COUNTY BALLOT QUESTIONS

COUNTY ADVISORY BALLOT QUESTION NO. 1

This Question is Advisory Only

EXPLANATION / DIGEST

Under Nevada law, the elected Douglas County Clerk also serves as the ex officio County Treasurer, even though no separate election is held for the position of County Treasurer. The Board of County Commissioners may separate the single, elected Clerk-- ex officio Treasurer office into two elected offices if approved by a majority of voters. Douglas County is one of only eight counties in which the County Clerk by default also serves as the ex officio County Treasurer. Currently the Clerk-ex officio Treasurer is responsible for fulfilling all duties, responsibilities, and obligations for both offices. The duties of the County Clerk include serving as the Chief Election Official; administering candidate filing and elections; maintaining of voter registration records; serving as Clerk to the Board of Commissioners; acting as custodian of official county records not assigned to another office; issuing marriage licenses; administrating of fictitious firm name filings; providing passport acceptance services; providing select Department of Motor Vehicle services; and other duties prescribed by Nevada Revised Statutes.

County Treasurer duties include billing of real property taxes and collection of real and personal property taxes; administering delinquent tax collections and tax-defaulted property procedures; receiving, depositing, safeguarding and disbursing county funds; managing daily cash operations and bank reconciliations; overseeing county investments; administering special assessments; maintaining tax rolls; preparing financial reports; managing County banking relationships; ensuring compliance with state laws governing public finance and investments; and performing other duties required by Nevada Revised Statues [sic]. The separation of the Clerk-ex officio Treasurer’s Office into two distinctly elected offices could improve operational efficiency, fiscal management, oversight, transparency, and accountability by dedicating elected leadership to each function.

FINANCIAL EFFECT

The proposed separation of the elected office of County Clerk and County Treasurer into two elected offices is anticipated to be budget neutral. Through organizational restructuring, existing personnel, resources, and operational functions would be realigned to support the two separate offices without increasing overall staffing levels. Accordingly, the separation is not expected to result in a material increase in the County's overall operating budget.

ARGUMENTS FOR PASSAGE

This question is not about more government nor is it about more government spending. It's simply about a reshuffling of already existing positions in the Clerk-Treasurer’s office. So how much will it cost the taxpayers? Not one cent.

Why do the reshuffling at all? When the position of Clerk-Treasurer was created by the Nevada Legislature, Douglas County had a population of less than 10,000, and the job was reasonably accomplished by one person. Elections were simple and financials were uncomplicated. However times have changed.

The Clerk handles all important documents, records and elections; the Treasurer all the important financials and payments. These two areas are among the most strategic obligations of county government, and both have recently become much more time consuming and specialized.

Why is this question before the voters now? Currently, Nevada law prohibits separating the two positions without county voters advising “yes” on the question before reaching a 52,000 population. The 2020 United States’ census reported that Douglas County had a population of almost 50,000, so it is likely Douglas is going to reach the cutoff number in the not-too-distant future. We need to act before it is too late.

After voter approval of this advisory question, the Board of County Commissioners would still need to pass an ordinance to separate the Clerk-Treasurer position into a Clerk position and a Treasurer position. During that process, County residents will again have the opportunity to share their opinions on making such a change.

Six of fifteen rural Nevada counties have both an elected Clerk and an elected Treasurer; four of the six have much smaller populations than Douglas County: those are Lincoln County (approximately 4,500 residents), White Pine County (approximately 8,900 residents), Lander County (approximately 5,700 residents), and Humboldt County (approximately 17,000 residents). The two with similar populations are Elko County and Nye County. Population alone has not determined whether a county has combined or separate offices.

Overseeing the funding provided by hard-working taxpayers and overseeing elections so that they are honest and fair are two of the most vital responsibilities of Douglas County’s government. Ensuring they continue to be done most efficiently as Douglas continues to grow by approving the separation of the two positions is the best thing we, as residents, can do for our future.

REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENTS FOR PASSAGE

This question says it is not about more government or more expense, but this question is absolutely about more government and more government expense. It is not about simply reshuffling but about creating an entire new department. Some of the responsibilities of the Clerk-Treasurer have been transferred to other departments and other duties are outsourced. As the county has grown, improved and advanced technology has provided better efficiency, and the duties of the Clerk-Treasurer have shrunk. Population growth alone should not determine if this office should be split. Many factors need to be considered. This proposal cannot promise any additional benefits for the taxpayers of Douglas County. Having two departments does not guarantee more efficiency but over time it may require more management, renovated office space, possibly more staff, and more expenses. A yes vote is for bigger government and increased costs. Vote no.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST PASSAGE

The office of Douglas County Clerk-Treasurer has significantly reduced its responsibilities and services over the past 18 years.

In 2014, the County Commission created the Judicial Services Department, placing the employees in the court clerks’ offices for the district and justice courts under the control of the judges and justices of the peace, removing this significant responsibility from the Clerk-Treasurer. Oversight and supervision of approximately 14 positions was reduced. The preparation of the county commissioners meeting agenda, publication requirements and preparation of the board packets is now the responsibility of the county manager’s office instead of the Clerk-Treasurer. In 2008 the Clerk-Treasurer oversaw billing and collecting for eight utility enterprise funds. The responsibility for these tasks has been transferred to the Public Works Department. The Clerk-Treasurer, Tahoe General Service’s office, used to handle finger printing for work card issuance. This function now is the responsibility of the Sheriff’s office. The Clerk-Treasurer’s office used to be open 7 days a week for the issuance of marriage licenses. Eliminating evening and weekend hours was due to the decrease in the issuance of marriage licenses. Marriage licenses issued in 2006 totaled 2,924 it fell to 505 in 2025. Dog Licenses aren’t issued by the Clerk-Treasurer anymore, that is handled by Animal Care & Services and staff at the Douglas County Community & Senior Center.

The base salary for the Clerk-Treasurer is $117,633.70. The current Clerk-Treasurer will also receive longevity pay of $11,633.70 starting in 2027 plus benefits. If this question is approved and the County Commission separates the current Clerk-Treasurer’s Office into two separate elected Clerk and Treasurer’s offices, taxpayers will pay another elected official a comparable base salary, similar insurance benefits and contributions to that official’s defined benefit pension.

Why separate one elected office into two elected offices when the responsibilities of the existing single office have dwindled? Two elected officers are not as cheap as the one elected officer responsible for performing the duties of the single office currently. The county’s claim of budget neutrality can only be made for the first fiscal year of office separation; budget approval is an annual process. Vote no on this question.

REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENTS AGAINST PASSAGE

There will be no cost impacts to Douglas County residents by separating the two positions has been clearly stated in the pro-ballot argument. The two positions have become more complicated and demanding is also clearly stated and supported by fact.

What has not been stated is removing positions and responsibilities from the Clerk-Treasurer’s office over the past 20 years to where they properly belong does not diminish the need for this separation to happen. Since those changes occurred, state and federal agencies have continued to impose more burdensome regulations that have increased the complexity and time required by the Clerk and Treasurer positions to do the job effectively and efficiently.

Voters have the opportunity now to have their say in modernizing the Clerk-Treasurer office. Without a “yes” vote on this advisory question, once the County population exceeds 52,000, Nevada law currently removes this right from the voters.

We can continue to live in the past when everything was simpler and one person could easily handle the demands on both the Clerk and the Treasurer, or we can vote “yes” and allow Douglas County to continue to provide the highest quality of service to its residents.