MINUTES OF THE
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
Sixty-seventh Session
January 29, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Ways and Means was called to order by Chairman Morse Arberry, Jr., at 8:06 a.m., on Friday, January 29, 1993, in Room 352 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. EXHIBIT A is the Meeting Agenda. EXHIBIT B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr., Chairman
Mr. Larry L. Spitler, Vice Chairman
Mrs. Vonne Chowning
Mr. Joseph E. Dini, Jr.
Mrs. Jan Evans
Ms. Christina R. Giunchigliani
Mr. Dean A. Heller
Mr. David E. Humke
Mr. John W. Marvel
Mr. Richard Perkins
Mr. Robert E. Price
Mrs. Sandra Tiffany
Mrs. Myrna T. Williams
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst
Gary Ghiggeri, Deputy Fiscal Analyst
MUSEUM, LIBRARY AND ARTS ADMINISTRATION -- PAGE 1182
Chairman Arberry acknowledged Mr. Don Hataway, the Budget Division analyst responsible for museums, libraries and arts. Mr. Hataway stated the budget contained two recommendations: one for the director's position of the proposed Museum, Library and Arts Department and the other for the creation of an Office of Science, Engineering and Technology.
Chairman Arberry requested Mr. Hataway walk the committee through the highlights of the budget. Mr. Hataway stated the base budget would be funded through general fund appropriations. The expenditures, specifically the director's salary and personnel expenses, for FY94 would be effective October 1, 1993 which accounts for the difference in amounts between FY94 and FY95. He noted the director position is the only position in this account and in-state travel and operating expenses are also recommended. The increase in FY95 would be for rental of library space.
Chairman Arberry inquired why the Director would be housed in the new library building and why rent was budgeted. Mr. Hataway responded rental costs are accrued by all state agencies, either for non-state or state-owned facilities.
Mr. Hataway explained the purchasing assessment category is recommended for all agencies due to the proposed reorganization of the purchasing function. This charge will be in lieu of the administrative assessment currently charged. These fees will be covered in more depth when the committee reviews the Purchasing budget.
Mr. Marvel noted there was not much explanation on the federal funding listed in the enhancement sections and inquired if the funds would be permanent. Mr. Hataway stated federal funds would be two-year seed money to create the Office of Science and Technology. When the seed money expires, the amount would become a general fund appropriation for the next biennium depending on attempts to obtain private funding.
Mr. Hataway provided a brief overview of the public/private proposal for the creation of the Office of Science and Technology (see EXHIBIT C). He discussed the Task Force entitled the Nevada Industry, Science, Engineering, and Technology (NISET)(see EXHIBIT D). He noted Senator Rawson had been a member of the task force and directed the committee members to contact the Senator if they had any questions from a legislative perspective. Mr. Hataway continued to discuss the findings from a report of the Carnegie Commission on Science and Technology in Government, which recommended each governor should have a designated science and technology advisor to develop and periodically update a vision of the science and technology role in meeting the state's strategic goals. He stated the result of the task force and its ad hoc committee recommendations was the report attached as EXHIBIT C.
He explained Nevada was one of eight states lacking an Office of Science and Technology working directly with the Governor's Office and the Legislature in this area. Consequently the proposed enhancement with funding from a number of sources including a federal consortium of Federal Laboratories would be the primary funding source with the potential for future private funding. Mr. Hataway said Federal Laboratories provides technical science advisory activities to state and local governments for technology transfer and the proposed technology advisor would be essentially an informational conduit between Federal Labs and other federal/ private institutions to assist the state in this area. Mr. Hataway indicated a Management Assistant III and a half-time Management Assistant I would complete the department staffing.
Mrs. Evans asked how the decision was made to place this department in the State Library. She stated from an information standpoint it would make sense, but asserted from an economic development standpoint, the Department of Business and Industry would be more appropriate. Mr. Hataway pointed out there were a number of reasons. One would be it is an information center and technical advisory center for this specialty which would require continued, on-going contact with the Library of Congress data base, the federal consortium libraries, other science offices and other available data bases. The State Library has the communication mechanism and performs these functions currently. Although not primarily performing a library function, the proposed office would serve as a technical advisor to the Governor, Legislature and many state agencies. Mr. Hataway asserted the Governor wanted the office in a neutral location to facilitate contact by all parties. He commented later this department could spin off into its own budget account and be placed in another department; this proposal is a starting point.
Mrs. Evans questioned the priority of the State Library within the Executive Budget; it looked like the State Library would be a functioning island in a sea of informational paralysis. Mrs. Evans elaborated after cutting a substantial amount of positions from the State Library and recommending zero book budget, now the budget office intended to set up this wonderful little center to do all these great things within the new library building. Mrs. Evans stated the proposal was ridiculous.
Chairman Arberry recognized Mrs. Williams who stated Ms. Evans had already voiced her questions and comments.
Mr. Marvel asked if any effort has been made to obtain private funding for this proposal. Mr. Hataway replied all the ad hoc committee funding was received from private funds, and the committee was currently soliciting both private and public funds. He explained the committee was looking for legislative support through passing this budget and would proceed from that point. Mr. Marvel questioned who was in charge of the fundraising. Mr. Hataway stated Dr. McNellis, a UNLV faculty member, is the co-chair of the ad hoc committee and has the prime responsibility of fundraising. He noted Sandy Miller has also been actively involved in fundraising. Mr. Marvel wondered if they have had any luck in raising funds yet. Mr. Hataway replied this project was targeted to be effective October 1, 1993,. Therefore additional funding had not been committed.
Mr. Humke stated his support of the proposed formation of the department and of Dr. Kleppe's proposal. He stressed Dr. Kleppe's recommendation that this department should not be placed in either University or, for political considerations, in the Department of Economic Development. The proposed placement would allow the department to be freestanding and, thereby, neutral. He stated the core funding would be for an executive director, basic office operation and no more. If further funding cannot be obtained through private and federal dollars, the department should not exist. Mr. Humke noted Dr. Kleppe was aware of the legislature's concern of federal funding drying up and leaving the state to fund the operation of the office in the future.
Chairman Arberry agreed the biggest concern would be over the future appropriation to continue this proposed department taking funding away from the library. He believed no one was against this proposal, but there needed to be assurance it was not created at the expense of the State Library because the library needed to grow.
Ms. Giunchigliani emphasized Ms. Evans better articulated most of her points and concerns. She questioned where the exact amount funded for book acquisitions was identified in the budget. Mr. Hataway replied the State Library budget and it would be covered later.
Mr. Spitler concurred with Mr. Humke regarding the merit of the proposal, but wondered if the department would be established by executive order or by statute. Mr. Hataway remarked it could be established by either method. He clarified the governor feels if legislation is not introduced he could create it by executive order. Mr. Hataway said he would find out more about this because he did not know the details on timing of the executive order or the submittal of legislation. He emphasized his role was to have the proposed department included in the budget and present it to the money committees.
Mr. Spitler stated he disagreed with Mr. Humke regarding the political aspects. The proposed placement of this department under legislative control would cause more politics versus placing it in the University system. Mr. Spitler asked, of the other states with this department in place, how many have placed it under the governor or under a University system to keep the executive and legislative branches informed. Mr. Hataway did not have the information available and would provide it to Mr. Spitler.
Mr. Spitler asked if the Board of Regents supported the placement within the executive branch versus the University system. Mr. Hataway did not have an answer; he did not know whether or not the Regents have taken a position on this issue. Mr. Spitler requested Mr. Hataway to look into the Board of Regents' position and provide the committee with any meeting minutes where this plan was discussed. Mr. Spitler voiced his concern over committing future legislatures to such a large financial burden which would eventually come at the expense of services normally provided by the State Library. Mr. Spitler asked if any thought was given to phasing in this plan by data base access provided by library staff rather than designating a person thereby enhancing the State Library's functions. Mr. Hataway assured this plan was not intended to detract from the State Library.
Mr. Hataway maintained the State Library did not incur a larger cut than other state agencies targeted for budget reductions. Further, reductions which did occur were based on plans submitted by the director of the affected department, and the proposed Office of Science and Technology in their opinion, would be an investment in strengthening Nevada to compete in the marketplace. He maintained if this program was not implemented, the State Library and everyone else would lose out If the foundation for strong educational programs occurred in this area, everyone would benefit in the long term.
Mr. Spitler asked what monies would be requested in future legislative sessions if this office became a general fund agency. Mr. Hataway replied the core cost listed in the budget would remain the same through the next biennium. He encouraged all committee members to review the report. He noted any of the ad hoc committee members or Mrs. Miller would be willing to make a presentation to the committee.
Mr. Spitler wondered if the legislature did not place this division in the proposed department of Museums, Library and Arts could it be placed in economic development or University system. Mr. Hataway responded the office could be placed in another budget account, but the Governor desires the department to be as close to his office as possible and the state library has the space available.
Ms. Tiffany commented she believed a duplication of effort would exist and asked if this office would serve as a collection department of the various groups statewide reporting to the Governor. Mr. Hataway pointed out the goals area of the report would answer the question.
Mrs. Williams wondered if the EPSCOR Committee had contributed to the report on the proposed office. Mr. Hataway mentioned Mr. Art Anderson of Incline Village, as an integral member of the committee, had been intimately involved with the report.
Mr. Price agreed the proposal sounded great, but he commented the nationwide upsurge of incentives to attract businesses had brought forth the question whether the incentives and personnel commitments were at taxpayers' expense.
MUSEUMS AND HISTORY -- PAGE 1120
Scott Miller, Administrator for the Department of Museums and History introduced himself and recognized Dr. Peter Bandurraga, Director of the Historical Society, Mr. John Ballweber, Curator of the State Railroad Museum and Mr. Renny Ashleman, Vice Chairman of the Board of Trustees.
Mr. Miller highlighted the transfer of the Management Assistant I to budget 2940 which was previously shared and would be better utilized solely in Museums and History. In addition, an agency transfer in the amount of $32,966 funded from the Commission on Tourism's room tax would fund the public information officer. Enhancements were requested in the amount of $989 for operating funds which assumed a freestanding status, but were eliminated in the current budget.
Mr. Marvel inquired as to the role of the Board of Trustees under the proposed reorganization. Mr. Miller stated his understanding was the board would be merged with the board from Historic Preservation and Archeology, and the new composite would be responsible in an advisory capacity. Mr. Marvel asked who would administer the private monies administered by the board. Mr. Miller requested Mr. Ashleman be permitted to respond.
Mr. Ashleman stated the board administered a variety of trust funds, generally given to the Department of Museums for specific purposes. Mr. Ashleman explained it was unclear as to whether or not it would be legal to have that trust corpus watched by an advisory board as it is inconsistent with fiduciary duties imposed by law. A fiduciary is in charge and, although a minor detail, it is an important detail of the reorganization which needs to be addressed. Mr. Marvel concurred and noted he was disturbed this might inhibit future donations. Mr. Ashleman stated he did believe there would be a problem especially with the State of Nevada's fiscal poaching of these trust funds over the years. Mr. Ashleman explained the board of trustees and other interested parties have established a separate foundation for the purpose of raising funds in the hope donors will place more trust in a foundation.
He pointed out the need to research whether these trust funds would be transferrable to the foundation and whether it would be a desirable option. Mr. Marvel stated the research would be worthwhile and inquired if Mr. Ashleman would have time to do it. Mr. Ashleman said he would work with the fiscal staff and attorney general's office to see what could be done. Both Mr. Marvel and Mr. Ashleman reiterated their concern over this area of funding. Mr. Ashleman added the board's remarks were not to be construed as opposition to the reorganization, but support of the principle of combining culture, museums and libraries.
Mr. Marvel asked what the board's statutory role was. Mr. Ashleman stated statutorily the board's role is decision making on a wide variety of policies. Mr. Marvel inquired if legislation would be necessary to change the board's role. Mr. Ashleman said statutes would need to be changed rather drastically to make the board advisory, and he did not know if there would be any savings, efficiency or organizational achievement gained by changing the role from decision-making to advisory. Messrs. Marvel and Ashleman agreed this would add confusion.
Vice Chairman Spitler recognized Mr. Price. Mr. Price commented the old budget format explained the board and he read the definition. He asked if cash donations were made to the trusts, where were donations directed. Mr. Miller stated donations came from a variety of sources and were directed to individual departments or specific museums with the purpose depending on the donor's intent. Mr. Price asked if one specific person, in addition to his primary duties, was responsible for fundraising. Mr. Miller indicated the role usually fell to the director or to the administrator of the department on a broader basis, but as an overall policy the department tries to keep the directors responsible for the primary fundraising. Mr. Price noted no non-profit foundation or organization outside the state received the monies. He asked if the board would be similar to a "foundation" and if it would be incorporated. Mr. Ashleman reiterated the Board has established a foundation independent of the board for that purpose, but the foundation has not previously been a recipient of or redirected donor funds from the established state program. Mr. Price commented from his experience many donors preferred using a foundation as a simpler avenue versus direct donations to the state.
Ms. Evans asked Mr. Ashleman what the anticipated response would be of the board's potential conversion from a policy-making role to an advisory role. She stated grave reservations on wholesale conversion of policy boards to advisory boards because of the tendency to disable them. She further commented Nevada's history of citizen involvement and participation in shaping policies in the state has been an avenue to expand democracy past the Executive and Legislative branches and has shown the citizens they have a role to play in the future of Nevada. Ms. Evans emphasized her concern of the conversion potentially silencing many citizen voices. Mr. Ashleman reiterated the Board favors the proposed reorganization, but has concern over the possible loss of input and a lessened role in museum policies.
STATE MUSEUM -- CARSON CITY -- PAGE 1124
Mr. Miller noted the admission rate is proposed to increase from $2 to $3 for adults 18 years and over which would supplement the general fund appropriation, but would still be considered a bargain in lieu of comparable facilities in California. He pointed out the increase accounted for the sizable jump in the "Other" revenue recommended in this budget. Mr. Miller pointed out under Maintenance a .3-time program analyst position funded by Archeological Curation funds, had previously been approved in June 1991, but was never included in the budget. The position was again approved by IFC in the interim and is listed on the this budget accounting for .3 of the .5 position increase. The remaining .2 of a position represents a museum attendant which was reduced when museum attendance decreased due to the seismic retrofit of the building. Upon reopening of the museum, the department discovered the position was important to the museum's functioning efficiently, and Mr. Miller requested approval of private funding for the position.
Mr. Miller moved to the performance indicators section and explained the closure for seismic retrofitting resulted in the museum not meeting the projected FY92 visitor number. He assured the committee the projection for FY94-95 would be met without much trouble. Depending largely on the department's success in raising private funds, the estimates noted for exhibits should be met.
Mr. Heller asked what percent of the visitors were 18 years of age or older. Mr. Miller replied it is an approximately 17.9 percent, but by policy age of visitors is never questioned.
Chairman Arberry asked how this particular budget and the previous budget would be impacted by the proposed reorganization. Mr. Hataway replied the Budget Division had created Impact Summary sheets for each department and handed out the summary for Museums, Library and Arts (see EXHIBIT E). Ms. Summers discussed the impact summary sheet.
Mr. Dini indicated page 1127 of the budget lists a change of the assistant director from an unclassified status to exempt merit status and asked how this related to the value of the deputy director proposed to be eliminated. Ms. Summers clarified the budget division utilized a number of positions to indicate reorganization savings, but the proposed department's new director would have the discretion to eliminate those positions deemed most appropriate. The mid-level management positions were targeted by the Budget Division as the most likely candidates for elimination and were utilized to make the budget calculations, but they are not necessarily the exact positions which will be eliminated by the yet-to-be appointed director.
Mr. Perkins asked where the research requests listed on page 1127 came from and if any fees were charged for the services. Mr. Miller responded requests literally came from nearly every source imaginable and varied from walk-ins asking for specific information on an historic event or wishing to see an historic document to state agencies asking about historical data. Mr. Perkins wondered if the actual manhours spent on reference requests had been calculated. Mr. Miller stated it has never been tracked, but would probably be substantial.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked Ms. Summers to clarify a previous statement she had made about the recommended personnel cuts in the reorganization. Ms. Giunchigliani summarized Ms. Summers' statement which said the new directors would have the flexibility and authority to eliminate whomever/wherever they needed to meet their departmental goals. Ms. Summers agreed Ms. Giunchigliani's view was a broad interpretation of the original statement. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if personnel changes would be through phasing or would the cuts be immediate upon the Director's recommendation. Ms. Summers believed it would not necessarily be effective October 1, 1993, but she had not received any information on the proposed exempt merit class and was not able to elucidate on the exact rights which would be scheduled into the classification. She stressed some rights would be retained. Ms. Giunchigliani emphasized she was not confident this would occur and policies should be established for a phase-in/phase-out program for employees who have devoted their careers to state government and public service.
Mrs. Williams asked Mr. Miller, under reorganization, how many different jobs would need to be covered by his position. Mr. Miller stated he was not sure he could answer because one of the salaries utilized in the reorganization calculation was the administrator's. The assumption he was working under was that some level of authority would move over to the department director upon appointment and the authority would allow this individual to determine which positions would be eliminated. Mr. Miller noted should he find his position arguing with the new director, he would clearly make a case for a division-level management position but he did not know if the option would be available to him. Mr. Miller stated his current responsibility is director of the Nevada State Museum and administrator for the Department of Museums and History. He was not aware of what the outcome would be.
Mrs. Williams asked what areas within the department are under his supervision and, if he was bumped in the reorganization, what would be the new director's responsibilities. Mr. Miller elaborated the position has direct responsibility over the State Museum in Carson City as well as, at least temporarily, the State Museum in Las Vegas. Traditionally, the administrator is actually the director on a broad-scale basis for the Railroad Museum and the Lost City Museum. This position oversees the State Capitol Building's second floor Senate, Assembly and Judiciary chambers. Additionally, there is an archeological services division operating out of Douglas County.
Mrs. Williams asked if Mr. Miller's role was essentially hands-on with all these programs and if he traveled to all the museums and sites throughout the state. Mr. Miller responded he did believe his role was very much hands-on and he visited the institutions as much as the travel budget allowed. Mrs. Williams elaborated for the committee members that this position was not a "sit in the office, work on the computer" type of job with which Mr. Miller agreed and commented he did not have a computer anyway. Mrs. Williams inquired due to the comprehensive nature of the position, would reorganization increase the duties of the administrator/director. Mr. Miller concurred the reorganization would and he saw no way, at this point, to get around the increased responsibilities. Some line supervision might be feasible, but policy direction, exhibition/collections management, fundraising and community service would continue to fall on the director.
NEVADA HISTORICAL SOCIETY -- PAGE 1128
Mr. Miller introduced Dr. Peter Bandurraga, director of the Nevada Historical Society, to present the budget. Dr. Bandurraga discussed the revenue line entitled "Other" under "Governor Recommends" for FY95 would generate approximately $20,000 by establishing a $2 admission fee. Due to the physical arrangement, the Society was considered a library in addition to being a museum thereby making fee collection difficult. If permission to charge a fee is granted, Dr. Bandurraga stated alternative housing or arrangements for the museum collections would be found.
Mr. Marvel asked Dr. Bandurraga to clarify in the Other Revenue category the difference between Agency Request of $51,000 and the Governor Recommends of $72,000. Dr. Bandurraga reiterated the $21,000 difference was expected from admissions. He stated the existing $51,000 is generated from private funds which support three half-time positions and various other activities. He explained with nearly 50,000 visitors, adults and children, $20,000 in admission revenues was a reasonable and attainable estimate. Dr. Bandurraga remarked the base and maintenance budgets had nothing exceptional in them. The enhancement requests include some new equipment funded by private monies. Dr. Bandurraga commented the Society provides a lot of public programming and the enhancement will provide for a hearing-assisting device (TDD). He elaborated to Mr. Perkins the Society completes a large amount of reference work with the majority done by telephone; the request of a TDD would facilitate access for the hearing-impaired patrons.
Dr. Bandurraga pointed out the actual amount of visitors for the first six months of the current fiscal year was ten percent beyond that reported for the previous fiscal year's first six months. Further, most of the exhibits are traveling exhibits from either local or national shows which take less time and money.
Mr. Humke asked if the fee would be for adults 18 years and older. Dr. Bandurraga said yes, along the established policy of the rest of the state museums. Mr. Humke asked if there had been any consideration to exempt senior citizens from the fee. Dr. Bandurraga and Mr. Miller stated the policy had not been previously considered but it could. Mr. Humke asked, with permission of the Chairman, to have a written proposal submitted to the committee of discussion of this concept. Mr. Miller clarified Mr. Humke's question wondering if he wanted investigation of exemption for seniors of a certain age or a reduced rate. Mr. Humke responded yes, as a policy it should be investigated. Mr. Miller pointed out the department has an established Senior Membership procedure built into each museum which is not in lieu of the actual admissions fee, but these seniors are admitted free. He agreed to respond and clarify the policy at the Ways and Means Committee's request.
NEVADA STATE RAILROAD MUSEUM -- PAGE 1132
Mr. Miller discussed the highlights of the base budget. He pointed out the request for a transfer of $200,000 per year from the Division of Tourism to support the restoration program, specialists and use of specific machines around the state. He indicated "Other" revenue assures an increase in admissions fees from $1 to $2 for adults 18 years and older. The balance of funds included in "Other" revenue are private monies and/or grant monies to support personnel. Mr. Miller highlighted the enhancement request of $15,000 would allow operation of the steam equipment, both cars and trains. Mr. Miller stated this amount would be feasible at a break-even level, if fuel oil and other running fluids were donated for the locomotive. The base revenues would allow operating a minimum of four steam-ups on the four big weekends of the year: Memorial Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day and Nevada Day. He remarked if enough people rode the train and fundraising was successful, the museum could operate a full season of eight steam-ups.
Mr. Marvel noted some general funds were requested, but not recommended. Mr. Miller clarified the funds listed in that category were actually carryover funds from the previous period when the operation had been shut down by budget cuts.
Mr. Heller asked if the seven to eight steam-ups were more or less than previous years. Mr. Miller stated eight would be the average and would be considered a full season including the operation of the motor car which is a small self-contained, gas-run vehicle which operates on weekends when the steam locomotive is not in operation.
Mr. Miller discussed the performance indicators. He pointed out the museum's attendance has been doing quite well and the success is indicative of the increased interest statewide in railroads as a popular form of history. Admissions have grown steadily over the years and the decreased level for FY94-95 was due to a reduction in operating hours from seven days to five days per week.
RAILROAD DEPOT, EAST ELY -- PAGE 1136
Mr. Miller stated the department was given materials and two buildings by the City of Ely and by an historical railroad group which had been gifted these and a number of other items at the old Nevada Northern Railroad site in Ely. As a result, the Governor recommended and the legislature approved the use of room-tax dollars for a bare bones operation in Ely to protect the gift. Over the last year, personnel hiring was deferred to conserve room tax drawdowns, but the curator's position was hired in May 1992. Mr. Miller acknowledged the department's desire to keep money requests from tourism as low as possible due to economic restraints and recommended only one position. He noted four positions had been originally authorized. The budget is funded entirely from room-tax dollars and no enhancements are requested.
Mr. Marvel asked for an estimate on the value of the assets at the Railroad Depot. Mr. Miller stated he believed the depot had been appraised at approximately $190,000 by the State Lands Registrar four years ago. The freight barn is, in essence, a standing blueprint and due to its diminished condition may be worth approximately $10,000. No attempt has been made to appraise the collected materials because the cost to inventory, let alone appraise it would be prohibitive. Mr. Marvel asked for a guesstimate. Mr. Miller estimated the document collection would be worth nearly $100,000 and possibly more. According to Dr. Bandurraga, the other artifacts considered unique by their affiliation with the railroad and mining community could be valued at $500,000.
Mr. Marvel asked if it would be feasible to charge a fee for admission to this museum. Mr. Miller asserted it would not be appropriate at this time because of staffing and building design. He believed it should be maintained as a public service until the museum was better established.
STATE MUSEUM -- LAS VEGAS -- PAGE 1139
Mr. Miller discussed the base budget, maintenance and enhancement sections. He noted an enhancement request for one position, the director, which was lost in this fiscal year. He also noted there would not be a fee increase request because of the continual struggle of this operation. Mr. Miller stated maintaining the current level of operation would best be attained by leaving the admission fee at $2 for persons 18 years and older. Chairman Arberry noted the location of the building was in a park and asked what was occurring to market the museum and draw additional visitors. Mr. Miller emphasized a number of marketing programs were done within the budget constraints. Advertisements included a number of large back-lit panels in the airport, brochures for distribution by the Convention and Visitors Authority for their informational packets, local business advertising including phone books, but most marketing was occurring on a hit-and-miss basis. Mr. Miller indicated marketing was accomplished by private donations which were often sporadic and unreliable. The greatest marketing asset is the Greyline Bus Tour system which brings in a number of people on the system's regular tour route which constitutes the bulk of the museum's visitor base.
Mr. Miller discussed the location of the museum and the opening of the Sammy Davis Jr. Center as a means of drawing more museum visitors. Chairman Arberry asked if the center's opening has had any impact on the museum. Mr. Miller stated the opening has impacted the type and number of people who come to the park and discovered the museum.
Mr. Spitler asked who would oversee the museum with the director's position eliminated. Mr. Miller replied currently a Director of Exhibits will act as a line supervisor through the summer of 1993. He indicated beyond the summer what occurs will depend on the outcome of the whole classified structure and the reorganization plan as well as how the management structure will be compensated. His bottom-line assumption was there would be some accommodation for a line supervisor who would be accountable for basic museum functions.
Mr. Spitler noted in the performance indicators a decrease in visitors expected in FY94 and wondered why. Mr. Miller stressed advertising and marketing monies would be requested from trust accounts to fund a number of new advanced advertising campaigns to boost attendance. Additionally, the museum would continue to be an information depository and to develop the collection base to draw visitors. Mr. Miller noted another key to increasing attendance would be to capitalize on the school population. Mr. Spitler questioned how these marketing and fundraising goals could be achieved without a director in place for day-to-day museum functions and if the decrease in future attendance had any correlation to the lack of a director. Mr. Miller was not able to answer the question. Mr. Spitler voiced his concern over the projected decrease of 20,000 visitors at what he considered one of the finest facilities in southern Nevada.
Mrs. Williams agreed with Mr. Spitler's comments about the quality of the museum and its exhibits. She noted the City of Las Vegas at one time had been interested in purchasing the museum. Mr. Miller explained the City's idea was to develop a Senior Citizen Center through a private donor, and the City had offered to build a 25,000 square foot facility outside the park in exchange for the museum facility. Mr. Miller explained the loss in square footage would have been untenable and it was later discovered the donor wanted the center in the park solely because of the museum. Mrs. Williams asked if public service announcements (PSAs) were available. Mr. Miller replied PSAs have previously been utilized with some degree of success, but the marketing campaign was targeted more toward the school and tourist populations. Mrs. Williams questioned how blockbuster traveling exhibits could be brought into the museum to first-time visitors. Mr. Miller responded two factors caused problems: cost and security. These types of exhibits would be quite costly and require a high-level of building security with major vault capacity/storage. The Las Vegas Museum, outside the cost factors, is not equipped for tight security and storage, but it would be feasible if it became a priority goal.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked Ms. Summers if, conceptually, the directors would be given enough flexibility to hire the personnel to achieve their envisioned goals or would they be tied by what the budget or administration specifically stated. And further, would directors be able to staff according to the community service needs. Ms. Summers replied the directors would be somewhat limited by the budget dollars, but transfers within budget accounts could accommodate the staffing changes targeted by the directors. She pointed out the administration (budget division) has listed positions which might be the type targeted. Ms. Giunchigliani asserted this is still not a program budget and asked if the budget division views the budgets as flexible or more as line-item budgets. Ms. Summers stated agencies previously had flexibilities within line-item amounts without budget office or legislative approval. Approval was necessary for transfers between categories. Ms. Summers maintained through the reorganization the budget office requested more flexibility within the appropriations act to spend from one category to another, but some review by the IFC would be necessary at a higher level.
Ms. Giunchigliani agreed it made sense, but inquired if the flexibility included staffing. Ms. Summers replied the flexibility would allow funds to be moved where the directors desired in order to accommodate staff, with the approval of the IFC. She noted her reply was broad because she had not seen a bill and was not aware of how it would be written. Ms. Giunchigliani asserted although some changes have occurred, this budget is essentially still a line-item budget and the committee just does not have the line-items listed. She stressed the need to have a policy that would allow the directors flexibility to move their staff according to the services needed by the public at that point in time while knowing the service demands could change a number of times within any specific program or fiscal year.
Mrs. Chowning wondered, considering the dinosaur exhibit currently housed in the Elks' Lodge in Las Vegas and its proximity to the Children's Museum, how many of the 65,000 visitors listed were going to that exhibit versus the park museum and if that exhibit also had a $2 admission fee. Mr. Miller said yes there is a $2 admission fee and there is no doubt an increase would occur due to the cluster of museums around Cashman Drive. He suggested a percentage of visitors which travel to museums will also go to the park museum as part of the bus tour route. Mrs. Chowning inquired if it was feasible to have the dinosaur exhibit travel to Northern Nevada. Mr. Miller stated the dinosaur exhibit is a privately-held concern, and although it would be conceivably possible, the cost of moving and housing would have to be taken into account. Also, other traveling dinosaur exhibits would be less costly to rent.
LOST CITY MUSEUM -- PAGE 1143
Mr. Miller noted in the base budget "Other" revenue provides for an increase in admission fees from $1 to $2. He pointed out there would be an ever increasing number of manhours and noted by the end of November 1992, the 1100 manhour projection had already been reached. Mr. Miller elaborated the Museum has secured, with trustee approval, another Anasazi Pueblo site. Due to the urbanization around Overton, sites are disappearing quickly and the museum has all spare resources, especially personnel, going onto sites as permitted for both maximal and minimal recovery before development. Mr. Miller pointed out it was not feasible or desirable to purchase all these sites, but on the other hand, it would be necessary to preserve and excavate as much as possible for as long as the personnel, funds and sites were available.
Mrs. Williams asked what was the current status was of the adobe structure. Mr. Miller said through 1991 Legislative appropriation, structural repairs were completed; a new roof was in place and, with some creativity, the skylight leaks have been overcome. He noted the adobe problem would be ongoing because adobe is just clay and straw and is labor intensive to maintain.
Mr. Spitler asked if tour buses received discount admissions to the museums. Mr. Miller stated they did. Mr. Spitler surmised the doubling of admission fees penalized the people who visited the museum on an individual basis a number of times. Mr. Miller indicated the option for local patrons is the membership program which permits unlimited admissions. He stressed the way to get tour buses to come is to "cut them a deal" or they will not visit. He asserted the cut is minimal and is offset by the volume of visitors. Mr. Spitler concluded the committee must be careful about doubling costs which could discourage visitors and make it harder to request general fund dollars thereby creating a vicious circle.
HISTORICAL PRESERVATION -- PAGE 1147
Mr. Ron James, Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer and Historian, introduced himself and stated the Nevada Division of Historic Preservation is the nation's smallest and, according to the National Park Service, the most efficient state historic preservation office in the nation. Mr. James pointed out the division has a state-wide mandate to provide technical assistance and grants in addition to a number of other programs. Mr. James elaborated previous budget cuts have consisted of eliminating the historical marker program which permitted the agency to protect a number of other mandated programs and continue to receive the federal grants.
Mrs. Evans asked if by his statement "had to give the marker program up" he meant the agency no longer installs them or maintains existing ones. Mr. James replied both; the agency no longer installs, maintains, or responds to any requests for detailed assistance with the marker program because the federal grant prohibits the agency from using federal funds for this program and state budget cuts forced the program's deletion. Mr. James pointed out the agency lost all salaries and funds related to the marker program. Mrs. Evans wondered how much money was requested to maintain the historic marker program. Mr. James replied $10,000 annually for sustaining the marker program and $5,000 salaries financed completely with state general fund dollars.
Mr. Humke wondered if markers that fell into disrepair were they removed by the agency or the Department of Transportation (DOT). Mr. James stated the DOT has taken a backseat on removal and vandals do an active job of removing the markers. Mr. Humke stated his concern over vandalized markers left in place becoming an eyesore to tourism. Mr. James concurred.
Mr. Spitler noted federal funding was originally a 50/50 match whereas it is currently 60/40 and requested Mr. James provide to the committee the worksheet utilized to calculate the percentages. Mr. James stated the budget office could possibly provide this information. He noted the change from 50/50 to 60/40 made cuts solely in the state portion of the budgets. Mr. Spitler clarified he would like to see the worksheet to assure the state provides sufficient matching funds. Mr. James elaborated the shift to 60/40 meant the federal government financed a larger portion of the division budget. Unfortunately, the state's allocations will not grow thereby forcing a reduction in grants to the public.
Mr. James noted the Management Assistant II position has been frozen by budget cuts and has not been included in the current biennium leaving five professional positions. Chairman Arberry pointed out the agency had requested six positions, but received five. Mr. James clarified the one less position is the Management Assistant II lost by attrition.
Mrs. Evans emphasized the frozen position left the agency with no clerical staff and thereby the professionals, supervisors and administrators were performing all the clerical-type work while being paid at a professional level. Mr. James remarked this was correct.
COMSTOCK HISTORICAL DISTRICT -- PAGE 1151
Mr. James stated he is involved with this division as the State Historic Preservation officer sits on the Comstock Historical District Commission. He introduced Ms. Bernadette Franke, Inspector Clerk for the Commission. He stated the Commission's mandate was to preserve and encourage the preservation of resources in the Comstock Historic District which is the nation's largest landmark district. Mr. Miller pointed out Virginia City played a crucial role in the formation of this state and has continued to be an important tourist attraction. The Commission consists of nine commissioners, employs one full-time staff member and owns and maintains a facility on Main Street. The cuts from the last biennium eliminated a half-time administrative assistant and reduced the printing budget. Mr. James stated the printing budget was utilized for walking- and driving-tour brochures of the Comstock District to assist tourists in understanding and exploring the area. He remarked future budget cuts would include the deletion of salaries for the eight commissioners to attend monthly meetings. Mr. James stated he did not receive a salary because his duties included the commission seat.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if a statutory change would be needed to eliminate salary payments since they were set by statute. Mr. James agreed the commission was entitled by statute to a salary of up to $80. The commission, at the time the statutes increased the salary level from $60 to $80, voted to refuse the raise of $20, and when funds for salaries had previously been depleted, commission members volunteered to attend meetings without pay on a rotating basis. Ms. Giunchigliani remarked and Mr. James concurred the funds have now been taken away thereby eliminating the need to rotate attendance without pay. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the commission would be advisory. Mr. James replied the commission, by statute, is not advisory and has permitting authority, but under the proposed reorganization it is listed as advisory. Ms. Giunchigliani questioned Ms. Summers if this commission was planned to be advisory and, if so, would the budget office or administration be bringing forth a bill to change the statute. Ms. Summers replied, to her knowledge, the reorganization bill addressed all these issues.
Ms. Giunchigliani noted the previous printing budget for 25,000 brochures had been cut. She questioned if the 200 brochures projected to be printed would restock supplies. Mr. James replied it would, to a certain extent. He stated, after July, more would be reprinted to replenish the local outlets. Ms. Giunchigliani wondered if any printing sources through other state agencies had been investigated. Mr. James said state printing was utilized. Ms. Giunchigliani asked Ms. Summers if any other funds could be available for printing. Ms. Summers stated unless the Commission had done any fundraising outside of the budget, the budget office was not aware of any other funds. Ms. Giunchigliani pointed out no pool of dollars existed for agencies to tap into for small funded programs if they ran short of funds.
Chairman Arberry asked how long it would be before the commission ran out of brochures. Ms. Franke replied by the end of summer 1993. He asked Ms. Summers how the budget office could cut all travel and salary monies and still expect the commission to continue meeting. Ms. Summers stated she did not have an answer for the question, but she would discuss it with Ms. Matteucci and return to the Ways and Means Committee with an answer at a later date.
Mr. Price asked if there were any plans to market the Comstock Historic "Sink Hole". Mr. James replied, all joking aside, the commission would be initiating an aggressive program in June and July of 1993 to analyze the archeology of the Comstock which has never been addressed systematically. Mr. James stated Dr. Don Hardesty, Professor of Archeology at UNR, and his field school would establish some archeological sites and the Commission would provide daily tours of the digs.
NEVADA NATURAL HERITAGE -- PAGE 1625
Ms. Jeanne Botts, program analyst, commented this agency would be placed in the proposed Department of Wildlife. Ms. Summers noted the budget was included on page 1625. Mr. Glenn Klemmer introduced himself as Coordinator and Zoologist for the Natural Heritage program, presently part of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.
He stated the agency compiles and maintains a data base on Nevada's endangered, threatened and otherwise sensitive species. This computer data base facilitates retrieval of information dealing with Nevada's natural heritage. He emphasized Nevada has the eighth highest number of endangered species of any state in the nation and maintained the smallest staff per species level than any state. The budget comes from the Department of Wildlife's fund transfer through the Question Five bond issue of the Sixty-sixth Session and transfers from federal agency grants.
NEVADA STATE LIBRARY -- PAGE 1159
Ms. Joan Kerschner, Director of Nevada State Library and Archives, introduced herself. She provided an overview of the base budget accounts which included general, federal, and private donation or grant funds. She stated the budget provides all the library's reference and research services, blind and handicapped services, administration of federal funds to local public libraries, bookmobiles and grants for development of statewide library funds. She explained the three federal funds: Title I, II and III. She noted "Other" revenue included fines and fees and anticipated revenues from fundraising for the book budget and costs back to the local counties for development of the statewide catalog.
Mrs. Williams asked if assistance for the next biennium was anticipated from the Humanities Committee. Ms. Kerschner stated assistance would come from grants for special programs, but because program needs vary from year to year, she would be unable to anticipate the level of assistance. She remarked discretionary grants would continue to be written and, if monies were received the IFC would be approached.
Ms. Tiffany asked what the impact would be on county bookmobile services. Ms. Kerschner responded the State Library operates bookmobiles from appropriated funds in three counties: Lincoln, which operates solely within that county; Elko, which operates in Elko, Lander, Eureka and White Pine counties; and Humboldt, which operates solely within that county. These bookmobiles would continue to operate, but at a lower budgetary level due to budget cuts. Ms. Kerschner explained the counties continued to operate at full capacity with no loss of services for FY93 because of a transfer of book funds to the operating funds account. She was not able to state the future implications on services, but was aware Elko county was proposing to discontinue service for summer 1993 if funding was left at the current level.
Ms. Tiffany inquired about the data processing position recommended for deletion by the Governor. Ms. Kerschner explained the salary for the library's microcomputer specialist who is responsible for maintaining local area networks and other activities including library-related duties would be moved into the proposed Information Technology Services (ITS) division. She stated the theory was the library would pay data processing versus having the staff in-house. Ms. Summers stated part of the reorganization would consist of all data processing personnel from all agencies being consolidated under the ITS budget. Personnel would report directly to the ITS director and their salaries would be included in the ITS budget. She pointed out, for the most part, the staff in the major agencies would remain in the agency currently served.
Mr. Spitler reiterated the salaries would be moved to another account. Ms. Summers said the positions would be abolished from the agency account and the salary would be moved to ITS along with the normal amount of operating and travel funds. The position itself would be rebuilt into the new budget account for ITS. Mr. Spitler asked if the exact amount of dollars previously allocated would remain the same in the ITS budget. Ms. Summers replied yes. Mr. Spitler stated this was in fact not the case as reflected in the budget. In fact, most were running approximately $5,000 less. Ms. Summers emphasized the consolidation and grouping of personnel to be assigned on an as-needed basis resulted in some economies including the elimination of some positions. The savings are returned to the affected budgets. Ms. Summers asserted more explanation would ensue when the ITS budget was presented.
Mr. Perkins inquired what the projected success would be for the computerized book catalogs in regard to the smaller libraries in light of the $400-$1300 cost. Ms. Kerschner replied many of the smaller libraries do not even have a book budget, let alone the budgeted amount for the CD-Rom catalog, and this would be a predictor in the success of the catalog. She explained more than half of the public libraries along with a number of the smaller libraries have been able to pay the cost this fiscal year. The State Library requested they include the cost for the next fiscal year which should increase the success rate of the CD-Rom catalog. To help the smaller libraries, she noted the cost had been reduced 50 percent by taking the University's holdings out of the CD-Rom. Alternative methods for access to those materials are being investigated. Ms. Kerschner stressed subsidizing the smaller libraries' costs for telephone lines to access University holdings would, in the long run, be cheaper than paying for the inclusion of University holdings in the CD-Rom catalog.
Mr. Perkins inquired what would occur if the funds were not raised. Ms. Kerschner explained they had been working with General Research Corporation (GRC), the catalog contractor, to get costs as low as feasible and GRC has offered a new contact at half the cost because of the deletion of the University holdings. Mr. Perkins wondered if the CD-Rom catalog would be discontinued. Ms. Kerschner remarked it was the library's long-term goal to replace the CD-Rom with the online catalog of the five major catalogs in the state. The CD-Rom system would be phased out over the next two years. Ms. Kerschner noted the benefits of this system for the school libraries and suggested perhaps in the next biennium the CD-Rom catalog contract would be moved to the school system.
Ms. Giunchigliani observed the Publications and Periodicals budget is $153,899 for FY 93-94. She asked what this would breakout to on a per book amount. Ms. Kerschner explained the line-item included publications and periodicals as well as microforms, and the average costs could be provided. She noted previously backup documentation had been provided to the committee which indicated the average per item cost was a little higher than public libraries because the State Library purchased more research and technical materials. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired what level of stock was needed to provide adequate services, and Ms. Kerschner replied much more than what was currently provided. Ms. Kerschner explained for the past ten years the library has purchased items only in the area of public administration and has coordinated services with the local public libraries, local area networks and the Universities. Therefore, the State Library has a very small collection. The $153,000 was $200,000 before the budget cut, but the funds have provided the major journals, books and periodicals as well as complete day-to-day reference operations. Ms. Kerschner reiterated the library really has no book collection even with this budget. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if in Ms. Kerschner's opinion, the intent had been to have a book collection. Ms. Kerschner emphasized the old state library building had limited the access of the books, both on stacks and in storage, to library staff only. But with the new facility where people can actually have access to the materials, it would be highly desirable to have books.
Ms. Giunchigliani expressed frustration over the actual funding mechanism for the collection being through the "Gifts and Donations" line item. Ms. Kerschner mentioned all agencies, because of revenue shortfalls, were given target budgets to meet and the library has had five rounds of reductions. She pointed out in the first two or three rounds, the book budget had not been reduced, but as time went on it was the only area left to cut. The rationale had been, if the library had to go into the fundraising business, it would be easier to raise funds for books than for staff. She concluded their new mission would be to raise funds for books. Ms. Giunchigliani reiterated the entire operating expense for books would be through a private fundraising alternative. She shared she understood a bare-bones budget but she had a big problem with the extent of bareness.
She pointed out the taxpayers pay for the services, the state does not provide the services and then the state turns around and guts the programs. She questioned why the library was built and commented at some point there must be recognition that if the commitments are made, the funding must also be committed without asking the taxpayers to pay again through bakesale-type fundraising. Ms. Giunchigliani emphasized she would be watching throughout budget hearings to see how many agencies have been backed into the corner of raising revenues from the private sector to fund programs the state is supposed to fund in the first place. She concluded if the state does not fund the programs it creates, the programs should be gutted.
Ms. Summers pointed out the current tight financial situation of the state and addressed Ms. Giunchigliani's concerns by stating the budget office gave the agencies targets and allowed them to determine their reductions with minimal oversight. Ms. Summers commented the original proposal from Ms. Kerschner had been to remove the book budget altogether. Ms. Giunchigliani interjected the cut was unconscionable. Ms. Summers said Ms. Kerschner's justification, similar to other agencies, was if a position was taken away it would never be recovered. Ms. Summers stated it was probably a true assumption. Ms. Giunchigliani exclaimed even in tough times other avenues needed to be explored such as what has caused the state to encounter these budgetary problems which is the narrowness of the tax base. Ms. Giunchigliani stressed the need to have future planning and to know where resources need to come from, yet no one is willing to discuss the harder facts of funding necessary services.
Mrs. Evans asked how many positions had been lost through the budget cuts. Ms. Kerschner replied 9.5 positions were lost in the budget plus 3.5 from a special four-year long project with an additional three positions recommended for deletion on July 1, 1993. She pointed out they would then have 27 positions remaining from 40. Mrs. Evans maintained this is a high percentage of cuts to an already small staff and indicated she believed the library was targeted more by the budget cuts than other agencies and not necessarily equitably. She asked Ms. Summers if the budget office allowed the private fundraising notion to go forward, would it be prudent to fund a position for a fundraiser development person. She further asked how the budget office expected the director to become a professional fundraiser and raise $160,000 in addition to the current job responsibilities.
Mr. Hataway interjected each agency was given a funding target to meet. Mrs. Evans emphasized his answer was unacceptable and if he continued to provide that answer he could save his breath. She explained the budget office had essentially put the agency directors against the wall and squeezed them to the point where they had no other choices. She elaborated it was not the agencies' fault, they had not set the priorities but were forced to comply with the budget office's and executive branch's priorities. Mr. Hataway replied that was his answer.
Ms. Kerschner noted on page 1161 there was a position request under Maintenance to meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). She introduced Ms. Joyce Lee, Assistant Director for State Library and Archives. Ms. Lee stated the position would be established to meet the federal mandate for ADA which requires the library to provide all services equitably to disabled patrons. Ms. Lee noted the Library operates the regional library for the blind and physically handicapped and would be looked at to provide a fine example for the state. Currently the library serves approximately 900 disabled clients with the subregional libraries serving approximately the same amount. The proposed position would provide braille copies of paper format type materials and would add technology to the existing catalog by enhancing the screen for large print, adding a voice capability, and adapting the keyboards. She noted this person would be an expert in this area and would be a resource for other state agencies.
Ms. Kerschner noted in the enhancement section a request for a half-time position under federal funds. This would be an attempt to make up for a loss in the accounting ability on federal funds.
Chairman Arberry moved the remainder of the agenda to Monday. He adjourned the hearing at 10:45 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
_________________________
Kerin E. Putnam
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Ways and Means
January 29, 1993
Page 1