SENATE BILL 495 OF THE

Senator O’Connell stated after reviewing the minutes she did not find reference to the section in S.B. 495 of the Sixty-eighth Session addressed by S.B. 47. She noted the bill was killed in the Assembly and asked if they could provide an explanation.

Paul Hickman, Judge, Reno Municipal Court, answered he did not know the history, and was unaware of S.B. 495 of the Sixty-eighth Session.

Ms. Rohrs replied she also was unaware of S.B. 495 of the Sixty-eighth Session.

Chairman O’Connell directed Ms. Rohrs and Judge Hickman to research the issue, specifically whether the referenced section contributed to the demise of S.B. 495 of the Sixty-eighth Session.

Senator Porter requested the intent of the bill be clarified.

Ms. Rohrs explained traffic misdemeanors pursuant to city ordinances may be decriminalized by municipalities, which results in a maximum fine of $500 payable to the city. She clarified traffic misdemeanors are under the authority of state violations, adding administrative fees are paid to the court on a plea or finding of guilty to a misdemeanor. She said when traffic misdemeanors are reduced by cities, fees are not assessed and the matter would be heard before an administrative hearing officer indicating fines assessed are paid to the city.

Senator Raggio interceded explaining violation cases require administrative fee assessments in addition to a fine, adding the fees fund court budgets, including the municipal and supreme courts. He noted, the amount of revenue raised had significant impact on court budgets as a funding mechanism.

Chairman O’Connell inquired as to the cost of the administrative fee. Ms. Rohrs replied administrative fees are based on the amount of the fine, adding assessments are scheduled from $10 to $100.

Judge Hickman stated parking violations are the only violations decriminalized in Las Vegas, Reno and Carson City. He explained they are heard before an administrative officer, whereby only the defender and administrative officer are present. He expressed concern if other moving violations were decriminalized automobile insurance would be at risk, and inherent protections offered in a criminal matter would be lost, leaving individuals without recourse. He testified police officers would no longer be required to be present at trial, the alleged offender would lose the right to remain silent, as well as the right to confront or cross-examine witnesses. He asserted because the hearing would be of an administrative nature, fault could be easily established, resulting in thousands of dollars of insurance liability.

Senator Raggio asked Judge Hickman if he supported the language of the bill. Judge Hickman answered yes stating parking violations effectively handled as a civil matter alleviates potential liability, there would only be a fine assessed by the city.

Marvin Leavitt, Lobbyist, Director, Intergovernment/Community Relations and Policy Research, City Manager’s Office, Las Vegas, expressed opposition to S.B. 47, and introduced Steve George, Deputy City Attorney, Las Vegas, for further testimony.

Mr. George testified against S.B. 47 stating the bill restricts authority of municipal governments and their ability to effectively regulate and control undesirable behaviors. He pointed out municipal governments possess authority to determine whether certain offenses should be prosecuted criminally or pursued as a civil matter. He explained the burden of proof was substantially higher in criminal cases and often there is lack of evidence to convict, however, municipal governments have the choice of pursuing cases as civil matters. Mr. George asserted administrative hearings free the court’s time to prosecute more important cases, therefore allowing effective administration of justice. In conclusion, he urged the committee to give cities necessary discretion so matters may be handled in a fashion suited to particular facts.

Senator Raggio questioned what instances would a prosecutor pursue offenses as civil liability matters.

Mr. George summarized, generally, the procedure of examining evidence and determining whether a conviction may be obtained when pursued as a criminal case. He stated when evidence is not sufficient enough to meet the burden-of- proof requirement, civil statutes may permit prosecutors to impose civil penalties for certain violations. Specifically he offered an example; a dog-fighting instance where injury occurs on private property, and where there was lack of evidence which dog provoked the conduct, as a criminal matter there would not be prosecution, although as a civil case the property owner could be held responsible.

Mr. Leavitt commented S.B. 47 would have serious effect on the ability to administer building and zoning codes.

Senator Raggio requested Ms. Rohrs provide examples of when and to what extent loss of assessments have occurred. He expressed concern that an attempt to circumvent assessment fees at state and local levels had occurred. He recognized courts relied on assessment fees as a significant source of revenue.

There being no further testimony Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B.

47 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 83.

Mary Henderson, Lobbyist, Public Affairs Director, Washoe County, testified in favor of S.B. 83, stating the purpose of the bill eliminates a population cap which would permit the Board of County Commissioners to establish an office of constable ordinance. She noted Washoe County is the only county in Nevada that does not have ability to determine if constables are needed in townships, adding Washoe County would be brought into conformance with other counties. She pointed out the bill does not affect elections of the office, it addresses only the office itself. Continuing, she said there are six townships and the county is required to have a constable in each. She said the county’s finance department discovered in smaller constable offices less than 10 papers per month are served, and added this information was supported by a study conducted by the department. She concluded the bill would allow the county to appoint the sheriff as ex officio constable in the various townships.

Senator Raggio queried the method of compensation to constables. Ms. Henderson stated the annual base salary is $10,000, and constables are permitted to retain up to $55,000 in collections, they are required to split all collections over the $55,000 threshold with the county. She explained a total of $156,740 would be paid for staffing constables in Reno and $72,556 in Sparks for the fiscal year.

Senator Raggio requested clarification that the base salary was included in the $55,000, and how 50 percent in collections over $55,000 are reported and collected by the county.

Madelyn Shipman, Assistant District Attorney, Washoe County, testified $55,000 represents combined revenue of a $10,000 base salary and $45,000 net revenue in fees collected. She specified net revenue is defined as the balance after all out-of-pocket expenses, such as salaries for additional staff and deputies not provided by the county, are paid by the constables.

Eric S. Cooper, Lobbyist, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, and Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association (NSCA), verified his appearance before the committee was on behalf of Washoe County Sheriff Kirkwood who supported S.B. 83. He commented in those counties where constables are appointed, the system has operated smoothly, adding the NSCA also supported the bill.

Senator Raggio suggested concern about quality of service provided by the sheriff’s office. He questioned whether the sheriff could assure competent and efficient service.

Mr. Cooper emphasized budget augmentation for the sheriff’s office would grant the same level of service as provided by the constables.

Ward Peterson, Constable, Reno Township, testified against S.B. 83 stating the bill was an attempt to transfer legislative authority over the office of constable to Washoe County. He continued explaining he was available every hour of the day in an effort to provide efficient service, and asserted unlike the private process their fees are regulated. He concluded by pointing out Assembly Bill (A.B.) 67 would increase sheriff fees.

Senator Raggio solicited comment concerning the fact constables refused to open their books for audit, inquiring what type of bank accounts are maintained for business purposes. He maintained the office of constable was classified as a public office subject to public audit, including how money is spent.

Mr. Peterson confirmed he provided collection-of-fees records for audit, however he stated the auditors wanted to evaluate how money was spent. He clarified his interpretation of statute was any fees collected became personal money and therefore a personal matter. He emphasized reports concerning fees collected have always been submitted, and acknowledged he maintains two bank accounts; a Trust Account utilized for money attached by garnishment or cash seizure, and a cash account for disbursing payroll and purchasing supplies.

Senator Raggio commented it would be improper not to have a Trust Account for monies attached to be held in trust, although he expressed concern about objections to auditor review of all account activity, including how money was spent. He stressed the need for the information to determine whether the office is cost efficient. He noted a full audit may justify the constable’s position.

Mr. Peterson responded he considered fees collected personal income, and justified his statement by declaring the Nevada Revised Statutes dictate so. He suggested if the office was abolished by the county commission and responsibilities assigned to the sheriff, additional salaries and benefits would significantly increase sheriff’s costs.

Senator Raggio asked if he was concerned the sheriff could provide timely and efficient service.

Mr. Peterson surmised employees paid for an 8-hour day, only work an 8-hour day, but those who are paid by commission are available all hours of every day.

John J. Hart, Former Constable, Reno Township, testified against S.B. 83 summarizing the history of legislative enactment and regulation of the office of constable. He explained the Legislature set the salary and fees paid to constables, asserting the county commission was not entitled to any part of fees, insisting they should never be given authority to attach any of the collected fees. He emphasized constables were available 7 days a week, all hours of a day and added they provided better service than the sheriff and in a timely manner.

Rod Barbash, Chairman Legislation Committee, Nevada Collectors Association, testified against S.B. 83 saying he has utilized both the sheriffs’ and constables’ offices for 44 years. He emphasized constables provide a superior service, adding they complete service the next day, whereas, he said, it took the sheriff several days to effect service. He concurred A.B. 67 would increase sheriffs’ service fees, estimating the increase to be over 500 percent. He complained monies garnished or attached by the sheriff may take 3 months before being released to the creditor. He noted post-judgment interest accrued until proceeds are released, adding it was not fair to judgment debtors.

John Langon, Constable, Sparks Township, testified against S.B. 83 stating the office was an elected position and allowed the public a choice. He concurred constables are available all hours every day of the week, adding they are dedicated to providing quality service. He pointed out the Sparks Constable’s Office effects 99 percent of all evictions and expounded on daily details of duties carried out by the office. He concluded he viewed the bill as an attempt to remove the option of choice away from the public.

Senator Raggio restated concern about the constables’ resistance to a complete audit of financial records. He related federal, state and local governments have the right to review public monies, asserting there was a need for verification that the county has in fact received 50 percent of collected fees over the $55,000 net threshold.

Mr. Langon replied he understood the law states county commissioners pay constables either by salary or by fees collected, or a combination of both. He explained he felt fees collected are his personal money as law states "either", "or", "or both".

Senator Raggio inquired what his gross earnings were for performing services during the calendar year 1996, advising any testimony before a legislative committee was considered under oath. However, he explained the committee needed to know his income in light of the fact public money was involved. In addition, he requested Mr. Langon provide fee reports from the previous 2 years.

Ralph S. Shamshoian, Property Manager, Edington and Associates, Inc., testified against S.B. 83 clarifying his association was one of the largest residential property managers in northern Nevada. He expressed they were strongly opposed to abolishing constable offices in Reno and Sparks. He stressed constables provided a higher level of service overall, explaining court orders are valid for only 24 hours and often a sheriff cannot provide service within that time frame. He said sometimes a sheriff effects service after expiration of the court order, and asserted it had exposed his organization to liability. He noted the Reno and Sparks constables are conveniently located which was conducive to holding costs down in mileage charges and delayed delivery of service. He concluded by characterizing the constables’ job performance and service as outstanding, offering legislative regulation was imperative to maintaining the quality of service provided by constables.

O’Connell inquired about the average time to remove a tenant after papers were served. She remarked her experience was as long as 30 days in southern Nevada, and asked what was the difference in the north

Mr. Shamshoian, responded typically from the date of service the fastest was 10 days to eviction, and added he had heard in Clark County it takes longer.

Michael Lindell, Concerned Citizen, testified against S.B. 83 identifying himself as an apartment owner in Reno, stating he employed the constable’s office in this capacity as needed. He said it was his experience, the constable’s office provided prompt, competent and economical service. He remarked private process servers charge quadruple service charges more than what the constable charges. He concluded by declaring the Reno Constable had provided excellent service at an affordable cost.

There being no further testimony Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 83 and introduced Bill Draft Request (BDR) S-499.