MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-Second Session
March 28, 2003
The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:06 a.m. on Friday, March 28, 2003. Chairman Mark Manendo presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada and via videoconference to room 4400 in the Grant Sawyer Office Building, in 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.
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:
Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani, District No. 9
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst
Eileen O'Grady, Committee Counsel
JoAnn Aldrich, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Douglas A. Bache, former Clark County Assemblyman, District No. 11, 1991‑2001, and former Chairman of the Government Affairs Committee
Debbie Cahill, Nevada State Education Association, Las Vegas
Paul McGrath, private citizen and retired sheriff, Carson City
Rose McKinney-James, Legislative Representative, Clark County School District, Las Vegas
Frank Brusa, Nevada Association of School Administrators, and Clark County Association of School Administrators, Las Vegas
Dotty Merrill, Ed.D., Senior Director, Public Policy, Accountability, and Assessment, Washoe County School District, Reno
Robert E. Rose, Nevada Supreme Court Justice, Carson City
Nancy M. Saitta, District Judge, Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County Courthouse, Las Vegas
George Pyne, Chief Executive Officer, Nevada Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS), Carson City
Dana Bilyeu, Operations Officer, Nevada Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS), Carson City
Rick Bennett, Director, Government Relations, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Scott MacKenzie, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees’ Association (SNEA), and AFSCME, Local No. 4041, Carson City
Dan Musgrove, Director, Intergovernmental Relations, Clark County
Mary C. Henderson, Nevada League of Cities (NLC), Carson City
Stephanie Garcia-Vause, Legislative Advocate, City of Henderson
Kimberly McDonald, Special Projects Analyst and Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas
Garry Hayes, Attorney, Las Vegas
Bob Erickson, City of Fallon
Nicole Lamboley, City of Reno
M.J. Harvey, Chairman, Paradise Town Board, Las Vegas
Thomas O’Connor, Chairman, Whitney Town Advisory Board, Las Vegas
John Hiatt, Chairman, Enterprise Town Advisory Board, Las Vegas
Michael Dias, Chairman, Sunrise Manor Town Advisory Board, Las Vegas
John Williams, Board Member, Paradise Town Board, Las Vegas
Dee Gatliff, Board Member, Spring Valley Town Board, Las Vegas
Bruce Woodbury, Clark County Commissioner, Las Vegas
The Chairman opened the hearing on A.B. 450, and asked Doug Bache to come forward to present the bill.
Assembly Bill 450: Prohibits designation of certain positions in government as being position for which monthly service retirement allowance may be paid when previously retired employee fills position during critical labor shortage. (BDR 23-34)
Douglas A. Bache, former Assemblyman from Clark County, District No. 11, 1991-2001, and former chairman of the Government Affairs Committee, thanked the Committee for hearing all his proposed legislation on the same day. He said he had limited time to attend the legislature because of business concerns.
Mr. Bache said that A.B. 450 was a third generation piece of legislation. In 1999, then-Assemblyman Kelly Thomas introduced A.B. 74 of the 70th Session to address the problem of finding qualified staff for teacher training in the College of Education. The purpose was to allow teachers to fill critical positions at the University of Nevada while temporarily retaining their retirement. In 1999, testimony revealed there was a shortage of teachers for Kindergarten through Grade 12 (K-12) education. Assemblyman Thomas thought the solution might be to allow retired teachers to go back to work without losing their retirement.
Mr. Bache noted that many were concerned that the proposed legislation would set a new precedent. The Government Affairs Committee amended A.B. 74 of the 70th Session so that the measure would be limited to two years. Because of the complexity of the issue, another amendment was adopted on the Floor of the Assembly that would set up an interim committee to study the issue. After discussion, A.B. 74 of the 70th Session was passed and the interim study was completed prior to the 2001 Legislative Session.
As a direct result of the interim study, A.B. 555 of the 71st Session was introduced during the 2001 Legislative Session. The bill stated that retired employees could be hired without losing their retirement in times of critical need. The bill included a revised list of criteria and an approval procedure to be included in the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). Mr. Bache recalled that most of the testimony on A.B. 555 of the 71st Session centered on the shortage of teachers for K-12 education, particularly in the areas of special education, math, and science, and especially in Clark County and Washoe County.
A.B. 555 of the 71st Session passed, and immediately following the Session, Richard Kirkland, Director, Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), Division of Public Safety, determined that a critical shortage existed for 22 employees in his department, including his chief deputy’s position and his own position. His designation of critical need was approved by the State Board of Examiners, and the 22 employees continued working and were able to collect their retirements.
Mr. Bache said he felt it was inappropriate for Director Kirkland to recommend himself to a position where he would benefit from collecting both a paycheck and a retirement check. Mr. Bache said that A.B. 450 resulted from trying to remedy that situation, but it had not turned out exactly as he envisioned.
A.B. 450, Section 1, subsection 5, stated, “Designating authority may not determine that a critical labor shortage exists for a position if the annual salary authorized for that position is more than $50,000.” Mr. Bache said he did not request that language to be included in the bill. He said it would definitely cause a problem because some teachers in Clark County had already been rehired under that program. Mr. Bache said that a 30-year career teacher, at the top of the salary schedule in terms of years of service, with a master’s degree, would already be making a salary in excess of $50,000 per year. If included, the proposed cap on hiring employees whose salaries were more than $50,000 would eliminate the possibility of hiring the very people the state would most likely want to hire back, including highway patrol officers.
For that reason, he had proposed the following amendment to A.B. 450 which would replace Section 1, subsection 5 with the following:
5. In determining whether a position is a position for which there is a critical labor shortage, the state board of examiners shall not:
a. Designate a unique or single opening.
b. Consider positions that are directly appointed by a Constitutional Officer of the State of Nevada.
c. Consider positions that are held by a person with the authority to recommend that position as a critical labor shortage position. (Exhibit C)
Mr. Bache had the following comments on Section 1 of the amendment:
Mr. Bache said the bill was simple as far as language. Under Section 1, subsection 4; there were suggestions to tighten up the criteria as far as determining whether a critical labor shortage existed. Additional criteria could include:
Those additional requirements would strengthen the criteria for what could be designated as a ”critical labor shortage.”
Mr. Bache said that, other than the incident with Director Kirkland, to his knowledge there were no other abuses of the original intent of the bill. He stated that in order to designate a position as subject to a critical labor shortage, school districts must go through the State Board of Education for approval. The State Board of Examiners, which was comprised of the Governor, the Secretary of State, and the Attorney General, would decide whether state positions were subject to a critical labor shortage. Local governing bodies, county commissioners, and city councils would handle the designation for critical labor shortages for their employees, although not many of them had utilized the authority.
Chairman Manendo thanked Mr. Bache for his testimony.
Assemblyman Williams said he appreciated the legislation, but what concerned him was that times change and shortages ebb and flow. For instance, he had always heard about “backlogs” in the court system, and about the need for senior judges to re-enter the workplace to handle cases because of the backlog occupying elected judges. There were examples of hiring retired judges to handle important cases, partly because of the backlog, and partly because of their experience. Mr. Williams said he hated to see a broad sweep approach that would prohibit everyone from drawing on the retiree labor pool, when special cases might need to be addressed.
Assemblyman Williams said there was a bill last week that targeted a few isolated situations. If the bill had passed, it would have put an end to an abundance of good things. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Bache if he had tried to anticipate future situations that the bill might affect in a negative way.
Mr. Bache said the bill was crafted narrowly, except for the $50,000 limit, which he did not include. He acknowledged that if that provision stayed in the bill, it would eliminate most, if not all, people who are in those retired positions. It was not his original intent to take positions away from people who currently held those positions. He stated that the balance of A.B. 450 tightened up the criteria by stating who was not authorized to evaluate if there was an area of critical need.
Mr. Bache added that the legislation was written to sunset, or end, in two years, so he did not see a major problem.
When Assemblyman Williams realized that Mr. Bache had not proposed the $50,000 provision, he said that took care of his concern. Mr. Bache explained that he had originally geared the bill toward eliminating high-level administrative positions, where administrators might find ways to keep a job that did not really meet the critical shortage designation criteria. Mr. Williams said when he first read the bill, he did not believe Mr. Bache meant to “wipe out the judges” in that way.
Mr. Bache concluded his testimony by pointing out that, if A.B. 450 was passed, Section 2 of the legislation would be effective on July 1, 2003. Current employees whose jobs were no longer designated critical-shortage positions would have the period between July 1, 2003, and October 1, 2003, to make a decision whether they wished to continue employment or to take retirement.
Debbie Cahill, Nevada State Education Association, came forward and expressed her appreciation to Mr. Bache for the amendment. She testified they were in wholehearted support of A.B. 450.
Paul McGrath, private citizen and retired sheriff, said he had been opposed to A.B. 555 of the 71st Session since its inception, and especially since Richard Kirkland, Director of the DMV, had designated his own position, as well as 21 other staff members’ positions, as meeting the criteria for critical shortage designations. Director Kirkland went on to collect double compensation for himself and his staff.
Mr. McGrath stated that he had submitted a written summary and package (Exhibit D) documenting events that led to State Board of Examiners’ approval of double compensation for the 22 employees of the DMV, including the Director and Deputy Director. Mr. McGrath said that the documentation proved that none of the rules of A.B. 555 of the 71st Session were followed, and that the Executive Branch had approved 22 “critical need positions” without adhering to the law passed by the Legislature. In Mr. McGrath’s opinion, Richard Kirkland had completely defrauded the State of Nevada and the Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS).
The documentation package that Mr. McGrath submitted today (Exhibit D) included his complaint letter to the Governor and the Governor’s reply. Mr. McGrath said that Mr. Bache had done a good job on the bill, and he supported A.B. 450 in its entirety.
Rose McKinney-James, Legislative Representative, Clark County School District, said she had come to wholeheartedly support A.B. 450 and Mr. Bache’s proposed amendment. She testified that the program had been very helpful to the school district in terms of addressing critical shortages; however, they were concerned about the cap, and appreciated Mr. Bache’s amendment. At this time, they were in full support of both the bill and the proposed amendment.
Frank Brusa, Nevada Association of School Administrators and the Clark County Association of School Administrators, stated that they opposed the bill as written. If Section 1, subsection 5 were to be amended, they would then support the bill.
Assemblyman Collins questioned Section 1, subsection 5(a) of the amendment that prohibited against designation of “a unique or single opening.” He said that an administrator in a small town could be the single opening. Mr. Collins stated, “For example, there could be a job standing vacant all the time because it’s just one vacancy in a small department where the position might be eliminated.”
Mr. Brusa replied that he could not answer the question because he was just a school administrator, and he had not worked for the state government. He deferred to other government employees who might be in the room.
Dotty Merrill, Ed.D., Senior Director, Public Policy, Accountability, and Assessment, Washoe County School District, testified that although the Washoe County School District had tried to come to a consensus prior to her testimony, they were not successful. She came to the Committee meeting partly to support and partly to oppose A.B. 450. She said that the District appreciated the advantages that had come to them since the passage of A.B. 555 of the 71st Session. That opportunity had allowed them to fill some positions they would not have filled without the passage of the bill.
Dr. Merrill thanked Mr. Bache for his proposed amendment to Section 1, subsection 5, and said that their main concern echoed the concern of Assemblyman Collins regarding Section 1, subsection 5(a). She explained that the District could have a very specialized position or need to raise salaries or offer signing bonuses to attract a sufficient number of qualified candidates. They were concerned that Section 1, subsection 5 might curtail their efforts to fill those types of positions.
The Washoe County School District also had some concerns about proposed Section 1, subsection 5(c) that would require that the position be vacant longer than three months. Dr. Merrill stated that often they could not find qualified persons for positions that involved students with disabilities. The District had to be able to fill those positions as quickly as possible or they would be out of compliance with the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
Robert E. Rose, Nevada Supreme Court Justice, said he was testifying on behalf of the Chief Justice and the entire Nevada Supreme Court. He introduced District Judge Nancy Saitta who testified later on the $50,000 cap and the devastating impact it would have on the Senior Judge Program. Justice Rose qualified his objection by stating that if the $50,000 limit were eliminated, it would dissolve the Supreme Court’s main objection to A.B. 450. The reason for their objections to the bill as proposed, was that they had eight senior judges, four of whom would accept any lengthy assignment, so their workforce was limited. The current programs helped them staff for and move forward with critical cases, especially in Clark County.
Regarding the amendment, Section 1, subsection 5(b) would prohibit declarations of critical shortage by Constitutional Officers. Justice Rose said that the Senior Judge Program was administered by the Chief Justice, who was a Constitutional Officer and the person who declared vacancies and appointed senior judges. He thought that that language could have unintended consequences, unless the Judiciary or the Senior Judge Program was granted an exemption.
Nancy Saitta, District Judge, Eighth Judicial District Court, said she echoed the comments made by Justice Rose. Unless the bill was amended with respect to the $50,000 cap, in Section 1, subsection 5(b), it would devastate the ability of the Eighth District Court to work with:
1) Cases mentioned by Justice Rose, which included protracted litigation involving the largest properties, like the Venetian.
2) A continuing long-term caseload situation they are fighting in southern Nevada, referred to as “construction-defect litigation.”
Judge Saitta said she was the chairperson of a newly created division of the court system that managed “construction-defect litigation.” Judge Saitta explained that when construction-defect cases go to trial, they have only three judges who are routinely “semi-assigned” to those cases. One judge devoted his full attention to those cases, whereas Judge Saitta and Judge Cherry were only able to work part-time on construction-defect litigation. Judge Saitta said that when a well-run construction-defect case went to trial, it was normally a three- to four-month endeavor. If a judge could not commit full-time to a construction-defect trial, it could turn into a 6- to 8-month trial.
Furthermore, if one or two judges were assigned to a 6- to 8-month trial without the assistance of a senior judge to cover other matters, a serious problem would develop. That situation would, in turn, affect criminal matters that had a legal right to be heard within a certain time-period. The whole caseload problem had the potential to become a matter of major concern to the civil division, criminal division, and the construction-defect division.
Judge Saitta concluded that it was essential that the Judiciary be in some fashion exempted from A.B. 450, or the appointment process in the proposed amendment to Section 1, subsection 5 should somehow be resolved so that judges were not prevented from taking care of the public’s business. Judge Saitta reminded the Committee that she spoke on behalf of the Eighth Judicial District Court, the Second Judicial District Court, and the Washoe County District Judges.
Assemblyman Hardy asked “the collective wisdom” if they might have knowledge of other parties in Nevada who would be affected by this legislation who might not be aware of the bill or of the amendment. Neither Judge Rose nor Judge Saitta was able to help the Committee in that respect.
George Pyne, Chief Executive Officer, Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS), said that the PERS Board had not taken a position on A.B. 450 yet, but staff would recommend that they oppose the bill. Mr. Pyne described the background of the PERS reemployment laws and of the origins of A.B. 555 of the 71st Session in 2001 (Exhibit E). He said that current regulations limited returning to work as a retiree. If an employee returned to work for a public employer for less than 20 hours per week, he could earn up to $19,000 per fiscal year and would continue to receive PERS retirement checks. Retirees who returned to work in full-time positions would have PERS benefit checks suspended for the duration of their employment, with an option to enroll in PERS again, subject to certain restrictions.
Restrictions included those required per NRS 286.520, which provided an exemption from reemployment restrictions for persons chosen by election or appointment to fill an elective public office, unless the person had received PERS service credit from the same office. Mr. Pyne stated that this law supported candidates running for public office and encouraged public participation in government. The second exemption found in NRS 286.520 was for individuals who worked for the Legislature or for the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
Because of cost concerns, PERS administrators built a cost-containment provision into A.B. 555 of the 71st Session that said the PERS would conduct an interim cost study on the effects of the 2001 legislation and then return to advise legislators of the actual costs prior to the 2005 Legislative Session. If there were a significant cost, PERS would have to recognize the cost increase in the funded contribution rate for the PERS.
Provisions in A.B. 555 of the 71st Session were the result of an 18-month study of retiree reemployment, which was conducted by PERS in accordance with A.B. 74 of the 70th Session. A.B. 74 of the 70th Session required PERS to conduct a study of the effect on PERS of the reemployment of retired public employees by public employers participating in PERS, and to report key findings and recommendations to the 2001 Legislative Session. Testimony in support of A.B. 74 of the 70th Session focused on the tight labor market for educational professions and the need to bring retired public employees back to fill certain positions. Only after the exemption from reemployment laws were made temporary, did the PERS Retirement Board support the legislation.
Mr. Pyne gave a thorough explanation of how the study required by A.B. 74 of the 70th Session was conducted, which included participation by many taxpayers, employee and employer groups and a nationwide survey. Results and recommendations were included in draft legislation that was presented at the 2001 Legislative Session. Key findings of that study were:
Public employers, in determining whether a position qualifies for a critical labor shortage, shall consider the history of the rate of turnover, the number of openings for qualified candidates, the length of time the position has been vacant, and success in recruiting persons from other states to fill the positions.
Those considerations were the result of significant deliberation by the study committee, employees, employers, and the retirement board.
Mr. Pyne added that there was currently a technical bill, S.B. 439, which contained one modification to that law. It would require that the duration of critical labor shortage designations would be for a period of two years, unless subsequent certification was received from the designated authority. He argued that this was consistent with providing an exemption from restrictions that applied to all employees, and that two years was a reasonable time frame for an employer to reevaluate whether the designation continued to merit a critical shortage exemption. Implementation of that measure was not anticipated to add significant cost to the PERS system, and results would be included in the experience study due by 2004, and would be reflected in their report to the Legislature in 2005.
Mr. Pyne expressed the opinion that the overall intent of A.B. 555 of the 71st Session had been accomplished. Approximately 65 retirees had returned to work in the public sector, and they continued to receive their PERS benefit under the critical need designation. The great majority of those positions were in the education professions, although public safety and nursing positions were also represented. Of the 65 persons, 40 of them exceeded the $50,000 cap, which was discussed earlier.
Mr. Pyne commented on the proposed language changes to A.B. 450:
Dana Bilyeu, Operations Officer, PERS, said that in reviewing the bill she would like to emphasize that the nature of the retirement system was such that employees were entitled to retirement benefits based on a formula in statute. That statute was essentially a contract with each individual member that specified that changes to a retirement act which would take away a benefit must add an equal or greater benefit, so that the retirement benefit package was never diminished. There was a body of case law to substantiate this.
Ms. Bilyeu said that Section 2 of A.B. 450 addressed a very small group and appeared to take away something from members that they were guaranteed by statute. She said that if that section was passed into legislation and the amount of the benefit lost was not balanced by replacing it with something of equal or greater value, it could be a violation of members’ contractual rights under both the Constitution of the State of Nevada and under the Constitution of the United States. Ms. Bilyeu concluded, “I see this section of the bill being somewhat controversial from a legal perspective, as well.”
Assemblyman McCleary asked Mr. Pyne, if the intent of the original law had been met, why Mr. Pyne, the author of the original bill, would be trying to change it.
Mr. Pyne answered that the law came about as the result of a study by the Retirement System with input from a study group that included taxpayer, employer, and employee groups. The Retirement System drafted the bill that was submitted to the Legislature for their purposes.
Assemblyman Hardy asked what the solution was in order to solve the problem without having legal issues or losing a retiree workforce.
Ms. Bilyeu said that since 1978, when the first legal case determined that retirement benefits were a contractual right of employment, what PERS had tried to do was to go forward with benefit changes and not to apply negative changes to existing employees. What would be needed would be to make the bill proactive, so that it would apply to new-hires only, rather than to those in existing positions.
Assemblywoman Pierce requested a copy of Mr. Pyne’s testimony. He agreed.
Chairman Manendo asked for a brief explanation of the Social Security Administration’s raising the earnings cap on social security benefits. Mr. Pyne said that his understanding was that if a person were receiving social security benefits, was between 65-69 years of age, and went to work, those earnings were somehow taxable. He was not sure what the limits were but said that the restrictions on retirement were removed by Congress a few years ago. The original intent of having an earnings cap was to facilitate an orderly transition for younger employees moving into the workforce. Nevertheless, when a tight labor market developed, the Social Security Administration removed the cap on earnings for older folks.
Assemblyman Collins said that the short answer was, “Baby boomers, birth control, and immigration had caused people to live longer due to better health care, so we have had to change the way we regard employment.”
Assemblywoman Koivisto asked, “Don’t you think that if a search had been done for a position with a six figure salary it would have been filled?”
Mr. Pyne said he was not qualified to address that question. He said he testified before the Board of Examiners in 2001 regarding this bill. All he remembered was that the Governor said he was concerned about turnover in high-paying jobs, and that PERS’ job was to monitor designations by the authorities, the public employers, and not to police or question what they did.
Rick Bennett, Director, Government Relations, University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), stated that the University System and UNLV had not taken a position on this bill. Mr. Bennett wanted to convey his personal observations. He said he took the original language to then-Assemblyman Kelly Thomas and asked for a BDR, which turned out to be A.B. 74 of the 70th Session, which started the whole process. The original intent was to ease labor market problems related to finding “clinical faculty” for the College of Education.
Mr. Bennett testified that after the study, a broader perspective was gained by all. Regarding the one most-publicized incident, while it may have been in keeping with the letter of the law, he found it personally very disappointing. He said it was certainly not in keeping with the legislative intent of the statute. Overall, he felt the statute had been used well and appropriately. He said he would not change the bill at this point, except he would eliminate the $50,000 annual salary limit.
Assemblyman Grady asked Mr. Bache if, after hearing the Justices’ comments, he would be willing to make an exception for the Judiciary.
Mr. Bache said he did not know if the legislation would specifically affect that program. He would defer to the Committee’s Legal Counsel, Eileen O’Grady.
Assemblyman Grady asked Mr. Bache, an experienced educator, if he knew what salary level a retired person would receive if they returned to work.
Mr. Bache said that, in the Clark County School District, they would take their place according to the current salary schedule. Some may have never taken a break in service, and so would continue in their present salary. It would be up to the local district or government to negotiate.
Assemblyman Grady asked if he heard that it could be negotiated. Mr. Bache indicated that it could be negotiated by saying yes.
Assemblyman McCleary asked Mr. Bache about the intent of the law, which was often misinterpreted. He asked if Mr. Bache thought that had happened with this law. Mr. Bache said that former sheriff McGrath expressed it best. When the Board of Examiners did not follow proper procedures in approving the critical labor shortage designations, in that particular situation: then, yes. Mr. Bache clarified that he was not the author of A.B. 555 of the 71st Session and that bill was sponsored by the PERS.
After asking for more questions or more testimony, and hearing none, Chairman Manendo closed the hearing on A.B. 450, and opened the hearing on A.B. 480.
Assembly Bill 480: Revises provisions regarding Public Employees’ Retirement System. (BDR 23-8)
Douglas A. Bache, former Clark County Assemblyman, District No. 11, 1991‑2001, and former chairman of the Government Affairs Committee, stated that in testimony two years ago members of the Las Vegas Police Protective Association were urging PERS to increase the multiplier up to 2.75 percent, which was one of the items Mr. Bache had addressed in A.B. 480. The amendment (Exhibit F) was an item in S.B. 349 of the 71st Session, but it dropped out in the amendment process.
Mr. Bache said he thought this was a very important item because a number of employees had a problem with benefits that were frozen at the level they achieved when they left Nevada PERS employment, which might have been when they were in their 40s. If an employee left Nevada PERS employment in their early 40s after 20 years of employment, they could not collect retirement until age 60 because the benefit was frozen. The proposed language was a way of dealing with that situation by providing an indexing of 1 percent annually, calculated from the time they left the system until they began to collect benefits later in life (Exhibit F).
Mr. Bache said that there was a scheduled 1.5 percent increase to the contribution rate for regular PERS employees this year. He said obviously these two items, the increased multiplier, and the indexing of benefits for vested employees who could not yet collect, would not be feasible to enact now because of fiscal constraints. Therefore, Mr. Bache proposed the additional language underneath the proposed “Amendment to AB 480 Section 2” (Exhibit F) that would set up a “trigger mechanism” to activate those benefits when sufficient funds were available under the existing actuarial rate established by NRS 286.410 and NRS 286.450. That language would effectively trigger the additional benefits without any rate increase.
Mr. Bache noted that last legislative session, the increased benefits in S.B. 349 of the 71st Session was funded because there were surplus funds, and PERS would have had to reduce the actuarial rate if they had not added benefits. The only reason for increasing the contribution rate this year for regular employees was the stock market and financial situation with the economy, which had a negative effect on the system, although far less than anywhere else. Mr. Bache said Mr. Pyne and Ms. Bilyeu had done an excellent job with the PERS. The increase this year was due to circumstances beyond anyone’s control.
Although Mr. Bache understood that the indexing could not be enacted now because of budget constraints, he wanted the amendment to include a trigger in A.B. 480 which would activate them in the future. He said that 1 percent indexing would cost approximately .2 percent to the system. Going from a 2.67 percent multiplier to a 2.75 percent multiplier would add approximately .27 percent in costs to the system.
Mr. Bache added that the other part of the amendment resulted from a request from a PERS member who had already purchased 5 years of service. In the last 5-10 years, the school district had started to purchase time for employees but that person could not qualify because he had already purchased 5 years. He asked if there were any way a person could purchase additional years. The proposed language would allow purchase of an additional 5 years, if a person had matching service credit. This would address that person’s situation, which would probably not happen very often. Several others indicated they would like to buy additional time because their school district would purchase it for them, but they, too, had already purchased their maximum of 5 years.
Assemblyman Hardy asked how an employee of the federal government or an employee of another state governments would obtain credit for that service.
Mr. Bache said that currently up to five years of service credit could be purchased without any matching service in another agency. What this referred to was, for example, a state employee who worked three years for the federal government, a different public agency, and then worked 27 years for the state of Nevada, would be allowed to purchase three years of service credit, to match the three years of federal employment. The employee would not be purchasing the three years from the federal government, but would be purchasing three years of service credit from the Nevada PERS, based on other “qualifying service.” Mr. Bache thought that the PERS might have some concerns about this, not from a fiscal standpoint, but because there might be problems with taxes owed to the IRS in purchasing the service.
Assemblyman Hardy asked what made the public employee so special that they had the opportunity to purchase service credit, as opposed to a member of the public. Mr. Bache said that originally, the language was statutory language for purchasing any credit, but employees could not purchase any credit unless they had matching service in another government. However, that was changed in the 1989 Legislative Session, as part of the ”infamous 300 percent pension bill” which allowed a person, instead of purchasing service credit based on matching service, to purchase up to five years of service credit without matching years of service.
Because of concerns over tax implications, Mr. Bache said he was trying to justify why Nevada would allow a person to buy more than five years of service credit. The language of “matching government service” fit the situation, because with only three years in service with another government, a person would probably not be vested in another retirement system and would not have earned any retirement benefits on just three years’ service.
Assemblyman Goicoechea stated that, with the proposed language, an employee could actually purchase up to 11 years, if the employee had 13 years in Nevada and 7 years military time. Mr. Bache said 5 years could be purchased without any grounds, and that would provide the opportunity to purchase an additional 6 years.
Mr. Goicoechea noted that even though the employee would be purchasing the time, the employee would not have been contributing to the retirement system. “Technically, you are allowing someone to buy the pension. So, you could be 40 years old with a couple of pensions, and with the preceding bill, still employed,” he said.
Mr. Bache said the employee had to be a vested member in the PERS before the person was eligible to purchase any time. Someone who was not vested in the system could not just come and buy five years so they could retire.
Mr. Goicoechea agreed but countered that after 5 years service, with 20 years military service, if employees wanted to buy the time, they could have another pension.
Mr. Bache clarified that any purchase of time would need to be actuarially determined so that there would not be a negative impact to the system. Buying time was not cheap. Mr. Bache doubted anyone would really want to “buy a retirement,” but said he could be wrong.
Mr. Goicoechea said that was probably driven by age and financial ability, and might pay off if a person were young and so desired.
Dana Bilyeu, PERS, again came to the witness table to testify (Exhibit G). She stated that the PERS Board had not yet taken a position on the bill, but staff would recommend that the Board should oppose A.B. 480 for several reasons. She proceeded to discuss their reservations by section.
Section 1 provided for increased ability to purchase service rights for PERS members. By way of background, she said that the PERS Retirement Act was amended in 1989 to allow the purchase of up to five years of “air time,” which meant the time was not tied to any other service. That was enacted partly in response to a perceived inequity in the plan, which is what Mr. Hardy noticed.
Basically, they wanted to treat all members of the plan in identical fashion, so everyone would have the same purchase rights: purchase up to five years without regard to any other previous years of public service. The only requirement would be the vesting period of five years. By allowing all members to purchase that time, she said they were alleviating any inequities among members.
Ms. Bilyeu stated that given that platform and direction, the current bill represented a step away from that principle, as indicated in previous testimony. In fact, some would be able to purchase up to 11 years of service, whereas others would only be able to purchase the five years of “air time” because they came to work in the public sector first in Nevada.
Secondly, the IRS code requirements, so far, had no impact on the purchases of up to five years’ service. Therefore, PERS did not monitor the revenue coming into the system. Beyond the sixth year of service purchased, there were different benefit restriction amounts that applied each year, and those purchases would need to be reviewed by the PERS administrators.
Finally, from a retirement policy perspective, allowing the purchase of more time than was actually earned through public employment detracted from the retirement planning purposes of the Retirement Act. For example, an employee with five years of service could actually buy up to six additional years in this bill. The main reason the state offered retirement benefits to employees was to encourage longevity in public sector employment. Allowing some employees to purchase more time than others would be rewarding those with less years in public service. Conversely, rewarding longevity would be more likely to ensure that employers would reap the benefit of the experience and training they had invested in the employee.
For those reasons PERS staff would recommend to the Retirement Board that they should oppose the purchase options in this legislation.
Section 2 proposed an increase in the benefit multiplier from the current amount of 2.67 percent of pay to 2.75 percent of pay. The Retirement Board was currently in opposition to any plan amendments that carried an associated cost. Obviously, this benefit enhancement carried a cost, as noted in the fiscal note. Chairman Manendo asked what the amount of the fiscal note was. Ms. Bilyeu said the fiscal note was calculated at .29 percent of total payroll, which would equal about $10 million in 2003-2004 and $10 million in 2004-2005. The Retirement Board did not think it was prudent to increase plan costs at this time, especially now, when contribution rates had increased and the financial markets were so volatile.
PERS staff would also recommend to the PERS Board that they oppose any amendment to insert a “trigger” into the Retirement Act to implement benefit enhancements at a future date, once the markets improved. The intent of such a trigger would be to bind future Legislatures as well as the Retirement Board to a specific retirement policy. Such restrictions would prevent future Legislatures and Retirement Boards from seeking different and more responsive benefit changes that might better suit an urgent need. Examples of optional benefits would be post-retirement increases for retirees that might be necessary due to inflation, or a floor benefit to prevent poverty within the plan. PERS would not want to insert anything that would prevent addressing issues as they arose. Each Legislature should be free to consider benefit enhancements in response to all circumstances in front of them at the time.
For those reasons the PERS staff would recommend that the Board should oppose A.B. 480.
Mr. McCleary said he needed to make a disclosure. For the record,
I need to disclose that my son, Alex, works for the City of North Las Vegas, and my daughter, Andrea, works for the Clark County government. They are both government employees. They will not be affected any differently by this legislation than any other governmental employees. I am fully entitled to participate in any actions on this bill. Thank you.
Scott MacKenzie, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees’ Association (SNEA) and AFSCME, Local No. 4041, said they supported the bill and had been directed by their general counsel to seek legislation that increased the calculation from 2.67 percent to 2.75 percent. Although he had been directed not to pursue the purchase of service credit language, so far, the feedback was very positive, and they would support that amendment.
Frank Brusa, representing the Nevada Association of School Administrators (NASA) and the Clark County Association of School Administrators (CCASA), said they were opposed to the bill as written because of concerns about the fiscal impact. They would support Ms. Bilyeu’s recommendations.
Dan Musgrove, Clark County, said he would echo the comments of Ms. Bilyeu and the PERS group because it represented a substantial fiscal cost to Clark County. They believed that Nevada already had one of the most generous retirement systems in the nation, and Clark County’s PERS contribution was already increasing from 18.75 percent to 20.25 percent on July 1, 2003, and would no doubt rise again if benefits increased. They opposed the bill as written.
Mary Henderson, Nevada League of Cities, said the NLC Board had not yet taken an official position, nor had the NLC Legislative Committee. However, they were concerned about the fiscal impact. The PERS contributions increased in 2001, and the police and firefighters went from retirement after 25 years to retirement after 30 years. Facing the current environment, the fiscal impact was the main concern.
Chairman Manendo closed the hearing on A.B. 480 and opened the hearing on A.B. 291.
