. Lean stated that he did not have that information and referred the question to Stephen W. Driscoll, Assistant City Manager, City of Sparks. Mr. Driscoll explained that current salaries for the City of Sparks were based on the election process and that there were two levels: one was in the low $18,000 range, and the other in the low $21,000 range. Mr. Driscoll said that the current salary for Washoe County Commissioners was $39,600 per year. He stated that if Sparks City Council members were to receive 80 percent of that amount their salaries would be about $34,000 per year.
Chairman Manendo asked if those positions were part-time. Mr. Driscoll replied that by definition they were part-time positions, but that the current council members’ actual hours averaged over 40 hours per week, including the commission and board meetings they were required to attend by virtue of their positions. Chairman Manendo said that he was not surprised and that most elected officials worked more than they had originally anticipated.
Assemblyman Williams pointed out if county commissioners requested an extremely large salary increase that Assemblyman Anderson, as a sponsor of the bill, would be the legislator most closely tied to a proposed 80 percent salary increases for mayor and council members. Mr. Williams suggested that citizens of the City of Sparks might not approve of such a huge salary increase and wanted to know if Assemblyman Anderson would be flexible with the bill language, in case residents were offended by the legislation.
Assemblyman Anderson said he thought this amendment provided for that eventuality, and that if the Committee agreed that an opt-out provision to the amendment was necessary or if the city had insufficient funds, then added that an opt-out provision would be a wise decision.
Mr. Anderson stated that the reluctance of successive city councils to approve salary increases in the past contributed to a huge disparity today. The Sparks Charter Committee had tried different formulas to catch up to a meaningful salary, as was first established, and the proposed option seemed to be the most reliable vehicle for ensuring success. He stated that although there might be some personal peril in supporting the bill, he believed that it offered a workable solution that would fit the needs of his community.
Assemblyman Williams said his question was directed towards Mr. Anderson’s experience with the City of Sparks, rather than to the Committee decision. He asked Mr. Anderson how he thought city residents would respond if county commissioners’ salaries increased to $75,000 to $80,000, since Sparks residents would then be committed to funding 80 percent of that amount for corresponding raises for city council and mayor salaries. Mr. Williams said that, even if residents did not approve, the City of Sparks would be tied to funding the 80 percent raise, and the current bill language would not allow the City of Sparks any flexibility to raise salaries a lesser amount. Mr. Williams made it clear that he did not wish to dictate but would like to know Mr. Anderson’s opinion on that.
Assemblyman Anderson said that he would recommend an opt-out alternative, in case the proposed salary increases were extreme and out of range. He felt that the community should have leverage to curb excessive salaries, if necessary. As a resident, he would be upset if such an option were not included in A.B. 56.
Mr. Anderson understood why the Committee might need a few days to think about the amendment because it would take them in a new direction. Mr. Anderson said that the unfair situation had prevailed too long because those who came before did not do what was necessary to fix the problem. He acknowledged that it took a great deal of courage for any kind of elected body to set their own salaries appropriately. He appreciated that the Committee had the delicate responsibility of making those difficult decisions.
Assemblyman Williams referred to a presentation by the Nevada Association of Counties (NACO) to the Committee on February 6, 2003, which projected a steady population increase for the City of Sparks. Given the NACO statistics, Mr. Williams asked if Mr. Anderson would have any objection to including language in A.B. 56 that would add a council member, if an actual population increase warranted it. He said he wanted to think ahead so that the City of Sparks would not need to return to the Legislature in a few years to expand their City Council.
Assemblyman Anderson responded that it would be a very good idea and that Sparks had established a charter committee to address those decisions. He had confidence that the Sparks Charter Committee was in a good position to request flexibility from the Legislature. He said including flexibility in the bill’s language would build positive checks and balances into the process. The Legislature was comprised of broad-based representation and dealt with many kinds of charters, but City Councils were structured differently. Mr. Anderson said that his focus was twofold, the purpose and duties of the Sparks Charter Committee and its relationship with the Legislature, not the flexibility or language of the final bill.
Assemblyman Williams responded that the Sparks Charter Committee would need to return to the Government Affairs Committee if they wanted to make that change, and Mr. Anderson agreed.
Mr. Williams added that Ms. Joan Lambert, a mentor during his legislative training, had encouraged him to structure legislation that would envision and anticipate future needs. That was his main reason for arguing that foresight and flexibility should be included in the bill.
Assemblyman Hardy said he would support the bill to fix the representation problem and to clarify the role of the mayor. His observation was that the amendment presumed an increase in salaries. Mr. Hardy asked what would happen if the county or the Legislature decided to decrease their salaries voluntarily, and whether those actions might interfere with provisions in the Sparks City Charter. For example, Mr. Hardy said that Boulder City had a provision that did not permit increasing or decreasing salaries or compensation while in office. He asked the City Attorney if the same clause existed in the City Charter, and if changes happened at the county level, would that cause the City of Sparks to violate their charter in two different sections.
Assemblyman Anderson first called on the Assistant City Manager, wondered aloud if the Sparks City Attorney was present, and then, after a short conference, said he would be happy to find the information for Mr. Hardy.
