MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-second Session
February 28, 2003
The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 10:08 a.m., on Friday, February 28, 2003, in Room 2135 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was videoconferenced to the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Room 4412, 555 East Washington Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
Senator Sandra Tiffany, Vice Chairman
Senator William J. Raggio
Senator Randolph J. Townsend
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Terry Care (Excused)
Senator Warren B. Hardy (Excused)
Senator Dina Titus (Excused)
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Michael Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst
Scott Wasserman, Committee Counsel
Tara DeWeese, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Robert E. Shriver, Executive Director, Division of Economic Development
Dan Musgrove, Lobbyist, Clark County and Southern Regional Planning Coalition/SNRPC
Thom Reilly, County Manager, Clark County
Alan Glover, Lobbyist, City of Carson City, County Fiscal Officers Association and Nevada Association of County Clerks
James Lamb, Administrator, Recorder, Clark County
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens
Terry McHenry, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Land Surveyors
Wayne R. Perock, Administrator, Division of State Parks, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
J. Stephen Weaver, Chief of Planning and Development, Division of State Parks, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Robert S. Hadfield, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties
Mary C. Walker, Lobbyist, City of Carson City, Douglas County and Nevada State Board of Landscape Architecture
Chairman O’Connell opened the hearing on Bill Draft Request (BDR) 25-1091.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 25-1091: Authorizes general improvement district to file petition in bankruptcy pursuant to the Federal Bankruptcy Act and clarifies status of general improvement district as municipality. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 225.)
SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 25-1091.
SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 174.
SENATE BILL 174: Makes various changes concerning powers and duties of Commission on Economic Development. (BDR 18-529)
Robert E. Shriver, Executive Director, Division of Economic Development, testified in support of S.B. 174. He claimed the bill was an opportunity to modernize the procedures for the Division of Economic Development, by eliminating paper media, transitioning, pamphlets, brochures and letter mail into electronic media, and communicating through E-mail, Web sites, and the Internet. Mr. Shriver also mentioned community development and infrastructure development, which was a significant role they played for the rural communities. He claimed a long-term goal of this bill would be working to expand existing primary business in Nevada. Mr. Shriver declared this would be the most effective and best use of resources statewide.
Senator Tiffany asked Mr. Shriver about how the division participated in community development block grants.
Mr. Shriver responded:
What the division has is a program put in place by the communities [cities and counties] which participate; we have created a peer board of review. We send out notification, and grant applications for community development block grants. These are due on certain dates and divided into planning grants, infrastructure; some go to housing, some can go to buy a fire truck in a rural community. Anything that helps that community build its infrastructure. Some are economic development grants and they are competitive. We receive three times the amount of applications for the amount of money and these people over time have done a tremendous job of allocating those resources. Then we have backup. If for some reason the communities can’t meet the matching requirements, then the next community on the list gets the allocation. It has worked very effectively since it was implemented and I think it is a good model on how to actually go about getting this cooperation between all these communities. They actually have a greater understanding of the needs of other communities than they did before. The applications are significantly well done and the competition for those funds is very intense.
Senator Tiffany commented it was not just economic development block grants, but the division was a clearinghouse for block grants to the small rural areas.
Mr. Shriver clarified the division administers the community development block grant program, which is provided through Housing and Urban Development (HUD). He said the Division for Economic Development was the administrator for block grants in all counties excluding Clark County and Washoe County.
Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 174 and opened the hearing on S.B. 80.
SENATE BILL 80: Authorizes board of county commissioners to adopt ordinance providing that office of county recorder of county will be filled ex officio by another elected officer of county. (BDR 20-418)
Dan Musgrove, Lobbyist, Clark County and Southern Regional Planning Coalition/SNRPC, announced there would be an amendment, Exhibit C, to the bill for easier processing. He introduced Mr. Thom Reilly to further explain the bill.
Thom Reilly, County Manager, Clark County, explained one of the main intentions of the bill was to streamline some of the functions for the employees of Clark County and to make things easier on the citizens. He used the procedure of obtaining a marriage license as an example of the current process citizens went through. Mr. Reilly stressed the inconvenience of having to stand in two long lines in order to obtain a marriage license and then have it recorded as an example of why they would like to streamline the Clark County offices of the Recorder and the Clerk. He noted the division would save money and time if they eliminated the duplication of services and combined offices. He said the new administrative position created from this bill would not be appointed. Mr. Reilly made note the Clark County Recorder and Clerk should be held to minimal standards of financial and performance audits; they were not. He reiterated the public’s frustration of standing in two long lines to accomplish one task, and concluded by saying if citizens of Clark County had the choice of a more efficient and streamlined government, they would choose it over the current process. He claimed California, most Western states, and Carson City had streamlined their county recorder offices years ago and increased their output and time efficiency.
Senator Tiffany commented on the duplication of State business licensing divisions and possibly streamlining all of them to truly increase the efficiency of government. She asked if Mr. Reilly had looked at the consolidation of local business licensing departments.
Mr. Reilly responded he was unsure if business licensing departments had been closely looked at to streamline for government efficiency.
Senator Raggio asked if there were other examples of duplications besides the marriage example Mr. Reilly used.
Dan Musgrove responded to the Senator’s question by explaining there were a great deal of business and financial documents filed with the county recorder: trust deeds, notices of defaults, leases, and financing statements; these were things that could be combined into one department.
Senator Raggio told Mr. Musgrove, the majority of the county recorder’s business had nothing to do with the clerk’s office.
Mr. Musgrove explained the public’s misunderstanding of where to go for documents and copies of documents. He asserted a single repository of documents would give the public better time efficiency. Mr. Musgrove concluded by explaining the amendment to S.B. 80. He claimed the change from “offices” to “office” within the bill would eliminate confusion and make the clerk of Clark County the ex-officio recorder of Clark County.
Alan Glover, Lobbyist, City of Carson City, County Fiscal Officers Association and Nevada Association of County Clerks, testified in opposition to S.B. 80. He mentioned for the record, “The County Fiscal Officers which is made up of all the clerks, recorders, treasurers, and auditors of this State are adamantly opposed to this bill.” He recited the background story on why the Carson City clerk/recorder office consolidated. He made note of the fact Carson City was a smaller city in comparison to Las Vegas and because the volume of business was much larger in Clark County, consolidating would not increase time efficiency, but would overwhelm it instead. Mr. Glover stated Carson City had a similar problem with marriage licenses as Clark County, but informed the committee Carson City solved the problem prior to consolidation. He also made note of the large revenue generated at the clerk’s office in Carson City by collecting money up front for automatic certified copies of marriage certificates given at the same time someone applied for a marriage certificate. Mr. Glover mentioned this could be achieved under the current laws in Clark County and a bill to consolidate the offices would be unnecessary.
He indicated Clark County had converted to high-tech computer programs to automate their office; this provided Internet access to deeds and other documents, thereby simplifying the office and public access to the office. Mr. Glover expressed the opinion of the county clerks, as well as his own, saying the consolidation of the offices would not save the county any money. He claimed recorders were a pretty good buy for the salary they made. If the offices were combined, then a chief deputy would have to be appointed and their salaries would probably be doubled. He questioned where the money would be saved if this were to happen. Mr. Glover conceded, waiting in lines for marriage certificates would be drastically reduced if this bill were passed, however he mentioned there were other methods to solve that particular problem.
Senator Raggio asked if the bill only applied to Clark County.
Mr. Glover responded in the affirmative and mentioned he was testifying in opposition to this bill to offer support to those in Clark County even though it would not affect his Carson City clerk/recorder office. He mentioned again the Nevada Association of County Clerks disliked and opposed S.B. 80.
James Lamb, Administrator, Recorder, Clark County, testified in opposition to S.B. 80. Referring to his handout, Exhibit D, Mr. Lamb commented on the new administration led by Frances Deane, Recorder, Clark County, and how effective she had been in streamlining the county recorder’s office with significant and innovative changes to the management structure, work priorities and the professional working environment. He mentioned the office had steadily improved the efficiency and productivity while being one of the largest growing counties in the country. Mr. Lamb claimed in an effort to maintain fiscal responsibilities to the taxpayers and the public, cuts and streamlining of government protocol had netted a cost savings of $30,000 from their budget.
Mr. Lamb further illustrated new management techniques that had contributed to the improvement of the Clark County Recorder’s office. He cited the wait time in line had been reduced from 2 to 3 hours to 15 to 30 minutes. He claimed and attributed this to an immediate change in resources within the department. Mr. Lamb called attention to the new amount of recordation technicians who were available anytime the customer volume increased. He explained the problem of the backlogged documents and returned official records had been resolved with new policies designed for the situation. Mr. Lamb cited an example of the new improvements. On January 6, 2003, the backlog was 184 business days, whereas the current backlog had been reduced to 113 days. He said it was worth noting the entire backlog would be zero by the end of March 2003.
He mentioned the new improved relationship between the county recorder’s office and the other departments in the Clark County government. The office had initiated a specific program to establish a working dialogue with the key outside stakeholders of their office, the title companies, and critical customers. Mr. Lamb said this program had reaped numerous benefits in developing mutually beneficial plans of action to help the recording process on both sides of the counter. He mentioned the new computer system helped the recording and researching of documents and allowed an uninterrupted automatic flow of documents through the recorder’s office and on through to other county departments which relied on their data. Mr. Lamb concluded his testimony by mentioning Frances Deane’s numerous achievements in her brief time in office and asked the committee not to pass S.B. 80 so Ms. Deane could continue her effective efforts.
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens, testified in opposition to S.B. 80. She expressed her concern about transferring power from the Legislature to the county commission, which she believed was a contradiction to The Constitution of the State of Nevada. She asked the committee to abstain from transferring power.
Terry McHenry, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Land Surveyors, testified in opposition to S.B. 80. He mentioned the duties of the county recorder’s office were conducive to the functions the land surveyors perform for the public. He explained there were problems with the ex officio capacity of this office in terms of the technical aspects of the county recorder. Many of the maps they provided to the public must be recorded by statute and were very technical in nature. He was concerned this bill would create a situation where someone was responsible, but did not have the technical knowledge or ability to assume the responsibilities when delegated to a deputy. He offered an amendment to the bill, Exhibit E, inserting a statement, that an ex officio county recorder “shall be qualified to perform the duties of county recorder.” He expressed his concern as statewide, not just one or two counties.
Senator Raggio asked for clarification on Mr. McHenry’s amendment.
Mr. McHenry said he preferred the bill would go away; however, should it remain, he would like to see it amended to ensure someone of expertise be appointed so they would be capable of handling the immense technical responsibility of the job.
Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 80 and opened the hearing on S.B. 144.
SENATE BILL 144: Authorizes Administrator of Division of State Parks of State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources to charge and collect certain fees under certain circumstances and authorizes Division to enter into certain cooperative agreements. (BDR 35-493)
Wayne R. Perock, Administrator, Division of State Parks, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, testified in support for S.B. 144. He explained the reasons for this bill had to do with the division’s ability to administer the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund. He reminded the committee that presently there was no State funding to administer their grant program. He described the second part of the bill, which dealt with the administrator and the ability to expand partnerships with political subdivisions. Mr. Perock introduced J. Stephen Weaver to better explain the motivation behind S.B. 144.
J. Stephen Weaver, Chief of Planning and Development, Division of State Parks, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, referred to his handout, Exhibit F, and explained for the record:
Since its creation by Congress in 1965, the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund Act [LWCF], has funneled nearly $35 million to the State of Nevada and its political subdivisions for recreational facilities, development rehabilitation, and parks acquisition. Nearly every State park and dozens of county, municipal, and even GID [General Improvement Districts] parks have benefited from the program, beginning with the acquisition of 3 miles of Lake Tahoe shoreline by the State of Nevada in 1967, to numerous ball fields, playgrounds, swimming pools, picnic areas, etcetera around the State, some 275 projects to date.
Traditionally, these funds have been split between State parks and the political subdivisions. However, the Division of State Parks is solely responsible for administering the program on behalf of the State of Nevada and its political subdivisions. Meeting all the federal requirements for administration of the program and maintaining eligibility is time consuming, even during years when federal funding was nonexistent, such as 1995 to 1999. But in the year 2000, funding was reinstated to the tune of $453,000. In 2001 it grew to $1.04 million and in 2002 the federal allocation to Nevada was $1.7 million. Because new grants are dispersed at political subdivisions each year and projects usually take several years to complete the workload, [the funding] tends to be cumulative.
Routine administrative requirements for the Land and Water Conservation Fund program include: solicitation of political subdivision grant applications, updating mailing lists for eligible sponsors, writing state applications, providing technical assistance to political subdivisions, revising the State’s grant manual, evaluating and prioritizing political subdivisions’ grant applications, pre-award project site inspections, presenting recommendations to the Nevada Advisory Board on Natural Resources, which is charged with providing citizens oversight of the grants award process, processing grants recommended by the advisory committee and the division administrator through the National Park Service, issuing award notices, reviewing and approving project and construction plans and estimates, evaluating acquisition appraisals, processing grant reimbursement requests, project completion inspections and auditing fulfillment of grant conditions by political subdivisions, as well as the Division of State Parks.
Unfortunately since 1986, we have had no full-time position dedicated to the administration of the LWCF program, and since 2000, I have struggled to fulfill the administrative requirements largely on donated time. Keeping in mind that I already have more than a full-time job with my many other responsibilities, I cannot continue to donate a sufficient amount of time to administer this program indefinitely. The point has now been reached where I need some full-time help. A grants [projects] analyst 2 is what I have in mind. And the division needs to have its budget augmented for program administrative costs. Without this help, I am concerned about the State eventually losing its eligibility for the program. I am already forced to neglect a number of requirements that will likely come back to haunt us after our next federal audit. I suspect you just like myself would really hate to see the State lose over a million dollars a year in federal assistance, simply because of the lack of means to administer the program.
Mr. Weaver continued:
Realizing the dearth of State General Fund monies, I have researched alternative funding mechanisms to meet the LWCF program administration requirements. The direct cost reimbursement alternative is available for many federal programs, whereby the federal government would cost share all or part of the administrative costs. Unfortunately, the controlling bureaucracy in Washington is so far dug in their heels and resisting this funding alternative for the LWCF program, which would provide that 50 percent of the administration costs would be covered with federal funds, while the State and its political subdivisions would match the fed’s share as part of each individual grant. Eventually, I am hoping with the help and persistence of other states of like mind, we will eventually prevail in overcoming this resistance.
In the meantime as a somewhat less palatable alternative, we would impose a surcharge on each grant recipient, including the Division of State Parks, to cover the administrative costs. In a program already in place in Arizona to resolve the same problem that many other states have, this alternative would base the surcharge on a percentage of the federal grant awarded. At the 2002 funding levels, this will result in an approximate 4.75 percent cash surcharge to all grant recipients that would have to be financed entirely with nonfederal funds that would not be eligible to match the federal funds. This percentage will vary from year to year based on the federal funding allocation and would be pegged at the amount needed to cover the division’s administrative and staff cost. The resulting impact on all grant recipients would be that they would actually be exceeding the normally required 50 percent match by the amount of the surcharge. In other words, at fiscal year 2002 funding levels, a grant recipient would have to put up $54,750 in exchange for a $50,000 federal grant for a total project amount of $104,750. This fee would only apply to future grant recipients beginning in 2003. Because State parks would also be obligated to contribute towards the surcharge for any of its own projects that are awarded an LWCF grant, S.B. 144 also expressly authorizes the division to utilize whatever State matching fund source it has at its disposal to meet this obligation. In most cases for the foreseeable future, the State matching funds for LWCF grants will be Question 1 bond monies. In closing, I would like to emphasize once again, without authorization of these funding mechanisms to cover the Land and Water Conservation Fund grant program and administrative costs, we will lose the program and the federal funds will be distributed to other states that are willing to cover the administrative costs.
Mr. Perock explained the second part of the bill, which described partnerships with political subdivisions. He stated Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 407.068 allowed him to get into inner local grievance with the political subdivisions to operate and do things on property owned by a political subdivision, but it did not allow the reverse. Mr. Perock said in cases where there were growing populations, and one of the State parks had predominately local visitation, it made sense to allow the political subdivisions to develop and to do programming on State park property without triggering a fair market value for a lease type of an agreement. He surmised this bill encouraged greater partnerships with the political subdivisions and it was fairly simple and straightforward.
Chairman O’Connell referenced section 3, lines 34-37 and asked Mr. Perock if new people would be hired or would S.B. 144 help relieve the costs of permanent staff already in place. Mr. Perock answered he was looking at new staff people and all overhead and equipment would support that person.
Chairman O’Connell asked how many people Mr. Weaver was interested in hiring. Mr. Weaver answered only one person would be needed to do the job.
Chairman O’Connell wanted clarification if it was the person Mr. Weaver referred to in his testimony, the grants project analyst 2. Mr. Weaver affirmed Chairman O’Connell’s statement.
Chairman O’Connell asked if this person was included in the Governor’s budget. Mr. Perock answered it was not.
Senator Raggio asked if the requested authority was aimed at any specific State park, Tule Springs for example, now Floyd Lamb State Park.
Mr. Perock said:
It could be, yes, I think there are opportunities in the future for Washoe and Clark, basically Clark County, and it could happen in Douglas County where we have properties too and there is a growing population.
Chairman O’Connell brought attention to page 3, section 4, and asked if this language was what he had alluded to when he was speaking about controlling subdivisions and using subdivisions, as far as interacting with the local authorities. She wanted to know the difference between controlling subdivisions and using subdivisions.
Mr. Perock mentioned section 4 of the bill did not contain the text they had recommended, but he answered it would be the political subdivision, which was a city or a county government. He claimed it would be their partner recreation department.
Scott Wasserman, Committee Counsel, mentioned the language in the section as it existed now in subsection 2, “controlling subdivision or using subdivision,” was defined in subsection 1: “Controlling subdivision means any political subdivision of this State, including irrigation, water conservancy and other districts, which owns or controls a site suited to a public park.”
Chairman O’Connell stated she understood what the language said; she wanted to define what Mr. Weaver was referring to in his testimony when he wanted to enter into the agreements with local subdivisions. She stated a using subdivision referred to parks only; the controlling subdivision referred to a much broader scope than the using.
Mr. Perock agreed with Chairman O’Connell and explained in some cases they operated State park facilities with other subdivisions, generally it was the federal government. He said the current NRS allowed their division to operate a State park on water district property, but would make it an investment. Mr. Perock claimed the intent was to get into partnerships with cities and counties, specifically their parks and recreation departments, and possibly if they had historical societies they would have closer partnerships. In a metropolitan area, such as Las Vegas, where open space sometimes became a problem, needs could exist for urban-type recreation the State parks did not traditionally offer, such as ball fields. This would make it easier for those political subdivisions to come in, make investments and actually program the State park property.
Chairman O’Connell asked about the term political subdivision, if they were applying the “using” subdivision or the “controlling” subdivision. Mr. Perock answered, “the using.”
Chairman O’Connell inquired if the 10 percent asked for the administrative costs was needed for the administrator overseeing the program.
Mr. Weaver answered:
The federal dollars fluctuate so often, going anywhere from 0 to 3.2 million. The 10 percent the way it’s written would actually be 20; it says 10 percent of the grant amount, but 20 percent of the grant amount would be the maximum. That would cover us in the event the federal dollars were reduced to what it was in 2000: $453,000 level. We would still have sufficient funds to cover this one position, if it got below that we would be in trouble. But I think we would have to seriously consider eliminating the position or dropping the program altogether if it got reduced much below that. Hopefully it won’t come to that, like I said in 2002 it would probably be just below 5 percent. I have some preliminary indications the federal grants available to the State of Nevada will be reduced about 30 percent in 2003, so we are probably looking at maybe a 6 percent or thereabout, give or take a few tenths of a percent, for 2003. So, I don’t foresee, unless the federal dollars really get low, us going near the 20 percent that’s possible of the grant amount.
Senator Raggio asked Mr. Weaver about the limitations of grants and the manner in which they can be used.
Mr. Weaver answered:
That is why I asked for the two alternatives. Right now, the National Park Service, and most other federal agencies including the Department of the Interior Western regional solicitor’s office, feel the National Park Service has the authority to allow direct cost reimbursement. And because that would allow the federal government to… we’d be able to use federal grant dollars to pay for half of this position, that is why that would be the preferable alternative.
Senator Raggio commented he noticed language to the extent the fee did not violate the terms of the agreement.
Mr. Weaver responded:
That is why that is in there. Until the Washington office of the National Park Service agrees to allow this, we won’t be able to go with alternative one. So in the interim, and possibly indefinitely, we may have to go with the surcharge. That is why both of those are needed.
Senator Raggio asked if the purpose was to have a full-time position for grant applications. Mr. Weaver responded in the affirmative stating the position would be dedicated to the administration of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
Senator Raggio stated if the committee passed S.B. 144, it would have to be referred to the finance committee.
Chairman O’Connell asked if anyone would like to testify in opposition to S.B. 144.
Robert S. Hadfield, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties, testified he did not want to be characterized as being opposed to S.B. 144. He claimed he understood what Mr. Weaver was trying to do and did not want to debate the need to do something, he was just concerned for the cost not being fully covered or if the bill covered more than the cost. Mr. Hadfield said he did not know the true relationship of the need to the amount of money that might be available. He said he did not know if in the future a local government would come up with an additional match of funds for the program. He confessed there was clearly a need to have someone administer this program. He commented it set in place a formula, and to their credit he recognized the division had tried to cover every possibility, he just got nervous when he did not know what the division was buying into and they could not know what the counties were buying into.
Chairman O’Connell said for the record:
I had the same concerns and checked with LCB [Legislative Counsel Bureau] to see in drafting if that was an average high, low, exactly what it was. I was told it was pretty average. I then put in a call to our auditing division to ask what they had come across in their audits as far as determining the amount used from a grant. I have not received word back yet, but in the work shopping of this, that will definitely be on the record and we do appreciate all the information they have tried to share with us in anticipation of that.
Mary C. Walker, Lobbyist, City of Carson City, Douglas County and Nevada State Board of Landscape Architecture, stated she was not in opposition, but simply trying to understand the ramifications of S.B. 144. She mentioned in federal grants they did not like to see a total administrative cost go over 15 percent; as far as the administrative cost, the burden was at a county level. She just wanted to have the opportunity to work with the State parks division and talk about their problem. She claimed she understood the need to get the appropriate funding to get the job done and if they needed more staffing they could work something out. Ms. Walker admitted it would benefit all involved to get the grants out faster. She reiterated her main concern was, what would be done for the duplication of administration costs and the possible effect. She stated her other concern was this action would generate from $400,000 to $500,000 and that was a lot of money for one new position. She mentioned she would like to have the opportunity to meet with Mr. Weaver and Mr. Perock to go over the details and any problems.
Chairman O’Connell asked if there was any additional testimony. As there was none, she adjourned the meeting at 11:13 am.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Tara DeWeese,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE: