MINUTES OF THE JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY, TRANSPORTATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS AND SENATE FINANCE Sixty-eighth Session March 31, 1995 The Joint Subcommittee on Ways and Means and Senate Finance was called to order at 8:05 a.m., on Friday, March 31, 1995, Chairman Larry Spitler presiding, in Room 321 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator Lawrence Jacobsen Excused Senator William O'Donnell Senator Bernice Mathews ASSEMBLY SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Larry Spitler, Chairman Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr. Excused Mr. Jack Close Mr. Thomas Fettic Ms. Chris Giunchigliani Mr. John Marvel STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert Guernsey, Deputy Fiscal Analyst Gary Ghiggeri, Deputy Fiscal Analyst Debbra J. King, Program Analyst Following roll call and opening remarks from the Chairman, the meeting was opened to hear testimony on the budget for the Department of Transportation. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BUDGET 201-4660, Page 2021 Opening the testimony, Tom Stephens, Director of the Department of Transportation, offered the committee two exhibits: 1) A graph showing Dollar Expenditures and Thousands of Employees (Exhibit C); and 2) a packet of information detailing the requested 68 new positions, position descriptions and organizational charts (Exhibit D). He told the committee he had been requested by fiscal staff to answer a number of questions by April 7, 1995, and preliminary responses had been turned in that day. While this was not in the package before subcommittee members, the fiscal staff had those, and Mr. Stephens said he would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Stephens then gave a brief overview of the progress made by the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) since he had taken over the Director's position. There were areas Mr. Stephens believed needed attention and one of the most critical was in Las Vegas, where there had been some management shortfalls. Thus, management had been increased in Las Vegas, and Mr. Stephens indicated 40 of the 68 positions being requested in the executive budget were to be assigned to southern Nevada. Mr. Stephens said he did not believe NDOT had built up the Las Vegas operation sufficiently to meet the tremendous growth, and this had resulted in a loss of control over the maintenance forces as well as other less serious consequences. Two of the new positions being requested were to be assigned to deal with customers, as Mr. Stephens did not believe this area was being adequately served. Additionally, he wished to focus on traffic management during construction. He believed his plans to have more construction take place during the night hours would, indeed, impact the budget with additional overtime costs, but this would also avoid long delays during heavy traffic periods. Reviewing the Department status, Mr. Stephens said currently there were approximately 1,500 authorized positions, and the 68 new positions would mean a 5 percent growth in NDOT. The 40 positions for Las Vegas reflected a change from what was originally recommended in the budget. Calling attention to what Mr. Stephens said was a broad break down in categories, he explained these were administration, engineering, construction and maintenance. The new positions would reflect a 4 percent growth in administration, 6 percent growth in engineering, 8 percent growth in construction and a 2 percent growth in maintenance (mainly in Las Vegas). Mr. Marvel questioned how many vacancies there presently were in the department, and in response, Mr. Stephens indicated there were 66 vacancies, which was somewhat less than 5 percent of the workforce. Explaining the reason for this number, Mr. Stephens explained when he took over the Director's position, he had insisted that each position be justified before that position was filled. As a result, some vacant positions had been transferred into other geographical areas and into other types of jobs. Mr. Marvel asked him to supply the subcommittee with a written break down of those 66 positions. Mr. Spitler ascertained the 68 requested positions were in addition to the 66 vacancies. Of the 40 positions destined for Las Vegas, Mr. Spitler asked where the remaining 28 were to be assigned. Mr. Stephens said there were to be 23 in Carson City and 5 elsewhere in the state. Mr. Spitler then questioned what type of positions were to be assigned to Las Vegas, and Mr. Stephens indicated as follows: 1. Add 3 positions to the 8-person night sweeping crew to keep up with the increasing work load involved with new streets. He pointed out there had been one person killed in January, and another serious injury in August. 2. Add a night roadway crew with a maintenance supervisor and five other people on the crew. 3. Add 3 additional persons to staff the material and testing lab which had been built during the biennium in Las Vegas. 4. Add one traffic engineer. Mr. Stephens said he had moved a traffic engineer's position in Las Vegas, and planned to add another position. Also there were plans to add an intelligent signal system which would control 500 signals and speed up the issuance of permits in the Las Vegas area over the next two years. 5. Add 2 positions (listed as 27 and 28 on Exhibit D), to provide better quality control for construction in Las Vegas. To be supervised out of the Carson City office. 6. Add 5 Assistant Resident Engineer positions to go onto existing Resident Engineer crews. This would enable those crews to handle additional projects, and reduce the number of consultants needed. 7. Add 1 position (Position 39) to the planning location survey crew, currently, a 5-person crew with 1 supervisor. By adding a second supervisor and splitting the crew, productivity could be increased approximately one-third. 8. Add 1 Management Assistant III (Position 49), a support position for the Las Vegas office, to deal with the increased activity and staff. Mr. Spitler questioned whether it was the Department's intention to add an additional layer of management. Mr. Stephens called attention to the organizational chart shown in Exhibit D, "District 1," and reviewed the positions shown. He said the clerical support, file keeping and permitting were currently all placed under the maintenance person, which meant the Maintenance Engineer was unable to properly manage all the maintenance employees and maintenance activities. Mr. Stephens went on to explain the positions shown in Exhibit D. Continuing with a review of the organization charts, Mr. Stephens indicated the Assistant District Engineer for Construction had a number of resident crews reporting to him, and the Manager I position shown on the last page was a resident engineer. This was a large inspection crew often located at the job site with an Engineer - Manager I and an Assistant Resident Engineer. Mr. Stephens said the Department wished to add a second assistant to a number of crews to better supervise maintenance workers and manage more projects. Mr. Spitler asked if, indeed, there were five levels of management as it appeared from the organization chart. Mr. Stephens suggested in actual practice the Resident Engineer actually worked with all his people as a single, resident crew, and there was no hierarchy within that crew. Mr. Spitler insisted there should be a clearer way to picture this. Although Mr. Fettic agreed with Chairman Spitler, Mr. Stephens maintained this represented the real composition of 19 different resident engineer crews. In response to the Chairman's question whether the Manager I position required a degree, Mr. Stephens indicated for new people coming in, the Manager I position did, indeed, require registration. Discussion regarding levels of management continued between Chairman Spitler and Mr. Stephens, with Mr. Stephens agreeing to provide the committee a clearer picture of the composition, management and organization of the crews. Referring again to the request for 68 new positions, Chairman Spitler asked where the increased expenses for such things as equipment, office space and utilities were reflected in the budget. The Budget Director for the Department of Transportation, Jerry Colquhoun, said the equipment funding needed for the additional 68 positions was reflected in the budgets for office space, travel and equipment which could be absorbed in the existing request recommended by the Governor. Mr. Colquhoun noted the Department's equipment request was for nearly $6.4 million, and he said he believed this would adequately equip the new positions. If the personnel request was not approved, the budget could be reduced somewhat. Part of the justification for the 68 new positions was to reduce the use of contractors and the need for overtime, Mr. Spitler observed. Was this decrease proportionately reflected in the budget? Mr. Stephens said the overtime savings were reflected in salary requests, and monies saved by the decreased use of consultants would allow NDOT to spend the funds on asphalt and concrete. In response to Mr. Fettic's question whether the 66 vacancies were reflected in the budget, Mr. Colquhoun said, "yes," these were shown in the budget. Chairman Spitler asked Mr. Stephens to also provide a document which more clearly identified the expenses associated with the 68 new positions, rather than the committee just having the assurance the costs were built into the budget. He wished clarification of each line item where, in fact, there was money directed towards the new positions; and also a clear picture of the exact dollar amount attached to the appropriate budgets if all 68 requests were approved. Since all overtime was rolled into the salaries item, Chairman Spitler also said he would like to know what the Department anticipated would be saved in overtime as a result of bringing on the 68 people. Mr. Stephens agreed to provide this. Senator Bernice Mathews, remarking that she lived in northeast Reno and represented that neighborhood, said while she did not plan to put through a bill to support her request, she would depend on Mr. Stephens to see that a sound wall was constructed between her apartment complex and the freeway. She said she wished him to know this would be a special goal of hers and she would be after him continually until the sound wall was installed. Responding to Mr. Spitler's request for comment regarding the bike lanes, Tom Fronapfel, Assistant Director for Planning and the Bicycle Coordinator reminded the committee the two bicycle positions authorized several years ago were part of the requirements set out when the federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) was enacted. One established a Safety Coordinator position within the Department of Motor Vehicles; and the other position was assigned within his group, and responsible for planning bicycle and pedestrian facilities as well as other enhancement categories within those requirements. Explaining the activities already completed, Mr. Fronapfel indicated a Pedestrian and Bicycle Newsletter was being published as part of the responsibilities that fell to the Bicycle Advisory Board. Over the last number of years this person had conducted workshops throughout the state with local agencies and governments, to try and identify what kinds of bicycle and pedestrian facilities could be put in place, and how to design those facilities within the context of federal and state guidelines applying to new construction. Mr. Fronapfel commented within the 1994 enhancement category the following requests were received: - Boulder City had requested a pedestrian and bicycle path; - Henderson now had a bicycle facility on Warm Springs Road; - The city of Reno had installed sidewalks at Plumas and Boulevard; - There were extensive efforts to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the V & T Railroad construction plans; - There were plans in Clark County to put in an extensive bicycle path along l-515; - Enhancement projects in Caliente to make streets bicycle and intermodal friendly; - Work continuing in the Fremont Pedestrian Mall (Las Vegas); - A Sparks Boulevard bike path had been built; - Bike trail along U.S. 95 - Teton Trail Underpass (city of Las Vegas); - Reno bicycle facilities in a number of locations in the Reno area; - Bicycle and pedestrian improvements along the Truckee River; - City of Henderson, Gibson Horizon Bike Path; - City of Mesquite, the Virgin River Bike and Pedestrian Trail; - Lamoille Highway Bicycle and Pedestrian Path; - and some historic Douglas County High School conversion facilities. Mr. Fronapfel went on to explain there were two categories of facilities: 1) "Enhancement" - a separate category of funding under federal legislation, brought to them under application by the municipalities who wanted those facilities built in; and 2) new construction designs and facilities. Chairman Spitler asked what the actual ISTEA requirement was -- two positions or just one, and how they were paid. Mr. Fronapfel replied there were two positions, one for safety and one for planning, and both positions were paid in part from the drivers' license fees and the Surface Transportation Program funds. Chairman Spitler then questioned what overlapped between the two jobs, and was told by Mr. Fronapfel there was some overlap between the safety aspects and the design facilities. Referring to the revenue raised by the $.50 drivers' license fees, the Chairman asked if Mr. Fronapfel could report on how those funds were being collected and spent, or whether this fell within the purview of the DMV. Mr. Fronapfel indicated this would come from both agencies. He said he would provide a written account of his portion of the activity, and Chairman Spitler asked fiscal staff to obtain this from the DMV. The Chairman indicated he was particularly interested to know what portion of support ISTEA provided to the position and what portion was supported by the $.50 drivers' license fees. Ms. Giunchigliani questioned whether designs for the V & T project had been started. Mr. Fronapfel said, "no," because of ISTEA requirements the DOT was looking at rail facilities, as well as pedestrian, bicycle, and other such types of uses within the right-of-way, and this was included in the dollar amount as a whole. Since the V & T bond had not passed, Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the amount set for the V & T could be eliminated and another project considered. Mr. Fronapfel replied funds were set aside for the V & T right-of-way acquisition, and this was the funding level established at that point. Although this was currently on "hold," the Department had not considered applying the approximate $1 .5 million to another project. Ms. Giunchigliani noted there was a bill for $5 million which would probably not be enacted. If this was true, when would the $1.5 million be available to go into another project? Mr. Fronapfel said he would find out and let her know. Ms. Giunchigliani then asked Mr. Fronapfel to remark on the Bicycle Advisory Board. In response, he told her the Board was made up of Ken Cooper (Secretary to the Board), Jim Miller (a Las Vegas attorney and Chairman of the Board) the bicycle planning person, Sue Newberry, a member of bicycle advocate groups and himself. Funding for the Board, he remarked, came from drivers' license revenue, and in response to Ms. Giunchigliani's question regarding how long the Board would be needed, Mr. Fronapfel said nothing he was aware of suggested an elimination of the Board Indeed, discussions were ongoing dealing with helmet bills, other related national and state legislative matters, bicycle awareness month, etc. Ms. Giunchigliani also asked if the Bicycle Advisory Board was invited to work with school districts, etc., in planning new construction. They would be invited to take part in the planning if the project was part of a state facility or state road network, Mr. Fronapfel said. As for local funding which might be available, Mr. Fronapfel said Ken Cooper would be knowledgeable about what was available. Referring to the $.50 drivers' license revenue, Mr. Fronapfel told Chairman Spitler according to NRS Chapter 43, 65 percent of the money collected was directed to the Transportation Planning position and 35 percent went to the DMV position. The Chairman reminded Ms. Giunchigliani that the Bicycle Fund was bringing a new budget in. There had been a request for $11,000 for training one person, and the committee had asked this to be reconsidered. Questioning the idea of night construction, Ms. Giunchigliani wondered if there was some other type of safety warning, such as a flashing light, rather than the "beep" which was very annoying at night. Mr. Stephens said he was willing to look into this, but construction sites were so well lighted a flashing light would not be practical. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND PUBLIC SAFETY BUDGET EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, Page 1837 Chairman Spitler announced the closing of the session depended on the response to the questions being asked. He said he was holding the agency to the April 8th deadline to complete all questions earlier asked by the committee. He questioned whether this was a realistic deadline. James Hawke, Division Chief for Emergency Management, told the Chairman he had been in contact with fiscal staff, and was unaware of any unanswered questions at this point in time. Chairman Spitler wished fiscal staff to let him know by that afternoon, what questions remained unanswered. If, indeed, there were any, he said he expected a response on or by April 8, 1995. Calling attention to the main area of Emergency Management, Chairman Spitler remarked that the audit was issued two years ago. Had all the audit recommendations been implemented in the budget, he wished to know. Mr. Hawke said the Emergency Management Division was in the process of implementing all of the recommendations. He explained that LCB fiscal staff had provided some ideas for improvement, and the Division had sought to make improvements beyond the audit recommendations. One recommendation as yet not fulfilled was the addition of one accounting staff person for the Office of Emergency Management. Explaining, Mr. Hawke commented when reorganization moved the Emergency Management Division from the military into Public Safety, one of their two accounting positions was lost. It had been the Governor's recommendation to replace that one accounting position. Referring to grant administration, Mr. Hawke called attention to one of the areas which critically needed improvement, i.e., pass through federal money to local government. Drawing from the experience of Traffic Safety, Narcotics and the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) in administering grant programs, a review of the process used in the Emergency Management Division was made, and out of this came a number of recommendations to improve the Division's grant administration process. Mr. Spitler asked Mr. Hawke to provide a brief and succinct update of their progress in fulfilling each of the conditions of the audit by April 8th. Ms. Giunchigliani also asked Mr. Hawke, if there were parts of the budget which would not allow the Division to finish the implementation, e.g., necessary staff or equipment. She invited him to let the committee know what barriers there were to fully completing the audit conditions. Mr. Spitler said he also thought it was necessary to have a time certain when audit recommendations would be implemented. He did not want to see audit items from a prior audit which had not been fulfilled, as there had been with a Forestry audit. Commenting on the Earthquake Safety Program, Mr. Hawke explained this was 50/50 funding with federal and state monies. The state's 50 percent came from a transfer the Legislature had approved from SERC. Although the Governor had recommended this to continue in the executive budget, it was later decided that the Emergency Management Division should approach SERC for further funding. Mr. Hawke said, however, this proposal had to be made to SERC during the month of February, and he could see there was a consensus this was not going to happen. He pointed out the federal government had $63,800 for this program if the state could match it. With transfer money from SERC he had enough money to fund that position in the current year of 1995, and with someone in the position, he could shop for funds available to match the federal money for Nevada. Continuing, Mr. Hawke indicated he had learned the Public Works Board had some money for the State Library to do seismic retrofit. Justifying this as state cash for seismic work, the Earthquake Safety Program could match that with $15,000 in federal matching money. Therefore, he suggested an available position be filled with a SARA, Title III, Grade 31, Program Officer, which would be 100 percent state funded, in Budget Account 3659. He proposed to then take that position and merge it with the Earthquake Safety Program position, Grade 34, also currently vacant, and to come up with an "all hazards" person who would work on earthquake part of the time and hazardous material part of the time, retaining the Grade 34. He proposed to use the state money recommended in the Governor's budget and match this with part of the available federal money. Mr. Spitler questioned whether the $50,000 originally in the budget for the federal match was a General Fund allocation. Mr. Hawke said, "no," this would have been from SERC. After short discussion, Chairman Spitler asked Mr. Hawke to submit a written proposal by April 8th which would clearly explain his proposals concerning the Earthquake Safety Program. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM BUDGET 101-3674, Page 1843 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT - FEDERAL GRANTS, Page 1845 Again offering testimony, Mr. Hawke told the committee the main question which had arisen during the previous hearing on this budget was the issue of computers. He said he had provided staff a specific list of where the computers were to be assigned which covered both budgets. Chairman Spitler asked if all the old grant payments to local governments were current. Mr. Hawke answered, "no." Mr. Spitler asked to be provided a list showing what was missing. Mr. Hawke agreed to do this. It was agreed Mr. Hawke would take up the Emergency Management Assistance Program along with the Emergency Management - Federal Grants budgets together since they were both federal. Chairman Spitler asked if state General Fund money was being used for the county match. Mr. Hawke said, "no." Speaking of them separately, Mr. Hawke said Budget Page 1843 reflected federal money received, and part of the Federal Emergency Management Authority (FEMA) money required a state General Fund appropriation match. The only state appropriation shown in the budget was for that portion of the FEMA grant for administrative activity in the office. This funded assistance to communities on the Flood Insurance Program, population protection, etc. The Budget beginning on page 1845, reflected flow-through monies to local governments who provided their own match. Mr. Hawke pointed out the Department of Energy (DOE) funds shown on page 1847 were 100 percent funds; thus, the 15 computers to be purchased out of those budget pages would be funded out of Budget 3601. The Chairman noted there were 27 computers to be moved out, and 12 came out of Budget 3659, a General Fund account. The committee wished to know why General Fund monies would be provided to a county or local entity to match a federal grant. Coming forward to help explain the situation, Joel Pinkerton, State Budget Division, told the committee when the budget was assembled, the Budget Division was unaware this money was going to the counties. They had understood this money would stay in Mr. Hawke's Division. Discussion followed. Tish Johnson, Administrative Office, explained the computers listed under Budget 3659 on page 1839 would replace existing in-house equipment, which were "486" computers purchased years ago or obtained through federal dollars, and were now becoming obsolete. In response to Chairman Spitler's question as to why the "486" computers were obsolete, Mr. Hawke said it was a matter of the amount of power needed to sustain an Geographic Information System (GIS) in their offices and in the networking built by Mr. Hawke. Mr. Hawke agreed a "486" computer was still an "excellent" piece of equipment, but for some of the GIS applications it was more practical to buy a new computer than to update the clock speed and the amount of RAM member available in a "486." Mr. Hawke explained the computers they had were purchased with federal funds, and equipment purchased with federal funds, if not needed by the agency to which it was assigned, was then assigned to the next priority, which would be another federal department/program, etc. The Chairman and Mr. Hawke continued with a discussion of the means of transferring equipment, with the Chairman finally asking Mr. Hawke to provide a copy of the documentation, and any contract outlining the process by which a piece of equipment could/would be transferred. Mr. Fettic spoke up and asked Mr. Hawke to supply the committee with a list of state agencies funded by the General Fund that would be eligible to receive the computers. One reason the computers were going to counties or local entities, Mr. Hawke remarked, was so the GIS data base and resource data base could be networked with Mr. Hawke's program. Mr. Hawke said many of the rural counties/entities had no computers. Ms. Johnson assured the committee the Emergency Management Division retained ownership and an inventory of the computers. This list was physically reported on a yearly basis. Ms. Johnson also informed the committee some of the computers were not up to the "486" standard. Mr. Close questioned whether the computers were used all day, every day, on Emergency Management tasks or whether the counties used the equipment for other tasks. In response, Mr. Hawke told the committee one of the reasons his Division insisted on retaining ownership of the equipment was because otherwise the equipment appeared to often find its way to the Sheriff's desk. Mr. Hawke said he believed, indeed, the tasks performed on these computers would be related to the grant in managing the data base resources necessary to respond to emergency situations. EMERGENCY RESPONSE COMMISSION BUDGET 101-4729, Page 1831 Chairman Spitler questioned whether Mr. Hawke was concerned about a potential shortfall in Budget 101-4729. Mr. Hawke told him there were certain aspects he was concerned about during the second year of the biennium, but his Division would respond as things occurred. Mr. Hawke requested Bill Owens, the Executive Director of the Emergency Response Commission, to come forward to comment on the shortfall relating to expected revenues from the Alliance for Hazardous Materials Uniform Permitting. Mr. Owens commented while a shortfall was anticipated, it was also anticipated that money would be picked up out of the Division's reserves for the year. He said he also anticipated achieving the same level of funding as in the past. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:25 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: __________________________________ _ Iris Bellinger, Committee Secretary Joint Subcommittee on Public Safety, Transportation and Natural Resources Committee on Ways and Means, and Senate Finance March 31, 1995 Page