Mr. Anderson then indicated to Chairman Manendo that he would like to return to his committee. Chairman Manendo excused Mr. Anderson and thanked him for his testimony.
Assemblyman Knecht addressed concerns regarding unforeseen changes in salaries. Mr. Knecht said he recalled that, given that situation, the Legislature would be obligated to adjust those salaries, so salaries could not increase or decrease without the Legislature being aware of it.
Mr. Knecht appreciated Mr. Williams’ forethought in suggesting that the Committee include a provision that would allow voters to revisit the issue if they did not agree with the legislation. He would support that option and recommended that it should be considered before voting on the amendment.
Mr. Richard “Skip” Daly said he came to testify as a citizen of Sparks and as a former member of the Sparks Charter Committee, who served at the time the charter changes were proposed. He said he was also a lobbyist for the Laborers’ International Union and a member of the Sparks Citizen Advisory Committee. Mr. Daly supported the two housekeeping provisions, as well as the third provision.
Mr. Daly was in favor of the salary increases because those positions have grown to where they were very close to being full-time jobs. He said that Sparks Charter Committee members wanted the salary increases to be tied to state law, they wanted to include a periodic review process, and they wanted the Legislature to set salaries. They thought that raises should be implemented by a non-arbitrary body that would not be as emotional about the decision, as would be the case if the measure were debated in Sparks. Mr. Daly said that the positions should pay enough to enable that person to be dedicated to just one job. Elected officials seated in current positions were often overwhelmed by the need to hold two jobs. For those reasons, he supported the salary increases.
Mr. Daly said that Assemblyman Williams’ concern about salaries increasing wildly could be addressed by including a salary cap into the proposed legislation, since the Sparks Charter Committee was already authorized to periodically review salary levels.
Mr. Daly confirmed that the first question the Sparks Charter Committee asked the City Attorney was whether they needed to seek approval from the City Council when making proposals to the Legislature. The City Attorney said they did not; under the structure of the charter, the Sparks Charter Committee had been designated the role of making proposals to the Legislature.
Mr. Daly stated that he supported both A.B. 56 and the amendment. He said he had been reporting regularly to the Sparks Citizen Advisory Committee on the progress of the Sparks Charter Committee and had encountered no opposition among the members.
Assemblywoman Pierce asked Mr. Daly if it was correct to assume that the Sparks Charter Committee meetings were subject to the Open Meeting Act, and as such, the proposals would require a public comment period. Mr. Daly stated that was correct: the proposals had been properly noticed through the City Clerk’s office, and a public comment period had been observed.
Assemblywoman Pierce also asked what was the current population of Sparks, to which Mr. Daly replied that it was approaching 70,000.
Mr. Daly added one last comment regarding Assemblyman Williams’ suggestion to add another councilman as population increased. He said that the Sparks Charter Committee considered that option prior to the last legislative session and rejected it. They wanted to hold the City Council to five members, since if the population grew to the point that a new member was necessary, the Sparks Charter Committee was authorized to make that recommendation.
Chairman Manendo recognized Ms. Joan Lambert, representing Washoe County, who was a former Assemblywoman, and former member of the Government Affairs Committee. Ms. Lambert testified in favor of A.B. 56.
Ms. Lambert stated that Dan Burke, Washoe County Registrar of Voters, had worked with the City of Sparks on this bill, and that Washoe County was in full support of the charter change, which would solve the current problem of representative government. Washoe County agreed that it was more appropriate for Sparks to draw its own boundaries based on population, rather than the Washoe County Registrar of Voters, an appointed official of another governmental entity, making decisions based on the number of registered voters. She recommended that the City of Sparks should draw their own boundaries based on population and supported A.B. 56.
Chairman Manendo directed that an e-mail from Ron Schmitt in support of A.B. 56 (Exhibit E) be included in the record of the hearing. With no further testimony on the bill, Chairman Manendo closed the hearing on A.B. 56.
Chairman Manendo entertained motions to vote on Committee introductions for the following Bill Draft Requests (BDRs):
· BDR 19-164 - Provides civil penalty for failure of current or former employer of applicant for position as a peace officer with law enforcement agency to provide certain information concerning applicant upon request of law enforcement agency (A.B. 134).
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 19-164.
ASSEMBLYMAN GRADY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
· BDR 21-460 - Revises provisions governing authority of governing body of city to abate certain nuisances and dangerous and noxious conditions (A.B. 135).
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 21-460.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
· BDR 25-398 - Authorizes creation of general improvement district for establishment of area or zone for preservation of one or more species or subspecies of wildlife threatened with extinction (A.B. 136).
ASSEMBLYWOMAN WEBER MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 25-398.
ASSEMBLYMAN KNECHT SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
· BDR 18-474 – Revises reporting requirements of Bureau for Hospital Patients within Office for Consumer Health Assistance (A.B. 137).
ASSEMBLYMAN CHRISTENSEN MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 18-474.
ASSEMBLYMAN HARDY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Manendo adjourned the meeting at 9:06 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
JoAnn Aldrich
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Mark Manendo, Chairman
DATE: