MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-second Session
April 16, 2003
The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:10 p.m., on Wednesday, April 16, 2003, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was videoconferenced to the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Room 4412, 555 East Washington Avenue, Las Vegas, 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 Sandra Tiffany, Vice Chairman
Senator William J. Raggio
Senator Randolph J. Townsend
Senator Warren B. Hardy
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Terry Care
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Mark E. Amodei, Capital Senatorial District
Assemblyman Roderick (Rod) R. Sherer, Assembly District No. 36
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Michael Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst
Scott Wasserman, Committee Counsel
Tara DeWeese, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ray Masayko, Mayor, Carson City
Shelly Aldean, Board of Supervisors, Carson City
Keith D. Marcher, Supervising Senior Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General
Patrick T. C. Smith, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities
Mark Vincent, Director, Department of Finance and Business Services, City of Las Vegas
Pamela Hines, Supervisor of Code Enforcement, City of Las Vegas
Nicole J. Lamboley, Lobbyist, City of Reno
Kimberly McDonald, Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas, Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities
Philip D. Speight, City Manager, City of Henderson
R. Ben Graham, Lobbyist, Clark County District Attorney, Nevada District Attorneys’ Association/Las Vegas
Chairman O’Connell:
We will open the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 113.
ASSEMBLY BILL 113: Revises provisions in Charter of Carson City concerning Charter Committee. (BDR S-264)
Senator Mark E. Amodei, Capital Senatorial District:
I have been asked to introduce Mayor Masayko and Supervisor Aldean to present this charter amendment bill for Carson City.
Ray Masayko, Mayor, Carson City:
Assembly Bill 113 is a routine process. It is a result of the Charter Review Committee of Carson City, which according to the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), we impanel every 2 years; Supervisor Aldean, prior to serving as supervisor, chaired the Carson City Charter Review Committee in 2002. The Charter Review Committee held open public meetings, took testimony, deliberated, made recommendations to the Carson City Board of Supervisors, at which time the Charter Review Committee and the Board of Supervisors met jointly and discussed the recommendations, accepted some, and put them in a resolution which is reflected in this bill. Some of the recommendations the Board of Supervisors saw could have been handled by other administrative functions within Carson City. They were all good ideas, but they did not all need to reach the charter. So, what we have here are three changes we believe will aid the Charter Review Committee for Carson City.
In section 1.090 of the charter,
the committee wants to define its officers and meetings. The original
legislation only included a chairperson and it was
determined during the 71st Legislative Session the chairperson cannot always be
available and the lack of a vice chairperson can cause the committee to run
less efficiently. What the Charter Review Committee and the Board of
Supervisors recommended was that they would elect a chairman and a vice
chairman from among its members; each would serve a term of 2 years. That has
been memorialized in the legislation to amend the charter. Item
number 2, of section 1.090 adds to the charter that the Charter
Review Committee would meet jointly with the Board of Supervisors on a date to
be set after the final biennial meeting before the beginning of the next
Legislative Session to advise the Board of Supervisors on their
recommendations.
We think these changes assist the function of the Charter Review Committee, making their duties and organization clear to all.
Chairman O’Connell:
It seems straightforward. I think it is strange that we are putting language into your charter that you will meet.
Mayor Masayko:
There was a fairly lengthy discussion about if we really needed to embody this, and we decided we would accept their recommendation.
Shelly Aldean, Board of Supervisors, Carson City:
These are indeed housekeeping items, however, one of the reasons the committee wanted to memorialize the requirement in the charter is because we have suffered the ills of apathy and, with this more formal procedure, we were hoping to encourage more public participation. There was a method to our madness.
Chairman O’Connell:
We will close the hearing on A.B. 113 and open the hearing on A.B. 409.
ASSEMBLY BILL 409 (1st Reprint): Authorizes public bodies to provide certain notice and information by electronic mail. (BDR 19-1084)
Assemblyman Roderick (Rod) R. Sherer, Assembly District No. 36:
Assembly Bill 409
makes a minor but significant change to the Nevada open‑meeting law. This
minor change is designed to save the State and local governments money. This
bill also has begun to incorporate our newest form of
communication, e-mail, into the law. This bill permits public bodies to send
notice of public meetings via e-mail upon request. This bill would only allow e‑mail
notices to be sent to persons who specifically request a notice by e-mail.
Under current law, notice of public meetings is given by mailing an agenda to
persons requesting that notice. The cost of printing, stamping, and mailing
these invoices adds up for every local and State entity. You can calculate the
costs of agendas and minutes and then multiply that by the number of meetings
each year. For the county commissioners’ mailing lists that vary from 100 to
600, the annual cost for a county can be as high as $12,000. I must point out,
these are conservative estimates since they do not include the costs for the
multitude of advisory boards, special districts, and the cost of labor to send
the notices out. I have passed out to the committee a handout on the cost
estimates (Exhibit
C).
At the State level, the estimated costs are greater. There are over 90 State agencies, boards, and commissions subject to the open meeting law. Furthermore, at the State level, the mailing lists are larger and the costs are greater. The State Board of Education and Public Employee Retirement Program each have mailing lists of 325 persons. Looking at a sampling of the seven State boards’ lists, the combined projected savings would be at least $15,000 per year. As a practical matter, some states’ boards have already begun e-mailing notices to persons who prefer that form of notification.
There was an amendment in the Assembly to clarify that if the e-mail system breaks down, it would not violate the open-meeting law. I believe this is a reasonable amendment, since the risk of not receiving e-mail due to breakdowns in computer systems is comparable to the risk of losing mail through the post office. I urge your support of this bill.
Senator Tiffany:
Are there circumstances where meeting notices have to be certified? If so, how will that work with an e-mail notification?
Assemblyman Sherer:
Not that I know of, no. I know there are ways to send e-mail with “return receipt” requested and that is automatic, making it easy to see if that person received the e-mail or not.
Scott Wasserman, Committee Counsel:
Currently, in statute, it just requires you send a copy of the notice of the meeting. It does not require that it be sent by certified mail.
Senator Tiffany:
There are certain conditions that require you certify.
Mr. Wasserman:
Certainly when you are sending legal notices under statute, there are times when a statute will require it be sent by certified mail.
Senator Tiffany:
So these do not. In Nye County, for example, does the city or the county have a Web site?
Assemblyman Sherer:
Yes, they do.
Senator Tiffany:
Would it be a benefit to post a notice on the Web site.
Assemblyman Sherer:
Yes, it would. Electronic mail is either/or, but sometimes people still request that notice. You can post it on a Web site.
Senator Tiffany:
We are doing a couple of changes on notification of the records from the meetings. If there is not an objection from you, we might want to add an “and/or.” That way it is not mandatory it be posted on the Web site.
Assemblyman Sherer:
I have no problems with that.
Keith D. Marcher, Supervising Senior Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General:
I was asked to make an appearance for the record to indicate the attorney general supports this bill.
Chairman O’Connell:
We will close the hearing on A.B. 409 and open the hearing on A.B. 135.
ASSEMBLY BILL 135: Revises provisions governing authority of governing body of city to abate certain nuisances and dangerous and noxious conditions. (BDR 21-460)
Patrick T. C. Smith, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities:
Assembly Bill 135 synchronizes the language between chapter 244 of theNRS, which governs counties, and chapter 268 of the NRS, which covers cities. It allows cities to recover taxpayer funds when the abatement of nuisance properties is required. We have our finance director here, Mark Vincent, to speak about the process, and Pamela Hines who is our subject matter expert in nuisance abatement.
Mark E. Vincent, Director, Department of Finance and Business Services, City of Las Vegas:
The purpose of this bill is to give the cities the same collection rights as the counties, since both the cities and the counties have the same responsibility to abate dangerous and nuisance properties. As you know, the current statutes authorize both the cities and the counties to assess property for the cost of our actions to abate or remedy dangerous or nuisance property. It is a process whereby the property owner is notified of the need for abatement and a public hearing is held relative to the notice in the order before the property is assessed and before the cost is incurred by the city to remedy the problem. If not paid, a lien is placed on the property in order to secure the payment. It is not placed on the tax roll for collection, which is currently done for the counties and not the cities.
The lien remains on the property until it is satisfied by either a payment to the city directly or indirectly through an escrow closure in conjunction with the sale of the property. Until a couple of years ago, the county treasurer in Clark County was accepting our liens and collecting them on the tax rolls. That stopped when they discovered a discrepancy in the language. Since that time, our receivable balance for abatement of dangerous and nuisance properties has increased 33 percent. That is up to $495,000 as of the end of December. More importantly, when we were allowed to collect on the tax rolls, our collection rate was about 50 percent. Now that we are collecting through the normal receivable process, it is down to 14 percent; that is a 70 percent reduction on our collection rate. The purpose of this bill is to help us collect the money due to us for those abatement processes.
Chairman O’Connell:
Will you please go through the types of liens and can you tell the committee if this takes precedence if it is on the top of the tax rolls as opposed to being just on the property?
Mr. Vincent:
The portent language in the bill allows us to collect it in the same time and manner as taxes and that is what allows us to put it on the tax roll. Without that language we would still record the lien, but we would be in line with any other interested party for that property. Currently we have no status as far as the tax roll.
Chairman O’Connell:
Are some liens superior to other liens?
Mr. Vincent:
I am not sure I know the answer. We are not talking about changing how we record the lien, only about giving us the opportunity to have the county treasurer collect it on the tax rolls once we have exhausted a process. Normally what we do is try to get them to work through a billing process. We have worked out payment plans in some cases, but it is usually in the cases where nothing works that we send it to collection. Of the 53 abatements the city did in calendar year 2002, 52 of the 53 were actually vacant and abandoned properties. A lot of the time what we are dealing with is absentee owners, so it is difficult to get them to pay through a normal collection process.
Chairman O’Connell:
I was interested in the language use of a governing body as opposed to the county or city council.
Mr. Smith:
There has been a friendly amendment by the city of Reno (Exhibit D) that the governing body would designate the appeals board.
Pamela Hines, Supervisor of Code Enforcement, City of Las Vegas:
I am here to answer any specific questions you might have.
Nicole J. Lamboley, Lobbyist, City of Reno:
This is a friendly amendment and we believe it complements A.B. 135. Initially we submitted this language as a bill draft request, but due to a drafting error and timelines, this did not receive a hearing in the Assembly. In working with the City of Las Vegas, they suggested that we use this as a vehicle since it is the same chapter. The purpose of this chapter is to enable the governing body or the city council of a city to designate by ordinance that appeals could go to municipal court. Currently, as the statutes are written, appeals go through an administrative hearing officer, and if the property owner chooses to further appeal, they would go before the city council. It is our belief that the appeals process is a quasi-judicial function.
The city council, as you know, sits as a legislative body and they determine the policies of ordinances and direct staff to enforce those policies. When someone receives a notice of violation, they can go to the appeals officer and then again to the city council. In many ways this complicates the appeals process. We want to make sure due process is served and a proper record is established in the appeals process. Again, since it is a legislative body, we feel that granting the governing entity the option of choosing if they want to retain the right to hear those appeals is a good idea. We generally resolve all appeals through the administrative hearings office or level. It is estimated about seven go before the council annually for their appeals.
Chairman O’Connell:
Have you all experienced the dramatic growth in the times you would use this law as they have in the City of Las Vegas?
Ms. Lamboley:
Yes we have and this body 2 years ago passed additional nuisance laws, and as a result of that we have seen it. Currently, Mayor Bob Cashell has directed staff to make sure we are enforcing the codes. Two years ago we had only one or two code enforcement officers; today we have four and we have a fifth person budgeted. We have stepped up our enforcement of the codes and as a result we are seeing more violations.
Chairman O’Connell:
Is that because the criteria for the violations have changed, or are you seeing more people who are not able to financially take care of their property?
Ms. Lamboley:
I think it is a result of having more staff to enforce the code. We cite about 18,000 violations annually. About 75 percent of those are resolved outside of the appeals process.
Chairman O’Connell:
Are they mainly absentee owners?
Ms. Lamboley:
I do not have the figures on that, but I could get you those. The process for the City of Reno is we send out a courtesy notice unless it is a public safety or health concern and then it goes right to a violation notice. There is a whole step, so we try to work with them and advise them they may be in violation of the code and give them time to remedy the situation. If they do not, then we go forward in sending them a notice of violation, again giving them an opportunity to remedy the problem. From there it goes into a penalty phase, but each time they are given a step to cure the problem.
Senator Care:
The ordinance you are contemplating here does not give an option to the owner. Have you had an opportunity to discuss with the courts contemplated here whether they want to handle this or if they could handle this?
Ms. Lamboley:
Yes. We have spoken with the municipal courts and they do not believe this would be an undue burden to their current workload. As I said, it is generally seven to ten annually, so they believe it would be fine.
Senator Care:
How soon do you think the city council would adopt such an ordinance?
Ms. Lamboley:
I do not know. I think they want to be enabling. The reason they wanted to designate it by ordinance is we did not want it to be perceived that they could pick and choose which appeals they would hear, so the public would know what the appeals process is, I think we would have to go through the ordinance process, so it would take several council meetings and a notice of the change in ordinance to do that.
Senator Care:
Do you know if other municipalities in Nevada would consider doing this as well?
Ms. Lamboley:
We have informed all the other municipalities that we were going to do this, but none of them came back to us with any objection nor did they indicate whether they would be participating in this opportunity.
Chairman O’Connell:
Could you give us an explanation of current law as it is talking about both the abandoned properties and the problem that does not have an abandoned circumstance to it?
Mr. Wasserman:
It is in the definition on page 7, subsection 5, paragraph (a). It is the definition of abandoned nuisance.
Mr. Vincent:
As I understand it there are dangerous properties where you have asbestos or an immediate threat. We have had some of those where it is an emergency. You may have a situation where there is a chronic nuisance. And then you have the definition here of an abandoned nuisance, so I think those are the three to which you are referring.
Mr. Wasserman:
Yes, in that subsection you will see abandoned nuisance is defined as:
… exists on any property where a building or other structures located on the property, the property is located in the city that is in a county whose population is a 100,000 or more, the property has been vacant or substantially vacant for 2 years or more and: three or more abandoned nuisance activities exist or have occurred on a property during any 12-month period.
I think that is what is being referred to.
Chairman O’Connell:
Yes, that is. Now we will close the hearing on A.B. 135 and open the hearing on A.B. 248.
ASSEMBLY BILL 248: Amends Charter of City of North Las Vegas to revise provisions concerning Municipal Judges. (BDR S-449)
Kimberly McDonald, Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas, Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities:
The North Las Vegas City Council fully supports A.B. 248. Also, North Las Vegas Municipal Judge Warren Van Landschoot was unable to make it here today due to schedule conflicts. This bill is a city charter change to extend the term of the North Las Vegas Municipal Court judge from 4 to 6 years and it would authorize our city council to increase the salary during the judge’s term. This 6-year term will provide longevity while enhancing the internal and external efficiency regarding the judicial process. These changes would make our city more consistent with similar larger cities such as Las Vegas, Henderson, and Reno, all of which have had similar charter changes passed during the last Legislative Session. These proposed charter changes would occur in section 4.005 of the North Las Vegas City Charter.
On page 2, section 1, subsection 3, line 7, language is added extending the judges’ elected term to not more than 6 years. On line 9, one-third of the judges are to be elected every 2 years because we anticipate adding two more departments in order to accommodate city and municipal growth. We are experiencing very dynamic growth. In subsection 4, lines 14 through 15, we are adding the language of 6 years again. In section 2, subsection 3, lines 35 through 37, we are adding the language to increase the judge’s salary during the judge’s term. This specifies that the salary shall be uniform for all departments. In closing, we respectfully ask for your passage of this measure, and this bill would simply extend our municipal court judge term from 4 to 6 years and enable our city council to increase the salary during that judge’s term and make us more consistent with similar sized cities.
Senator Tiffany:
Could the city manager of Henderson please come forward and tell us how the charter changes are working for his city?
Philip D. Speight, City Manager, City of Henderson:
Term of office at the last charter change during the last session was the first time for Henderson municipal judges. Judge Ken Proctor is the judge currently under that provision and in a recent election, Judge Douglas Hedger, was elected and will be sworn in. It will be the second time for that 6-year term, so we really do not have experience as it relates to the longevity since we are only in the second year of the 6-year term.
Senator Tiffany:
What do you think about increasing their salaries during their terms? I know the City of Henderson got sued over that, so I am curious as to your feeling of that, being the city manager.
Mr. Speight:
We have had the opportunity to always have, by ordinance, an ability to increase their salaries during their terms only by the cost of living based on the consumer price index. For the last 4 years we have been able to increase their salaries by that cost of living increase. The suit that was filed by the two judges this last time was predicated upon the cost of living increase given to employees. They felt as part of that suit they should also be eligible for a merit increase and we never went to trial on that. They dismissed the lawsuit.
Senator Tiffany:
From what I can tell on this bill, they can raise their salaries, not just their cost of living. The City of Henderson does not indicate where they can raise their salaries.
Mr. Speight:
Their salaries go up by the cost of living on an annual basis.
Senator Tiffany:
So that is what their salary is?
Mr. Speight:
Correct.
Senator Tiffany:
Is that a normal practice for a city charter to be able to raise their salaries?
Mr. Speight:
It is a way for us to keep them whole and the ordinance is written in such a way that in July of each year they receive a cost of living increase to their salaries, which would then increase their salaries 2.3 or 2.5 percent.
Senator Tiffany:
Did we just do a judges’ increase where we tried to bring everyone up to the same amount of money?
R. Ben Graham, Lobbyist, Clark County District Attorney, Nevada District Attorneys’ Association/Las Vegas:
I am here on behalf of Senate Bill 53, which has nothing to do with judicial salaries, but since we are talking about judicial salaries, last session there was a bill where judges got an increase and district court judges are paid out of the State funding. With regard to the justices of the peace, they recently received an increase within Las Vegas, but that came through the county commission and was not part of the State funds.
Chairman O’Connell:
Ms. McDonald, have you planned in your budget this year for this salary increase and for the length of terms for your judges?
Ms. McDonald:
Since this bill will not be effective for anyone appointed before 2003, this will not take effect for the current judge until 2005, so I do not believe this is forecasted for this budget.
Mr. Graham:
If you give the cities the flexibility here, you will not run into the problem we have seen in the Nevada Supreme Court where a newly elected Supreme Court justice is entitled to significantly more money than the same justice elected a year earlier. So there might be a 5-year gap to even things out and I think this would make it clear cut and would be open so there would not be any slight of hand in this. It would give them an opportunity to cover that period of time.
Chairman O’Connell:
Is this your way of saying this is a good bill?
Mr. Graham:
Yes.
Mr. Wasserman:
I would like to point out, after looking at the other charters in Henderson and Las Vegas, they have a similar provision for increasing the salaries of municipal court judges during the term.
Senator Care:
I remember last session everyone kept saying they wanted to go to the 6-year terms. North Las Vegas missed out, but I am also thinking we had some discussion about whether municipal court judges should be attorneys. I was wondering if anyone would know if we do have any municipalities where that is the practice?
Mr. Graham:
Las Vegas City Court is the only one at this time that requires law-trained judges and then there are other justice courts that do, but the majority of them do not.
Chairman O’Connell:
Senator Care, do you think they should be attorneys?
Senator Care:
Let me disclose that I would never run; I do not know. I can see in certain rural counties where it would be fine to leave it as it is, but in certain cities like Henderson and Las Vegas that continue to grow, it is something that the Legislature might want to look at because I think it is a plausible argument.
Chairman O’Connell:
We will close the hearing on A.B. 248 and adjourn the meeting at 2:52 pm.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Tara DeWeese,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE: