MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-Second Session
March 17, 2003
The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 9:00 a.m., on Monday, March 17, 2003. Chairman Mark Manendo presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada, and via simultaneous videoconference, in Room of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Las Vegas, 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.
Note: These minutes are compiled in the modified verbatim style. Bracketed material indicates language used to clarify and further describe testimony. Actions of the Committee are presented in the traditional legislative style.
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 Rod Sherer, District 36
Assemblyman Donald Gustavson, District 30
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst
Rosemary Zienter, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Nancy Black, Mineral County Commissioner, Hawthorne, Nevada
Ronald Wolven, Executive Director, Mineral County Economic Development Authority
Stephanie Licht, Legislative Consultant, Elko County
Maud Naroll, Chief Planner, Budget and Planning Division, State of Nevada Department of Administration
Fred Hillerby, Sun Valley General Improvement District
Jim Ainsworth, Chairman of the Board, Sun Valley General Improvement District
Diana Langs, General Manager, Sun Valley General Improvement District
Jim Nadeau, Jnadeau Associates
William B. Horn, General Manager, Incline Village General Improvement District
Mary Walker, President, Walker and Associates
Madelyn Shipman, Deputy District Attorney, Civil Division, Washoe County District Attorney
June Burton, General Improvement District Customer
Good morning, Committee. This is the Assembly [Committee on] Government Affairs. Madam Secretary, will you please call the roll. [roll called] Please mark Ms. [Eileen] O’Grady [Committee Counsel] excused for the day. She is working on bills for us, and we appreciate that.
I’m going to include one of these documents [itinerary for March 15, 2003, tour of local government services] [Exhibit C] for our record.
First on the agenda we have our colleague, Mr. Sherer, A.B. 219. Good morning. Is there anybody else you would like to bring up? Please feel free.
Assembly Bill 219: Requires Department of Administration to conduct study concerning feasibility and desirability of relocating certain state agencies to rural communities. (BDR S-1088)
Assemblyman Rod Sherer, District 36:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and esteemed Assemblymen and Assemblywomen. Good morning. [Introduced himself] Rural America is the home to one-fifth of the total population of the United States, is keeper of natural amenities and natural treasures, and is the safeguard of a unique part of American culture, tradition, and history. Today, rural America comprises over 2,300 counties, contains 83 percent of the land in the United States, and includes 56 million people.
It has been said often a strong rural economy plays an important role in maintaining a strong economy for the entire state. And we are in a situation now as far as the state and especially our rural areas where we have a lot of counties that are on the verge of bankruptcy. We need to really look, and one of the ways to stimulate that is possibly this bill being—taking a study and looking into changing. We will go into some of the other items through the state government that already have set a precedence in some of the departments in rural areas already. Rural communities provide high quality of life such as services, amenities, and may be attractive to residents not living in urban areas.
I enjoy my commute to work that is roughly about eight miles, and it takes me about five minutes to get to work. It doesn’t matter what time of day it is, or if it is a holiday, or anything else. The only day that doesn’t take effect is the day they shut the street down, and that’s Harvest Festival weekend. It’s nice to not have a smog area, and it’s nice to see the mountains and not through a brown haze.
One proposal that will serve to enhance the economy in rural areas of this state is to relocate certain state agencies, or portions thereof, to rural communities which some have already done. Today’s modern methods of communication and technology advances in telecommunications would serve to increase feasibility of such proposals by insuring that the information systems currently used by the state agencies in urban areas would be effective in rural areas. Rural communities in this state would welcome the increased population and economy that would result from such a relocation of one or more state agencies, or portions thereof.
One of the things that we could really look at is the lower cost of living. It’s attractive out there. I know the area that I come from in Pahrump you can get one acre or more of land and a house and everything else for under $100,000, and it worked out really nice. There are a lot of people already living out there that work in Las Vegas.
The same thing with the aesthetics of rural life. [I] already talked about the decreased commuting time and the pollution and traffic. What I would like to do is talk about some of the things the state has in other areas. Las Vegas currently has a Department of Business and Industry, and a part of that is the Consumer Affairs Division, the Labor Commissioner, Manufactured Housing Division, Real Estate Division, and the Taxi Cab Authority. In Reno [there are] the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Wildlife. Elko has some satellite offices that include Forestry, State Parks, and some [other offices]. As far as rural satellite offices, they include DMV [Department of Motor Vehicle] and other things in other areas as we speak right now. I have a proposed amendment to pass out [Exhibit D].
Chairman Manendo:
Does it address the fiscal note?
Assemblyman Sherer:
Yes. What I’d like to do, and since the fiscal note is $2,600 to do this, is basically set up an account within the Department of Administration, specifically for the purpose of this study. The study shall take place when adequate funds have been deposited. Authorize the Department [of Administration] to accept gifts, grants, and donations that must be deposited in this account. And where that goes, I’m not sure, I’d like to put in there. As far as lines from 26 through 29 [A.B. 219, page 3, Section 1, paragraph 6], I’m not sure how the wording would go, but this needs to be changed when it is feasible to do so “. . . recommend the relocation of at least one state agency, or portion thereof, to a rural community.” Basically, it says that it will be mandatory in 2006-2007; and I think, if it is feasible to do so, it doesn’t need to be mandatory.
Chairman Manendo:
Does not? You want to change “shall” to “may”?
Assemblyman Sherer:
Yes. And then I’d also like to thank your Committee Manager for helping to set this up and work through some things. We learned quite a few things together, so I want to thank Eric [Anderlohr] for all his help.
Chairman Manendo:
Thank you. Do you want to have your folks give testimony?
Nancy Black, Mineral County Commissioner, Hawthorne, Nevada:
Good morning. I’m the newly elected Mineral County Commissioner. Mineral County is firmly behind this bill, and I brought a statement from a resident in Walker Lake, Nevada, Cindy Nixon, who was going to be here today to personally read you her statement, but she was hospitalized. This is her statement [Exhibit E]. She says:
I believe that Assembly Bill 219 is an excellent idea. It would be the first step in a progressive move to centrally locate some of Nevada’s State agencies. It would have a positive effect on Nevada by involving more people in the workings of their state government. Sometimes we feel as if we have been left out in the rural areas. It would have a very positive effect on the rural communities selected for various offices. Our rural communities offer affordable office space with the asset of no parking or traffic problems. We have no restrictions on growth that is being experienced in the Carson area.
I know that in the past it has been considered prudent to have all the state agencies’ offices located within close proximity to each other. This has been a benefit to the communication necessity existing between the agencies, but in today’s world of technology to relocate some of our state’s agency offices would pose no difficulty in maintaining that close connection. In addition to very reasonable real estate costs for the offices themselves, our rural communities offer very affordable housing opportunities. If the employees affected chose to rent or purchase property you will find that it is very affordable compared to the metropolitan areas in the state.
Small town living is, in theory, a wonderful way to bring up families and experience the quality of life. Although in the present time it is a sad fact that in many of Nevada’s small towns and counties just surviving and existing is becoming increasingly difficult and nearly impossible in some cases.
According to the 2000 census, 14 percent of Nevada residents live in or around Nevada’s rural communities. We have a huge area that is virtually untapped. Some of us live there and would welcome the opportunity to prosper where we live, and to draw more business and industry to help local economies. Yes, it will mean that people will have to travel to visit different agencies rather than a few traveling into the cities from the rural areas, but this has a positive effect on both rural and metro areas. The benefits to the cities are less traffic and parking congestion which can be an undeniable problem in the Carson area. The buildings vacated will no doubt be immediately occupied by private enterprise. It would provide a base for more growth in various ways; our schools will be eligible with increased enrollment for more monies and grants to educate our children with.
In summary, I believe this bill, A.B. 219, is vital to the survival of some of our state’s rural areas for the reasons I stated above. Also, in today’s growing threat of terrorist activity, I believe that decentralizing the state’s agencies would be advantageous and to conduct a survey to determine the feasibility of the relocation would be very prudent.
Scheduling of the state agency’s personnel can be managed in such a way as to prevent some of the traveling needs of department heads and directors for training, seminars, or teaching. Let’s face it; someone is going to have to travel regardless where agency offices are located. I believe that this bill is a opportunity to diversify the entire state equalizing the growth statewide and helping with the problems that some of the metropolitan areas are having. Please enact A.B. 219 for the prosperity of the entire state of Nevada. I will be happy to serve any way possible to promote, study, and work for this bill. Thank you for your time. Cindy Nixon
Chairman Manendo:
Please tell Ms. Nixon that we appreciate her testimony. We will include it in the record. Madam Secretary, just make a note that she is from Walker Lake, Nevada. We hope she is feeling better. Do you have anything else that you would like to add?
Nancy Black:
No, other than to concur that the Board of Mineral County Commissioners is fully behind this bill, A.B. 219.
Chairman Manendo:
Are they going to be presenting a resolution or anything, the Board, that they want on record?
Nancy Black:
Not today.
Ronald Wolven, Executive Director, Mineral County Economic Development Authority:
[Introduced himself] You can buy a home in Pahrump for $100,000 and we can do that for about $60,000 in Mineral County. Thank you for the privilege of being in front of you today. I think the bill pretty much speaks for itself. The Mineral County Board of Commissioners wrote a letter to Assemblyman Sherer requesting this sort of a bill.
I came from Las Vegas to Mineral County about three years ago, and so I have an awareness of life in metropolitan areas as well as in rural areas. It is devastating to be in rural Nevada—when the mines closed, and especially in Mineral County, and the military base phased down. We either need some economic help, or we need a load of plywood so we can board it up, and we’ll all go away. Of course, we don’t want that to happen.
I think the bill is very well written. It speaks pretty much for itself. It is an economic issue. It came to my attention a few years ago when I came to some state offices here in Carson City, and I noticed that people who are only a desk or two apart e-mail each other. They rarely ever communicated in person, and so I’m thinking, “They can sure do that if they are located in Hawthorne.” If an agency or sub-agency is located in our little community, or Eureka, or some other rural community, the method of communication is still as affective, and the need in these modern times for face-to-face communication is just not necessary anymore.
I look at the crowded conditions in the state offices in Carson City, and then I talk to these people about where do they go to recreate, and I think Saturday was a perfect example. I had a whole bunch of people from Reno, and we rode off-road motorcycles for 95 miles in Mineral County. So they come out to our areas to recreate. Well, let’s move some of them out there. One objection I heard was, “All of these people are homeowners in Carson City, and they don’t want to sell their homes and move.” I’m sure that is true, but I think the committee that’s proposed could probably find ways to overcome those obstacles, those challenges. So we hope in the rural areas that you’ll endorse this bill and let it move along. Thank you for your time.
Chairman Manendo:
Thank you for your testimony. Questions, Committee, of the panel? Mr. Hardy.
Assemblyman Hardy:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The propose amendment on lines 26 through 29, as I read it, is the same as the one we have in the bill draft. We just are changing the word “shall” to “may” in both places. And do we need—and this is a question for which every counsel is present today—on the set up, the account within the Department of Administration, do we need to add the phrase “and use those monies so deposited,” or something like that, other than just accept them. Is that a technical thing that we need to do?
Susan Scholley, Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau:
Mr. Hardy, Legal [Division] would take care of that in the drafting, but that is a good point.
Chairman Manendo:
Thank you. Any other questions, Committee? Thank you very much. Do you have anybody else?
Assemblyman Sherer:
I apologize; Lincoln County has some more bills coming this morning. They are negotiating the water rights issue with Las Vegas Valley Water Authority, so they are busy in their County Commissioner meeting today. From Nye County there were supposed to be some County Commissioners. I don’t see them there, but I do see somebody there [simultaneous videoconference in Las Vegas, Nevada].
Chairman Manendo:
Anybody else in Carson City speaking in favor of A.B. 219? Good morning.
Stephanie Licht, Legislative Consultant, Elko County:
[Introduced herself] Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, although I do not have a printed position statement from the Elko County Board of Commissioners, any time we can get anybody out to the rurals to study anything, we are extremely glad to have them and would take you on a tour. I’d like to support Mr. Sherer in his commendable efforts. We appreciate him bringing this forward, and so I’m going to step out on a limb as far as Elko County is concerned and support this bill.
Chairman Manendo:
Thank you. Any questions, Committee? Mr. Collins.
Assemblyman Collins:
On this issue, and I thought there would be a lot more folks to testify, Mr. Chairman, but for example, in Elko, the building the Ag [Agriculture] Department is using currently is going to be taken away at some time because of expansion there. They have got to find some new facility already in Elko.
I guess, looking at Mineral County, I think it was President Reagan that made that a private facility and lost Mineral County to all that tax money and revenue because they made it private and the private still has to have the exemption on the property taxes, or something that put a big harm on them. I don’t quite understand all the details of that, but you know I liked it back in the years when the Marines were there, and they were spending their money in Hawthorne.
I guess a couple of issues that come up with this kind of a bill is that we’ve had that with some of the rurals, like the county youth facility for example, the women’s prison in North Las Vegas and southern Nevada, because we want to try to get the population close to those that are serving, so they do not have to make such a trip, or travel time to visit their family, to try to bring their families back together towards the end of their terms.
If this is more directed at bringing some economy to the rural communities, why hasn’t Starbucks moved to Hawthorne instead of Douglas County, for example. It’s a huge facility and a lot of money. What is our state doing in economic development that doesn’t bring Lincoln County, White Pine [County], Mineral County, Esmeralda County, those type of things that are being built down here in Douglas County. What’s the difference in the—is it a state economic issue? Is [it] the counties and the way that they are going after soliciting business? Is it the infrastructure that’s not available? What’s the reasons that we would be so dire in not having private industry come in that we are asking state government to come there?
Stephanie Licht:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I can’t answer your questions specifically, but I can give you some information that I discovered while attending the Governor’s Task Force meetings on Tax Policy. I had the opportunity to work together with representatives from UNR [University of Nevada, Reno] who have studied economic development in the rural areas. Part of our problems in the rural areas were slightly alluded to by Assemblyman Sherer, in distance and transportation. Sometimes that is a problem.
I’ve had other conversations with other people that said some of the companies that came to Reno to look over things, found that there wasn’t a sufficient number in the work-force area there. There wasn’t a college. They kept going and located in Utah where they had the University of Utah and several big schools, and a skilled labor force. I don’t want to go too much further than that, and I don’t know if my companions from Mineral County, or Mr. Sherer, want to say some of the things that they may have found.
I put together a little study that I’ve been trying to get the Committees on Taxation to hear about how come we’re having trouble with economic development, but today I’m just basically here to support the idea of a study. This would certainly help, and perhaps recommend a conceptual amendment, though I didn’t bring a written one today, that this might be expanded to look at the tax base.
Mr. Chairman, if I could go just a little bit outside your question. Mr. Collins, over the last 19 years rural Nevada has lost 250,000 animal unit months. If you divide that by 12 it comes down to about 117,000 cattle and sheep that we have lost off the rural land base. Math is not my strong suit. I’m sort of an abstract artist, and bean counting is not my thing. But if you take 500 cows, and they have an average 85 percent calf crop, and you get them raised up to 600, 700, or 800 pounds, and you sell them. Assemblyman Goicoechea may be able to tell me, you sell them for $300 or $400. I think I figured out that for every 500 cows you lose off the land, that’s $250,000 of money that’s not circulated back through the community.
Now my math is not great. I’ll go home and do my homework, Mr. Chairman, if you’ll let me, and come back with a little better figures. That’s what I was trying to get the Governor’s Task Force on Tax Policy to understand. Getting back to discussion of A.B. 219, any time we can get a study about what’s going on out there, it would certainly help us.
In answer to Mr. Collin’s question as to why we don’t locate out there, I think the idea behind this bill, though Mr. Sherer and I have not had a chance to sit down and discuss it, if you have someone in a state agency, that’s a pretty stable job. I commute a lot by e-mail, and I realized it is more important to be in the Committee meeting than sitting in Elko in my front room listening to the meetings because I have an opportunity to express myself. I can’t quite chime in on public comment from my front room. If we could locate, we do have state offices in Elko for which we are very grateful. I do know that there is a lot of folks—my sister said when I asked her why she doesn’t come and visit me, she says, “When I can see Macys blinking in your bedroom window, then I will come and visit you.” There is a lot of resistance from folks who live in urban areas to come out and live 70 miles from a grocery store, which I have had the opportunity to do, and I love it, but that’s me.
So in answer to your question, Mr. Collins, distance and transportation have a lot to do with why Starbucks isn’t in Elko County, other than a brand. I appreciate you asking me, and thank you for letting me get off the bill a little bit. If you would like me to bring my dissertation in front of this Committee, I’d be happy to. We support any idea that would study anything in our neighborhood. Thank you very much.
Chairman Manendo:
We appreciate that, and Mr. Collins maybe the question would be better addressed to our Lieutenant Governor. Mr. Collins.
Assemblyman Collins:
Just a follow up, is it—from what I understand the Starbucks got a tax exemption from the state economic development for, I believe, all their personal property taxes there for several years, as well as some other tax breaks, 50 percent; Mr. Grady knows that more specifically. And so why isn’t our state economic development bringing those folks to the rural counties like this bill proposes? I sign on this bill, I support the study, but let’s expand it, not just state agencies. Let’s say, “Go build it,” where you can’t ruin a county anymore, instead of building it over here in Douglas County where you still can, for example, to answer Stephanie Licht’s position. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Manendo:
Thank you, Mr. Collins. Mr. Grady.
Assemblyman Grady:
Like my colleague from North Las Vegas, we had the opportunity Saturday, along with the Chairman and some of the other members, to go by the new Starbuck’s plant. It was very impressive. It almost located in Lyon County, but workforce was one of the major issues there. In Lyon County, if you go to the Fernley area, you will see Fortune 500 companies that have located there, again partially because of the proximity to the Reno and Sparks area. I know the folks from Mineral County and way on the southern end of Lyon County, this would be a tremendous boom to us; and going farther east and south, all of the rural areas have small economic development groups that are working closely with the state to try to attract this. Infrastructure is a huge problem in rural Nevada, so we would rather have the company that maybe has 50 employees or 40 employees. We’d take 5 or 6 of those, rather than one that has 300 or 400 employees. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Manendo:
Thank you, Mr. Grady. Any other questions? Anybody else here in Carson City, on A.B. 219, in favor? Las Vegas? Anyone in opposition to A.B. 219?
Maud Naroll, Chief Planner, State of Nevada Department of Administration, Budget and Planning Division:
[Introduced herself] We’re neutral on this. We are happy to do a feasibility study of relocating state agencies to rural Nevada, and we thank Mr. Sherer for the proposed amendment [Exhibit D]. We appreciate working on that fiscal note issue. We would like to make sure, please, that it is not the responsibility of the Department of Administration to raise the money. We are happy to accept gifts, grants, and donations for that study.
As several wise people before me have pointed out, the state does have a number of field offices out in rural Nevada. Agriculture, business and industry, wildlife, employment security, rehab, child and family services, health care, financing and policy, mental health developmental services, public defender, welfare, military, DMV [Department of Motor Vehicles], public safety, and DOT [Department of Transportation], out in rural Nevada, [are] scattered throughout the state.
The state has deliberately located two corrections facilities in rural Nevada, a maximum security in Ely and a large prison just outside of Lovelock. Some of you, I’m sure Mr. Grady will remember, that the opening of the Ely state prison in the late 1980s just happened to coincide with the resurgence of a gold mining boom in northern and eastern Nevada. And as the state was trying to hire guards for the prison, those newly hired state employees had one heck of a time finding places to live, and I think some of them ended up in travel trailers for a while. And then the state had difficulty finding medical personnel who were willing to work out there and take care of our prisoners. In Lovelock there was a promise that there would be housing for our guards and it hasn’t materialized; and so the state has incurred additional cost because there has been much higher turnover among those guards.
It’s true that e-mail is wonderful. It’s true that being able to watch you folks on the Internet is great. Those of us in our office will sometimes watch and listen a little as we are doing our work, if there is a bill that we are interested in. There also times when we, as state employees, need to meet face-to-face, either with each other, or to come and testify to you folks. And if we locate administrative offices, not field offices, but administrative offices in rural areas, there will be increased cost for in-state travel, especially during legislative sessions. Any questions?
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
Yes, I think you hit it right on the head. The prison is still there, and the gold mine is gone. And that is exactly why Mr. Sherer is looking for state agencies and administrative offices in rural Nevada. When you talk about the Lovelock prison, I also represent that area. Again the big issue there is those people, most of them, are commuting out of Lovelock and choose not to live there. There is housing available in Lovelock, trust me. It’s like Mineral County. Every other house is for sale. White Pine County is the same way.
Just a comment, I do support my colleague’s bill. I do think there is an opportunity, especially in some of the larger communities, whether it be Hawthorne, Elko, Ely, that have seen a dramatic decline, because again, in White Pine County, you can buy new homes, that were put in there by the mining company, for less than 50 cents on the dollar. What we are seeing is an influx of retirees out of Clark County. They are coming up and buying them as summer cabins. Again, the values are there in rural Nevada. I do believe the state can see some economic benefit in relocating in rural Nevada. Thank you.
Chairman Manendo:
Questions Committee? Thank you, ma’am, for your testimony. Is there anyone else speaking on Assembly Bill 219, Carson City or Las Vegas? I will close the hearing on A.B. 219, [and] bring it back to Committee.
Assembly Bill 241: Makes various changes relating to general improvement districts. (BDR 25-815)
Chairman Manendo:
Assembly Bill 241. Mr. Gustavson, good morning, sir.
Assemblyman Donald Gustavson, District 30:
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. [Introduced himself] I’m bringing this bill to you this morning by request of the Sun Valley General Improvement District. I will let them speak on the bill, since it is by their request and that of other GIDs [General Improvement District] who are also interested in this bill. At this time I would like to introduce Mr. Hillerby and ask him to come up here and speak to you on this bill. He can present the bill to you and be able to answer some of the questions for you. Thank you for this opportunity to have this bill presented.
Fred Hillerby, Sun Valley General Improvement District:
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I’m here this morning representing the Sun Valley General Improvement District, in support of Assembly Bill 241. With me to my immediate left is Jim Ainsworth, who is Chairman of our Board of Trustees, and to his left is Diana Langs, our General Manager. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I’ll take the Committee through the bill, showing the changes that are being proposed, and then if you would allow the people from the Improvement District to talk about some more of the reasons why the request for change has been made, and respond to any questions.