Assembly Bill 291: Provides for abolishment of city and county planning commissions in certain larger counties. (BDR 22-728)
Mr. Bache said that A.B. 291 was a BDR he requested, but he said it was even more a product of problems in Assemblywoman Giunchigliani’s district relating to planning. Her constituents would go through the planning commissions, then after the commissions made recommendations, quite frequently, the public would then need to go through another set of hearings by another elected body. Mr. Bache’s original concept was that this caused the public to jump through the same hoops twice, when they did not have the time to begin with. The original bill looked at how to streamline the process. Mr. Bache said Ms. Giunchigliani had several additional amendments to present to the Committee.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani, District No. 9, said that A.B. 291 was generated out of a roller coaster issue in her district. They started out with 250 individuals at a meeting, “then they abated, then there were 180 individuals, then they abated, then they heard it, then they didn’t hear it…” and 1½ years later, she said she regretted the inconvenience and hardship those meetings caused, especially to seniors.
At first, Ms. Giunchigliani wanted Mr. Bache to do away with planning commissions and have the commissioners decide the issues. She, mistakenly, thought there was a huge turnover of planning commission decisions by the county commissioners. However, when she researched the issue, she found that was not the case. Two weeks ago, all the cities and counties sent representatives to her meeting. They decided not to eliminate the planning commissions but wanted to tweak the process so it would work better for all. She said the recommendations before the Committee were exact language (Exhibit H).
Ms. Giunchigliani asked for questions, and then said, “We are gutting the bill and just replacing it with this.”
Assemblyman Collins said he was on the planning commission in Las Vegas for seven years, and there were games. He said that when there was opposition from a neighborhood, it was a poor practice to postpone and put off the hearing. There should be a high degree of integrity, so that there must be a just cause for postponing it, or if a hearing was not held, it should be shelved for a mandatory six months. “Is that where you are going?” he asked.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said they tried to define an application and how long should it take to process, and what would start the clock ticking. Ms. Giunchigliani’s concern was that usually no one had even started to talk to each other, so you ended up at an exploratory meeting, when, if the parties had resolved some things beforehand, there could have been action or resolution. The trick was to force individuals requesting a zoning change or variance to get with the public prior to the meeting, which would also tend to limit the abeyances. If people were working through the process, then an abeyance might be in order, but the cities needed to talk it through. At this time, they decided not to do that because she did not want to overregulate what happened.
Assemblyman Collins said it took 5½ months to resolve the Jones Estate problem. However, at the end of that time, everyone was happy, and they ended up with no multifamily units. Units were reduced in size and were compatible with the neighborhood. It took that long, even though they were working with the neighborhood, and it took longer for the ones who were just putting off discussions.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said there was currently no cap on the number of abeyance requests that could be made, but anyone could still request an abeyance, regardless of the progress in discussions with the community.
Assemblyman Grady asked if the new bill would still be limited to 400,000.
Ms. Giunchigliani said she did not have a problem with that. She met with the urban councils but not with the rural councils because no one had complained about them.
Assemblyman Grady asked, in her discussion with them, if they talked about how many applications brought forward by the advisory body were overturned by the governing body. She said they had not discussed that at the meeting, but she had done so previously via e-mail. She found that she erred in thinking that there were a large number of overturned rulings.
Since the over 400,000 population condition would affect Clark County, Assemblyman Hardy asked what cities within Clark County would be included. Ms. Giunchigliani clarified that the bill would include the following cities: Henderson, Boulder City, Las Vegas, and North Las Vegas. If Washoe County opted in, it would also include Reno and Sparks. Mr. Hardy asked if the bill would affect any general law cities within Clark County. Ms. Giunchigliani replied there were none.
Chairman Manendo clarified that the 400,000 population referred to counties, not to cities, and Ms. Giunchigliani explained that specified counties of at least 400,000 populations would include all the cities within Clark County, and Washoe County, if they wanted to be included.
Mr. Bache said that Boulder City was a charter city, with a unique special charter that did not come from the state, as did other cities’ charters. That charter could only be amended through a vote of the people. He added that Mesquite was the only general law city in Nevada. Mr. Hardy agreed. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated that her intent was not to include those cities. Mr. Hardy concluded that the proposed legislation would affect Las Vegas, Clark County, the City of Henderson, the City of North Las Vegas, and not Boulder City.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said that it would be up to the cities if they would be included or not. She met with Henderson, North Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Clark County, Washoe County, Sparks, and Reno. She said those representatives were included in the meetings because she had not anticipated the others, and that the consensus for A.B. 291 was built by conferring with representatives of those jurisdictions.
Stephanie Garcia-Vause, Legislative Advocate, City of Henderson, proposed a language clarification to the amendment to A.B. 291 (Exhibit I). She said she did not bring a written amendment because she wanted to confer with Ms. Giunchigliani right before the meeting. She addressed changing paragraph 5, line 2, where it stated, “A person noticed for the hearing including adjacent and nearby property owners…” She said that the intent was to give people of standing, who were considered to be aggrieved, the ability to appeal. In the meeting, they realized that one local jurisdiction allowed only the applicant to appeal. That was not what happened in the City of Henderson. In Henderson, they counted a person of standing as the applicant, the owner, any person who testified at a public hearing on the application, or any person who submitted written comments on the application either by fax, e-mail, mailed a letter, or testified to add public comments into the record of the public hearing.
Ms. Garcia-Vause said that language similar to the City of Henderson’s current procedure would tighten up the language in A.B. 291. She commended Assemblywoman Giunchigliani for working with the local governments. She came to support this bill and felt it would greatly assist the planning commissions, especially the clarification of when it would be appropriate, and when not appropriate, to abstain from voting.
Ms. Garcia-Vause said that in NRS Chapter 278 everything was done by counties, and counties with population of 400,000 and above would include the cities located within those counties. It was her understanding that the bill could apply to counties with either under or over 400,000. If the bill applied to Clark County, then it would automatically apply to all cities within Clark County, unless a city was specifically excluded by name.
Chairman Manendo asked if she would submit something in writing, and Ms. Garcia-Vause said she would (Exhibit I).
Assemblyman Grady said he agreed with Ms. Garcia-Vause that both Boulder City and Mesquite would be included because they were both within Clark County.
Assemblyman Collins said that since Assemblywoman Giunchigliani’s amendment was in concept form, he felt that all the cities should agree that if they go to a limited number of abeyances, the applicant should not be able to withdraw without prejudice at the last opportunity. He thought that they should not be able to come back immediately with a new application, after taking it as far as they could the first time. He said a 6-month or year waiting period should apply, just as if the application had been denied. He felt that this should be addressed in the amendment.
Ms. Garcia-Vause said that if an applicant had requested two abeyances and then requested that the item be withdrawn, they had the discretion at the local level to allow the applicant to withdraw without prejudice or with prejudice. What was discussed at the meeting with Assemblywoman Giunchigliani was that although the applicant would only have two abeyance requests before either the planning commission or the board, that the governing body, either the planning commission, the city council, or board of county commissioners, would be allowed to request additional abeyances, if they so desired. That issue was discussed, but was not listed on the amendment.
Assemblyman Collins said that if the local entity chose to make a further delay, they should be required to present just cause, which could not be something like “the staff had not prepared the documents in time.” It should be an important reason, or he would halt proceedings.
Mary Henderson, Nevada League of Cities (NLC), said she supported A.B. 291 as amended. Although she realized that this was a conceptual bill, she appreciated that they had all come together to produce workable legislation that would make planning commissions more effective on the local level. She said that the bill was formed in the spirit of true collaboration, and if more issues would be approached in that spirit, “Instead of bringing problems to you, we would bring you more solutions.”
Kimberly McDonald, Special Projects Analyst and Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas, stated that the City of North Las Vegas supported the bill and the conceptual amendments, and appreciated being part of the process. She thanked Assemblywoman Giunchigliani for taking the lead.
Dan Musgrove, Clark County, Nevada, said they also supported the bill and the amendment, and appreciated being part of the process.
Madelyn Shipman, Washoe County, stated that she signed up in opposition to the bill, but that they supported the amendment. She noted there was no clarification in the bill as to whether it would apply to counties with populations of over 400,000. She thanked Ms. Giunchigliani for bringing everyone together.
Ms. Shipman said that if the bill applied only to counties with populations of over 400,000, then Washoe County had no concern. However, from a legal standpoint, there was a concern that the “at the pleasure of” that they did not agree with. She said that their planning commission was independent of the elected officials, and they wanted to stay that way. The law currently provided a different process for appointment of planning commission members for counties of 400,000 or more. She said the cities not within Clark County had a different process because they had no council or commissions that equated to the number of those in Clark County.
Ms. Shipman stated that NRS 278.040, which related to the appointment of planning commissioners, had a provision in Section 4 for counties of 400,000, in which appointments were made coterminous with elected officials. Washoe County did not have that process, which would cause some legal problems with Section 2 language.
She also said she did not see how the bill could be applied the bill to counties of only 400,000 or more, nor the appeal process, nor the abeyance limits. She said they could live with those things, but that she thought the bill should have broader application than just be limited to counties over 400,000. She asked that the bill be amended and rereferred back to the Committee so they could see it written out.
Garry Hayes, Attorney, Las Vegas, stated that he supported A.B. 291. He wanted to recommend that one other issue be included in the bill. He said that in Las Vegas, an applicant or developer was routinely granted the right to an abeyance, but that residents and homeowners were not granted the same privilege. Mr. Hayes said that homeowners needed to have the same right so they could have attorneys to represent them, if necessary.
For example, he had been recently retained by a group of homeowners who wanted him to represent them at the planning commission at the last minute, because they received notices at the last minute. He could not attend that meeting, so the neighborhood homeowners requested that the item be held so they could have their attorney represent them. The developer objected, saying that he wanted the item heard immediately, and the item was heard. If a developer had wanted the item held so he could have his attorney present, typically in Clark County, that request would have been granted. Right now, there were two sets of rules. He asked the Committee to please address this in the abeyances section, as they rewrote the rules and the amendment.
Bob Erickson, City of Fallon, Nevada, said that Fallon wanted to ensure that the language in Section 2, subsection 2, which provided for “optional planning commissions for cities under 25,000, and for counties under 40,000” remained in the final bill.
Nicole Lamboley, City of Reno, Nevada, said that Reno participated in the meetings that Assemblywoman Giunchigliani hosted but did not take it to the city council because it was only in conceptual language. Ms. Lamboley said that Reno would support language suggested by Madelyn Shipman and would also like to see the rewritten bill, including the amendment, rereferred back to the Committee. The City of Reno did not have a formal position on A.B. 291.
Assemblyman Collins, having heard the many ways different local governments allowed appeals, felt that anyone who testified verbally, or submitted comments in writing, should be allowed to appeal to a planning commission.
Chairman Manendo closed the hearing on A.B. 291 and called for a 2-minute recess.
Assembly Bill 84: Revises provisions concerning certain town advisory boards. (BDR 21-119)
Chairman Manendo opened the hearing on A.B. 84. He apologized to Las Vegas that because of the 120-day time restrictions, they were having trouble keeping a quorum because legislators were coming and going, in order to testify before different committees. Mr. Bache would start presenting the bill while the Committee waited for Assemblywoman Giunchigliani to appear.
Mr. Bache said that during the interim, after the 2001 Legislative Session, Ms. Giunchigliani contacted him about some problems, and he requested the legislation that was now A.B. 84, which was crafted to deal with those problems. He said she would bring forth some suggested amendments, but that it would be best to wait for Ms. Giunchigliani to ask questions.
Chairman Manendo asked the staff to fax the amendment to Las Vegas.
Chairman Manendo informed the Committee that there was an Attorney General’s Opinion on Section 3, Article 15, of the Nevada Constitution that imposed an additional lifetime term limitation of 12 years on members of elected town advisory boards. He said he was not aware that some towns had elected advisory boards.
Assemblyman Grady said there were some town advisory boards with elected members.
Assemblyman Hardy said that a “straw poll” was conducted, which informed and recommended to the county commission who they may want to appoint. The commissioners then appointed the town board members. Mr. Atkinson agreed with Mr. Hardy, but he said he had no knowledge of town board members being elected.
Mr. Grady said that there were some towns where the commissioners appointed based on results of an election, and there were others, in Minden, Gardnerville, and others where the members were elected via an official election.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani, District No. 9, appeared to present A.B. 84. She said, after town board term limits were discussed during the last session, there had been concern from town board members that it was too restrictive. Contrary to what had been suggested, she did not write the bill at the request of developers. She said that, with the growth of population, to have a workable board, there should be some term fluctuation, in order to have both experienced individuals and new faces to refresh the discussion. That was the main intent of this bill.
The amendment (Exhibit J) included clarifications suggested by county managers, staff, and commission members to address their concerns. She said that it was a flexible issue, and that perhaps terms could be tied to who appointed the person, and that members could serve “at the pleasure.” Changes would promote consistency on boards and commissions, but the intent was to retain currently serving members. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said that informal elections, that would recommend names to planning commissioners who appointed the town advisory board members, were optional. She said that training of town boards was also important, because the public needed them to be able to talk on the same level with commissioners and developers, to be able to argue about zoning changes and special use permits, and to understand all the terms that an average citizen would not.
Assemblyman Collins asked how those positions would be filled in rural areas, since, in some areas there were not as many people available to fill those positions.
Ms. Giunchigliani said that it was really a thankless job in terms of hours. She was not sure if it was resolvable through legislation. She thought that many people did not know about local meetings, and perhaps the governments needed to broaden the net, so recruitment was not just word of mouth. She suggested paying people because they put in a tremendous amount of time and travel time, with virtually no compensation. Chairman Manendo agreed with her on that point.
Assemblyman Knecht said he was not against term limits, but he thought they were best when imposed by the affected voters. He asked if there was a way to amend the language of this bill that would allow voters in each local jurisdiction to impose term limits.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said that she tended not to support term limits but realized they might discourage participation in the end. She thought it was necessary to hear from the individuals who were currently serving on those boards.
M.J. Harvey, Chairman, Paradise Town Board, Las Vegas, said that in Clark County, town boards and citizens advisory committees were mostly appointed positions and were voluntary, with no remuneration of any kind. She said they served strictly to help the county commissions in zoning matters of various kinds. They were grass roots level, recommending bodies, and close to the people in their jurisdictions and throughout the townships. She stated they looked at their role as being global, rather than addressing the immediate need specified on an application. She added they were appointed by the county commission and could be removed by them at any time at their request. They were individually reappointed only if the county commission and their individual commissioner wanted them to continue on that board or advisory committee.
As a long-time member of the Paradise Town Board, Ms. Harvey stated she knew it was a big responsibility to serve. It was an obligation to be present at biweekly meetings, doing homework on agenda items, and allowing judgments to be formed from information gathered and from experience of being on the board. There was a commitment to be current on trends in land use, and know county code rules and zoning regulations. They received annual training on parliamentary procedure, county systems changes, and other matters. Because of the commitment and responsibilities, it was not easy to fill vacant spots on town boards and committees. She said there were instances where the volunteer did not really understand the work of the committee.
Appointees might resign before their terms were over, and many found they did not have time to do the job. On the previous day, a town board chairman told her that in the past year, they had had two vacancies, and only recently were both filled. Ms. Harvey said as people were reappointed, they became more knowledgeable because of their increasing number of experiences, which was invaluable. She said it would take two years for a new appointee to be comfortable and participate fully. For those reasons, she requested that the section on term limits for town boards and advisory committees be eliminated, referring to lines 7 through 17. Ms. Harvey stated that the rest of the bill was fine and said she would like to see the amendments in writing.
Chairman Manendo asked Ms. Harvey if she approved of the change from 90 to 30 days. Ms. Harvey said they applauded that change, because it took a long time to find good people, and the appointment process had been too slow.
Chairman Manendo said he would like to include in the record a letter from the Whitney Town Advisory Board (Exhibit K) that supported an amendment to A.B. 84, which would eliminate the term limits provision. The letter was signed by Thomas O’Connor, Chairman, Whitney Town Advisory Board.
John Hiatt, Chairman, Enterprise Town Advisory Board, said they had significant turnover with new ideas, but given the rapid pace of development in Las Vegas, the changes made it very difficult for new appointees to “come up to speed” on issues very quickly. He said that there was great value to institutional memory on town boards. He urged the removal of the term limits provision from this bill. Since they served at the pleasure of the commissioners, they could be removed at any time. He saw no need for term limits on nonelected town board members.
Michael Dias, Chairman, Sunrise Manor Town Advisory Board, said the board members provided their community service as volunteers, and they served at the pleasure of the commissioners. He stated that they had problems filling vacancies, and that reducing the notice time from 90 days to 30 days had helped a great deal. During the past two terms, three members left with at least a year of their term remaining. During both of the last two terms, they had completed the term with only four members on the board. He was the only board member who had served four years. There was definitely a learning curve and new volunteers were not knowledgeable regarding all the zoning regulations and requirements. He thought they needed at least a year or two to understand the issues. He said the Board wanted all references to term limits to be removed from A.B. 84.
Garry Hayes, Attorney, Las Vegas, opposed term limits for board members. He felt they were a vital resource and that “we needed to do all we could to encourage those willing to serve.”
John Williams, a member of the Paradise Town Board, said he had only served for two years. He agreed with Ms. Harvey’s comments. The first two years were a learning experience, and it took at least two years to learn the job and the issues. He felt that land use discussions were valuable. He said term limits were not necessary or appropriate for a group of volunteers.
Dee Gatliff, a member of the Spring Valley Town Board, said she echoed the comments of the previous town board members who testified before her. She said it took two years to learn the job, and not many people applied. She was against term limits for town boards and advisory committee members.
Dan Musgrove, Clark County, presented a letter from Clark County Commissioner Bruce Woodbury (Exhibit L), who was against term limits, but could not be present. He read the letter into the record:
I am Bruce Woodbury, Clark County Commissioner. I urge the Committee to modify A.B. 84 to eliminate term limits for town advisory board and citizen advisory council members. If that is not possible, I hope this legislation can be amended to at least allow citizens to serve for longer than is currently allowed before becoming term limited. In my experience, nearly all of our town advisory boards and citizen advisory committees in both urban and rural towns found it necessary to have one or two long-time members to provide essential leadership and continuity. Nearly always, it has been the senior members of these valuable advisory boards who take the time to meet with constituents, attend planning commission and county commission meetings, and communicate the needs of the neighborhoods to the commissioners representing them.
In Clark County, within 13 townships, we need to recruit and maintain 65 town board positions. That is more than the total membership of the Nevada Legislature, and it takes quite an effort, as I know some of you who worked to recruit candidates for the legislature, can readily understand, to attract volunteers for these spots. The County has been quite active through its neighborhood college program to develop citizen leaders, but even with such efforts, it is very difficult to attract volunteer town advisory board members in some areas. Surely, the elected County Commissioners who make these appointments should be the ones to determine who serves on these important boards. In some of our outlying towns, such as Laughlin, Searchlight, Lapp Valley and Bunkerville, the residents vote in advisory straw polls for those seeking to be appointed. There is simply no public interest in limiting the volunteer service of able and dedicated citizens, who through their experience and knowledge have become valuable leaders of their towns. I respectfully request that you eliminate or revise these unnecessary restrictions, so that county commissioners can obtain the best possible advice and assistance in serving our constituents.
Thank you for your consideration.
Assemblyman Atkinson said that he had worked with many town boards over the years, and he said he was not necessarily opposed to term limits, but they did create a huge problem for the town boards. Mr. Atkinson would like to see the 30-day notice requirement for vacancies disappear because it was a problem in reappointing new members, and had often resulted in delayed meetings.
Chairman Manendo said that no notice time at all would be a problem with some folks, but perhaps a week could be considered. Mr. Knecht added that the term-limits provision should be referred to the local voters.
Chairman Manendo asked if there was anyone else who wanted to testify. When no one came forward, he closed the hearing on A.B. 84, and adjourned the meeting at 11:06 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
JoAnn Aldrich
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Mark Manendo, Chairman
DATE: