MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Ways and Means

 

Seventy-Second Session

May 15, 2003

 

 

The Committee on Ways and Meanswas called to order at 7:49 a.m., on Thursday, May 15, 2003.  Chairman Morse Arberry Jr. presided in Room 3137 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada, and through simultaneous videoconference in Room 4405 of the Grant Sawyer Building, Las Vegas, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Guest List.  All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mr. Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Vice Chairwoman

Mr. Walter Andonov

Mr. Bob Beers

Mrs. Vonne Chowning

Mrs. Dawn Gibbons

Mr. David Goldwater

Mr. Josh Griffin

Mr. Lynn Hettrick

Ms. Sheila Leslie

Mr. John Marvel

Ms. Kathy McClain

Mr. David Parks

Mr. Richard Perkins

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

None

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

Senator Dina Titus, Clark County Senatorial District No. 7

Senator Randolph Townsend, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 4

Senator Maurice Washington, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 2

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst

Jim Rodriguez, Program Analyst

Mark Krmpotic, Senior Program Analyst

Lila Clark, Committee Secretary

Susan Cherpeski, Committee Secretary

Senate Bill 72:  Authorizes State Forester Firewarden of Division of Forestry of State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources to determine amount of wages paid to certain offenders in conservation camps. (BDR 16-1005)

 

Mr. Steve Robinson, State Forester Firewarden, Division of Forestry, introduced himself.  Mr. Robinson said that S.B. 72 was introduced by Senator Mark Amodei.  The bill was a result of an interim committee that studied the Department of Corrections including the inmate conservation crews.  Mr. Robinson said the Forestry inmate conservation crews were comprised of approximately 1,700 inmates under the supervision of State Forestry supervisors.  The crews accomplished many duties from cleaning up the interstate highways, maintaining state parks, to building elementary schools from the ground up, as in Lincoln County.  Mr. Robinson said that most importantly, 40 to 50 crews, including females, were trained as fire crews.  Those crews had become integral to fire suppression in the state.  Mr. Robinson said the crews were often the initial attack in the more remote parts of Nevada and served as the crews for the Helitac air operations.  Over the prior 30 years the Nevada Forestry Conservation program had become the largest such program in the west and the projects completed were more complex, diverse, and the fire work much more demanding than in the past.  Mr. Robinson said that most recently the crews were on the border of Utah and Nevada searching for shuttle debris. 

 

Mr. Robinson said one thing that had remained unchanged over the life of the program was inmate pay for the conservation crew members.  Since 1970, 33 years ago, inmate pay had been $2.10 to $3.10 per day depending on the length of service and $.80 to $1.00 per hour if they were on a fire.  Mr. Robinson said the Governor’s panel on Corrections brought the issue up, discussed it at length, and those involved all agreed that the issue needed to be addressed. 

 

Mr. Robinson said S.B. 72 would allow the Division of Forestry to set the wages for the inmate crews.  He said there was no plan to increase the pay rate for all projects, especially those that were not reimbursed.  Mr. Robinson said the crews did work, for which they were not reimbursed, for those that could not pay.  That work included maintaining veterans’ cemeteries, the state parks maintenance, and other projects.  No money was made on those projects and inmate pay for them would not be increased.  Mr. Robinson said fire pay for inmates would be increased as most of the cost of fires was reimbursed by federal agencies.  The reimbursement requests to the federal agencies would be increased to provide the funds to raise the inmate crews’ pay.  Mr. Robinson said any action taken by the Division of Forestry to raise the pay would be taken in consultation with the Department of Corrections, who was in agreement with the bill. 

 

Chairman Arberry asked who had determined the rate currently paid to the crews.  Mr. Robinson answered that the current rates were based on tradition.  He said the hourly rate had been the same for 33 years and no one had questioned it until recently.  Mr. Robinson said he was unaware who had set the rates 33 years ago. 

 

Chairman Arberry asked Mr. Robinson to research who had set the rates.  Mr. Robinson said he believed it went back to his predecessor and the rates were probably set by reviewing what other states paid at the time.  Mr. Robinson said the rate was $1.00 per hour for fires and he had checked with other states to determine their rates of pay and Utah paid their inmate crews more than Nevada did. 

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked how much more Utah paid its inmate fire crews. 

 

Mr. Robinson responded that Utah had a sliding scale with a high of approximately $2.50 per hour that had to do with the length of time an inmate had been on a crew.  Mr. Robinson said that Nevada would probably pay approximately $2 per hour. 

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked what budget was used to pay the inmate fire crews.  Mr. Robinson answered that there was a separate budget for the conservation program.  He said that in most cases the funds were reimbursed by the federal government. 

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if the federal government realized that it was paying salaries for crews when it reimbursed the state.  Mr. Robinson said the government did realize that. 

 

Assemblyman Marvel asked if the Division of Forestry had a fire suppression account.  Mr. Robinson replied affirmatively.  Mr. Marvel said that most of the fires occurred on federal lands and were billable to the federal government.  Mr. Robinson said the costs of fires including inmate pay was reimbursable from the federal government. 

 

Chairman Arberry asked if there was further testimony on S.B. 72 and there being none, he closed the hearing on S.B. 72 and opened the hearing on A.B. 546. 

 

Assembly Bill 546:  Makes appropriation to City of Las Vegas for support of Youth Athletic Grant Program. (BDR S-1347)

 

Ms. Lisa Morris, Neighborhood Services Department, City of Las Vegas, introduced herself and testified from Las Vegas.  Ms. Morris said that currently there were approximately 12,000 students participating in after-school activities statewide with over 50 percent of that number in Clark County.  Ms. Morris said that with the threat of budget cuts of 40 percent next year on the federal level to all after-school programs, over 7,200 students would be at risk of being left without any opportunity of participating in any after-school activities, thus increasing a child’s opportunity to engage in unlawful activities (Exhibit C). 

 

Ms. Morris said that in 1999 the City of Las Vegas created a Youth Athletic Grant Program designed to provide opportunities to low-moderate income youth, ages 3-16, to participate in sport leagues, athletics, and recreational programs.  The Youth Athletic Grant made it possible for over 700 children to participate in various recreational activities such as dance, swimming, baseball, soccer, track, and golf.  She said 46 community-based groups received up to $5,000 to cover the uniforms, registration fees, transportation, and equipment.  Ms. Morris said the Youth Athletic Grant program promoted peer relations, emotional adjustments, and provided for better social outcomes. 

 

Ms. Morris said the clinics were organized so that the participants not only learned additional skills in their chosen sport but became better informed about the integrity of the sport.  The Youth Athletic Grant Sportsmanship Clinics stressed the importance of safety, respect, teamwork, dedication, and commitment. 

Ms. Morris reported that according to the Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Programming, after-school programs between the hours of 2 p.m. and 7 p.m. significantly reduced the incidence of juvenile delinquency.  With the threat of school district cutbacks it was essential that youth have positive outlets after school.  Community-based recreational programs assisted children who may not have had opportunities to participate in traditional programming such as the Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) or Pop Warner, due to financial constraints. 

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked how many grantees there were in the program and Ms. Morris said there were 46. 

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked how many after-school programs existed through the school district, the university, or cities and counties.  Ms. Giunchigliani said time should be taken to determine what programs were available and then use the dollars for the programs that worked best.  Ms. Giunchigliani said she suspected the programs were probably being duplicated and the funds spread too thin in some areas.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked if anyone had looked at all of the programs available. 

 

Ms. Morris said the Leader Services Department of the City of Las Vegas had done a study to determine what resources were available.  She said that one of the ways duplication had been prevented was that the funds were strictly available for low-income children or children living in low-income areas and it allowed them to participate in programs that they ordinarily would not have had the opportunity to participate in.  Ms. Morris said the Neighborhood Services Department had partnered with the Boys and Girls Club, other mainstream groups such as Pop Warner, and the Leader Services Department.  Ms. Morris said that many times the dollars were used for scholarships to community-based organizations and some of the other groups so that the children who needed it most could participate. 

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked what length of time a clinic would run.  Ms. Morris said the clinics were one-day clinics but there were also community‑based groups that provided programming all summer.  Ms. Morris said in the clinics the youths were brought together for a particular sport and then talks were held regarding teamwork and dedication.  She said they had held a skateboarding clinic recently because skateboarding was currently a very popular sport.  Ms. Morris said that some of the skateboarding parks were experiencing damage and vandalism so the youths were brought together for a discussion of the importance of safety and taking pride in what the community had built for them.  That gave the youths the opportunity to have fun in the parks.  Ms. Morris said youths came to the clinics for the fun and recreation but lessons on respect, conflict resolution, and self-esteem were built in. 

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if there was any one program that made sure that services were not being duplicated.  Ms. Morris said there was no one council that brought all youth programs together to compare services. 

 

Chairman Arberry asked if there was further testimony on A.B. 546 and there being none, he closed the hearing on A.B. 546 and opened the hearing on A.B. 547. 

Assembly Bill 547:  Makes appropriation to City of Las Vegas for additional services to child care providers through Child Care Improvement Grant Program. (BDR S-1346)

 

Ms. Lisa Morris, Neighborhood Services Department, City of Las Vegas, stated that since 1997 the quality of child care in Las Vegas had been improved due to the Neighborhood Services Department.  She said that due to the success of the program the state of Nevada had replicated the program statewide.  The program continued to improve and the Neighborhood Services Department worked closely with the City of Las Vegas Child Care Licensing Division, the Clark County Health District, and the state of Nevada, to help child care providers maintain licensing requirements. 

 

Ms. Morris referred to Exhibit D, “Child Care Improvement Grant (CCIG).”  The exhibit demonstrated the difference that $5,000 could make.  Each of the sub‑recipients shown in Exhibit D was awarded a $5,000 mini-grant and all were currently licensed.  Ms. Morris said Godsend Learning Center made a major backyard renovation, which allowed them to transform the backyard into a viable play area with a sandbox, plush grass, and play equipment. 

 

Ms. Morris referred to Exhibit D for several examples of how the $5,000 mini- grants were used to improve child care facilities.  Ms. Morris said the program had been very successful and had previously received funding through the federal government but those funds would be very scarce in the future. 

 

Chairman Arberry asked if there was further testimony on A.B. 547 and there being none, he closed the hearing on A.B. 547 and opened the hearing on A.J.R. 16. 

 

Assembly Joint Resolution 16:  Proposes to amend Nevada Constitution to provide that State Treasurer is ex officio State Controller. (BDR C-1109)

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani explained that A.J.R. 16 was a proposal to amend the Constitution of the State of Nevada to provide that a person elected to be State Treasurer would serve as the ex officio State Controller and the concept had been discussed in the Legislature for several years.  Ms. Giunchigliani said that as the Committee had been dealing with the budget shortfalls and costs, it was felt that funds could be saved by consolidating the two offices.  She said Nevada had changed and it was time to review the roles within both of the offices. 

 

Chairman Arberry commented that moving the employees from the Controller’s Office to the Treasurer’s Office would be a smooth transition and approximately $500,000 to $1,000,000 would be saved.  The proposal would eliminate the duplication of services. 

 

Ms. Kathy Augustine, State Controller, introduced herself.  She said the bill would not affect her personally as she was term limited but she had opposed the bill from the time she served as a state senator.  Ms. Augustine said different versions of the proposal had been submitted several different times but the bill would eliminate a fundamental system of and checks and balances necessary to protect taxpayer dollars.  Ms. Augustine said that checks and balances preserved independence and public accountability.  She said that electing both the State Controller and the State Treasurer assured Nevadans that both offices would remain independent and accountable only to the public.  Likewise, it would preserve a fundamental and critical internal control over taxpayer money, the person handling the money was not writing the checks, and vice versa.  She said that constitutional construction significantly reduced the risk of mishandling state funds by assuring citizens that no one individual or office controlled all aspects of the state’s financial transactions or events. 

 

Ms. Augustine went on to say that the Standards for Internal Controls in the Federal Government manual reiterated the need for a separation of key duties in handling money by stating, “Key duties and responsibilities need to be divided and segregated among different people to reduce the risk of error or fraud.  This should include separating the responsibilities for authorizing transactions, processing and recording them, reviewing the transactions and handling any related assets.” 

 

Ms. Augustine said that while it was true that the technology of the new Integrated Financial System (IFS) allowed for more control over financial transactions, it should be remembered that increased automation of a process did not necessarily decrease the risk for fraud or the mishandling of state monies.  Technology would not replace the need for the separation of key duties and responsibilities. 

 

Ms. Augustine said that removing the independence of both offices would also put at risk the unique and critical functions of the State Controller’s Office.  She said that Exhibit E delineated the functions of the State Controller’s Office and the State Treasurer’s Office and showed their functions differed considerably and were not redundant, as some had argued.  Ms. Augustine said it had not been proven that the change would produce any real cost benefits and the $500,000 savings that had been proposed to be saved was from a proposal several years ago by former State Treasurer Bob Seale.  She said the dollar figures used in the past had no basis and were unfounded at best. 

 

Ms. Augustine said that A.J.R. 16 proposed to alter the Constitution of the State of Nevada without any overriding public demand for the change and without any real documented benefits, while seriously weakening the existing environmental control and diluting public accountability that had, since 1864, served the citizens of Nevada quite well. 

 

Chairman Arberry commented that since Ms. Augustine would not be re-elected due to term limits, it would be a perfect time to make the change. 

 

Ms. Augustine brought to the Committee’s attention a problem with the effective date proposed in A.J.R. 16.  She said that legislators’ terms went into effect the day after a general election but constitutional officers’ terms did not go into effect until the January after the general election.  The effective date of November 6, 2006, was flawed because her term of office did not end until January 2007. 

 

Assemblyman Beers said that Nevada’s citizens might not appreciate the need for internal controls but it was very important.  He said the consolidation of the two offices would cause an internal control problem and the state would be better off to consolidate the Controller’s Office with the Lieutenant Governor’s Office, the Governor’s Office, or the Secretary of State’s Office, than consolidating the offices of the Controller and the Treasurer. 

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said she believed consolidation of some duties could be accomplished without the constitutional amendment.  She said she did not agree that getting rid of a Controller’s Office would jeopardize the taxpayers’ funds.  She said she believed the checks and balances were in place currently and those could be reviewed. 

Chairman Arberry asked how many states had the Controller’s function in the same office as the Treasurer’s Office. 

 

Ms. Augustine said that in three states the Treasurer had been absorbed into the Controller’s Office recently.  In the state of Texas the State Treasurer’s Office was eliminated and the functions added to the State Comptroller’s Office.  However, a new division was created for the financial investments because the Treasurer’s Office had handled the investments.  She said the state of Minnesota recently eliminated their State Treasurer and put it into the State Auditor’s Office, which did the same job as the State Controller.  In Florida the State Treasurer and State Comptroller’s Offices were eliminated and the Chief Financial Officer’s Office was created.  Ms. Augustine reported that in all of those cases the financial investments had been removed from the Treasurer’s Office and those functions were not being done in the same office because of the checks and balances issue. 

 

Chairman Arberry asked if the State Controller was elected or appointed in most states.  Ms. Augustine responded that there were 43 elected State Controllers and Auditors in the country.  She said she believed the Treasurer’s numbers were approximately the same.  Ms. Augustine said that in some states the Treasurer and Controller were appointed by the legislative body or the Governor of the state. 

 

Ms. Patricia D. Cafferata, Esq., introduced herself as a former Assemblywoman, former State Treasurer, and former District Attorney of Lincoln, Lander, and Esmeralda Counties.  Ms. Cafferata opposed A.J.R. 16.  She said the Controller’s Office was one of the six constitutional offices in the Nevada Constitution and had been an office since 1864.  Ms. Cafferata said the Controller was someone the people had elected and she did not see any reason to deprive the people of that voting right.  She continued by saying that it was also an opportunity for higher office for those in the Legislature.  Ms. Cafferata said that out of the 18 State Controllers since the beginning of the state, 8 of them came from the Legislature.  Out of the 19 State Treasurers, only 5 came from the Legislature. 

 

Ms. Cafferata said she thought people might not realize the difference between the State Treasurer and the State Controller.  The State Treasurer received all of the money, banked it, and invested it.  The State Controller had the state’s checkbook and wrote all the checks.  Ms. Cafferata said it was unwise to allow the person who received the money to also write the checks.  She said that currently the only way to get money from the treasury was if the Treasurer and Controller both signed on the check.  Ms. Cafferata said that illustrated the checks and balances that Mr. Beers had referred to.  Ms. Cafferata said that if the offices were combined there would not be the necessary checks and balances.  

 

Ms. Cafferata stated that there had been two failures in the state’s history on embezzlements out of the state treasury.  The first Treasurer, Eben Rhoades, managed to get most of the money in the Permanent School Fund and much of the money in the General Fund.  He was able to do that with the help of a banker and he overlooked telling the State Controller about money he had received.  Ms. Cafferata said that could not happen today.  Ms. Cafferata said the second failure involved Edward Malley, Treasurer, and George Cole, Controller.  Mr. Cole was a former legislator.  In 1927 Mr. Malley and Mr. Cole worked together to get the money out of the General Fund.  Ms. Cafferata said that if the offices were put together, people could work together to defraud the state. 

Ms. Cafferata said she had not been the State Treasurer for nearly 20 years so she was unsure of the functions currently performed by each office but when she was the Treasurer there was no overlap because each office had its own function.  Ms. Cafferata said that the salary of the Treasurer or Controller could be saved by combining the offices but the work still had to be done so not a great deal of money could be saved.  Ms. Cafferata said that the Committee should determine exactly what could be saved if the offices were combined because she thought it was a very dangerous precedent to combine the offices because the checks and balances would be gone. 

 

Chairman Arberry asked if there was further testimony on A.J.R. 16 and there being none, he closed the hearing on A.J.R. 16 and opened the hearing on S.B. 127. 

 

Senate Bill 127 (1st Reprint):  Makes various changes to provisions governing hazardous materials. (BDR 40-296)

 

Mr. Allen Biaggi, Administrator, Division of Environmental Protection, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, introduced himself.  Mr. Biaggi said S.B. 127 was the result of investigations conducted by the interim Subcommittee on Industrial Explosions.  The purpose of the Subcommittee was to investigate incidents involving explosives and flammable gases in Clark and Douglas Counties and to provide recommendations to the Legislature for any statutory changes needed to improve the regulation of highly hazardous substances. 

 

Mr. Biaggi said that the Division of Environmental Protection participated in the Subcommittee hearings and strongly endorsed the proposed legislation, which was a final recommendation of the Subcommittee.  Mr. Biaggi said the bill clarified the Chemical Accident Prevention program requirements and unified program processes by moving the technical regulatory requirements for conducting risk assessments from statute to regulation.  Mr. Biaggi said that removing technical regulatory detail from the statute would help to harmonize program requirements and allow the Division staff and regulated facilities to focus on implementing an effective safety program rather than to expend staff time on cumbersome administrative requirements. 

 

Mr. Biaggi stated that the fiscal note attached to the bill was for a new provision that would authorize the Division to conduct investigations at facilities handling highly hazardous substances including explosives.  The cost of those investigations would be recovered from the responsible party where a release of such chemicals had occurred.  There were no General Funds associated with the program. 

 

Mr. Biaggi said the bill would further the protection against accidental releases of hazardous substances and assist the regulated community in determining how to comply with the requirements of the program. 

 

Chairman Arberry asked if there was further testimony on S.B. 127 and there being none, he closed the hearing on S.B. 127 and opened the hearing on S.B. 233. 

Senate Bill 233:  Increases amount of general obligation bonds that State Board of Finance may issue to provide grants to certain water systems. (BDR 30-553)

 

Mr. Biaggi introduced Mr. Leo Drozdoff, Deputy Administrator, Division of Environmental Protection, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.  Mr. Biaggi said S.B. 233 would allow the State Board of Finance to issue General Obligation Bonds of the state of Nevada in an amount of not more than $86,000,000 to support the purposes of the State Board for Financing Water Projects.  The $86,000,000 amount represented an increase of $17,000,000 over what was presently authorized under statute. 

 

Mr. Biaggi said the State Board for Financing Water Projects provided grants to predominantly small, rural community water systems in order to build necessary infrastructure to ensure that their customers were provided with a safe supply of drinking water and to comply with the requirements of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act.  Mr. Biaggi said that to date, 15 of Nevada’s 17 counties had used the program.  The Board also provided grants to irrigation districts for water conservation projects.  To date the Board had approved projects throughout the state totaling nearly $68 million.  He said approximately $1 million had not been allocated, therefore, the ability to have greater bonding authority was necessary in order to continue to fund needed projects.  Mr. Biaggi stated that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had promulgated a new, lower arsenic standard.  That program could be an avenue to help communities comply with the new standard. 

 

Mr. Biaggi stated that S.B. 200 and S.B. 233 were separate requests but were related due to their modification of NRS 349.980 and bonding capacity.  He said Mr. Drozdoff would address the fiscal issues of the bill. 

 

Mr. Drozdoff said the bill would allow the Board for Financing Water Projects to approve an additional $17 million in grants to Nevada’s public water systems.  The $17 million would not come from the state General Fund but would be realized from the State Treasurer’s sales of state General Obligation Bonds that would be repaid by the ad valorem tax. 

 

Mr. Drozdoff said the sales of the bonds for the program were not included in the Treasurer’s Capital Improvement Plan, however, the Division had a long and successful relationship with the State Treasurer’s Office and the needs of the program were well known.  Mr. Drozdoff said the projects approved by the Board for Financing Water Projects took one to two years to develop before funds were actually requested.  To underscore that point, the Board had actually approved approximately $68 million in infrastructure projects but actual bond sales were less than $50 million.  Additionally, the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) had agreed with the State Treasurer’s Office to minimize the impact on bond sales by limiting the bond sale requests to no more than $6 million in any one year.  Mr. Drozdoff said the Division could ensure that would occur because the Division updated its cash flow estimates based on information submitted by grantees.  If projected cash flows were to exceed the $6 million annual cap, the Division would work with the grantees to secure interim financing from other sources.  Mr. Drozdoff said the additional $17 million requested in S.B. 233 would allow the Board to continue to fund projects that were vital to Nevada’s communities.  He said that by working closely with the Treasurer’s Office the Division could meet the objectives of the program and minimize any impact on the state bond sale process. 

 

Chairman Arberry asked if there was further testimony on S.B. 233 and there being none, he closed S.B. 233 and opened the hearing on S.B. 200. 

 

Senate Bill 200:  Authorizes grants to pay certain costs associated with connections to community sewage disposal system. (BDR 30-889)

 

Assemblyman John Marvel, District No. 32, introduced himself.  He said he was appearing to support S.B. 200, which was a critical bill for areas such as Spanish Springs. 

 

Mr. Steve Bradhurst, Director, Washoe County Department of Water Resources, appearing on behalf of the Washoe County Board of Commissioners, introduced himself and presented Exhibit F, a written copy of his presentation.  He said Washoe County appreciated the opportunity to testify in support of S.B. 200. 

 

Mr. Bradhurst said S.B. 200 was an effort to respond to the following question.  What should a property owner and its local government do when confronted with a state directive to abandon the property owner’s septic system, also referred to as an Individual Sewage Disposal System (ISDS) and connect the property to a community sewer system?  Mr. Bradhurst said that since April 7, 2000, Washoe County and its residents had spent considerable time and money trying to address that question. 

 

Mr. Bradhurst stated that on April 7, 2000, the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection sent a letter to the Washoe County Department of Water Resources containing the following directive:

 

Because there is evidence linking ISDS to elevated levels of nitrate in drinking water in the Spanish Springs area, and there is the potential public health threat to infants and the environment, the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection directs your Agency to immediately begin planning to expand community sewer service to the area.  A schedule must be submitted to our office, the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, for review and approval by August 1, 2000, and a plan in place in eighteen months following that. 

 

As you are aware, nitrates are considered a pollutant and continued release to the groundwater via ISDS is not allowable where the water supply is impacted.  Because continued use of ISDS in the area of Spanish Springs will further degrade the groundwater supply, relocating the drinking water supply wells will not be an option.  The area must be sewered to remove the public health and environmental threat which has emerged. 

 

Mr. Bradhurst said that the directive directly affected 2,000 homeowners in central Spanish Springs Valley, the valley immediately north of the city of Sparks.  The estimated cost to comply with the directive was approximately $20,000 per home, or $40 million.  To date, Washoe County had spent $550,000 to address the directive. 

 

Mr. Bradhurst stated that the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection felt there were a number of other places in Nevada where septic systems were causing elevated levels of nitrates in the groundwater.  Groundwater was an important source of drinking water in Nevada.  Nationally, groundwater accounted for the drinking water supply of approximately one-half of the U.S. population, providing 35 percent of the drinking water supply in urban areas and 95 percent of the drinking water supply in rural areas.  In 1995 groundwater provided 25 percent of Nevada’s public drinking water supply and that percentage would increase over time because of the limited surface water, so groundwater would be relied upon more and more.  Mr. Bradhurst said it was important that the groundwater that was extracted was high quality. 

 

Mr. Bradhurst said the purpose of S.B. 200 was to provide a partial solution for protecting Nevada’s priceless groundwater resources from nitrate contamination and in doing so, remove a public health threat and prevent a violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act.  Mr. Bradhurst said the question that begged an answer was whether or not the solution to a state directive that homeowners abandon their septic systems and connect to a community sewer system was reasonable and economically feasible without government assistance, particularly financial assistance.  In Spanish Springs Valley it was clear that the cost of the solution was not financially feasible for the property owner and/or the local government. 

 

Mr. Bradhurst said the Spanish Springs Valley case showed that the solution required a partnership involving the property owner and the different levels of government, local, state, and federal.  Mr. Bradhurst added that Washoe County had worked very hard over the preceding two years to secure federal funds to help cover a portion of the cost to convert homes with septic systems to a community sewer system.  Mr. Bradhurst said that thanks to the excellent work of Nevada’s congressional delegation, federal funds would be available starting in the current year to help address the problem.  He said that the bill was a step in the right direction since it had the state of Nevada participating with the property owner and other levels of government in the solution. 

 

Mr. Bradhurst stated that S.B. 200 would amend specific provisions in Nevada law that provided grants for water conservation and capital improvements to certain water systems.  The main elements of the bill would do the following: 

 

• The bill would authorize grants to pay certain costs associated with abandoning a septic system and connecting the property formerly served by the septic system to a community sewer system if the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection required such a conversion. 

 

• The bill would increase the amount of General Obligation Bonds by $4 million that the State Board of Finance might issue to support the Fund for Grants for Water Conservation and Capital Improvements to Certain Water Systems. 

 

Mr. Bradhurst stated that the bill would have a direct and positive impact on Nevadans.  It would help protect Nevada’s priceless groundwater resources and also the health of current and future Nevadans. 

 

Chairman Arberry commented that the fiscal note indicated that the costs had not been authorized in the proposed budget, the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), or in any suggested bonding authorization.  Chairman Arberry asked for comments on the fiscal impact of the bill and also for information on how the bonds in S.B. 200 would be redeemed. 

 

Mr. Drozdoff said the bonds would be purchased with ad valorem tax funds that went to support a multitude of CIP projects. 

 

Mr. Drozdoff said that S.B. 200 would allow the Board for Financing Water Projects to approve $4 million in grants to pay certain costs associated with the connections to community sewage disposal systems.  He said the $4 million would be a state contribution and it could be leveraged with federal monies.  The $4 million would not come from the General Fund but was realized from the ad valorem tax.  Mr. Drozdoff said the sale of bonds for the program was not included in the Treasurer’s Capital Improvement Plan.  However, any projects approved by the Board for Financing Water Projects would be done in phases based on the construction of sewage lines and were expected to take several years to materialize.  For example, Spanish Springs consisted of approximately 2,000 homes but the first phase, the area where the problem was most acute, might only contain 200 homes and the corresponding financial need would be approximately $400,000.  Mr. Drozdoff said that was the issue in the fiscal note. 

 

Mr. Drozdoff said the small level of bond sales would be considered insignificant when tallied with all other projects in the Capital Improvement Program.  He said that since it was a new program it would be modeled after the program that was currently in place and would require that cash flow estimates be received by the grantees.  That would ensure there would be small impacts to the Treasurer’s Office.  If the cash flow estimates were perceived to have a large impact, that would be known in advance and the Division would work with the grantee to secure interim finances from other sources or simply delay the projects.  Mr. Drozdoff said the additional $4 million requested in S.B. 200 would allow the Board to fund a portion of the costs associated with connecting homes to the community sewage disposal system where a probable health threat was present.  He said the reduction in individual septic systems was vital to preserving groundwater quality in certain communities and by working closely with the Treasurer’s Office the state could meet those objectives and minimize any impact on the bond sale process. 

 

Senator Maurice Washington, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 2, introduced himself.  He said he believed Mr. Bradhurst and Mr. Drozdoff had explained the bill well.  Senator Washington said the problem had persisted in Spanish Springs for a long period of time and the continuing exposure to nitrates was the cause of “blue baby syndrome.”  Senator Washington said that it was a joint effort by the local government, state government, and federal government to eradicate a problem that might exist throughout the entire state.  Senator Washington reminded the Committee that there had been a similar problem in Clark County with drinking water.  He said funds had been provided for those residents to hook up to the main water system there. 

 

Senator Washington read a letter from Ms. Katy Singlaub, Washoe County Manager, endorsing the project.  Senator Washington said he hoped the letter would add credence to the problem in Washoe County and other cities that were facing the same situation.  The letter read: 

 

Dear Senator Washington:

 

I am writing on behalf of the Washoe County Board of Commissioners to express my sincere appreciation for your excellent work in developing S.B. 200.  The Board of Commissioners recently reviewed S.B. 200 and voted unanimously to endorse the bill.  As you know, the bill will have a direct positive impact on 2,000 property owners in Spanish Springs Valley who have been directed by the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection to abandon their septic tanks and connect to the community sewer system.  The bill is good for the entire state, it will help protect Nevada’s priceless groundwater resources and also the health of current and future Nevadans.  Washoe County stands ready to help make S.B. 200 a reality.  Do not hesitate to call me if Washoe County can assist you in any way with this bill. 

 

Sincerely,

 

Katy Singlaub, County Manager

 

Senator Washington went on to say that Mr. Bradhurst had spoken well for the County Commission as well as the County Manager. 

 

Chairman Arberry asked if there was further testimony on S.B. 200 and there being none, he closed the hearing on S.B. 200 and opened the hearing on S.B. 276. 

 

Senate Bill 276:  Makes various changes to provisions relating to California-Nevada Super Speed Ground Transportation Commission. (BDR 58-820)

 

Senator Dina Titus, Clark County Senatorial District No. 7, introduced herself.  She said S.B. 276 included clean-up language to the Nevada Revised Statutes that created the California-Nevada Super Speed Ground Transportation Commission.  Senator Titus referred the Committee to Exhibit G, information on the train and answers to frequently asked questions. 

 

Senator Titus said that over the years most of the Committee had heard a great deal about the efforts to build a super speed train between Las Vegas and Anaheim, California.  Senator Titus said that after some “on again, off again” progress for the past decade the train was on the verge of “really taking off.”  In 2001, the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) in Clark County approved $3.5 million for the project.  That was received in federal funding for pre-construction and engineering of the train.  She said the U.S. Senate, with thanks to Senator Harry Reid, added $2 million for the Las Vegas to Anaheim Maglev project.  Recently, U.S. Representative Don Young of Alaska, who chaired the House Transportation Committee, said that the Southern Nevada project could be built faster and cheaper than any of the other proposals and that put the high speed train at the top of the list and in the running for nearly $1 billion of federal money.  

 

Senator Titus said that in 2002 the Super Speed Ground Transportation Commission joined the Southern California Association of Governments to form the Western States Maglev Alliance.  She said the Alliance was a united lobbying effort that was aimed at acquiring the $1 billion in federal funding.  The mayors of five cities along the I-15 route of the train, Anaheim, Barstow, Las Vegas, Ontario, and Victorville, were all participating.  Senator Titus said the mayors had recently hosted a roundtable discussion that was attended by Nevada Congressional representatives, Governor Guinn, and others. 

 

Senator Titus stated that recently Nevada had learned that the environmental impact study was underway and a report was due to the federal Railroad Administration by August 1, 2003.  That would put Nevada on track for receiving some of the appropriation. 

 

Senator Titus said the clean-up language was necessary in order to be certain that the process went smoothly.  Senator Titus said that Section 1 of the bill made it clear that the Super Speed Ground Transportation Commission was an officially sanctioned agency of the state so that the federal funds could be received. 

Senator Titus said that Section 3 clarified that both California law and the Commission’s bylaws would govern the membership from California.  She said the Commission’s bylaws would take precedence over any action the California State Legislature might take. 

 

Senator Titus said that Section 4, subsection 2, would bring local, regional, and the state government into the process and would give them appropriate jurisdiction over the route and the terminals to be established in Nevada and California.  Ms. Titus said that the train route would be built in stages, first from Las Vegas to Stateline, then to Barstow, and then further, and the bill would ensure that Nevada would control what happened within its borders and that California would do the same once it crossed the state line. 

 

Chairman Arberry said the language in Section 1 designated the Super Speed Ground Transportation Commission as an agency of the state and he wondered why. 

 

Ms. Titus responded that the attorneys for the Commission believed that the language was appropriate for the purposes of the bill so there would be no question about Nevada receiving the federal funds. 

 

Chairman Arberry asked if any agency would oversee the Commission and would it be included in The Executive Budget as a line item. 

 

Senator Titus said the Commission was a “quasi-independent agency such as the Colorado River Commission or the Tahoe Regional Planning Commission.”  She said there would be no appropriation from the state to the Commission.  The Governor appointed the members but the funding was received from local governments, federal dollars, and grants. 

 

Chairman Arberry said those agencies that Senator Titus mentioned were included in the budget and that was why he was concerned. 

 

Senator Titus said she knew the Commission was not a line item in the current budget but she was sure that the Commission would be happy to take state dollars if they were available.  Senator Titus said that question had not come up in the Senate because the bill had not been referred to the Senate Committee on Finance.  Senator Titus said she was unsure how the Commission fit into the structure of the budget. 

 

Chairman Arberry said the Committee would work with Senator Titus to resolve the budget issue. 

 

Chairman Arberry asked if there was further testimony on S.B. 276 and there being none, he closed the hearing on S.B. 276 and reopened the hearing on S.B. 127. 

 

Senate Bill 127 (1st Reprint):  Makes various changes to provisions governing hazardous materials. (BDR 40-296)

 

Senator Randolph J. Townsend, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 4, introduced himself.  Senator Townsend thanked Speaker Perkins for his responsibilities as Chairman of the Legislative Commission.  Senator Townsend said he had asked Speaker Perkins to deal with the two explosion tragedies in the state of Nevada, one in Clark County regarding the Aerotech explosion and one in Douglas County, known as the Depressurized Technologies, Inc. (DTI), to find out if all the preventative measures were taken and the appropriate state authorities notified in order to protect the public interest. 

 

Senator Townsend said that many of those legislators who had been in the Legislature as long as he, supported the issues to make sure that Nevada was the safest place to work in the country and thanks to the Legislature’s efforts, the previous administration’s efforts, and the continuing efforts, Nevada had received a federal award for having reached that goal in the year 2000.  Senator Townsend said that S.B. 127 was an extension of that effort regarding those two explosions. 

 

Senator Townsend closed his presentation by saying that Assemblyman Anderson and Senator Titus, who were members of that committee, were absolutely appalled at how the two explosions could have occurred.  Senator Townsend said he was not there to point fingers at anyone but he felt there had been a severe disregard in the DTI case for life and workers.  The workers should have been held in higher regard with efforts being made to protect the individuals.  Senator Townsend said S.B. 127 dealt specifically with the ability of the state and its various jurisdictional agencies to appropriately respond. 

 

Senator Townsend said that the testimony in the interim regarding the two tragedies had affected him deeply and the behavior of the individuals involved in the explosions flew in the face of anything that had ever been done in the legislative arena in terms of encouraging economic development, encouraging people to work for a living, to take care of their families, and to make sure they were safe in the work place. 

 

Chairman Arberry asked if there was further testimony on S.B. 127 and there being none, he closed the hearing on S.B. 127 and opened the hearing on S.B. 401. 

 

Senate Bill 401:  Revises provisions concerning disposition of money received from concessions on property within state park or property controlled or administered by Division of State Parks of State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. (BDR 35-1262)

 

Mr. Allen Newberry, Chief of Operations and Maintenance, Division of State Parks, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, introduced himself and said he supported S.B. 401.  Mr. Newberry said S.B. 401 contained “clean-up” language for the Division of State Parks on NRS 407.065, the statute that referred to depositing fees that the Division collected for concessions for the Division of State Parks.  Mr. Newberry said the bill would allow the Division to deposit rental and concession charges directly with other user fees, which had been done traditionally for the past 35 years.  Mr. Newberry said the request came about from a recent Legislative Counsel Bureau audit where the auditors noticed as they went through NRS 407.065 that item (f), Section 1, had been omitted in the original legislation and the change would allow the deposits to be made as they traditionally had been made.  Mr. Newberry said that all fees were deposited directly into the General Fund and the revision would provide the Agency authority to continue collecting and depositing the revenue as it had historically done (Exhibit H). 

 

Chairman Arberry asked if there was further testimony on S.B. 401 and there being none, the hearing on S.B. 401 was closed and a break taken.  Chairman Arberry reconvened the hearing with discussion on Budget Account 101-4703. 

 

BUDGET CLOSINGS

 

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

 

FORFEITURES – LAW ENFORCEMENT (101-4703)

EXECUTIVE BUDGET PAGE PS - 74

 

NARCOTICS CONTROL (101-3744)

EXECUTIVE BUDGET PAGE PS – 84

 

Mr. Jim Rodriguez, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, described Budget Account 4703 as the matching funding source for Budget Account 3744, the rural Narcotics Control Task Force.  Mr. Rodriguez said Budget Account 4703 provided a 25 percent match for the federal Byrne Grant, which funded the Narcotics Control Task Force.  Mr. Rodriguez said The Executive Budget recommended the elimination of 18 positions in the Task Force and if that recommendation was adopted there would be a reserve amount of $1.3 million at the end of the biennium in the Forfeiture account, Budget Account 4703. 

 

Mr. Rodriguez said that the Narcotics Task Force budget, Budget Account 3744, was recommended to be eliminated based on information provided by the Department, which indicated that there would not be sufficient forfeiture funds through the biennium to support the Task Force.  The Department had since identified approximately $1.7 million that currently existed in the Forfeiture account, which would support the Task Force through the biennium. 

 

Mr. Rodriguez stated that The Executive Budget reflected total funding of $875,259 in order to match the funding for the Task Force through the biennium.  However, the President of the United States had indicated that federal dollars in the Byrne Grant might be reallocated.  Mr. Rodriguez said that based on that allocation the state might be subject to a 40 percent decrease in the Byrne Grant.  He said if that occurred, Nevada would have to locate a funding source to make up that 40 percent.  Mr. Rodriguez said if the budget was funded at the amount recommended in The Executive Budget that amount would be $875,259.  In order to cover the anticipated 40 percent reduction in the Byrne Grant, staff recommended that the Committee might want to consider obligating $526,312 in order to ensure there was sufficient funding in place to cover the operations of the Task Force for the biennium.  In addition, if the Committee chose to fund the Task Force with forfeitures, staff recommended that a bill draft request be submitted in order to amend NRS 179.1187.  Mr. Rodriguez said that legal staff had recommended changing the statute in order to be able to fully utilize the forfeiture funds as recommended. 

 

Assemblyman Marvel asked Mr. Rodriguez to restate his first recommendation. 

 

Mr. Rodriguez said staff would not make a recommendation on whether to fund the Task Force or not but if the Committee did decide to fund the Task Force there was $1.7 million in the account as it currently existed.  Mr. Rodriguez said it would cost $875,259 to fund the Task Force for the biennium.  He also said that in anticipation of the 40 percent reduction of federal Byrne Grant funds in fiscal year 2005, staff recommended obligating an additional amount of $526,312 in order to fund the anticipated decrease in the Byrne Grant.  If the decrease did not materialize, the state could de-augment the forfeiture fund and return those funds back into reserve, where the funds could be used by the Department for other purposes. 

 

Assemblyman Marvel said the rural parts of the state would suffer if they lost the Nevada Division of Investigations (NDI).  He said there was a drug “bust” once or twice a week in the rural areas and if NDI was not there drugs would find their way into the more urban areas of the state. 

 

Mr. Rodriguez reminded the Committee that the budget under discussion was for the Narcotics Control Task Force, not for NDI. 

 

ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MADE A MOTION TO OBLIGATE THE FUNDS. 

 

ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION. 

 

Mr. Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, said the motion would impact Budget Account 101-4703 and Budget Account 101-3744, the Narcotics Control Budget.  He said approval would keep the Task Force going and utilize forfeiture monies to match the Byrne Grant funds. 

 

Mr. Stevens said the motion also included recommending a statutory change be made based on a recommendation from the legislative counsel to allow forfeiture funds to be utilized. 

 

ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL RESTATED HIS MOTION TO INCORPORATE RECOMMENDING THE STATUTORY CHANGE REGARDING THE BYRNE GRANT FUNDS. 

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.  (Mr. Andonov and Mr. Goldwater were not present for the vote.)

 

BUDGETS CLOSED.

 

********

 

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

DIVISION OF INVESTIGATIONS (101-3743)

EXECUTIVE BUDGET PAGE PS –77

 

Mr. Rodriguez said the major issue in the budget was contained in decision unit E-250, which recommended the elimination of 21 positions.  Mr. Rodriguez said the recommendation to eliminate the positions was made by the Governor based on the premise of duplicative services in the metropolitan areas.  The Governor’s proposal was to eliminate 21 positions, which would leave 40 positions remaining in Budget Account 3743 to serve the rural areas.  Mr. Rodriguez said there would also be a small contingent of employees left in Las Vegas to interact with the federal High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Task Force. 

 

Mr. Rodriguez stated that in testimony provided by the Department, it was indicated that the reason provided by the Governor for the recommendation to eliminate the positions was to eliminate redundant functions and it was felt that there was a tie to the Task Force.  Mr. Rodriguez said the budget contained six positions that provided supervisory and administrative support to the Task Force. 

Speaker Perkins stated that there had been testimony in the Subcommittee from the Department regarding cutting 6 of the positions and retaining 15 positions.  Speaker Perkins said the positions were primarily General Fund positions and he had some concern that if those positions did not exist there would not be the support mechanism throughout the NDI for the Task Force, the Forfeiture account, and the Narcotics Control account.  Speaker Perkins said he understood the lack of General Fund money but he believed the fundamental responsibility of government was to provide public safety.  He said there were areas in the budget that would need to be cut but he did not believe the NDI budget should be cut.  Speaker Perkins said the budgets that the Committee had just closed would be set up for failure if the NDI budget was not part of the entire package.  Speaker Perkins added that he could not “buy” the number of positions being discussed for the cost.  He said he did not feel the Committee was going overboard on the expenditure.  Speaker Perkins said he was in a quandary over the budgeting process and looking to public safety budgets for cuts in order to balance the budget and he did not believe it was appropriate to cut the NDI budget in order to save General Funds. 

 

Speaker Perkins went on to say that he believed there had been a misunderstanding on whether the positions represented a duplication of effort with other positions.  Speaker Perkins said that an investigator might be investigating 20 or 30 cases and there would not be 2 investigators with the same 20 or 30 cases.  If the 21 positions were to be removed, the caseload would be distributed to the remaining investigators.  He said there was no waste of the investigator’s time doing public safety work. 

 

Assemblyman Hettrick stated that he totally agreed with Speaker Perkins and he appreciated his support for retaining the positions.  He said most of the cuts were to be made in the rural areas and those areas had no way to duplicate any of the lost services.  Mr. Hettrick said that he was the first one in the Legislature to say that budgets should be reduced but he believed that public safety was needed and the “right” things should be funded.  He said the positions should not be removed from the budget. 

 

ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE BUDGET WITHOUT REMOVING 21 POSITIONS.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION. 

 

Speaker Perkins referred to Exhibit I, “Critical Positions to B/A 3743,” which had been prepared by the Fiscal Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.  He said the exhibit detailed some savings although not as much as was included in The Executive Budget.  Speaker Perkins said 15 of the most crucial positions had been identified and he supported the retention of those 15 positions with an understanding that the budget would have to be funded. 

 

Mr. Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, said the most critical positions shown in Exhibit I had a total cost of $1,187,287 and the less critical positions had an additional cost of $422,169. 

 

Mr. Rodriguez said Exhibit I showed costs for both fiscal years of the biennium and the 15 positions shown in Exhibit I were recommended by the Agency at a previous closing hearing.  The six positions shown in the lower portion of Exhibit I were the positions the Agency did not recommend to restore.  Mr. Rodriguez said the proposal had been discussed with the Budget Office and with the Agency and the Budget Office was in support of adding back positions that would be in direct support to the Task Force in the rural areas of the state.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said she was frustrated because there were individuals who said the Legislature did not need to raise taxes but taxes could be raised for Budget Account 3743.  She said the budget would benefit the rural counties and she believed it was time some legislators “stepped up to the plate.  ”

 

Assemblyman Hettrick said Assemblywoman Giunchigliani’s remark was directed at him and he had, in fact, proposed some additional taxes.  He said the difference was in the amount of tax he proposed and he had proposed enough additional taxes to fund the positions in his proposal. 

 

ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK CLARIFIED THAT HIS MOTION WAS TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF INCLUDING THE 15 POSITIONS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT I. 

 

ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION. 

 

MOTION CARRIED.  (Mr. Andonov was not present for the vote.)

 

BUDGET CLOSED. 

 

********

 

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

FIRE MARSHAL (101-3816)

EXECUTIVE BUDGET PAGE PS – 132

 

Mr. Rodriguez said 22 positions were proposed to be added in The Executive Budget in decision unit E-500 at a cost of $538,096 in the first year of the biennium and $823,057 in the second year of the biennium.  According to Mr. Rodriguez, 15 positions would be added in the first year and 7 additional positions in the second year.  In total there would be 11 Deputy Fire Marshals, 1 Grants and Projects Analyst, 4 Trainers, 1 Supply Technician, 4 Administrative Assistants, and an Account Assistant position. 

 

Mr. Rodriguez said the Fire Marshal’s justification for adding the positions was a result of a Blue Ribbon Committee that studied the Fire Marshal’s Office and made recommendations on how to deal with some of the shortcomings and some of the management problems they had experienced over the past few years.  The recommendation was to provide a stable source of funding for the Fire Marshal’s Office and to provide additional staffing in order for the Fire Marshal’s Office to meet many of its statutory requirements.  In support of that recommendation, the Fire Marshal proposed to add 22 positions based on projections of the staff needed to conduct investigations in the hazardous materials and the life and safety inspection areas.  Mr. Rodriguez said there had been some issues with the projections submitted by the Agency and staff had difficulty validating the projections and the level of activity that would be required to meet the statutory requirements.  Mr. Rodriguez said that in discussions he had with the Fire Marshal, the Fire Marshal admitted there was limited data available to do the projections and it was not known what the level of inspections would be or what the responsibility would be.  Mr. Rodriguez said that in addition to that, the Fire Marshal had the authority to enter into interlocal agreements with local governments that were willing to take over the responsibility and that factor added uncertainty to the level of staffing required by the Department. 

 

Mr. Rodriguez said that staff agreed with the primary findings of the Blue Ribbon Committee that there needed to be a stable source of funding for the budget, however, based on the information provided by the Fire Marshal’s staff, staff could not support the level of expenditures recommended in decision unit E‑500.  He said the data provided by the Agency did not appear to be sufficient to support the level of staffing being requested.  Mr. Rodriguez said, as an alternative, staff would suggest that the Committee consider the following options: 

 

• Approval of a Deputy Fire Marshal I and approval of a Deputy Fire Marshal II to develop a database that would provide the data needed to reliably project what the level of activity and responsibility would be in the rural areas of the state. 

 

• Approval of one additional training position to provide training in the Las Vegas area.

 

• Approval of one Grant Analyst position to develop the Department’s grant program and to seek additional federal funding for their operations. 

 

• Approval of one Administrative Assistant position to support that function. 

 

• Approval of a Deputy Fire Marshal I position to serve the Region III area.

 

Mr. Rodriguez said the proposal would provide the Fire Marshal with the necessary resources to evaluate and analyze the Fire Marshal’s operations and determine an appropriate staffing level to meet the statutory responsibilities, provide hazardous inspection support to the Elko region, and provide the additional resources necessary to develop a comprehensive business process plan for the Fire Marshal’s operations.  That option would result in the reduction of personnel costs of $135,876 in the first year of the biennium and $595,774 in the second year.  Mr. Rodriguez said that was a rough estimate that had been based on averages and staff would need to be able to refine the figures based upon the decisions of the Committee.  Mr. Rodriguez said the recommendations had been reviewed with the Agency and the Fire Marshal agreed in principle with many of the recommendations made by staff and understood that additional time was needed to complete a detailed analysis of the Agency’s responsibilities. 

 

Mr. Rodriguez said that in addition to the positions there were some support costs that would need to be adjusted depending upon what decisions the Committee made.  He said that independent of those decisions, the Agency was requesting vehicles for general administrative staff use.  Mr. Rodriguez said the Agency currently had three vehicles in use for that purpose and staff had not been able to determine the need for the vehicles based on the information supplied.  Mr. Rodriguez recommended the elimination of the two sedans resulting in a General Fund reduction of $20,340 in the first year of the biennium. 

 

Assemblyman Parks said that 22 positions had been requested in The Executive Budget and he wondered if there was any duplication with the 9 positions that had been eliminated that the Agency requested be reinstated. 

 

Mr. Rodriguez said that the nine positions recommended in decision unit E-501 were the nine positions that had been eliminated in the base budget in order to make the budget whole.  Mr. Rodriguez said those positions were mainly Deputy Fire Marshal II positions who did life and safety inspections.  Mr. Rodriguez said the Fire Marshal’s proposal would add 22 positions, 11 of which would be Deputy Fire Marshals conducting hazardous materials inspections.  He said there were some additional fire and safety inspection positions that would staff each of the five regions with a certain complement of positions.  Those positions would include a Deputy Fire Marshal I and Deputy Fire Marshal II, an Administrative Assistant, and a Trainer in each one of the regions.  Mr. Rodriguez stated that the 22 positions would fill that complement. 

 

Assemblyman Parks asked if the net effect would be to add six new positions and return nine positions. 

 

Mr. Rodriguez said that was the recommendation of staff.  He said the Fire Marshal agreed with that recommendation but also requested an additional Administrative Assistant to help them in their licensing area where they were experiencing a backlog. 

 

Assemblyman Marvel said the Fire Marshal charged a great deal for some of its inspections and he wondered if there would be additional revenue generated. 

 

Mr. Rodriguez said the Fire Marshal charged $150 for the certificate when a Hazmat inspection was done but he did not believe there was a charge for the life and safety inspections.  Mr. Rodriguez said additional revenue would be generated by the Hazmat inspectors. 

 

Assemblyman Marvel asked if an estimate had been made on the additional funds to be generated.  Mr. Rodriguez stated that based on the projections made by the Agency it was estimated that approximately $524,000 could be generated per year with the six positions. 

 

Assemblyman Marvel asked if that would reduce the necessary General Fund appropriation.  Mr. Rodriguez responded that it would offset the General Fund but staff had problems with the projections.  He said staff was unsure of the level of inspections that could be attained.  Mr. Rodriguez said the projections included a 50 percent increase in the number of inspections and 100 percent dedication to that function. 

 

Assemblyman Marvel stated that the past audits had shown that the Fire Marshal’s Office had always been understaffed and that was why they could not generate the revenue they anticipated generating. 

 

Mr. Rodriguez agreed and said that staff supported that finding.  However, staff was concerned about the level of staffing requested, where the staffing was requested, and the level of responsibility represented by the projections that were in place. 

 

Assemblywoman Chowning asked if the Fire Marshal concurred with the recommendations made by staff.  Mr. Rodriguez responded that the Fire Marshal did concur with the recommendations. 

 

Chairman Arberry indicated that the hearing on Budget Account 3816 would be continued after discussion of bills.  Chairman Arberry opened the hearing on A.B. 441. 

 

Assembly Bill 441 (1st Reprint):  Enacts provisions relating to ensuring security of State of Nevada and its residents with respect to acts of terrorism and related emergencies.  (BDR 19-1139)

 

Speaker Perkins submitted Exhibit J, “Proposed Amendment of Assembly Bill No. 441 (First Reprint) by Speaker Perkins.”  Speaker Perkins said the first proposal was to amend the definition of “information system” in Section 8 of the bill to clarify that the term applied only to computer software, procedures, or technology which was related to homeland security.  That amendment was requested by a number of law enforcement agencies because there were many types of software that could fall under the definition that were not intended to be included. 

 

Speaker Perkins stated that the second proposal was to amend Section 21 of the bill concerning confidential documents to provide penalties for unauthorized disclosure of such documents.  That request was made by Southwest Gas. 

 

Speaker Perkins said the third proposal was to amend subsection 3 of Section 26 to allow the Legislature to call itself into special session to elect a new Governor if there was a vacancy in the Office of the Governor as a result of a catastrophic emergency.  That request was made by Ms. Janine Hansen of the Nevada Eagle Forum. 

 

Speaker Perkins said the fourth proposal was to amend Sections 30 and 31 of the bill to remove any reference to components of an information system.  He said the amendment would encourage consistency within the state by not allowing law enforcement agencies to purchase radio systems and other systems that were not interoperable.  Speaker Perkins said that without the amendment law enforcement agencies could not purchase components for the systems to repair their current systems and that was the reason why the word “component” was being removed from Sections 30 and 31. 

 

Speaker Perkins said the Governor’s Office had asked for an appropriation to support the operation of the Commission on Homeland Security.  Speaker Perkins said the Governor’s staff was concerned that the Commission would be unable to perform its functions without those appropriations. 

 

Speaker Perkins said the final proposal was to amend Section 40 to provide that Sections 34 through 37 of the bill would become effective on January 1, 2004.  That request was made by the Department of Motor Vehicles. 

 

Speaker Perkins stated that he considered the proposed amendments to be friendly amendments to the bill. 

 

Assemblyman Marvel asked if there was a breakdown of the costs of the bill. 

 

Mr. Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, said there would be two positions and related operating support along with some Commission costs.  He said the majority of the costs would be for the two added positions although he did not have the specific detail with him. 

 

SPEAKER PERKINS MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 441. 

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIBBONS SECONDED THE MOTION. 

 

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 

 

Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 441 and opened the hearing on A.B. 179. 

 

Assembly Bill 179 (1^st Reprint):  Revises provisions governing education.  (BDR 34-22)

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said she had requested that an amendment be drafted that would put a moratorium of two years to not administer the math portion only of the proficiency test.  She said the language that required students to retake only the portion of the test they had not passed would be continued and it required an audit of the math questions.  Ms. Giunchigliani said the amendment would also require an alignment to determine what courses were actually being taught to determine if the course work followed what the test measured; a report would be made to the 2005 Session of the Legislature. 

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said that in addition she had requested that language be added from a bill that had not been passed out of the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs regarding the grade point average required for the Millennium Scholarship. 

 

Assemblywoman Chowning asked what part of the amendment was not supported by the Clark County School District.  Ms. Giunchigliani said the Clark County School District supported the proposed amendment with the exception of one part, which she had not included. 

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 179. 

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION. 

 

Speaker Perkins said the proposed changes to the proficiency test had been referred to as “dumbing down the students.”  He said he took great issue with that statement as Nevada was 46^th in the country in its per pupil expenditures for education and had set some of its students up for failure.  Speaker Perkins pointed out that the affected students had all passed their classes and some of them had not taken math tests throughout their high school careers by no fault of their own because that was the way the curriculum had been set up.  Speaker Perkins said that at some time the bar should be raised so students would continue to strive for excellence.  Speaker Perkins said that all the proficiency test did was test the system, it did not test the students and they were being penalized.  Speaker Perkins said he believed the bill was a good compromise so the curriculum the students needed could be put in place.  He said the students could not answer the questions on the test if they had not been taught the material.  He said it was a travesty to not provide the tools necessary and then test the students.  Speaker Perkins said it could be humiliating to a student who could not pass the test and it was the system, not the child, that caused the problem. 

 

Assemblyman Marvel said he agreed with Speaker Perkins and referred to the tremendous dropout rate.  He said changing the proficiency test might be one way to encourage more students to complete their schooling.  Assemblyman Marvel said it also might keep some young people out of prison. 

Assemblyman Andonov asked if the amendment meant that the math portion of the proficiency test would not be administered.  Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said the math portion would be held aside while the questions and the curriculum were audited.

 

Assemblyman Beers said he had a constituent’s son who had sat for the proficiency exam three times.  The student had already been accepted into journalism school at Arizona State and was an eloquent, bright high school senior.  Mr. Beers said the student had taken five classes in math that included geometry and algebra and his fifth class was designed for people who needed to take specific instruction in order to pass the proficiency test.  Mr. Beers said the student had just been notified that on his final attempt he did pass the test.  Mr. Beers said that 75 percent of high school seniors passed the exam and he did not see that the test was a problem.  The statistics that had come out of the University System showing the steady increase in the number of students in remedial education at the university level indicated there had been a push to put students above a “B” average in order to qualify for the Millennium Scholarship.  Mr. Beers said he did not believe there should be a moratorium on the test but he liked the other provisions in the bill. 

 

Assemblyman Goldwater said he agreed with Assemblyman Marvel that the proficiency test difficulties drove the dropout rate up.  He said it was nice for a family to sit down with their local representative to work on remediation but for people who did not have that internal support the Legislature had done even less for remediation in the state budgets and resources.  Mr. Goldwater said he believed the children were suffering for the failure of the system. 

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said she appreciated the discussion and the same discussion had been had before in the education community when the bill was first drafted.  Ms. Giunchigliani said that Speaker Perkins was correct that students were not required to take geometry, algebra, or most of the courses that the test tested.  She said the proficiency test should measure what the average young man or woman should need to know in order to do well in the world, not just those students who were college bound.  Ms. Giunchigliani said that if the course curriculum was not available that followed the test, and the test tested items that the average student did not need to know, then the system was at fault.  She said the students were being held accountable and their ability to earn a diploma was being withdrawn after four years of six to seven courses each semester, two to five tests in each semester class, final exams, and semester exams.  Ms. Giunchigliani said that one single, high-stakes test would make or break the student and that was setting them up to fail.  Ms. Giunchigliani said she had heard from parents in the last six months whose hearts were breaking because their children were good students who had done their homework and still could not pass the test. 

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said she believed the problem might not be related to the math concepts, it might be how the students were asked for the information.  Ms. Giunchigliani said teachers needed to know whether they were teaching for mastery or simply covering information.  She said no time had been added to the day for instruction and the students were being pushed through the material rapidly without being certain they had the proper foundation.  Ms. Giunchigliani said the middle school curriculum should be reviewed to identify and correct the gaps.  Ms. Giunchigliani said the students would still take the exam but failure to pass the exam would not prevent the student from receiving the diploma during the time the exam questions and the curriculum were being audited.  She said that would be in the best interest of the youth, the parents, and the state.  Ms. Giunchigliani said she believed the increase in the dropout rate was based on the proficiency exam and she believed the bill was a reasonable compromise. 

 

THE MOTION CARRIED WITH MR. BEERS, MR. GRIFFIN, MR. HETTRICK, AND MR. ANDONOV VOTING NO. 

 

********

 

Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 179 and opened the hearing on A.B. 515. 

 

Assembly Bill 515 (1^st Reprint):  Makes various changes to provisions governing property tax assistance for senior citizens (BDR 38-499)

 

Assemblywoman McClain said she proposed to amend the bill to include a $150,000 liquid assets test and an allowable assessed valuation of $87,500, and those changes had been agreed upon by the Division of Aging. 

 

ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 515, INCLUDING A LIQUID ASSETS TEST OF $150,000 AND AN ALLOWABLE ASSESSED VALUATION OF $87,500.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN GRIFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION. 

 

Assemblyman Hettrick said he supported the intent of the bill but he would vote no only because he did not support the amended figures in the bill. 

 

THE MOTION CARRIED WITH MR. HETTRICK VOTING NO.  (Ms. Giunchigliani and Speaker Perkins were not present for the vote.)

 

********

 

Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 515 and reopened the budget closing hearing on Budget Account 101-3816. 

 

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

FIRE MARSHAL – (101-3816)

EXECUTIVE BUDGET PAGE PS - 132

 

Assemblywoman Chowning asked how the Agency would present the Fire Marshal’s plan to the 2005 Session of the Legislature if the budget had already been approved at that point. 

 

Mr. Rodriguez, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, said the plan would be for the 2005-07 biennium.  The staff’s recommendation was to approve positions for the 2003-05 biennium to review the problems, assess the Fire Marshal’s workload, prepare accurate projections, develop a database to support the projections, and then submit an additional staffing plan for the next Legislature’s consideration. 

 

Assemblyman Parks said that the Fire Marshal’s testimony received during the Subcommittee’s hearings revealed an extensive plan that did not contain many details.  Mr. Parks said the Subcommittee wanted the Agency to start with a plan that could be accomplished and then report back to the Legislature. 

 

Mr. Rodriguez said the second item for consideration by the Committee was the restoration of the nine positions in the base budget, decision unit E-501.  He said that those positions were eliminated in the base budget in order to make the budget whole.  The cost would be $753,394 in the first year of the biennium and $589,918 in the second year of the biennium of mostly General Funds, however, in the second year of the biennium the life and health safety inspectors would be used to conduct Hazmat inspections and the Agency had projected that $163,237 in the second year of the biennium would be generated in additional fee revenues in support of the positions. 

 

Mr. Rodriguez said the third item for the Committee’s consideration was the consolidation of the Fire Marshal and Hazardous Materials Training budgets.  Mr. Rodriguez said that was recommended in order to consolidate those efforts.  He said it was first recommended that the two budgets be merged in order to deal with the Fire Marshal’s revenue problem.  The thinking was that the revenues generated from the Hazmat operations would be able to offset some of the loss in the Fire Marshal’s budget but with the addition of General Funds to the budget that had become less of a consideration, although the cross‑utilization of the two would enable the Division to more effectively use their inspectors and allocate them where the need was and to maximize the revenue generations from the positions. 

 

Mr. Rodriguez continued by saying the next item for consideration was the reclassification of three positions that had been recommended in The Executive Budget.  The first was a reclassification of a Program Officer I to Program Officer II, a Plans Examiner I to a Fire Protection Engineer, and a Plans Examiner I to an Administrative Assistant.  Mr. Rodriguez said the Agency had first indicated that the Project Manager would be a manager who would run the business operations of the Fire Marshal’s office but the Agency had recently indicated that the position would be more a professional engineering type position specifically dedicated to developing revised fire codes and modifying codes as they pertained to the planning and inspection routines of the Fire Marshal. 

 

Mr. Rodriguez said the next item for consideration was the issue on reserves.  The Governor recommended the addition of General Funds to the budget account.  The philosophy behind the reserve balance for agencies that generated fees was that budget accounts that had a mix would utilize all other funds before using General Funds.  At the end of the year those unused General Funds were generally reverted back to the General Fund.  Mr. Rodriguez said staff recommended that the reserve in the budget account be eliminated. 

 

Mr. Rodriguez said there were other closing items such as decision unit E-504 that recommended establishing a special fund of $300,000 in each year of the biennium supported by licensing fees.  The Agency had reconsidered its projections for licensing fees and realized that it could not realistically accomplish what had been projected and had submitted a budget amendment to delete that decision unit. 

 

Mr. Rodriguez stated that decision unit E-502 recommended that $22,324 each year of the biennium be allocated to fund training activities associated with the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS).  The Fire Marshal was required to establish the NFIRS in Nevada. 

Mr. Rodriguez said decision unit E-503 recommended $33,400 in each year of the biennium to provide rural firefighters with access to a live fire simulator.  The additional training would be provided to assist rural firefighters in obtaining certification. 

 

Mr. Rodriguez said decision unit E-710 recommended $34,869 in FY2003-04 and $9,974 in FY2004-05 for office equipment and computer software.  Staff had made some adjustments based on pricing and to align those equipment purchases with the staffing. 

 

Mr. Rodriguez said decision unit E-720 recommended $5,853 in FY2003-04 and $500 in FY2004-05 for the purchase of additional office equipment. 

 

Mr. Rodriguez stated that decision units E-900 through E-911 recommended the transfer of 12 Hazardous Materials Training positions to the Fire Marshal’s Office. 

 

ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 101-3816 WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS:

 

·        ADD SIX POSITIONS

 

·        RESTORE NINE POSITIONS

 

·        CONSOLIDATE THE TRAINING BUDGET OF THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL WITH THE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TRAINING BUDGET

 

·        APPROVE THREE RECLASSIFICATIONS RECOMMENDED IN DECISION UNIT E-805

 

·        MAKE ADJUSTMENTS TO ELIMINATE THE RESERVES IN THE BUDGET ACCOUNT PER STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION

 

·        ACCEPT AMENDMENT NUMBER 142 AND ACCEPT OTHER STAFF RECOMMENDED CLOSING ITEMS 

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION. 

 

Mr. Hettrick said he believed there was a bill in the Committee on Government Affairs that dealt with issues in the Fire Marshal’s Office and he wondered if that bill would have an impact on the budget.  He said the bill would require a great deal of money to be raised in the counties and still required the counties to do the work. 

 

Mr. Rodriguez responded that the bill referred to by Mr. Hettrick dealt with the interlocal agreements that locals would assume responsibility for many of the inspection functions of the Fire Marshal.  The debate had to do with whether the Fire Marshal would get the full fee or a portion of the fee when the locals did the inspections. 

 

Mr. Hettrick asked if the fees would be returned to the General Fund to offset the expense of the budget.

Mr. Rodriguez said the fees relating to the interlocal agreements would not affect the fees that had been projected in the budget account.  Mr. Rodriguez said if the bill passed there would be additional revenue shown in the Fire Marshal’s budget depending upon how the bill passed. 

 

Assemblyman Hettrick asked if the Committee should specify that any fees collected from the interlocal agreements would offset the General Fund or would the additional funds be added to the budget. 

 

Mr. Stevens said there was usually a provision in the Authorizations Act that would indicate that any unanticipated additional funding that came into a budget account would be reserved for reversion to offset the General Fund appropriation.  He said that if the bill was passed that would be the first thing the Fiscal Division would be looking for.  If a work program came through to augment those fees, staff would immediately confer with the Budget Office to see if the money should be reserved for reversion to the General Fund at the end of the fiscal year. 

 

Assemblyman Beers asked what the total General Fund money would be on expanding the program. 

 

Mr. Rodriguez said staff would make the final calculations after the meeting depending upon the way the budget was closed.  Mr. Rodriguez said the approximate reduction would be $245,384 in the General Fund in the first year and a reduction of $630,958 in the second year. 

 

 

MOTION CARRIED WITH MR. BEERS AND MR. HETTRICK VOTING NO AND MR. GRIFFIN ABSTAINING.  (Speaker Perkins was not present for the vote.)

 

BUDGET CLOSED. 

 

********

 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATION (201-4660)

EXECUTIVE BUDGET PAGE NDOT - 1

 

Mr. Rodriguez said The Executive Budget recommended bond sales of $135 million in the first year of the biennium and $190 million in the second year of the biennium in order to support five or six of the projects identified by the Department.  The projects that would be supported would be the U.S. 95 widening project, the I-15 widening from Stateline to Las Vegas, the Carson City Bypass, the I-215/515 Interchange in Las Vegas, and the Reno-Carson City Freeway.  Mr. Rodriguez said that without the additional funding, support for those projects would not be available.  Staff noted that it would be the third allocation of bond funding for those projects, the first one was initially approved by the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) in September 2002.  Mr. Rodriguez said that in total the Department planned on selling $657.6 million in bonds.  At the peak of their bond maintenance program the Department would be paying back $84.2 million and that would be as early as fiscal year 2007.  Mr. Rodriguez said that would be approximately 12.6 percent of their total expenditures that year.  He said that meant that bonds were being committed now to fund the projects that would require a high level of bond maintenance later. 

 

Mr. Rodriguez stated that decision unit E-275 was a request for 42 positions; 18 in Las Vegas, 17 in Carson City, and 7 in Reno.  Mr. Rodriguez said he had reviewed documentation provided by the Department and had not identified any major issues with the documentation and had no concerns with the positions. 

 

Mr. Rodriguez said decision unit E-175 recommended Highway Funds and federal funding in the amount of $88.1 million in the first year of the biennium and $89.8 million in the second year of the biennium.  He noted that in total, with addition of bond funding and the additional Highway Funds requested in decision unit E-175, the Department would be requesting $433.4 million in fiscal year 2003-04, and $489.2 million in fiscal year 2004-05 in total construction projects.  Mr. Rodriguez noted that would more than double what the Department had done in FY2001-02 and there were some concerns whether they would be able to absorb that type of increase in their projects.  He said in testimony provided by the Department, the Department indicated that if it did not have the personnel and funding in place to initiate a certain level of project activity it would not break ground on that new activity. 

 

Mr. Rodriguez said decision unit E-851 requested three technology improvement projects including $1.1 million to purchase, modify, and implement a real property inventory management system.  That request resulted from a finding in a legislative audit that showed the Department had weaknesses in their audit control of their property management.  The request also included $1.5 million to purchase and implement a project management system, which was in direct response to a request for information from the Legislature and other state agencies that the Department had been unable to respond to in an automated sense.  The Department had made manual manipulations and calculations in order to respond to legislative requests as far as breaking out administrative costs, construction costs, and engineering costs.  The decision unit also included a request for $871,668 to upgrade the 800 MHz radio system.  Mr. Rodriguez said staff had not identified any issues with the radio system or the inventory system for the real property management.  Initially, staff had an issue with the level of project management dedicated to their information project management system.  He said the project management system was estimated to cost approximately $800,000 and the Department had estimated approximately $691,000 in project management for the project.  Staff had discussed the project management position with the Department and the Department had identified that it was not a typical project management position, it would be a full-time position.  It would be paid at a $188-per-hour rate based on DoIT estimates.  Mr. Rodriguez said he suggested hiring a full‑time project manager as a state position but the Department indicated that it was a two-year project and there would not be a function for the position after that two-year period. 

 

Mr. Rodriguez noted for the Committee’s attention that A.B. 519 was submitted by the Department for legislative consideration.  A.B. 519 had been amended to add an Assistant Director that would be stationed in Las Vegas.  He said that the position could be handled through the budget when it was approved or through the IFC when the Department was ready to hire the position. 

 

Assemblyman Hettrick disclosed that one of the projects affected some property he owned and the bond money might be used to purchase a portion of the property.  Mr. Hettrick said he would abstain from the vote. 

 

ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 201-4660, INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING:

 

·        APPROVAL OF THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATION TO SELL BONDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $135 MILLION IN THE FIRST YEAR AND $190 MILLION IN THE SECOND YEAR

 

·        THE ADDITION OF 42 NEW POSITIONS

 

·        INCREASE FUNDING FOR ADDITIONAL HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $88.1 MILLION IN THE FIRST YEAR AND $89.8 MILLION IN THE SECOND YEAR 

 

·        APPROVAL OF THE REAL PROPERTY INVENTORY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, THE AUTOMATED PROGRAM AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, AND THE EXPENDITURE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DOIT MASTER SERVICE AGREEMENT PROJECT

 

·        APPROVAL TO MAKE NECESSARY TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS REGARDING A.B. 519 AS WELL AS THE OTHER CLOSING ITEMS PER STAFF RECOMMENDATION 

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION. 

 

THE MOTION CARRIED WITH MR. HETTRICK ABSTAINING.  (Speaker Perkins was not present for the vote.) 

BUDGET CLOSED. 

 

********

 

Assemblyman David Parks, Chairman, Joint Subcommittee on Public Safety, Natural Resources and Transportation, read the following report into the record: 

 

THE JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE FOR PUBLIC SAFETY, NATURAL RESOURCES AND TRANSPORTATION HAS COMPLETED ITS REVIEW OF THE BUDGETS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND DEVELOPED THE FOLLOWING CLOSING RECOMMENDATIONS.  THE SUBCOMMITTEE’S CLOSING ACTIONS RESULTED IN AN OVERALL SAVINGS TO THEGENERAL FUND OF $545,819 IN FY2003-04 AND $542,968 INFY 2004-05 WHEN COMPARED TO THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDED BUDGET.

 

PS, DIRECTOR’S OFFICE (B/A 201-4706) PS-1:  SENATE BILL 6 ELIMINATES THE DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT IN THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CREATES THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT IN THE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR.  THIS BILL HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE SENATE AND HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO THE CONCURRENT ASSEMBLY COMMITTEES ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS AND WAYS AND MEANS.  THE EXECUTIVE BUDGET EXCLUDES THE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DIVISION FROM THE ALLOCATION OF EXPENSES FROM THE DIRECTOR’S OFFICE.  THE SUBCOMMITTEE AUTHORIZED STAFF TO INCLUDE THE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DIVISION IN THE ALLOCATION OF EXPENSES FROM THE DIRECTOR’S OFFICE IF S.B. 6 FAILS TO RECEIVE APPROVAL TO TRANSFER THE DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY.

 

THE ASSEMBLY SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS DID NOT SUPPORT A RECOMMENDED INCREASE IN OUT-OF-STATE TRAVEL AND APPROVED A REDUCTION BY ONE‑HALF OF THE AMOUNT RECOMMENDED EACH YEAR FROM $7,457 TO $3,729.

 

PS, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES (B/A 201-4714) PS-5:  THE SUBCOMMITTEE SUPPORTS THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATION TO ADD FUNDING OF $42,090 IN EACH YEAR OF THE BIENNIUM TO ENABLE THE DEPARTMENT TO INCREASE AND IMPROVE THE POOL OF APPLICANTS AVAILABLE BY ATTENDING JOB FAIRS AT THE STATE’S TWO MAJOR UNIVERSITIES TO TARGET COLLEGE GRADUATES ANDATTEND JOB FAIRS IN SURROUNDING WESTERN STATES.  RECOMMENDED FUNDING ALSO ALLOWS THE DEPARTMENT TO COMPLEMENT THESE EFFORTS BY PRODUCING PRINTED MATERIAL AND ADVERTISING ON RADIO OR TELEVISION.

 

THE SUBCOMMITTEE ALSO SUPPORTS THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATION TO TRANSFER A PERSONNEL ANALYST POSITION FROM THE DIVISION OF PAROLE AND PROBATION TO PROVIDE PERSONNEL SERVICES TO EMPLOYEES IN THE SOUTHERN PART OF THE STATE.

 

STAFF SEEKS AUTHORIZATION FROM THE COMMITTEE TO INCLUDE THE DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT IN THE ALLOCATION OF EXPENSES FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES ACCOUNT IF S.B. 6 FAILS TO RECEIVE APPROVAL TO TRANSFER THE DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY TO THE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR.

 

PS, OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY (B/A 201-4707) PS-11:  THE SUBCOMMITTEE CONCURRED WITH THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDED BUDGET WITH MINOR TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS.

 

PS, DRUG COMMISSION (B/A 101-4704) PS-21:  BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE DEPARTMENT REGARDING THE BENEFITS OF THE DRUG COMMISSION TO THE STATE, THE SUBCOMMITTEE DID NOT SUPPORT THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATION TO CONTINUE FUNDING FOR THE DRUG COMMISSION.  THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDED LEGISLATION THAT REPEALS THOSE SECTIONS OF STATUTE RELATING TO THE DRUG COMMISSION.

 

PUBLIC SAFETY, TECHNOLOGY DIVISION (B/A 4733) PS-14: 

THE SUBCOMMITTEE APPROVED THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATION FOR NEW POSITIONS FOR THE TECHNOLOGY DIVISION WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS: THE RECOMMENDATION FOR FOUR PROGRAMMER POSITIONS WAS REDUCED TO THREE, BASED ON THE DEPARTMENTS 2003‑05 PROGRAMMING WORKLOAD PROJECTIONS; THE RECOMMENDATION TO ADD THREE NETWORK SPECIALIST POSITIONS WAS REDUCED TO TWO, WHICH MORE APPROPRIATELY REFLECTED THE DEPARTMENT’S SYSTEM SERVICE DEMANDS AND UTILIZATION PROJECTIONS; AND THE SUBCOMMITTEE DID NOT APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT POSITION.  THE SUBCOMMITTEE SUPPORTED THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATION TO ADD A COMPUTER SYSTEMS PROGRAMMER IV POSITION TO FUNCTION AS THE DEPARTMENT’S INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SECURITY OFFICER.  THE SUBCOMMITTEE DID NOT APPROVE THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATION TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL DS‑3 DATA COMMUNICATION LINE BECAUSE THE DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INDICATED THAT IT COULD PROVIDE THE NEEDED DATA COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES WITHOUT ADDITIONAL COST TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY. 

 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DIVISION (B/A 101-3673) PS-36:

THE SUBCOMMITTEE APPROVED THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATIONS TO RECLASSIFY TWO POSITIONS AND ELIMINATE COST FOR DUPLICATE BUILDING RENT.  

 

PUBLIC SAFETY, CRIMINAL HISTORY REPOSITORY (B/A 101-4709) PS-42: 

THE SUBCOMMITTEE CONCURS WITH THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATION TO INCLUDE AUTHORITY TO RECEIVE INCREASED COURT ASSESSMENTS CONTINGENT UPON APPROVAL OF ASSEMBLY BILL 29.  THE BUDGET OFFICE PROJECTS THAT THE PASSAGE OF A.B. 29 WOULD PROVIDE THE CRIMINAL HISTORY REPOSITORY WITH APPROXIMATELY $1.0 MILLION IN ADDITIONAL COURT ASSESSMENT REVENUES IN EACH YEAR OF THE BIENNIUM.  THIS FUNDING WOULD OFFSET A PROJECTED SHORTFALL IN COURT ASSESSMENTS AND WOULD BE USED TO FUND THE REPOSITORY’S ONGOING CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK OPERATIONS. 

 

THE SUBCOMMITTEE APPROVED A $100 GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATION IN EACH YEAR OF THE BIENNIUM, WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE DEPARTMENT ACCESS TO THE IFC CONTINGENCY FUND IN THE EVENT COURT ASSESSMENT REVENUES DO NOT MEET PROJECTIONS. 

 

PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING DIVISION (B/A 101- 3775) PS-104:

IN REVIEWING THE BUDGET ACCOUNT FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING DIVISION, THE SUBCOMMITTEE DETERMINED THAT HIGHWAY FUNDS WERE SUPPORTING A DISPROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE TRAINING DIVISION’S BUDGET.  THE SUBCOMMITTEE APPROVED ADJUSTING THE PROPORTION OF HIGHWAY FUNDS AND GENERAL FUNDS TOMORE APPROPRIATELY REPRESENT THE COMPOSITION OF STATE PERSONNEL BEING TRAINED AT THE ACADEMY.  THE SUBCOMMITTEE APPROVED A REDUCTION IN HIGHWAY FUNDS OF $120,242 IN FY2003-04 AND $67,123 IN FY2004-05 AND AN INCREASE IN GENERAL FUNDS OF $43,189 IN FY2003-04 AND $47,306 IN FY2004-05.  THE ADJUSTMENTS APPROVED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE WOULD ALIGN FUNDING FOR THE TRAINING DIVISION’S OPERATIONS WITH THE DIVISION’S TRAINING PLAN SUBMITTED FOR THE 2003-05 BIENNIUM AND WOULD BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS (ARTICLE 9, SECTION 5) RELATING TO THE ALLOWABLE USE OF HIGHWAY FUNDS.

 

THE SUBCOMMITTEE DID NOT APPROVE THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATION TO INCREASE FUNDING FOR FOOD EXPENDITURES AT THE ACADEMY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004, BUT DID SUPPORT THE INCREASE IN FUNDING FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 ANTICIPATING THAT THE DEPARTMENT WILL HAVE ALL COMPONENTS OF THE DIVISION’S TRAINING PROGRAM IN FULL OPERATION.  

 

PUBLIC SAFETY, PAROLE AND PROBATION DIVISION (B/A 101-3740) PS-90:  THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDS RESTORING FUNDING OF $90,372 IN FY2003-04 AND $92,852 IN FY2004-05 FOR OFFENDER DRUG TESTING, COMMUNITY SERVICE CONTRACT, ABSCONDER RETURN, RESIDENTIAL CONFINEMENT CONTRACT, AND RECORDS MICROFILMING THROUGH INCREASING SUPERVISION FEE REVENUE TO THE LEVEL COLLECTED IN FY2001-02.  THE SUBCOMMITTEE CONCURS WITH OTHER BUDGET REDUCTIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR INCLUDING THE ELIMINATION OF TWENTY-SIX POSITIONS AND A REDUCTION IN OPERATING EXPENSE.

 

THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDS GENERAL FUND SUPPORT FOR THE DRUG COURT PROGRAMS OF THE 2^ND AND 8^TH JUDICIAL DISTRICTS (WASHOE AND CLARK DISTRICT COURTS) OF $525,000 IN EACH YEAR OF THE BIENNIUM BE ELIMINATED FROM THIS BUDGET AND PLACED IN THE RURAL DRUG COURT BUDGET UNDER THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS.  THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDS ALL FUNDING RELATED TO SPECIALTY COURTS BE ACCOUNTED FOR IN ONE BUDGET UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF THE COURTS.  THE SUBCOMMITTEE CONCURS WITH THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATION TO ADD FUNDING FOR ONGOING COSTS OF THE INTERSTATE COMPACT FOR ADULT OFFENDER SUPERVISION, WHICH WAS RATIFIED BY THE STATE THROUGH SENATE BILL 194 OF THE 2001 LEGISLATIVE SESSION AND BECAME EFFECTIVE IN JUNE 2002.

 

PUBLIC SAFETY, PAROLE BOARD (B/A 101-3800) PS-167: THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF FUNDING FOR THE PURCHASE AND OPERATION OF VIDEO CONFERENCING EQUIPMENT FOR THE PAROLE BOARD TO CONDUCT PAROLE HEARINGS FROM ITS CARSON CITY AND LAS VEGAS OFFICES WITH A LINK TO THE RESPECTIVE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, THEREBY PROVIDING FOR ENHANCED PRODUCTIVITY OF THE PAROLE BOARD AND INCREASED ACCESSIBILITY OF HEARINGS FOR VICTIMS, INMATE FAMILIES, AND OTHER INTERESTED MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.  THE SUBCOMMITTEE CONCURS WITH THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATION TOREDUCE FUNDING FOR TRAVEL, TRAINING, AND CONTRACT CASE HEARING REPRESENTATIVES AS A RESULT OF THE UTILIZATION OF VIDEO CONFERENCING.

 

THIS CONCLUDES THE SUBCOMMITTEE’S REPORT ON THE BUDGETS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY.  IN CLOSING, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE MEMBERS OF THE JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY, NATURAL RESOURCES, AND TRANSPORTATION FOR THEIR HARD WORK AND COMMITMENT IN FORMULATING THESE RECOMMENDATIONS.

 

Assemblywoman Leslie asked for a clarification on page 5 of the closing report.  She said the Subcommittee recommended that the Drug Court funding be consolidated in the Administrative Office of the Courts’ (AOC) budget.  She said the motion made was to move the two Drug Court monies, not Specialty Court monies.  Ms. Leslie said the Subcommittee did not address the Mental Health Court funding that was in the Mental Health budget because that budget was addressed in a different Subcommittee.  She said she would like to have the closing report reflect that the Subcommittee recommended all funding related to Drug Courts be accounted for in one budget, not Specialty Courts. 

 

Assemblywoman Chowning asked if the $525,000 for the Drug Courts would follow as well with the recommendation.  She said there was some confusion on the funding that should be clarified.  She believed the transfer had not been made clear to the General Government Subcommittee and perhaps the budget would need to be reopened.

 

Mr. Stevens said that if there was any confusion it was probably staff’s responsibility.  He said there were a number of issues that crossed Subcommittee lines and due to time constraints at the end of session staff might not have reviewed the previous Subcommittee’s actions before moving forward. 

 

Chairman Arberry made a comment regarding the difficulty presented by the 120-day session and that staff was doing the best it could with the time constraints present.  Chairman Arberry also commented that the Committee might want to reconsider having meetings start two weeks before the legislative session began.  Chairman Arberry reminded the Committee that staff had been working diligently since before the session began and it had begun to wear on them. 

 

Assemblywoman Chowning commented on the hard work done by staff and said the issue still needed to be clarified. 

 

Assemblywoman Leslie said her recollection of the Subcommittee meeting was that the $525,000 each year was a one-shot appropriation to fund the Washoe County and Clark County Drug Courts as had been done every year for the past ten years.  In the 2003 session it was included in The Executive Budget and for some reason it was put in the Public Safety budget.  She said when the Subcommittee discussed it, there was $300,000 in the Rural Drug Court that was included in the budget of the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) and it would be more logical to have all of the Governor’s appropriations for Drug Courts in one place instead of two places.  That resulted in the Subcommittee voting to transfer the Drug Court money only to the AOC, which was why it had been scheduled in the General Government Subcommittee.  Ms. Leslie said the Public Safety Subcommittee did not discuss cutting the funds because of A.B. 29.  She said there had been much discussion of cutting the funds in the Committee on Ways and Means and in other committees.  She said the Public Safety Committee wanted the funds to go to the AOC so it could be consolidated and administered by one state agency. 

Assemblywoman Chowning thanked Ms. Leslie for clarifying the funding and said it now made sense.  She said the General Government Subcommittee chose not to have General Funds and have that amount absorbed in A.B. 29.  Mrs. Chowning said that could be discussed further by the Committee when it discussed A.B. 29. 

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE MADE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE CLOSING REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGE:

 

            CHANGE “SPECIALTY COURTS” TO “DRUG COURTS.”

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIBBONS SECONDED THE MOTION. 

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 

 

BUDGETS CLOSED. 

 

********

 

There being no further business, Chairman Arberry adjourned the meeting at 11:04 a.m. 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                                                           

Lila Clark

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                                                                                         

Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman

 

 

DATE: