Sunday, March 13, 2011 | 3 a.m.
- End of water coalition sought after $860 million pipeline plan halted (3-9-2011)
- Pipeline plan died, so where do the fees go? (3-9-2011)
- Clean Water Coalition will sue state to keep $62 million targeted by lawmakers (3-11-2010)
- Clean Water Coalition balks at localities’ request to return cash (1-10-2010)
- Las Vegas to pull out of Clean Water Coalition (9-15-2010)
- State: Reno wrong to support Southern Nevada in $62M battle (5-27-10)
- Reno sides with Southern Nevada in Legislature battle (5-24-10)
- Governor, Legislature seek to keep $62 million for state budget (3-18-10)
- Gibbons signs budget bill; state draws M Resort lawsuit (3-12-10)
- Clean Water Coalition will sue state to keep $62 million targeted by lawmakers (3-11-10)
- Will a gamer sue the state over part of special session budget plan? (3-2-10)
Clark County Commissioner Chris Giunchigliani wants to close the tiny intergovernmental Clean Water Coalition this week. If she succeeds, the coalition’s four employees might continue as public employees.
Because Chip Maxfield, the former county commissioner who was named general manager of the Clean Water Coalition in 2009, wants to move his staff to the Southern Nevada Water Authority. Last week, Maxfield was in the County Government Center lobbying commissioners to support the move.
In 2009, Maxfield and three employees earned salary and benefits of about $621,000.
Who would need to sign off on such a move?
The Water Authority board, which is composed of three county commissioners, Tom Collins, Steve Sisolak and Mary Beth Scow; North Las Vegas Mayor Shari Buck; Henderson Councilman Steven Kirk; Boulder City Councilman Duncan McCoy; and Las Vegas Councilwoman Lois Tarkanian.
What do commissioners think about the idea?
Sisolak said he doesn’t like it. He needs to evaluate whether the coalition is needed. The coalition was formed in 2002 to oversee construction of a pipeline to return treated wastewater deep into Lake Mead. It was deemed necessary to improve the quality of valley drinking water. The pipeline was scrapped, however, because water treatment technology has improved.
“So what are they even doing?” Sisolak said of the coalition’s employees. “I’m not looking for the county to provide soft landings for people.”
What are they doing?
The Sun sent questions to Maxfield, but he did not reply.
Well, what does Tom Collins think?
Collins said he thinks the coalition serves a purpose even without the pipeline. Regional coordination of the four treatment plants in Southern Nevada is needed, he said.
But he isn’t sure the Water Authority will have a job for Maxfield and his employees. “If they do, I’m saying Chip would be eminently qualified for the job.”
Another issue the commission will look at Tuesday is a 2 percent pay cut for management and nonunion employees. The proposal would save $3.3 million.
County management has asked departments to outline 9 percent budget cuts intended to save $41 million.
Meanwhile, the state wants to transfer programs to the county or divert county tax dollars to the state. Gov. Brian Sandoval wants to continue tax diversions, which began in 2009, that will cost the county $75 million. At the same time, he wants the county to take over responsibility for services costing about $50 million.
The county estimates the combined hit is $125 million over the next two years.
The county took $180 million from the state over the past two years.
What do commissioners think of the 2 percent cut?
Several like the idea. In fact, Chairwoman Susan Brager is asking for 2 percent cuts in commissioners’ salaries.
But Collins said the salary cuts will be temporary and he wants to see moves that create permanent savings. For example, the county could change the formula for longevity pay. Instead of calculating it as a percentage of wages, he said, it could be based on flat rates that would not increase with salaries.
“As long as you have a simple pay cut, that’s something they can just come back in a few years and add back in,” he said.
Sisolak said savings are needed now. It would take years to see the benefit of changing the longevity formula.
Why not do both: the 2 percent cuts now and start digging into longevity?
Longevity is an issue in closed-doors contract talks. The argument against changing the formula for longtime employees is that it would be unfair. However, longevity pay has been eliminated for some new county employees.