Getting Boulder City out of a more than decade-long stretch where no city manager has lasted as long as it takes a student to graduate from BCHS was the overriding theme of discussion at this week’s city council meeting.
It was also the impetus for a proposal by council member Steve Walton that resulted in one of the most contentious discussions by the council in recent memory and a rare 3-2 vote.
The idea is complicated and depends on a creative reading of Nevada law that would allow the city to hire someone as city manager who is a retiree already pulling a state pension without that person losing their pension benefits. In order to do so, the council would have to issue a set of “findings” to support a contention that a “critical labor shortage” exists for the position.
NRS 286.523 was passed in 2021, in the depths of the Covid pandemic, as a way to fill thousands of open positions for teachers in the state. Under what would appear to be very limited circumstances, the law allows government entities to re-hire employees who have retired and are drawing a pension. In general, if a retiree were to start working for another agency that contributes to the Nevada Public Employees Retirement System (PERS), they would be unable to work more than 20 hours per week without having their pension cut off. This ensured that retirees could not engage in a practice that Mayor Joe Hardy called “double-dipping.”
But, under NRS 286.523, if a government entity declares a “critical labor shortage” then an exception is made and the retiree can collect their full pension and a full salary and the salary actually continues to contribute to PERS, which drives the pension for the rehired employee even higher.
Walton started the discussion with a long disclaimer, saying, “To answer any questions, quell any rumors or accusations, I do not have any individual or individuals in mind. I do not know anyone who might be interested in applying under this exemption. Nor have I spoken with any potential applicants who would qualify to apply for city manager under a critical labor shortage exemption.” (Note that the Review had sent Walton an email Monday night about this agenda item which read, “Interesting idea. Do you have someone in mind or is this just an effort to expand the local labor pool?”)
The conversation about finding a city manager who really understands what makes Boulder City unique culturally and who would stay in the position for more than a couple of years drove the earlier debate about a recruitment firm and bled into this discussion as well.
In the end, the council was divided into two camps that strongly disagreed with one another.
On the “what is the intent of the law” side were Hardy and council member Cokie Booth. Hardy warned of the negative political optics of a high-level employee double-dipping and making what could easily be in the $350,000-a-year range between salary and pension. Booth took exception to what she characterized as “telling a fable” in order to invoke the law. Both of them said that, while the council might eventually get to a place where a shortage declaration might be needed, they were not there yet as the actual recruitment process has not even begun.
On the “what can we do within what the law actually says” side were Walton, Sherri Jorgensen and Matt Fox. Walton spent several minutes dressing down Booth over the “fable” comment.
The final vote was 3-2, but the issue is not over. Staff will now bring back a set of facts about hiring for city manager over the past 12 years in order to help the council with the process of crafting the findings to submit to PERS for an exemption. But, crucially, those findings will not be made by staff. If the council is going to take advantage of some looseness within the law to declare a shortage which may or may not actually exist, they will have to craft the wording themselves and make the certification to PERS under their signatures.