If you will notice, the first change is on page 2 of the bill, Section 1, subsection 7, where it is talking about the frequency of publications, notifying the people in our District of various meetings and actions to be taken by the Board; and you can see that we have asked that that be changed from one time rather than three consecutive weeks. We have a lot of methods of communicating to the people to whom we provide services of the activities of our Board of Trustees, and we feel this is an adequate way to do that, and they will explain some of the other ways that we reach out to the community.
On page 3 of the bill, Section 2, subsection 5, you will notice that here we are proposing to change the annual reimbursement for Trustees from $6,000 to $12,000. I might add that this $6,000 number was in place since 1977. Just looking at a quick look at inflation, today that $6,000 would be worth $17,990, so we have just again picked a ceiling. As with many fees this body regulates, you usually like to see it capped, and then give the governing body of the area the opportunity to make those decisions. I think it is important to note on lines 22 through 26, that if, in fact, a Board of Trustees of a General Improvement District acts to increase payment for their members, that would not take place until after a general election at which at least some of the members would have stood for reelection. In the case of Sun Valley General Improvement District, three of our members will be up for election in the next general election. Not only will we have public hearings to discuss this with the people in the District, but they will have an additional opportunity, if they are not pleased with the increase that’s been proposed, to speak. And again, we are just asking for your authority for the Board to take that action. We are not asking you to raise any General Improvement District Trustee’s salary.
The next change is on page 4, Section 3, subparagraph 5. What we have done here is allow the Board, by regulation, to discuss when a bill comes due. When it is delinquent, the language here is somewhat difficult to administer, and I will provide you more information regarding that.
And finally, and most importantly, Mr. Chairman, is Section 4, on page 5, subparagraph 2. This is something we have talked about for a long time. We have talked with Washoe County on this regard. When you have a General Improvement District such as ours, which provides a wide variety of services, the notion of that General Improvement District, which the people who receive those services have established and support, you begin to talk about dissolution or consolidation. We get very concerned that that be done as a mutual decision between the county and the General Improvement District.
Basically, what this language says, if a District provides, at least at a minimum, water, which is set forth in NRS [Nevada Revised Statutes]318.144, which is a provision of water, that those size districts, a two-thirds majority of their Board and the county commission have to vote to take this kind of action. And then finally on the bill, it is just the conforming language; the notification of that kind of language would be given. With that, I would be happy to answer questions. But frankly, you would probably be best served to be answered by the two people to my left. And if it is all right with you, Mr. Chairman, we’ll ask them to provide some input.
Chairman Manendo:
Thank you. Good morning.
Jim Ainsworth, Chairman of the Board, Sun Valley General Improvement District:
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Board. [Introduced himself] I have been [Chairman of the Board] for 19 years. Under Section 1, paragraph 7, in discussions with my general manager prior to coming down here, we talked about the last time we did a publication which we assumed, which required the three publications, it cost us $1,800 just to publish in the paper. The paper is only one of a few means of communicating to our customers which we have. We have what is called a quarterly newsletter. It’s called the Pipeline, in which we give information concerning our District, and one of those things being all tariff changes that are coming up in tariff hearings, and we invite the public to come. We also post our agendas at five or six locations around the valley; not only our office, but the Post Office, the local Scolari’s Warehouse Market, Senior Citizens’ Center, and a number of other places. It seems to us that being required to spend that kind of money out of a district our size—although we are one of the larger GIDs in the state, we do have a district that has approximately $40 million worth of assets and about a $6 million-a-year budget, so we are pretty good-sized. There are a lot of smaller districts, that I’m sure, that’s a real financial burden on.
I think Fred already covered Section 2, paragraph 5, about the increase in wages. It is less than the cost of living has been over those number of years, but I think it is needed at this time to at least allow GIDs the opportunity to raise their Trustees’ fees, if they wish to. It’s not a requirement. I know that, in our case, our Board members not only sit on our paid Board, but because of their positions on the Board, we also sit on other Boards around the state to represent our interest to help us. We have one member that sits on the POOL/PACT [Nevada Public Agency Insurance Pool and Public Agency Compensation Trust], to help us with our insurance needs. In that capacity he leaves his full-time job at least twice a year for about a week—like last summer he went back to North Carolina to represent the state because he’s on the State Board of Directors for POOL/PACT.
I’ve spent, I guess five years, ten years, on the Washoe County Debt Management Commission. It’s a lot more than just two meetings a month, two or three hours a night. To actually do the job correctly, as you all know, your job is more than sitting here for a couple of hours a day and even just at session time.
Section 3, subsection 5, that’s really interesting the way it was set up because nobody actually—I don’t think any GIDs abide by your criteria as written right now, anyway, so it would be nice to change it so we could all fall within the confines of the law. In our District, we’re on a four-cycle billing cycle. We don’t read on the meters in one day and bill everybody the same day. We read them once a week, a certain section of the District, and bill a set of bills one week, a second set the next week, a third set the next week. If you read the way this is written, those that were billed in the fourth cycle would get a late notice the week after. It doesn’t make any sense.
Under Section 4, subparagraph 2, I think that’s self-explanatory. It gives the GID a chance to control its own destiny, in case a county were to determine they wanted to take them over. I think we need to protect ourselves whenever possible and our customers. That is what they elect us for and are paying us for. I’d answer any questions you have or defer more time to Diana, if she has anything to say.
Chairman Manendo:
Ma’am, do you want to testify?
Diana Langs, General Manager, Sun Valley General Improvement District:
[Introduced herself] I do just want to add a couple of additional thoughts here. As far as the notification, the smaller Districts do have a rougher time on the financial notification part of this; that’s on page 2. If our newsletter did not coincide with a publication, we also print notices on the front of the bills. So we do try to cover it in many different realms. Luckily, our District office is located right on the boulevard so must of our customers do actually come in the office and pay their bills, a great deal of them do. So they would be informed of the notification of any type of tariff change.
On page 4, regarding the date, Jim is right, we do have four billing cycles, and it is very difficult, by the time you bill and the bill is due, and you go through the 5-day notice, the 48-hour tag, you’ve got another 45 days on the books, and then another bill has already gone out. It is important to get this in sync with what actually happens out there. The Board members also, many of them, and in my case, have their own businesses, so it is a financial impact; they do leave their jobs. My Board, I’m very fortunate, they go to most of the American Water Works [Association] seminars or conferences either here, locally, or in California, because water is one of our most valuable assets and because of the health issues related to it. I’ve had all five of them go at once. These seminars usually run three to five days, and they leave their respective jobs to attend them, to educate themselves, to be diligent of what’s best health-wise for the District. So that does pull them away from their positions as owners of different companies. I might say small companies; one person shops, in many cases. That’s about all I had. Thank you, and I would entertain any questions you may have.
Chairman Manendo:
Thank you, panel. Can you go over again how many, exactly or approximately, how many hours a month the Trustees meet?
Jim Ainsworth:
Our meetings are held the second and fourth Thursday of every month. We also meet—those meetings go from 6:30 until—I’ve been there past ten or twelve. It just depends on what’s going on.
Chairman Manendo:
So they work about 20 hours a month?
Jim Ainsworth:
I would guess that, at the meetings themselves. We also have annual state requirements for budget hearings which are set up in separate meetings.
Chairman Manendo:
The additional compensation up to $1,800 per year, and that is for what? Currently, the Trustees may not receive more than $1,800 per year in additional compensation. Was that for travel?
Jim Ainsworth:
I don’t know. To be perfectly honest, none of us have ever put in for any of it, that I know of.
Diana Langs:
Mr. Chairman, I’d like to look that up in our statute. I know this has been discussed with our attorney before, and I just need to refresh my mind on what the interpretation was.
Chairman Manendo:
What the interpretation of what the compensation is for the $1,800?
Diana Langs:
I thought I had recalled that it said that you could not do both: receive your monthly stipend plus that.
Jim Ainsworth:
As a matter of policy we have never done that.
Chairman Manendo:
Mr. Grady.
Assemblyman Grady:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple of questions, if I may. The bill, as written, looks like it would handle some problems for your particular GID. But under [NRS] 318, it covers all GIDs. Have you talked to anyone, and I’ll say Douglas County, because they probably have more GIDs than any other area. Have you talked to any of the other GIDs? How do they feel about this? And secondly, have you talked to any of the Boards of County Commissioners? Because they still have an awful lot of authority on what GIDs do. So have you talked to anyone outside of your own District?
Diana Langs:
Yes, we have. That’s a great question. In 1977 we formed a group called the “Nevada Association of the Central Districts” Lyon, Douglas, Washoe, and Story Counties are members. We do meet regularly during the sessions, and we also meet during the off-sessions. To get to your particular question: yes, they were shown this bill. We had discussion on this bill, and in fact, they had some input on this bill in certain sections of it. The [NRS] 318 currently has a section that discusses three or more powers. If you have three or more powers, which means electric, garbage, water, or sewer, as you are aware, then there’s a different method regarding the dissolution and merger. So in [NRS] 318, already, if you have three or more powers, it is treated a little differently than if you have less than three powers. Regarding your second question, about Douglas County; yes, there have been discussions with Mary Walker, who represents Douglas County. I think that she has an amendment that she is going to be suggesting today, and Fred could comment on that just a little bit.
Fred Hillerby:
Mr. Chairman, if I may. Mr. Grady, Ms. Walker, from Douglas County, approached us with some concerns and is offering what we consider a friendly amendment, and she will be doing that later. To expand, if I may, Mr. Chairman, you are absolutely right, Mr. Grady. If you look at the section regarding dissolution that is going to be limited to, in our area, probably Incline Village General Improvement District, as well as ours because [of] the size of the District. But in terms of the publication issue, the delinquency, determining when a bill is delinquent, those are things that are common interest to most of the GIDs that we have spoken with. It is broader in those senses, as well. The wage increase contemplated in Section 2 is permissive language. Some of those small districts you and I know, Mr. Grady, that don’t have the money to even consider these increases, probably aren’t even paying the maximum that’s allowed by law now to their Board members.
Assemblyman Grady:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and just one other comment—and I’m sure my colleague Mr. Knecht will jump on this too—it seems like it’s rather strange that they can put—they can pay not more than $12,000 per year. Yet when that was discussed if we could do that with the county bill, they told us no. It was unconstitutional for some reason, whatever it was. How can you do it for one entity and not another? Thank you.
Diana Langs:
Mr. Chairman, I did find that section, if I may read it, about the additional compensation. I remember having discussed this with our attorney some years ago. I’m reading now from [NRS] 318.085, paragraph 5, and I will read the entire paragraph for the record.
Each member of a Board of Trustees of a District organized or reorganized, pursuant to this chapter, may receive as compensation for his service, not more than $6,000 per year, payable monthly. If the budget is adequate and a majority of the members of the Board vote in favor of such compensation, but no member of the Board may receive any other compensation for his service to the District as an employee or otherwise. A member of the Board is not entitled to receive as compensation more than $1,800 per year if the additional compensation is approved during the term of the member.
What I recall with our attorney is that they were not allowed to go into that additional tier if they would be receiving their full compensation. Thank you.
Chairman Manendo:
Thank you. Ms. Scholley.
Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst:
Yes, in response to Mr. Grady’s question about why it could be permissive for General Improvement Districts and not set up a permissive raise cap for counties, it is because the language in the Constitution specifically requires the Legislature to set salaries for the county officers. It does not have that same language relative to General Improvement District Officers, city offices, and other entities. So, there is a difference between the counties and all the other forms of government within the state.
Chairman Manendo:
Mr. Goicoechea.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
Yes, I did have a question but I think I’ll wait until I hear the amendment. Maybe it will be addressed then. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Manendo:
Thank you. Any other questions of the panel? Mr. Williams.
Assemblyman Williams:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The part of the bill that deals with if the compensation is granted; this applies after the person’s term. Are there term limits on this?
Fred Hillerby:
If I might, Mr. Chairman, technically the way the bill reads, it will not go into effect until after January 1, following a general election. The practical result of that is that the GIDs to whom this would apply will either have had two of their members or three have stood for reelection in that November election before the increase could be put into effect. As it so happens, with the cycle going on right now, if Sun Valley were to enact this after October, three of their Board members would be up for election in November prior to the January when they could stand, when the actual increase could be put into effect.
Assemblyman Williams:
Yes, Mr. Chairman, I’ve seen a lot of similar bills in this Committee, like this, and this is probably the cleanest one. I wish the county commissioners’ language could be like this. But this one covers all the down falls that the other ones have had in the past. I think it is well-written. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Manendo:
Thank you, Mr. Williams. How many Trustees do you have?
Fred Hillerby:
We have five.
Jim Nadeau, jnadeau Associates:
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, Jim Nadeau, representing the Incline Village General Improvement District. With me today is the general manager of the Incline Village General Improvement District, Mr. Bill Horn. He has some remarks that he would like to make. Thank you.
William B. Horn, General Manager, Incline Village General Improvement District:
Chairman Manendo and Committee members, good morning. [Introduced himself] I’m also honored to serve as the chairman of Independent Incline. I wanted to share just a little bit of what IVGID [Incline Village General Improvement District] is and its special offerings to the community.
First, we are 35 miles from the county seat. We offer water, sewer, trash, recreation and parks. Within recreation and parks we provide all senior citizens’ activities, as well as the before- and after-school programs that are offered in the community. Our five elected Trustees provide a local elected forum for our 9,000 residents.
The reason that I wanted to speak today is that, in particular, I’d like to emphasize Section 4, on page 5. But before that, I’m in support of the testimony that you’ve heard so far and in support of an amendment that I’ve heard that would be presented to you today. But the community, right now, has an initiative going on to become a city. One of the things that we’re concerned about is not having a very, very strong bill, NRS 318, that doesn’t allow the county to dissolve our GID any easier than it can do right now.
So we believe that the elected representatives of the community, our Trustees, should have an opportunity to either support or not support what Washoe County could do if they decided to dissolve our GID. We have a very solid infrastructure in place, and believe that we serve the public. Certainly if we didn’t serve the public, our elected officials would be aware of it and would respond to their needs. I welcome any questions that you might have of me.
Chairman Manendo:
Questions, Committee? Ms. Pierce.
Assemblywoman Pierce:
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t know that much about GIDs. What’s the advantage to what you are going to do to become a city? What’s the advantage to becoming a city as opposed to staying a GID?
William B. Horn:
Chairman Manendo, to Assemblywoman Pierce’s question, we currently are 35 miles away from Washoe County or from the county seat, the City of Reno, and the City of Sparks, and so we have a dedicated Sheriff’s Department that is supported through our property taxes from Washoe County. We have a dedicated roads and snow removal department, and we have some judicial services. Other than that, the community is, for all intents and purposes, providing, I would say, probably 80 percent of the things that are required between water, sewer, trash, recreation, and parks. We believe that becoming a city, and we would go through the process of either becoming a general law city or a charter city, using NRS 266 as the basis of it, we feel that we can provide [and] maintain the services that we receive today from the county. And I really didn’t want to bring this up, but there has been a BDR [Bill Draft Request] that the City of Reno has been supporting to force consolidation with Washoe County, and we’re not quite sure where Incline Village would be left if that consolidation took place. We’ve heard that we would either have increased property taxes or reduced services, or both, and we’re concerned, and as a result of that, we would like to pursue our own form of governance, which would be cityship, at this point.
Chairman Manendo:
Thank you. Are there any questions? Ms. Walker, can we see the amendment? [Exhibit F]
Mary Walker, President, Walker and Associates:
Good morning, [Introduced herself] representing Douglas County and Lyon County, which would be affected by this bill. We support A.B. 241. However, we would request an amendment. The amendment [Exhibit F] would be on page 5, Section 4, line 38, and all it would do is merely add NRS 318.142 to your list of the powers that are being exercised by GIDs. So what it would include was that this Section 4 would pertain to those GIDs which have water, sewer, and garbage collection. So it adds garbage collection as a service to Section 4, paragraph 2.
The reason for this is because if you don’t have it in there, this bill would affect both Douglas County and Lyon County. Douglas County has 27 GIDs, and what happens when a GID goes under financially is it becomes a responsibility of the county to pick up that service and provide that service. And we’re very concerned that if they have the authority not to merge or consolidate, or whatever, the proper governance may be that we may have a continued floundering financial situation on some of our GIDs. This bill primarily is for Sun Valley, a GID up in Washoe County, as well as Incline, which are the larger type of GIDs. They do provide all three services, sewer, water, and garbage collection. So, by adding this in here, it would just pertain basically to those GIDs, and not to the other ones. When you get into sewer and water, you’re affecting a lot of other GIDs that may or may not have the financial wherewithal. The counties do need to keep on monitoring those types of GIDs. That’s probably our number one concern. We’d like to remain our status quo, as we are right now, in our more rural areas.
Chairman Manendo:
Questions Committee? Mr. Hardy.
Assemblyman Hardy:
So Ms. Walker, did I understand you right, that what you’re proposing, these changes would only happen to a GID that are inclusive of water, sewer, and garbage, and leave out all the other GIDs?
Mary Walker:
That’s correct, Mr. Hardy.
Assemblyman Hardy:
Of the 27 in Douglas County, how many of those provide those 3?
Mary Walker:
None of them. And that’s why we wanted to have this just pertain only to the two GIDs that are bringing this bill forward today and not affect the other ones.
Assemblyman Hardy:
So what this would effectively do is only include two of the GIDs in the whole state in this regulation?
Mary Walker:
At least in the northwestern part. I think the people from Sun Valley have done some research. I do know that if you have all three of them, it would only affect the two GIDs up in Washoe County; none other in Washoe, none in Carson, of course, none in Douglas County, and none in Lyon County.
Assemblyman Hardy:
So the page 5, Section 4, [subsection] 2, is what you’re objecting to in the applicability to every GID. Are there other things in this that would be good for the other GIDs to have in them that we’re throwing some little person out with bath water to get rid of one objection?
Mary Walker:
Mr. Hardy, we have no problem with the other remaining provisions that they are changing in this bill at all. We think it’s a governance issue with the GID as far as their administration. Our only problem was with Section 4, because that does get into the Board of County Commissioners’ purview on the financial status and having to bill some of these smaller GIDs out.
Assemblyman Hardy:
For clarification, Mr. Chair, so that it’s clear in my mind, this whole thing, if it’s passed, will only apply to two GIDs? Or will it apply to everybody, except Section 4, subsection 2, will only apply to the two GIDs that are involved?
Mary Walker:
The latter is correct, Mr. Hardy.
Chairman Manendo:
Thank you. [Ms.] Shipman.
Madelyn Shipman, Deputy District Attorney, Civil Division, Washoe County District Attorney:
[Introduced herself] I’m representing Washoe County. I guess it comes down to Washoe County and what Washoe County thinks. We worked extensively with the sponsors of this bill to assure that the reservation of what the county may end up with is still there, but at the same time recognizing, through a good governance approach, that the larger GIDs have the ability to make decisions also for themselves. Washoe has never dissolved a GID without being requested to do so. We have one dissolution over the past ten years and that was at the request of the GID itself, and the Board essentially passed a resolution asking the Board to take over the function, which in that case was water.
There was another merger at Crystal Bay that did get merged, and that had the approval of both the Crystal Bay GID, at the time which was for water service, and the IVGID Board, and Mr. Horn could probably speak to that. So we have no history of ever taking over hastily a GID. This bill would only tighten up in that section. We have no position really on the others. We believe the rest of the bill is policy issues for those elective Boards. Remember they are elected officials that sit in those seats. The dissolution merger section of this bill would only tighten up the restriction in a way that we believe is appropriate for two GIDs in Washoe County, IVGID and SVGID, Sun Valley and Incline.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
Mary, I have one question on the publication and why you would determine that that would be appropriate to go to one publication rather than the previous requirement of at least three times.
Mary Walker:
I spoke to Douglas County about this, and they didn’t have a problem with that. I think they feel that this would be adequate.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
And just to make sure I’m on the same page—Thank you, Mr. Chairman, just to make sure I’m on the same page. Technically what we’re saying is, if a GID doesn’t supply water, sewer, and garbage pick-up, then they won’t fall into this at all, as far as dissolution. How about if they’re under a septic system that waives the sewer? And I don’t know how you get away from the garbage collection.
Madelyn Shipman:
Mr. Chairman, to you and through you to Mr. Goicoechea. I just wanted to explain that the counties are the ones that give the powers to the GIDs. So if you were doing septic, you’d never have the power that’s described in this bill.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
Thank you.
Chairman Manendo:
Any other questions, Committee? Thank you. Anybody else?
June Burton:
For the record, my name is June Burton, and I’m just a customer of GID. I sit on a couple boards, and I’ve worked in the past with the Sun Valley GID, which is a wonderful board. They do a lot for the community. When this bill came out, this concern of the compensation for their meetings, in going to the other boards that I sit on, everybody in this state right now is trying to cut costs. And I just don’t feel it is an appropriate time to be coming in and asking for this raise. The one section of the bill, they want to cut out their publication so they don’t have to spend so much money, and the next page they are asking for a
huge increase. Even though the existing board could allow this increase, and it would be after an election and the next people would get the benefit of it, it still will cost that GID $60,000 for a five-member Board; it could, they don’t have to go this high, I realize. This is just a concern with all the budget cuts that are being proposed and tried right now. And just as a customer, it’s a concern that the day might come that those bills are going to have to be raised to meet this amount that we’re paying our Trustees. And I dearly think the world of everybody that spoke from Sun Valley. They’re just wonderful people, and they’re going to be really mad at me over this.
Chairman Manendo:
This is the forum where you can express your feelings and your concerns. So we appreciate that. Questions, Committee? Thank you for your testimony. Did we scare the person away from Las Vegas? Anybody else speaking in favor of Assembly Bill 241? Any other opposition or concerns? We will close the hearing on Assembly Bill 241 and bring it back to Committee. Is there anything else to come before the Committee this morning? Mr. Collins.
Assemblyman Collins:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d like the Committee to welcome Councilwoman Shari Buck from North Las Vegas, who has just entered our chambers.
Chairman Manendo:
Good morning, welcome. [applause] Again, I want to thank Ms. Walker and her folks for putting on the tour. We had a wonderful time, had a great opportunity
to learn some things about Carson and Douglas Counties, and we really appreciate that. Anything else to come before the Committee? We’re adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Rosemary Zienter
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Mark Manendo, Chairman
DATE: