MINUTES OF THE JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING OF
	SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
AND
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

Sixty-eighth Session
April 28, 1995


The joint subcommittee meeting on Public Safety/Natural Resources/Transportation 
 was called to order by Chairman Lawrence E. Jacobsen at 8:10 a.m., on Wednesday, 
April 28, 1995, in Room 321 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  
Exhibit A is the Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.


SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen, Chairman
Senator William R. O'Donnell
Senator Bernice Mathews

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Larry L. Spitler, Chairman
Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr.
Mr. John W. Marvel
Mr. Jack D. Close
Mr. Thomas A. Fettic
Ms. Chris Giunchigliani

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Dan Miles, Fiscal Analyst
Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst
Debbra J. King, Program Analyst
Jeanne L. Botts, Program Analyst
Sue Parkhurst, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Catherine Barcomb, Executive Director, Commission for the Preservation of Wild 
	Horses
Peter G. Morros, Director, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Tom Stephens, Director, Nevada Department of Transportation
Tom Fronapfel, Assistant Director, Planning Division, Nevada Department of 
	Transportation
Gerry Colquhoun, Chief, Programs and Budget, Nevada Department of Transportation
James Kester, Chief Pilot, Flight Operations, Nevada Department of Transportation
Lewis H. Dodgion, Administrator, Division of Environmental Protection, State 
	Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
R. Michael Turnipseed, State Engineer, Division of Water Resources, State Department 
	of Conservation and Natural Resources
Glenn Clemmer, Program Manager, Nevada Natural Heritage
Don Hataway, Chief Assistant Budget Administrator, Budget Division, Department of 
	Administration
James W. Baetge, Executive Director, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

Heil Wild Horse Bequest - Page 2017

Catherine Barcomb, Executive Director, Commission for the Preservation of Wild 
Horses, said the commission is a one-person agency and it is very difficult for one 
person to keep up with the large volume of land use planning paperwork, meetings and 
environmental issues.  To allow the executive director to develop fund-raising projects 
for the commission, the Governor is recommending a new, state-funded Habitat 
Biologist for the Division of Wildlife, to be shared with the wild horse commission.  
Ms. Barcomb said funding of this position would enable the commission to meet its 
statutory obligations as well as generate funds that are important to this agency.  She 
told the committee the agency sometimes receives five to six documents each day 
relating to management by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) of the horse 
program in Nevada.  All of the documents must be reviewed and processed, Ms. 
Barcomb continued, and the volume of work is substantial.

Peter G. Morros, Director, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 
voiced support for the position request.

Senator O'Donnell inquired as to the use of the wild horse facilities in Lovelock.  Ms. 
Barcomb replied the facility, owned by the federal government, was closed some years 
ago.  The Palomino Valley wild horse center is used instead.  The senator suggested 
the possibility of having the Lovelock property deeded to the state.  Senator Jacobsen 
noted the Lovelock facility was a cattle feeding operation, and even though the federal 
government paid for the program it was operated by the person who owned the ranch. 
 Mr. Marvel said the feeding operation has been closed.

Ms. Barcomb distributed a credit card to illustrate the program the commission has 
been working on to establish a wild horse credit card in the U.S.  She said Master Card 
has scheduled a mass mailing in May to the 20,000 people whose names were 
supplied by the commission.  One percent of all sales generated nationally will be given 
to the wild horse commission for programs in Nevada, Ms. Barcomb stated.

Senator Jacobsen inquired if any of the counties have reserve funds such as Douglas 
County has that can be used for wild horse programs.  Mr. Morros said he is unaware 
of any such funds and would need to investigate further.  Senator Jacobsen said 
Douglas County in the past had approximately $25,000 in a reserve fund.  Mr. Morros 
commented Douglas County in particular had experienced problems with wild horses 
encroaching on private property in the rural areas, and the funds were used to address 
that problem.  Senator Jacobsen said he receives numerous calls every summer from 
constituents complaining about wild horses damaging their gardens.

Mr. Close asked if it is anticipated funds will be available during the next biennium for 
the wild horse commission's reward program.  Ms. Barcomb said if such funds are 
needed the commission will supply them; however, the crimes against horses that led 
to instituting the rewards have not been occurring.  When the reward has been offered 
in the past, there were no prosecutions and the rewards had to be paid by the 
commission.

MR. MARVEL MOVED TO RECOMMEND CLOSING THIS BUDGET IN 
ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF STAFF AS LISTED 
ON PAGE 21 OF EXHIBIT D.


MR. SPITLER SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

* * * * *

SENATOR MATHEWS MOVED TO RECOMMEND CLOSING THIS 
BUDGET IN ACCORDANCE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AS 
LISTED ON PAGE 21 OF EXHIBIT D.

SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

* * * * *

Transportation Administration - Page 2021

Debbra J. King, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau 
(LCB), provided an explanation of the technical adjustments and recommendations of 
the fiscal analysis staff (Exhibit C).  She said there is primarily one type of adjustment 
in this budget, which is the transfer of consultant costs to a separate consulting 
category within the budget.  Currently the agency pays all its consulting costs from 
the construction category, and staff is recommending the costs be removed from the 
construction category and placed in the separate consulting category.

Regarding the adjustment to the base budget that transfers consultant costs for data 
processing (DP), itemized on page 1 of Exhibit C, Ms. King said the agency recently 
informed her of its intention to implement a new system and has requested the costs 
be transferred into the Operating category (04) instead of category 16.

Ms. King highlighted the changes on pages 2 and 3 (Exhibit C).  She said the changes 
in decision module E-175 reduce unsupported costs, and all of the reductions to 
categories go into the state-only construction category.  Modules E-425 and E-450 
reduce unsupported costs.  Module E-911 is a technical correction, Ms. King said.  
When the telecommunications staff, which is being transferred to the Department of 
Information Systems (DIS), was removed from this budget, there was no budgetary 
authority provided to the agency to pay DIS for the services offered to the staff.  
Decision module E-911 would address this situation.

Ms. King said the committee may wish to provide a letter of intent directing the 
agency to develop two budget accounts over the coming biennium, one for 
administration and one for direct maintenance and construction. 

Noting the agency's request and the Governor's recommendation for 68 new positions, 
Ms. King directed attention to the summaries of these positions that were included 
with the budget closing action sheets (pages 4 and 7, Exhibit C).  Page 4 summarizes 
the positions by functional area; page 7 lists the positions sequentially.  Ms. King said 
on page 4, where the agency has determined the position requested would reduce 
either overtime or consulting costs, the amount of estimated savings to be realized 
through approval of the position has been provided.


Referencing page 5 of Exhibit C, Ms. King said this information pertains to the bicycle 
planning position in the budget for the transportation department and the bicycle 
safety position in the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS).

Senator Jacobsen requested Tom Stephens, Director, Nevada Department of 
Transportation (NDOT), to comment on the consulting costs in the Transportation 
Administration budget.  Mr. Stephens pointed out a large number of the so-called 
consulting costs are actually pass-throughs to the local level from federal grants.  He 
cited as an example the adjustments to transfer consultant costs to the Federal Transit 
Administration (FTA) Rural Transit Bus, which he said is a federal grant.  While there 
is no problem transferring the consulting costs to the separate categories, Mr. 
Stephens said, it should be understood that not all of the costs shown are consulting 
expense.  

Referencing a note he had made at a previous hearing on this budget, Mr. Spitler said 
the note indicated NDOT's need for additional funds for the Washington, D.C. 
consultant because of the ISTEA (Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act) 
reauthorization.  Mr. Stephens said there are a number of critical national issues the 
NDOT is attempting to address with other small states, which have come into play as 
a result of the congressional changes in the November 1994 election.  He indicated a 
number of the changes the new Congress proposes for the U.S. Department of 
Transportation and federal highway funding, including implementing a block grant 
program, could adversely affect Nevada.

Mr. Spitler said he has always opposed Nevada's Washington, D.C. office, but he 
supports an increase of $50,000 for the Washington, D.C. transportation consultant 
who works only on highway-related issues.  Mr. Stephens said the consultant is a 
former Federal Highway Administration (FHA) administrator and that he visits Nevada, 
examines its programs, attempts to position the state to receive the maximum amount 
of federal funding, and advises the NDOT continually on federal changes.  

Senator Jacobsen inquired if the highway consultant coordinates with the state's 
office in Washington, D.C.  Mr. Stephens said Leo Penne, who administers the office 
in Washington, D.C., works closely with the transportation consultant.  He said as a 
result of the consultant's efforts to locate funding for which Nevada is eligible, the 
state has received many times more in federal funds than the amount paid in 
consulting fees.  He remarked it is not possible for the congressional delegation to 
monitor the transportation-related issues, as has been suggested by some, because 
there are so many different specialties in Washington, D.C. that it would be too 
expensive for any congressman or senator to maintain a staff large enough to provide 
the necessary expertise.

Senator Jacobsen asked if the NDOT coordinates with the other small states.  Mr. 
Stephens replied, "Absolutely."  He said Nevada is in a peculiar position in that it is a 
small state and has that in common with such states as Idaho, Wyoming and Montana; 
however, because of its proximity to California, Nevada also has a special relationship 
with a very large state.  The state attempts to use both situations to its advantage, 
Mr. Stephens said.  

Mr. Stephens further testified that when ISTEA was passed in 1991, the formulas in 
that act were driven by a coalition of over 25 small states in order to influence the 
votes in the Senate so that they would not be based strictly on population.  These 
efforts continue, he said.  

Senator O'Donnell requested that the bicycle planning position be justified.  Tom 
Fronapfel, Assistant Director, Planning Division, Nevada Department of Transportation, 
 responded.  He said he had provided Ms. King with requested follow-up information 
subsequent to a previous hearing.  Noting there are two bicycle-related positions 
funded in Nevada, one at the DMV&PS and one at the NDOT, Mr. Fronapfel said the 
NDOT position is required under the ISTEA.  He quoted the language in section 217(d), 
Title XXIII of the U.S. Code which mandates the position:

Each state receiving an apportionment under this section shall use such 
amount of the apportionment as may be necessary to fund, in the state 
department of transportation, a position of bicycle and pedestrian 
coordinator for promoting and facilitating the increased use of non-
motorized modes of transportation, including developing facilities for the 
use of pedestrians and bicycles and public education, promotional and 
safety programs for using such facilities.

Mr. Fronapfel said the existing language allows the state to expend up to 80 percent 
of federal funds to fund the bicycle planning position, and the remaining revenue 
derived from the 50-cent fee on drivers' licenses funds the balance of the position as 
well as the activities of the Nevada Bicycle Advisory Board and newsletters that 
promote bicycle and pedestrian activities and issues.

At the last hearing, Mr. Fronapfel recalled, there was comment related to bicycle 
paths.  He said the responsibilities of the bicycle planning position are not limited to 
bicycle paths, but encompass planning related to bicycle and transportation facilities 
which by definition are new or improved lanes, paths, shoulders for use by bicycles, 
 traffic control devices, shelters and parking facilities.  At present, the NDOT is 
expending $20,000 of the federal funds received by the state to fund the bicycle 
planning position; the remainder is funded by the 50-cent fee on drivers' licenses, the 
revenues from which the department's share is 65 percent.

Senator O'Donnell ascertained that in order for the state to participate in the ISTEA 
funding, the bicycle planning position is mandatory.  Mr. Fronapfel said the funds from 
this source would be in jeopardy if the position is not maintained.  

Senator O'Donnell said it has been brought to his attention the tourists who frequent 
the Strip area in Las Vegas are in danger of losing their lives.  He said there have been 
24 fatalities so far this year in Clark County alone, compared to 19 fatalities for the 
entire year in 1994.  He advocated allocating sufficient funds for educational programs 
directed at tourists and local citizens regarding the dangers of jaywalking.  Senator 
O'Donnell suggested transferring funds from the emission control reserve or adjusting 
the 50-cent fee to $1 to provide additional funds.  He said the person in the bicycle 
positions at both the NDOT and the DMV&PS should be allowed to contract with 
educational media to distribute the message that pedestrians should be careful in 
crossing the street.  The senator remarked the senior citizens are particularly at risk. 
 He expressed the opinion the bicycle safety position should be either eliminated or 
made more effective.


Mr. Fronapfel said the NDOT supports Senator O'Donnell's suggestions.  He said the 
NDOT and DMV&PS staffs work closely with the Clark County RTC (Regional 
Transportation Commission) and the Clark County Department of Comprehensive 
Planning to formulate plans related to pedestrians and bicycle safety.  He said part of 
the problem in Clark County is the county has developed such a plan, but has not 
implemented it due in part to lack of funding.  Mr. Fronapfel said the NDOT and the 
bicycle advisory board have been attempting to pressure the Clark County entities to 
implement the plan.

Senator O'Donnell asked Ms. King if it would be feasible to transfer funds from 
emission control into this budget.  Dan Miles, Fiscal Analyst, responded, "Anything is 
possible."  It was indicated legislation would be required to accomplish this.  The 
senator advocated maintaining both the bicycle planning and bicycle safety positions 
and augmenting this budget with funds that would be devoted to developing 
educational materials designed to broadcast the message that jaywalking is dangerous.

Mr. Fronapfel commented the NDOT and the RTC have also undertaken a major 
investment study of the Strip corridor in Las Vegas and are examining various access 
points for the properties along the Strip.  The studies would encompass possible 
suggestions on what to do with regard to the full range of transportation modes, Mr. 
Fronapfel said, and might be an appropriate avenue to address some of the issues 
raised by Senator O'Donnell.  He said the possibility of adding another pedestrian 
overpass across the Strip has been discussed and will be part of the major investment 
study.

Mr. Stephens said the department is proceeding with the requested analysis of 
pedestrian deaths in Clark County and has assigned the project to the safety division 
in preparation for an upcoming hearing.

Senator O'Donnell requested that action on the bicycle position requests be held to 
allow time for a meeting with the safety personnel for the purpose of ascertaining how 
much the budget should be augmented for pedestrian safety education.  Senator 
Jacobsen said the task before the subcommittee at the meeting in progress is to 
determine whether or not the 50-cent surcharge should be continued.  Ms. King noted 
the bicycle safety budget in the DMV&PS budgets has not been closed, and she said 
that budget would be the appropriate place to augment funding for public service 
announcements.

Ms. Giunchigliani indicated she might support the bicycle planning position for the 
NDOT, but does not support funding the bicycle safety position in the DMV&PS 
budget because she regards the functions performed by that position as a local 
responsibility.  She inquired as to the amount of funds provided by the 50-cent 
surcharge on drivers' licenses to fund the positions.  

Mr. Fronapfel responded the NDOT is currently using $20,000 in federal funds to 
support the bicycle planning position, and the balance is derived from the department's 
65 percent share of the 50-cent surcharge on the drivers' license fees.  The dollar 
amount provided by the latter source is approximately $75,000.  Not all of the 
$95,000 is used for the position; some of it is used to fund the Nevada Bicycle 
Advisory Board and its activities, as well as other activities.  Ms. Giunchigliani said 
there are policy decisions to be made in regard to funding this position, including 
whether or not to continue the 50-cent surcharge or to reduce it.


Ms. Giunchigliani reiterated that while there might be justification for having the NDOT 
position assist with planning, the same does not hold true for the person in the 
DMV&PS who performs the safety education function.  She said this issue entails a 
policy decision.  She suggested the 24 pedestrian fatalities in Clark County mentioned 
by Senator O'Donnell were the result of stupidity on the part of those killed (because 
they were fatally injured while jaywalking), and she expressed doubt such behavior 
could be effectively altered through pedestrian safety education.

Mr. Stephens said the ISTEA funding is extremely complicated.  He said a portion of 
the funding is for a surface transportation program, and within the program 10 percent 
of the federal funds must be spent on enhancements.  The enhancements include 
bicycle paths, sidewalks and other accoutrements associated with highway travel, but 
 are not actually on the highway.  Mr. Stephens said certain planning functions must 
be performed in order to retain the enhancement funds, and the planning function is 
performed by the bicycle planning position.  Even if the drivers' license surcharge were 
not available, he continued, the NDOT would still fund the position with the state 
portion of the Highway Fund in order to protect a much larger amount of funding 
related to construction in the enhancement component of the surface transportation 
program.  The amount at stake is $4.3 million, he noted.  He said the DMV&PS bicycle 
safety position focuses on safety more so than does the NDOT position.

Senator O'Donnell remarked that unless the funding for the bicycle safety position in 
the DMV&PS budget is augmented, the position exists without sufficient funds to 
accomplish its functions.  He inquired as to how a reduction in the NDOT's share of 
the 50-cent surcharge on drivers' licenses would impact the transportation 
department's budget.  He further inquired if, should the 50-cent surcharge be 
increased to $1, the NDOT would be able to utilize the additional funds to increase the 
design and safety engineering for pedestrians around the Strip corridor and other 
corridors where major pedestrian traffic occurs.

Responding to Senator O'Donnell's first question, Mr. Stephens said if the funds from 
the surcharge were suddenly to become unavailable the NDOT would be extremely 
foolish not to find the funds elsewhere in the department's budget because there 
would be millions of dollars at stake; the funds would therefore be obtained from 
another source, if necessary.  He deferred to Mr. Fronapfel to answer Senator 
O'Donnell's second question after reminding the senator that many of the local 
programs are directed by the regional transportation commissions, and the NDOT 
works in cooperation with those entities.  He said the policy-making largely resides 
with the RTCs, and the department acts as a facilitator.  

Senator O'Donnell observed the pedestrian safety problem is not limited to Las Vegas. 
 He said the hotels in the Reno area are highly concerned about pedestrian traffic and 
are now incorporating second-story pedestrian walkways from hotel to hotel.

Mr. Fronapfel said the NDOT could probably do more than it currently is, with respect 
to the pedestrian safety issue.  He said the department works very closely with all of 
the county agencies statewide in the development of their own transportation plans. 
 He reiterated the NDOT has been pressing the Clark County RTC to implement the 
bicycle and pedestrian component of the required transportation plan (which he said 
would, in theory, address some of the issues raised by Senator O'Donnell) and will 
continue to do so.  He said the transportation administration is also working very 
closely with the department's internal design personnel to ensure the design of 
changes to existing facilities, as well as the design of new facilities, meets the 
requirements stipulated in ISTEA.  Mr. Fronapfel said the department is willing to 
expand its current efforts in this regard.


Mr. Spitler questioned Gerry Colquhoun, Chief, Programs and Budget, Nevada 
Department of Transportation, regarding the extent of funding of the NDOT bicycle 
planning position with funds from the 50-cent drivers' license surcharge.  Mr. 
Colquhoun said the actual cost for the position in FY 1994 was $17,700.  That 
amount was funded entirely from the drivers' license fee.  Mr. Spitler asked if 80 
percent of the cost of this position could realistically be charged to ISTEA.  Mr. 
Colquhoun said the $17,700 was the amount of time the position charged to bicycle 
activities.  The balance of the time was charged to planning functions, presumably 
involving bicycle planning, that were subsequently billed to the federal government 
under ISTEA.  A large portion of the position's cost was billed to the federal 
government, Mr. Colquhoun stated, but the amount was somewhat less than 80 
percent.

Mr. Spitler said his questioning was aimed at locating funds to accomplish the 
objectives proposed by Senator O'Donnell.  He ascertained the drivers' license 
surcharge does not in fact fund 100 percent of the bicycle planning position in NDOT. 
 Mr. Colquhoun said there are revenues available from the drivers' license fees that 
could be used to fully fund the position.  The funds would be obtained from the 
reserve in the bicycle account, which continues to grow and is projected to be 
approximately $100,000 in Fiscal Year (FY) 1996.  

Mr. Spitler countered that if it is determined only 20 percent would be funded by the 
state, as ISTEA requires, the reserve would be maintained and some additional funds 
would be available for the educational programs proposed by Senator O'Donnell.

Senator Jacobsen invited comment by the NDOT representatives on decision unit M-
502 (page 2, Exhibit C) pertaining to drug and alcohol testing.  Mr. Stephens said this 
module reduces the cost to the amount of the bid received by the agency.  The senator 
asked if there are any problems with respect to the board of directors and the 
attendance of the directors at meetings.  Mr. Stephens indicated there are no problems 
with regard to the board or its expenses.

Addressing decision unit E-911 (page 3, Exhibit C), Mr. Stephens expressed concern 
about the date by which transfer of the communication technicians to the DIS is 
proposed.  He said after speaking with the manager of the DIS recently, he doubts the 
ability of that agency to transfer the positions on July 1 and maintain the required level 
of service while the transfers are in process.  He further stated that currently this 
operation is not centralized within NDOT.  Under the DIS, the operation would be 
centralized, with seven personnel reporting to a supervisor in Carson City, Mr. 
Stephens continued, and the means of implementing this plan has not been resolved. 
 He said it is not possible to change from a decentralized system to a centralized 
system overnight and that a transition period is required.  He recommended setting the 
date of transition at October 1 instead of July 1 to allow an additional 3 months for 
implementation of the new system.  

Senator Jacobsen inquired if the NDOT has had any interaction with other agencies 
 to determine the feasibility of the plan regarding mountaintop repeaters and 
maintenance involving crews from various agencies.  Mr. Stephens replied it is his 
understanding the NDOT is the only agency from which positions will be transferred 
to the DIS at this time.  He voiced the opinion there will not be a combination of 
various agencies, but instead the NDOT's communications technicians, rather than 
working for the department, will now work centrally through the DIS.  He noted it has 
not been determined how communications problems will be resolved.  He said the 
proposed combinations to achieve economy of scale will probably not be effective in 
the first step of the DIS plan.

Mr. Marvel concurred with Mr. Stephens.  Remarking that "too much is moving too 
fast" and it will not be possible to implement the proposed transfer of positions by July 
1, he said it is necessary to accommodate the concerns voiced by Mr. Stephens.

Senator O'Donnell said the intention of the DIS is to transfer the supervisor only.  He 
said his discussions with the agency became convoluted when he inquired as to 
communications between the supervisor and the radio repair technicians working on 
snow plows.  The senator said he was told the DIS does not believe a supervisor will 
be needed.  He maintained the plan does not make sense and provides no economy of 
scale.  He described the plan as ludicrous and a "shell game" and said he will not 
support transferring the communication technician positions to the DIS.

Mr. Close questioned the justification for the costs associated with the use and 
maintenance of the NDOT airplane.  He said he has not yet received information that 
confirms, to his satisfaction, the need for funding this item at the current level.  Ms. 
King informed Mr. Close she has received information from the agency in support of 
this budget request, but has not yet forwarded it to Mr. Close.  Mr. Stephens 
requested the chief pilot to respond to the concerns raised by Mr. Close.  He noted one 
of the largest expenses in connection with the airplane is the "re-engining" that is 
budgeted for FY 1996.  He said the overhaul is performed every 7 years.

James Kester, Chief Pilot, Flight Operations, Nevada Department of Transportation, 
explained the re-engining slated to begin in the summer of 1995 is based on the 
manufacturer's recommendations.  The NDOT operates under these recommendations 
as well as the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) regulations.  Mr. Kester 
acknowledged the high cost of the re-engining but said the agency's priorities are 
reliability and safety.

Senator Jacobsen requested Mr. Kester to provide background information on the 
airplane.  Mr. Kester said the airplane will be 8 years old in July of 1995 and was 
obtained by the NDOT 7 years ago.  To date the plane has flown approximately 3,430 
hours.  The factory recommends overhauling the engine when the airplane reaches 
3,500 hours of flight time.  Mr. Kester said the department is closely monitoring the 
use of the aircraft in terms of when, where and how it is used.  The engine 
replacement has been postponed from June to July 1995 so it can be included in the 
budget for the next biennium.  The average number of flight hours per year is 
approximately 500, Mr. Kester stated.

Mr. Close said after reviewing the previously referenced information from the agency 
(which was provided to him shortly before this by Ms. King), he sees the value of 
some of the trips for which the airplane has been used.  However, he inquired 
whether, with the addition of the 68 new employees recommended in the Executive 
Budget, it will be necessary for the airplane travel by NDOT staff members to continue 
at the same level during the next biennium.  Mr. Stephens replied yes.  He noted the 
heaviest travel is to Las Vegas, where many NDOT projects are in progress and more 
are scheduled for the next few years.

Mr. Arberry said whatever amount of funding is required to keep the airplane operating 
properly should be supported by the Legislature.  He said every legislator should have 
the opportunity to fly on the plane for a firsthand experience of the manner in which 
it is being utilized.  He voiced the opinion the NDOT has never abused the privileges 
associated with using the airplane.  He emphasized the need to ensure the airplane is 
well maintained.

Mr. Close remarked his concern is not the expense associated with the repairs but the 
justification for the airplane, in general.

Senator O'Donnell inquired as to the hourly cost of operating the airplane, which he 
believes to be $700 per hour.  Mr. Kester said to his knowledge the NDOT charges the 
direct operating cost, which is approximately $510 per hour.  He said there are 
variable factors such as where and when the fuel is purchased and for what price.  The 
senator asked if the cost of re-engining is included in the hourly cost.  Mr. Kester said 
it is not.  Senator O'Donnell suggested the $505,000 cost of re-engining should be 
figured into the hourly cost and should be encumbered to avoid the necessity of having 
to allocate the entire cost of re-engining at one time.  Mr. Stephens commented the 
agency cannot implement a sinking fund.  He said the cost of re-engining could be 
rolled into the charges, increasing the hourly costs proportionately.  He noted the cost 
of using the airplane for NDOT travel to Las Vegas currently approximates the cost of 
commercial air travel to Las Vegas, but he reminded the senator that at the time the 
airplane was purchased by the state the cost of commercial flights to Las Vegas was 
significantly higher.  Mr. Stephens said the same situation could occur again, 
depending on the competition in the market.

Senator O'Donnell asked the number of passengers the airplane can accommodate. 
 Mr. Stephens said the plane holds 10 passengers.

Mr. Stephens said his initial reaction to the proposal to divide the Transportation 
Administration budget into two budget accounts (page 3, Exhibit C) is to oppose it. 
 He said the agency's budget is already complicated with respect to the federal 
components.  He  suggested it would not make sense to make the state NDOT budget 
more complex by dividing it into more categories, and he questioned the rationale for 
the proposal.

Mr. Arberry asked if the NDOT has plans to widen Las Vegas Boulevard to alleviate 
traffic congestion.  Mr. Stephens suggested Las Vegas Boulevard will not be the key 
to resolving the traffic problems in that area.  He said the NDOT has a number of 
different alternatives. Observing it is the Dunes property development that is acting as 
the catalyst, Mr. Stephens said plans by the hotels along the Strip to add another 
15,000 hotel rooms will result in tremendous "dumping" of traffic onto the Strip, and 
this will cause major problems.  He said the NDOT is attempting to achieve a solution 
to the problem, which will need to be paid for largely by the hotel-building entities.  He 
elaborated on several proposed solutions.  Mr. Stephens stated there are no plans to 
widen the Strip, but the NDOT does recognize a problem exists in that area.  He 
responded to further inquiries from Mr. Arberry regarding plans to widen other major 
thoroughfares in Las Vegas.  He said the NDOT has probably reached the limits of its 
ability to alleviate vehicle traffic on the Strip.  With respect to the downtown area, he 
stated, the RTC corridor study will examine various alternatives.


Senator Jacobsen revisited the proposal to divide the Transportation Administration 
budget into two.  He said one of the reasons for the proposal, from the legislators' 
perspective, is that it is difficult to track the various elements of the budget.  Mr. 
Stephens said the $250 million land improvements item is actually a cash flow; it is 
a level of spending based upon a wide range of NDOT projects.  He further described 
the complexities of the budget and emphasized the department's need for budgetary 
flexibility between legislative sessions.  He acknowledged he was not previously aware 
of the proposal to divide the budget and has therefore not had the opportunity to 
analyze it.  He said the agency has a very complex budget and is not misspending 
funds, and there is extensive budgetary oversight that includes federal, legislative and 
internal auditing.  Mr. Stephens commented, "I don't think there's anything that's 
really broke here."

Senator Jacobsen noted the concerns of the fiscal analysis staff regarding the 
difficulty in tracking the elements of the NDOT administration budget.  He said the 
proposal would not be implemented before the next legislative session.

Mr. Marvel said the staff's point that it is difficult to track this budget is valid.

Senator Jacobsen invited comment from Dan Miles, Fiscal Analyst, on this proposal. 
 Mr. Miles said the recommendation by staff proposes initiating a letter of intent 
specifying that the idea of developing two budget accounts should be examined for 
possible action in the next biennium.

Mr. Stephens stated his willingness to consider establishing two budgets if it is 
determined to be feasible.  He cautioned the funding in the federal budgets fluctuates 
substantially, and he pointed out the contractors also significantly control the costs of 
NDOT construction.  He reiterated the agency's budget is complex and involves the 
funding of numerous projects.

MR. MARVEL MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT A LETTER OF INTENT BE 
SENT TO THE NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 
[DIRECTING] THAT THE AGENCY EXAMINE THE FEASIBILITY OF 
DEVELOPING TWO BUDGETS FROM THE TRANSPORTATION 
ADMINISTRATION BUDGET AS DELINEATED ON PAGE 3 OF EXHIBIT 
C.

MR. FETTIC SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

* * * * *

SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT A LETTER OF 
INTENT BE SENT TO THE NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF 
TRANSPORTATION [DIRECTING] THAT THE AGENCY EXAMINE THE 
FEASIBILITY OF DEVELOPING TWO BUDGETS FROM THE 
TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATION BUDGET AS DELINEATED ON 
PAGE 3 OF EXHIBIT C.

SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

* * * * *


Senator Jacobsen requested Ms. King to review for the committee the 
recommendations pertaining to the proposed funding of 68 new positions.  Ms. King 
directed the committee's attention to pages 7 through 10 (Exhibit C), on which the 
new positions and accompanying justifications are itemized.  She pointed out an error 
on page 7 regarding positions 11, 12, 14 and 15.  Concerning the cost effectiveness 
column, she said the "no" should be changed to "yes" for these positions.  She 
explained the agency, in its original estimate, had indicated the four positions would 
save $100,000.  The estimate later was revised to indicate a savings of $200,000. 
 Ms. King said if the actual consulting costs total $200,000, the four positions would 
be cost effective.

Mr. Marvel inquired as to the net effect of the new positions.  Ms. King replied the 
total annual cost of the 68 new positions would be approximately $2.8 million, and 
the agency has indicated the four above-mentioned positions would result in  savings 
of $1.7 million in consulting costs and $85,000 in overtime costs.  She directed the 
committee's attention to page 4 (Exhibit C), which categorizes the positions by 
function, presents the justification for the position and indicates the anticipated 
consulting cost savings.

Mr. Marvel said the question is whether the 68 new positions can be justified.  Ms. 
King said pages 7 through 10 (Exhibit C) indicate which of the positions have been 
justified.

Mr. Stephens requested the opportunity to respond to the negative recommendations 
pertaining to the positions for which justification was determined to be lacking.  The 
position numbers in question were 13, 40, 41, 45, 48, 52 and 53.  

Regarding position 40, a Transportation Analyst III for the Intelligent Vehicle Highway 
System (IVHS), Mr. Stephens said this position is needed because the NDOT is losing 
its communications personnel, who currently assist with the communications aspect 
of this position.  The IVHS is a federally mandated position, he noted.  Mr. Stephens 
said if the communications division is not transferred from NDOT, however, the 
personnel in that division would probably be trained to perform the functions the 
transportation analyst would otherwise perform.   He voiced the opinion that 
controlling the operation of a highway is not a function that can be performed by the 
DIS.  He said if the NDOT loses its communications division the agency will need at 
least one expert who is knowledgeable about television cameras, communications and 
changeable message signs in the department.  

Mr. Stephens said the functions of the Photogrammetrist position (41) could probably 
be performed by consultants.

Mr. Stephens urged that position 43, the Transportation Technician II research 
position, be approved.  He said there are increasing demands for research in the NDOT, 
and the research area lacks sufficient staffing to address the needs.  This is not a 
function that can be contracted out to consultants, he remarked.

With regard to position 45, Publications Writer, Mr. Stephens said the person in this 
position would have responsibility for the NDOT's in-house publications.  The person 
would also prepare informational material for distribution to the public.  Mr. Stephens 
indicated the publications work probably would not be performed adequately without 
this position.

Mr. Stephens said the function of position 48 could be performed in some other 
manner.  


Concerning position 49, a Management Assistant III in Las Vegas, Mr. Stephens 
stressed the need for management support that would be provided by this position. 
 He said unless additional support is provided, managers will be performing support 
functions.  He further stated he has devoted considerable time and attention to 
increasing support in the Las Vegas NDOT office.

Mr. Stephens said the functions of positions 52 and 53 could probably be performed 
on a contract basis.

Senator Jacobsen asked Mr. Stephens to comment on the agency's overtime situation. 
 Mr. Stephens responded the department attempts to control the overtime, but when 
work such as snow plowing or street sweeping is necessary, personnel on 
construction and maintenance projects are sometimes required to work overtime.  He 
said there will probably be more overtime requirements in the future because of the 
rules he has implemented that forbid daytime work on busy highways.  This will entail 
significantly more night work and other adjustments, Mr. Stephens continued.

Senator O'Donnell asked the committee members to indicate their preference regarding 
the proposal to transfer the communications technicians to the DIS.  He reiterated his 
opposition to the recommended transfer, which he said makes no sense and is 
intended to eliminate one of the present supervisory positions.  

Senator Mathews said the proposed transfer might be counterproductive because 
some of the communications technicians scheduled for transfer to the DIS can repair 
the freeway cameras, and replacements would have to be hired to perform their 
functions if they are transferred.

Mr. Stephens noted the NDOT does not yet have the cameras, but there is a need for 
a person who knows about communications to be involved in the planning stage.  
Senator Mathews suggested this is a justification for not transferring the positions to 
the DIS.  Mr. Stephens remarked he is not opposing the DIS.  He noted the 
Department of Administration supports moving the positions to that agency and 
stressed that he is not opposing the proposed transfer.  He said the great economy of 
scale in the plan, however, was the combination of the DMV&PS and the NDOT, 
which agencies have multiple communications personnel in various locations.  Mr. 
Stephens said it is his understanding the DMV&PS system will not be moved to the 
DIS at this time.

Senator Mathews expressed appreciation for the agency's prompt response with 
regard to her request for information regarding a "sound wall."  

In discussion on the recommendation that certain positions not be approved, Senator 
O'Donnell suggested position 45, the Publications Writer, would be helpful for the 
NDOT in preparing materials for pedestrian safety education.  Mr. Stephens concurred.

MR. MARVEL MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF 63 NEW 
POSITIONS (ALL OF THOSE RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR 
EXCEPT POSITIONS 13, 41, 48, 52 AND 53) AS LISTED ON PAGES 7 
THROUGH 10 OF EXHIBIT C.

MR. SPITLER SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.  (MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI VOTED NO.)

* * * * *

SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF 63 
NEW POSITIONS (ALL OF THOSE RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR 
EXCEPT POSITIONS 13, 41, 48, 52 AND 53) AS LISTED ON PAGES 7 
THROUGH 10 OF EXHIBIT C.

SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

* * * * *

MR. MARVEL MOVED TO RECOMMEND CLOSING THIS BUDGET IN 
ACCORDANCE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.  THE MOTION 
ALSO INCLUDES APPROVAL OF $50,000 IN ADDITIONAL FUNDING 
FOR THE WASHINGTON, D.C. CONSULTANT TO ADDRESS THE ISTEA 
MANDATE, AND THE DELETION OF POSITIONS 13, 41, 48, 52 AND 53. 
 APPROVAL OF THE BICYCLE PLANNING AND SAFETY POSITIONS IS 
NOT INCLUDED IN THIS MOTION PENDING THE COMMITTEE'S 
DECISION ON THIS ITEM.

MR. SPITLER SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.  (MR. CLOSE VOTED NO.)

* * * * *

SENATOR MATHEWS MOVED TO RECOMMEND CLOSING THIS 
BUDGET IN ACCORDANCE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.  THE 
MOTION ALSO INCLUDES APPROVAL OF $50,000 IN ADDITIONAL 
FUNDING FOR THE WASHINGTON, D.C. CONSULTANT TO ADDRESS 
THE ISTEA MANDATE, AND THE DELETION OF POSITIONS 13, 41, 48, 
52 AND 53.  APPROVAL OF THE BICYCLE PLANNING AND SAFETY 
POSITIONS IS NOT INCLUDED IN THIS MOTION PENDING THE 
COMMITTEE'S DECISION ON THIS ITEM.

SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

* * * * *

Senator Jacobsen called a short recess at approximately 9:45 a.m.  The meeting was 
again called to order at 10:00 a.m.

Waste Management and Federal Facilities - Page 1899

Jeanne L. Botts, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau 
(LCB), directed the committee's attention to page 3 of the budget closing action sheets 
(Exhibit D).  She said this budget was held open at the last hearing pending discussion 
by the subcommittee studying the budgets of the DIS to ascertain what would happen 
with the proposed transfer of three positions from waste management into the DIS. 
 Referring the committee to page 4 (Exhibit D), Ms. Botts said decision units E-910 and 
E-912 address the issue of the proposed transfers.  

Continuing, Ms. Botts said the DIS recommends the transfer of two of the three 
positions and an additional amount that nearly equates to an additional FTE (full-time 
equivalency position).  The positions are still pending reclassification.  Ms. Botts said 
if they are reclassified to the management analyst series, as is proposed by the 
Division of Environmental Protection (DEP), they would remain within the DEP.  Of the 
two positions recommended for transfer, one is paid from federal funds and manages 
the hazardous waste data base, and there has been some indication that if these 
positions transfer and are not spending the appropriate amount of time  on this issue, 
the DEP might need to request another position.

Senator Jacobsen invited comment from Lewis H. Dodgion, Administrator, Division of 
Environmental Protection, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 
 Mr. Dodgion affirmed Ms. Botts' summary of the proposed position transfers.  He said 
the agency believes the positions were misclassified as microcomputer specialists 
because their duties actually fall within the management analyst series.  It is hoped by 
the DEP that the Department of Personnel will approve the requested reclassification.

Mr. Marvel asked what the staff recommends on this issue.  Ms. Botts responded that 
 since there are three reclassifications pending, the committee might wish to close the 
budget with the positions to be left in the environmental protection division on the 
assumption they will be reclassified.  If the personnel department does not reclassify 
the positions they could then be transferred to the DIS.  Ms. Botts said the other 
alternative would be to transfer the positions and the associated funds, then if the 
reclassifications are granted, the positions would be transferred back to the DEP.  She 
said the question is whether the decision should be left to the Department of 
Personnel's reclassification of the positions or whether instead the decision regarding 
the transfer of the positions should be made by the Legislature.  

Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst, pointed out there is a timing consideration, and it must 
be decided where to place the positions until the reclassification decision is made by 
the personnel department.  He said the ruling from personnel may not be forthcoming 
for several weeks and may even take several months.  The positions must therefore 
be left in the DEP or transferred to the DIS.  If the decision as to where to place the 
positions is made contingent on the reclassification decision, the adjustment would 
need to be made once that decision is reached, Mr. Stevens said.

Referencing earlier testimony by Mr. Stephens regarding the need for a transitional 
period for transferring positions, Ms. Botts said perhaps it would be best to leave the 
positions in the DEP pending a determination by the personnel department.  At that 
point, if the personnel department declines to approve the reclassification request and 
the positions  therefore are to be transferred, work programs could be prepared and 
approved by the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) to effect the transfer.

Expressing apprehension about the consequences of transferring the positions to the 
DIS, Senator O'Donnell cautioned that if the transfer occurs the DIS will then decide 
what the DEP requirements are for those positions, whereas the DEP already knows 
what its requirements are including the need for reclassification of the positions.  He 
supported the first alternative suggested by the fiscal staff, which is to leave the 
positions in the DEP and transfer them later, if necessary, following the personnel 
department's decision on the reclassification proposal; if the transfer is required it 
could be accomplished through the IFC.


SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO RECOMMEND CLOSING THE 
BUDGET ACCORDING TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF STAFF, WITH 
THE THREE POSITIONS IN DECISION UNITS E-910 AND E-912 (PAGE 
4, EXHIBIT D) TO BE LEFT IN THE DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL 
PROTECTION'S BUDGET ACCOUNT.  THE BUDGETS WOULD BE 
ADJUSTED AS NECESSARY ACCORDING TO THE RECLASSIFICATION 
DECISION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL.

SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

* * * * *

MR. FETTIC MOVED TO RECOMMEND CLOSING THE BUDGET 
ACCORDING TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF STAFF, WITH THE 
THREE POSITIONS IN DECISION UNITS E-910 AND E-912 (PAGE 4, 
EXHIBIT D) TO BE LEFT IN THE DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL 
PROTECTION'S BUDGET ACCOUNT.  THE BUDGETS WOULD BE 
ADJUSTED AS NECESSARY ACCORDING TO THE RECLASSIFICATION 
DECISION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL.

MR. MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

* * * * *

State Environmental Commission - Page 1999

Ms. Botts said there is a decision to be made in E-590 (page 15, Exhibit D) regarding 
the proposed creation of a seven-member compliance advisory panel as opposed to 
having the Natural Resources Advisory Board or the State Environmental Commission 
perform oversight duties.  She noted the compliance advisory board is required by the 
federal Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 and by Senate Bill (S.B.) 347 of the Sixty-
seventh Session.

SENATE BILL 347 OF THE
SIXTY-SEVENTH SESSION:	Makes various statutory changes in compliance with 
federal Clean Air Act.

Ms. Botts noted that in previous hearings it was determined there is a need for a 
separate panel.


Senator Jacobsen invited comment from Mr. Dodgion and then Mr. Morros.  Mr. 
Dodgion said when the issue was raised in previous hearings, he was asked to discuss 
the matter with the environmental commission.  He said he had viewed the Natural 
Resources Advisory Board as an option with regard to performing oversight.  Mr. 
Dodgion said he is confident the environmental commission could more than 
adequately perform the functions required of the compliance advisory panel, but the 
problem is that the composition of the panel is specified by federal law, in section 
507(e) of the Clean Air Act.  The requirements include that two members of the 
general public be appointed by the Governor to serve on the panel, and that the 
majority and minority parties (of both houses) in the Legislature each designate a 
person representing small business to serve as a member of the panel.  The seventh 
panel member must be a representative of the air pollution permitting agency.  Mr. 
Dodgion noted the make-up of the State Environmental Commission does not 
correspond to the federal requirements.

Continuing, Mr. Dodgion said he checked with the Region Nine office of the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for an opinion on the acceptability of utilizing 
the environmental commission for oversight.  The response by the Region Nine office 
was that this could not be done because it does not comply with federal law.

Senator Jacobsen inquired if the Natural Resources Advisory Board would meet the 
federal criteria.  Mr. Dodgion replied no.  Mr. Morros concurred.

Ms. Botts pointed out the costs of the compliance advisory panel are projected at 
approximately $5,000 per year and would be paid from a transfer from the Air Quality 
Management account, which is supported by air permit fees.

Senator Jacobsen asked if the federal criteria specify meeting requirements.  Mr. 
Dodgion said there are no requirements as to number of meetings, but the law 
specifies their functions.  He said the agency has budgeted for approximately four 
meetings of the advisory panel per year, and the $5,000 budgeted for the panel would 
 be used primarily for travel.

Mr. Marvel inquired if a statutory change would be required to establish the panel.  Mr. 
Dodgion responded that such a change should not be necessary because the panel 
itself is strictly advisory, and the only expenses involved would be for the members' 
travel to and from the meetings.  They would receive no salary or other remuneration.

MR. MARVEL MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT A COMPLIANCE 
ADVISORY PANEL BE CREATED TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LAW.

MR. FETTIC SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.  (MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI VOTED NO.)

* * * * *

SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT A COMPLIANCE 
ADVISORY PANEL BE CREATED TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LAW.

SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

* * * * *


Prior to the vote on the above motion, Ms. Giunchigliani asked what the consequences 
would be of not creating the advisory panel.  Mr. Dodgion said his reading of the 
applicable language in the federal law is that no penalties or sanctions are specified. 
 However, he stated, EPA Region Nine, which agency reviews the DEP application for 
the permitting program under Title V of the Clean Air Act, has made the compliance 
advisory panel a condition for approval of the permitting program.  He questioned the 
EPA's authority in this regard, but said the agency has asserted such authority.  He 
reiterated there appears to be no penalty attached to a failure to comply with regard 
to the compliance advisory panel.

Mr. Marvel commented the fact that small business would be present on the advisory 
panel is appealing to him.  

Senator O'Donnell made the following remarks:

The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency's oversight committee is essentially 
the same thing, and when the Tahoe TRPA wants to implement some 
policies and procedures it is the oversight committee that they have to 
really look over their shoulder at in terms of doing what they're doing. 
 Sometimes the information comes out that TRPA decides is maybe not 
in the best interests of [Lake Tahoe].  I can see this oversight committee 
being somewhat similar in that if the EPA decides to go out and do 
something, maybe they might want to look over their shoulder to the 
oversight committee in terms of getting a more rational picture.

Division of Water Resources - Page 1955

R. Michael Turnipseed, State Engineer, Division of Water Resources, State Department 
of Conservation and Natural Resources, presented handout material regarding a 
proposal to amend Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 533.370 to reduce the number of 
legal notices that must be published pertaining to water right applications (Exhibit E) 
and a table indicating current publication costs for various Nevada newspapers 
(Exhibit F).

Mr. Turnipseed said the water resources division began examining the notices placed 
in newspapers in an attempt to remove superfluous language and reduce the number 
of lines in the notices.  He said approximately 50 percent of the applications are for 
changes to existing water rights and the other 50 percent are to appropriate water 
rights.  The change applications are by definition longer notices, Mr. Turnipseed said, 
because both the existing and the proposed point of diversion and place of use are 
included.

Continuing, Mr. Turnipseed said the agency surveyed some of the newspapers in the 
state on their per-line charges, based on an average of 28 lines per notice.  The results 
are itemized in Exhibit F.  Mr. Turnipseed said the state presently reimburses the 
newspapers $50 for the notices.  He further stated that last year the agency received 
1,201 applications, of which 107 (8 percent) were in the Las Vegas Valley.  

Ms. Giunchigliani inquired as to the actual dollar amount required by the Division of 
Water Resources for its budget with regard to the publication reimbursement costs. 
 Mr. Turnipseed responded the agency does not require additional funds in its budgets. 
 He said the application fees are $250 for the application to appropriate water and 
$200 or $150 for a change application, and a portion of the fees is used to pay for the 
publication of the legal notices.  It was observed the statutory change would make the 
level of reimbursement more reasonable for newspapers and would help to expedite 
the application process by 2 weeks.

Mr. Morros commented that all of the fees collected by the State Engineer go to the 
state General Fund.

Mr. Marvel asked if a statutory change is being requested by the agency.  Mr. 
Turnipseed said a statutory change would be required to change the publication times 
from five to three.

MR. MARVEL MOVED TO RECOMMEND A STATUTORY CHANGE BE 
REQUESTED TO CHANGE THE REQUIRED PUBLICATION TIMES FROM 
FIVE TO THREE.

MR. SPITLER SECONDED THE MOTION.

In discussion on the statutory changes being proposed, Ms. Botts directed the 
committee's attention to material she had prepared regarding suggested language to 
change the number of times legal notices must be published (page 2, Exhibit G) and 
to increase the amount of reimbursement to newspapers for the publication of notices 
(page 4).  Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the statutory changes should 
be combined in one bill.   Mr. Spitler subsequently withdrew his second to the motion 
under discussion.

Mr. Turnipseed noted for clarification that the rural newspapers willingly publish the 
legal notices for the benefit of their readers who require such information, whereas the 
larger newspapers may not care about noticing the water rights applications.

Ms. Giunchigliani said it does not make sense to separate the statutory changes 
because they are linked "to justify the need for the increase."

Mr. Morris said if the publication fee is increased from the present $50 to $100, but 
the application fees are not increased, the increase will, in effect, be paid from the 
state General Fund because all of the fee revenues are deposited in the General Fund. 
 To cover the cost of the increased publication fee it is therefore necessary to increase 
the application fee.

Mr. Marvel withdrew his motion and requested further explanation from staff.

Ms. Botts said the issue is not that the Legislature would increase the fee for 
publication and not increase the total fee for an applicant, thereby impacting the 
General Fund, but whether or not the number of required publication times should be 
changed from five to three and whether the fee should be increased from $50 to $100 
for the cost of publication in recognition that some of the newspapers in the state are 
charging more.  Mr. Morros said he merely wished to ensure the committee is fully 
aware as to the source of funds to pay for the publication fee increase.  Ms. Botts 
agreed the publication fee cannot be increased without also increasing the total 
application fee. 

Attempting to clarify the issue, Mr. Turnipseed said that reducing the number of 
required publication times for legal notices from five to three would reduce the costs 
to the newspapers by 40 percent, as reflected in the chart he had provided (Exhibit F). 
He said if it is desired that the entire cost of the most expensive newspapers be 
covered, the amount that can be reimbursed to newspapers as well as the application 
fee will need to be increased.

MR. MARVEL MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT A STATUTORY CHANGE 
BE REQUESTED TO CHANGE THE NUMBER OF TIMES LEGAL NOTICES 
MUST BE PUBLISHED FROM FIVE TO THREE.

MR. FETTIC SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.  (MR. SPITLER VOTED NO.)

* * * * *

SENATOR MATHEWS MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT A STATUTORY 
CHANGE BE REQUESTED TO CHANGE THE NUMBER OF TIMES LEGAL 
NOTICES MUST BE PUBLISHED FROM FIVE TO THREE.

SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

* * * * *

In discussion prior to the vote on the above motion, Mr. Arberry asked what will 
happen the next time the newspapers raise their prices and if, in that situation, the 
number of publication times would again be reduced.  Senator Jacobsen indicated the 
situation would need to be addressed when it occurs.  He noted there is currently a 
legislative measure that considers all of the publications in all of the newspapers.

Mr. Morros remarked that 12 years ago the publication fee was only $15.  It was 
increased to $25 and then to $50.  

Mr. Turnipseed said the water resources division has been publishing all legal notices 
five times since the law was created in 1913.  He said research on this requirement 
was previously conducted at the request of the newspapers.  Mr. Turnipseed further 
stated that an opinion from Brenda Erdoes, an LCB bill drafter, indicates that what 
constitutes proper public notice is whatever the Legislature deems it to be.

Following discussion on the motion stated above and the subsequent vote on the 
motion, Ms. Botts outlined two alternative proposals for the Division of Water 
Resources budgets, Plan A and Plan B (pages 8 and 9, respectively, of Exhibit D).

In Plan A, seven new positions would be added to the division.  Ms. Botts reminded 
the committee there were no additional positions recommended by the Governor.  In 
the original budget request the agency requested the seven positions.  The cost is 
approximately $278,000 in FY 1996 and $305,000 in FY 1997, but it would be 
partially offset by the division's increased ability to collect and process fees.  The 
resulting increase in revenues from the fees would be $131,250 in FY 1996 and 
$138,000 in FY 1997.  It was indicated the net cost to the General Fund for the above 
positions and related costs would be $146,675 in FY 1996 and $167,067 in FY 
1997.

Ms. Botts said the seven positions include a hearing officer, which is the division's top 
priority with respect to positions; five technical staff, and one clerical position.  She 
highlighted the various "adjustments to expense" in Plan A.


Regarding Plan B, Ms. Botts recalled that in the first hearing by the joint subcommittee 
the division was requested to provide information indicating what would be needed to 
completely eliminate the backlog in the Division of Water Resources and to ensure the 
division's operations are timely.  Ms. Botts said the agency's response is Plan B,  
which calls for 20 additional positions for this budget at a projected cost of 
approximately $778,000 in FY 1996 and $840,000 in FY 1997.  These costs would 
be partially mitigated by an increase in deposits to the General Fund of State Engineer 
fees of $375,000 in the first year and $394,000 in the second year.  The net cost 
would be approximately $400,000 per year, Ms. Botts stated.

Continuing, Ms. Botts said the 20 positions include the hearing officer requested in 
Plan A and an additional hearing officer; the balance are primarily clerical and technical 
 positions to review applications.  There are commensurate increases in travel, 
operating costs and equipment for the new staff, she said.

Referencing the previous hearing on this budget, Senator O'Donnell inquired as to the 
number of applications filed each year.  Mr. Turnipseed said there were 1,234 the year 
before last and 1,201 last year.  The senator asked Mr. Turnipseed how much an 
expedite fee should be in order to mitigate the General Fund costs of the seven 
positions, if such a fee were to be implemented as discussed at the previous hearing. 
 Mr. Turnipseed requested clarification of the purpose of an expedite fee and how the 
processing of applications would be affected.  He said the water resources division 
selectively chooses the applications to be processed depending on what is determined 
to be the most beneficial to the state.  He testified the mining industry applications are 
processed fairly rapidly, whereas there are some applications for stock watering that 
have been in the agency's files since 1978 or 1979.

Continuing, Mr. Turnipseed asked Senator O'Donnell if his preference is that the 
division would begin with the oldest application and go forward or, alternatively, that 
the agency would continue as it has been but would charge an expedite fee if the 
application is to be processed out of order.

Senator O'Donnell suggested that a member of the general public would probably be 
very affronted if a particular person were to receive greater consideration than another 
person in such matters.  He said while the need to process applications in a timely 
manner is understood, to require a rancher to wait as long as 9 years for a water 
permit does not make sense.

Mr. Turnipseed replied the Division of Water Resources has had to be selective in 
processing applications.  The priorities have been applications for municipal wells, real 
estate closings, large industrial filings and mining operations.  Mr. Turnipseed said 
applications for mining-related operations involving de-watering must be expedited 
because the pits can fill up with water, causing water quality problems and severe 
financial problems, if approval is delayed.  He noted the mining applications represent 
approximately 30 percent of the total.  If the applications are protested, the agency 
must either hold a hearing or facilitate a resolution among the persons involved.

Mr. Turnipseed told the committee he recently received 215 change applications from 
applicants in the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District that he had already decided or that 
had been decided during Mr. Morros' tenure as State Engineer.  He said the decisions 
have been appealed in the federal and district courts, and he has been instructed to 
again hold hearings on the applications with specified particulars to be considered.  He 
expressed uncertainty as to who would pay the expedite fee.


Ms. Botts offered that after this issue was discussed at the last hearing she met with 
Ms. Erdoes, who said there could be significant problems associated with 
implementing an expedite fee for this kind of process because applicants who do not 
pay the fee could be adversely affected.  The situation would be that whoever submits 
an application first would obtain the water rights.

Senator O'Donnell suggested the Division of Water Resources does not actually need 
the requested seven new positions in Plan A or 20 new positions in Plan B, because 
the State Engineer can pick and choose which applications to process based on the 
urgency of the particular situation.  Mr. Turnipseed responded the agency has had to 
be selective out of necessity.  He noted California had implemented an expedite fee, 
which he believed to be $400,000, and subsequently lost a lawsuit filed against the 
state on the basis that the fee discriminated against the poor.  He said once the 
backlog at the division is reduced, the process will be expedited and an expediting 
device such as the suggested fee will not be needed.  

Senator O'Donnell maintained that, according to what Mr. Turnipseed had been saying, 
there is no backlog.  He said by definition a backlog consists of a number of items that 
have not been processed, but any of the applications can be processed instantaneously 
given the proper impetus, such as a telephone call from the senator requesting that the 
application be expedited.  Mr. Turnipseed countered that any single application could 
be expedited, but not all of them.

MR. MARVEL MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT THE "PLAN A" 
PROPOSAL FOR THIS BUDGET, AS PRESENTED ON PAGE 8 OF EXHIBIT 
D, BE ADOPTED AND THE BUDGET CLOSED ACCORDINGLY.

MR. FETTIC SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.  (MR. SPITLER VOTED NO.)

* * * * *

SENATOR MATHEWS MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT THE "PLAN A" 
PROPOSAL FOR THIS BUDGET, AS PRESENTED ON PAGE 8 OF EXHIBIT 
D, BE ADOPTED AND THE BUDGET CLOSED ACCORDINGLY.

SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATOR O'DONNELL VOTED NO.)

* * * * *

Nevada Natural Heritage - Page 1987

Ms. Botts said the Nevada Natural Heritage program has been partially funded the last 
4 years with a transfer from the Division of Wildlife of $100,000 per year of the 
Question 5 bond revenues.  In the information submitted to voters prior to the election 
for the Question 5 bond, it was stipulated that the Natural Heritage program receive 
the $100,000 per year for each of 4 fiscal years.  The current fiscal year is the fourth 
year for which the funding was stipulated.  Ms. Botts further explained the Governor's 
budget is proposing that General Fund revenues be used to help offset the loss of the 
Question 5 bond funds, and the budget contains $36,000 in FY 1996 and $85,000 
in FY 1997 for that purpose.


Continuing, Ms. Botts reminded the committee the Nevada Department of 
Transportation is transferring $40,000 per year because the agency uses the services 
of the Natural Heritage program extensively.  If the General Fund appropriation is not 
made it would result in the loss of two of the positions in this program, she stated.

Ms. Botts explained the technical adjustments made by staff in this budget.  Regarding 
the question posed on page 11 (Exhibit D) as to whether the amount of space should 
be decreased in the second year of the biennium, Ms. Botts said the agency has 
already relocated to a larger space.  She noted the agency received two additional 
positions through the IFC as part of the bio-diversity initiative.

Ms. Botts said there is a question regarding whether or not to designate the Nevada 
Natural Heritage program a separate division of the State Department of Conservation 
and Natural Resources.  She said according to information received from the agency, 
a bill draft has been submitted to establish the program as a separate division within 
the department, but the status of the proposed legislation is not known.  The agency 
is not mentioned in the law, Ms. Botts remarked.

Glenn Clemmer, Program Manager, Nevada Natural Heritage program, said the agency 
has been operational for 4 years with the state and 9 years in total.  He said the 
program's association with the department of conservation has essentially worked 
well, but it is believed there are advantages to creating a separate division.  He noted 
the agency is nonregulatory and has no jurisdiction over any laws, and in that regard 
would like to remain distinct and separate.  He stated it is important the program 
remain as an entity within the State Department of Conservation and Natural 
Resources.

Senator Jacobsen invited comment from the Budget Division.  Don Hataway, Chief 
Assistant Budget Administrator, Budget Division, Department of Administration, voiced 
the opinion it would be sufficient to send a letter of intent from the Legislature 
recognizing the Nevada Natural Heritage program as a program of the conservation and 
natural resources department .

Mr. Spitler inquired as to the possibility of obtaining federal grants to fund this program 
in order to alleviate the drain on the state General Fund.  Mr. Clemmer replied the 
agency receives some federal funding and currently receives support from the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service.  Additionally, the agency receives contract funds from the 
 fish and wildlife service and from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to conduct 
particular studies.  He said in terms of the agency's overall support for manpower and 
operations he is not optimistic about the prospects for federal funding. 

Mr. Spitler said he is concerned that the situation regarding the Natural Heritage 
program is reminiscent of what occurs when a program is mandated by the federal 
government and the funding disappears, requiring the program to be funded from the 
state General Fund.  He indicated the most he could support with regard to this 
request would be to authorize a loan of some kind, and he voiced the opinion that if 
the agency can generate grants or other funds "it should need to balance paying for 
the operation."


Mr. Morros responded, stating with regard to the issue of the statutory recognition of 
the Natural Heritage program that he would be more comfortable if he were to be 
directed, as director of the department, to exercise oversight and authority over the 
program.  He noted it was under his authority that Mr. Clemmer was hired, and he said 
he has always been somewhat uncomfortable with the lack of statutory authority with 
reference to this program.

Secondly, Mr. Morros continued, the committee should be cognizant of a genuine 
benefit of this program in terms of a more balanced approach to listing of endangered 
plant species.  He said the work that has been performed by Mr. Clemmer has played 
a significant role in tempering the intent, in some cases, to list species long before 
they have been considered for listing as endangered.  He noted that especially with 
regard to plants, when a species is placed on either the threatened or endangered list, 
development in the particular area involved will be affected by that designation.  Mr. 
Morros reiterated the Natural Heritage program has been effective in tempering the 
premature listing of species as endangered and providing a more balanced approach 
between economic development and the listing of species.  He said the Natural 
Heritage program is important and has his wholehearted support.  

Senator Jacobsen asked Mr. Clemmer if the Nevada Natural Heritage program requires 
services from other agencies.  Mr. Clemmer replied, "Absolutely."  He said the program 
relies on the Director's Office daily "for just keeping up and certainly for our 
administrative support, primarily through budget and Linda Marty's office."

With reference to the agency's performance indicators, Senator O'Donnell asked why 
the Natural Heritage program is not conducting more field studies and fewer meetings 
instead of the reverse.  Mr. Clemmer responded the field studies are essentially based 
on support from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the BLM.  He said there are no 
other operational funds for field studies, and the agency is primarily a data base 
service.  The field studies are performed with specific contractual recommendations, 
Mr. Clemmer continued.  In terms of meetings, he said he is selective about the 
meetings he attends concerning endangered or threatened species.  Mr. Clemmer said 
the agency is attempting to attend more of the meetings in order to prevent 
[unnecessary] listings and to address protective and conservation issues "when things 
can be done."  He said there are numerous meetings involving federal and state 
agencies, and the Natural Heritage program attempts to attend only those meetings 
at which action can be taken that will actually benefit "non-listings."  He observed that 
if a species has been listed there is not much the agency can do about it.

Senator O'Donnell inquired as to the possibility of coordination between the Natural 
Heritage program and the wildlife division to monitor not only the sensitive animals and 
plants, but also deer populations and predatory animals.  He said he would like to 
know what the policy is regarding predatory animals, because the Legislature might 
wish to make a policy change.  However, there is no data available in this area, the 
senator remarked.

Mr. Morros said he believes the agencies work closely together on the these issues. 
 He noted that most predators are not on the endangered or threatened species lists 
or in danger of being put on either list.  He said usually the complaints are that there 
are too many predators and that they are preying on the deer and other wildlife.  


Senator O'Donnell reiterated there is no data available.  Mr. Morros said the Division 
of Wildlife has quantitative data.  The senator inquired if the data could be 
incorporated into the data base of the Natural Heritage program.  Mr. Morros replied 
that the data generated by the wildlife division is incorporated into the data base.  Mr. 
 Clemmer said the data is partially incorporated into the data base and the agencies do 
exchange data.  He explained the Natural Heritage program monitors the endangered, 
threatened and sensitive species, which includes some predators, but the wildlife 
division tracks the more widespread wildlife populations.  He noted the five-member 
Natural Heritage staff cannot keep up with everything and focuses on the sensitive and 
rare species.  Mr. Clemmer said the agency has no mechanism for tracking deer herds 
and other wildlife populations, which he said the wildlife division does adequately.  He 
said the two agencies complement one another in their wildlife monitoring 
responsibilities.

Mr. Marvel said the importance of the Nevada Natural Heritage program is that many 
times the agency can preclude listing of species by the federal agencies as threatened 
or endangered and can mitigate some of the roadblocks imposed on grazing, 
development or mining operations.  He voiced the opinion the federal agencies would 
like nothing better than to stop development in the State of Nevada.  He said the 
Nevada Natural Heritage program performs a very valuable function.

Mr. Clemmer cited two specific cases, involving mining, in which the Natural Heritage 
program has interceded to enable the mining activities to proceed.  He reiterated the 
agency is attempting to perform conservation work that will prevent unnecessary 
listings of species.

MR. MARVEL MOVED TO RECOMMEND CLOSING THIS BUDGET IN 
ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF STAFF AS 
PRESENTED ON PAGE 10 OF EXHIBIT D.

MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION FAILED.  (MR. SPITLER, MR. FETTIC AND MR. CLOSE 
VOTED NO.)

Senator O'Donnell inquired how many positions would be in this agency should the 
decision be made to augment the budget.  Ms. Botts said there are currently five 
personnel in the Nevada Natural Heritage program.  In order to retain all five positions, 
the General Fund appropriations of $36,000 in FY 1996 and $85,000 in FY 1997 are 
recommended by the Governor and by the fiscal analysis staff.  Without the 
appropriations, the agency would lose one position in the first year and a second 
position the next year.  

SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO RECOMMEND CLOSING THIS 
BUDGET IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF STAFF 
AS PRESENTED ON PAGE 10 OF EXHIBIT D, INCLUDING 
APPROPRIATING $36,000 IN FY 1996 AND $85,000 IN FY 1997 TO 
RETAIN THE TWO POSITIONS.

SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

* * * * *


MR. MARVEL MOVED TO RECOMMEND CLOSING THIS BUDGET IN 
ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF STAFF AS 
PRESENTED ON PAGE 10 OF EXHIBIT D, INCLUDING APPROPRIATING 
$36,000 IN FY 1996 AND $85,000 IN FY 1997 TO RETAIN THE TWO 
POSITIONS.

MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION FAILED.  (MR. SPITLER, MR. FETTIC AND MR. CLOSE 
VOTED NO.)

* * * * *

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency - Page 2005

Directing the committee's attention to page 18 (Exhibit D), Ms. Botts said the 
adjustment in this budget is the deletion of the rent increase.  She said the Budget 
Division accidentally included the rent increase in both years of the biennium, but the 
increase is not effective until the second year.

Ms. Botts said the unresolved issue in this budget, detailed in decision unit E-450 on 
page 19 (Exhibit D), is whether the funding for the "partnership approach" should be 
continued.  She said the Governor has recommended General Fund support of $60,000 
per year to continue the partnership approach.  Ms. Botts said the funds are to be used 
by the agency in its efforts to resolve controversial issues by working with interested 
parties throughout the planning process on problems such as air and water quality, 
restoration of stream environment zones, parking management, forest health and 
recreation issues.  The program was authorized by the IFC in November 1994 with the 
expectation that California would match Nevada's contribution at some time in the 
future.  However, Ms. Botts stated, California will not be providing the matching funds 
for the partnership approach in FY 1995-1996, and it is not yet not known whether 
the match will be provided in FY 1996-1997.  

Continuing her explanation of the issues in E-450, Ms. Botts pointed out that 
Assembly Bill (A.B.) 17, which is a product of the legislative committee assigned to 
 review the activities of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), recommends this 
program to be continued and has provided funding for it.  She said the decision to be 
made by the legislators is whether or not to support continued funding for the 
partnership approach and include it in this budget, recognizing California will not be 
providing a match in the coming year, or to remove the funding in the budget and wait 
to see what happens with A.B. 17.  

ASSEMBLY BILL 17:	Makes appropriations for establishment and operation of 
program to provide for preparation and implementation of 
plans for protection and development of Lake Tahoe Basin 
by all interested participants.


Another issue in E-450, Ms. Botts stated, is that traditionally, TRPA employees are 
offered the same pay increase extended to Nevada state employees, provided 
California matches the raise.  The Budget Division did not recommend a raise for the 
employees because it was not requested.  Ms. Botts said, "They asked for it in the 
second year." She indicated that not granting the raise to the TRPA employees is 
inappropriate relative to the treatment they have received in the past.  She explained 
that in the past, if California provides a raise and Nevada also provides a raise, the 
lower amount is granted to the TRPA employees.  She said they should not be treated 
differently in the upcoming biennium merely because they had not specifically 
requested the raise.

SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT THE 
PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM BE CONTINUED; THAT ONE-HALF OF THE 
SALARY INCREASE GRANTED TO NEVADA STATE EMPLOYEES BE 
AUTHORIZED FOR THE TRPA EMPLOYEES SO THAT IF CALIFORNIA 
DOES NOT MATCH THE SALARY INCREASE, THE TRPA EMPLOYEES 
 WOULD RECEIVE A MINIMUM SALARY INCREASE OF ONE-HALF THE 
AMOUNT GRANTED TO NEVADA STATE EMPLOYEES; AND THAT THE 
SALARY INCREASES BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FIRST YEAR OF THE 
BIENNIUM.

Ms. Botts requested clarification of Senator O'Donnell's motion.  It was ascertained 
that under this motion, if the salary increase granted to Nevada state employees is 
matched by California, the TRPA employees would receive the full amount of the 
increase; however, if California fails to match the salary increase, the TRPA employees 
would at least receive a salary increase of one-half the amount granted the Nevada 
state employees.  

SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

* * * * *

Senator Jacobsen called for a corresponding motion from the Assembly.

MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO RECOMMEND THE STATE REMAIN IN 
THE PARTNERSHIP, BUT THE TRPA EMPLOYEES SHOULD RECEIVE THE 
SAME SALARY INCREASE GRANTED NEVADA STATE EMPLOYEES.

The motion died for lack of a second.  The original motion failed for lack of 
concurrence by the other house.

Senator O'Donnell pointed out the TRPA employees are only partially employed by 
Nevada; they are one-third Nevada employees and two-thirds California employees. 
 
Mr. Spitler opposed Nevada being the only state to fund the partnership approach.

Jim Baetge, Executive Director, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, told the committee 
the issue regarding California's failure to provide a match for the partnership approach 
is not aimed at the TRPA but is a general fund issue in the State of California.  All 
California agencies were advised they could not request the raises.  Mr. Baetge stated 
the funding would definitely "go forward next year, with the economy improving."  He 
predicted that would make up the difference in funding and reiterated the agency will 
be requesting the match when it is allowed by the State of California.

The budget was held in abeyance due to time constraints.


Senator Jacobsen suggested the time has come for an ad hoc summit between 
legislative representatives from California and Nevada to discuss the TRPA issues.  He 
noted such meetings have been held in the past.  He indicated his intention to have the 
appropriate parties contacted for the purpose of attending a summit meeting. The 
meeting was adjourned at 11:05 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:



____________________________	
Sue Parkhurst,
Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

_______________________________________	
Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen, Chairman


DATE:_________________________________	




_______________________________________	
Assemblyman Larry L. Spitler, Chairman


DATE:_________________________________	




Senate Committee on Finance
Assembly Committee on Ways and Means
Joint Subcommittee on Pub. Safety/Nat'l Res./Trans.
April 28, 1995