MINUTES OF THE
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
Sixty-seventh Session
March 30, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Ways and Means was called to order by Chairman Morse Arberry, Jr., at 8:00 a.m., on Tuesday, March 30, 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
Ms. Sandra Tiffany
Mrs. Myrna T. Williams
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst
Gary Ghiggeri, Deputy Fiscal Analyst
HIGH LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE - PAGE 1534
Robert Loux, Executive Director, Nuclear Projects, explained the Expanded Program Narrative (Exhibit C) and gave an overview of the activities, functions, goals and objectives of the agency. Mr. Loux advised the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA), established a special role for states where potential sites for nuclear waste repositories had been identified. The role of the agency was to oversee the federal Department of Energy's high-level nuclear waste program, conduct impact assessment to identify possible effects of the program, provide public information and carry out independent technical and other studies deemed necessary for fulfilling state responsibilities. Mr. Loux remarked the 1985 Nevada Legislature, in response to growing public and governmental concern over the proposed high-level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in southern Nevada, enacted legislation which established a formal structure by which the state would oversee federal waste program activities and carry out state responsibilities under the NWPA.
Mr. Marvel asked if the agency "passed through" money to the counties for socioeconomic development. Mr. Loux replied a separate program provided money to cities; Henderson, North Las Vegas, Boulder City and Las Vegas. He explained because Nevada was the only high-level nuclear repository site being studied the counties had direct access to congressional appropriations. Mr. Marvel asked if there were any restrictions on the use of the congressional appropriations. Mr. Loux explained the appropriations were governed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) rules which prohibited lobbying and litigation. Mr. Marvel asked how much could be spent for administrative purposes. Mr. Loux commented it was not prescribed by law or by the appropriations act.
Mr. Marvel asked if the agency had been audited. Mr. Loux replied the agency was audited in 1990 by the U.S. Government Accounting Office. They found three areas of noncompliance: (1) $75,000 to litigate the Department of Energy (DOE); (2) lobbyist costs; and (3) funds appropriated for a specific budget year were used to pay for expenditures from another. All of the noncompliance issues had been resolved. Mr. Loux noted the Attorney General ruled the litigation funds were used appropriately however the DOE subtracted $75,000 from the agency's 1993 grant to compensate.
Mr. Marvel asked if the agency had experts who studied and characterized the Yucca Mountain project. Mr. Loux explained the agency did not receive sufficient funding to perform data collection and studies. He stated most often the agency performed oversight of the Department of Energy. Mr. Marvel asked if the agency found conclusions. Mr. Loux stated conclusions could be made in some areas. Mr. Loux commented the agency had concluded through studies that suggested Yucca Mountain should be disqualified based on: (1) active earthquake faults and other types of tectonic activity which would prevent waste containment; and (2) groundwater travel time to the accessible environment would be much faster than was reported by the Department of Energy.
Mr. Humke asked if the agency had reached conclusions then was there need for further study. Mr. Loux explained in 1989 the Governor requested the Secretary of Energy disqualify the site based on the above conclusions. He commented the Secretary of Energy did not refute the findings but did suggest that the Department of Energy felt it necessary to study the site at a cost of $6 million for an additional 10 years. Mr. Loux asserted the state believed there were several areas of Yucca Mountain which could not meet the DOE siting criteria as they were currently written. Moreover the agency was concerned that no site would be licensable predicting the geologic performance over a 10,000 year period with the degree of confidence that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission required. Mr. Humke asked if the agency approached the new Secretary of Energy to disqualify the site again. Mr. Loux indicated the agency had applied for a substantially larger sum of money to do additional work for FY 94. He asserted more data would serve to reinforce the states viewpoint.
Mr. Humke noted when the agency testified before the Senate Finance Committee they stated the Yucca Mountain site was geologically unsound. Mr. Loux clarified the agency had testified the site could not meet the siting guidelines and it was unlikely the site would be licensed. Mr. Humke asked if the additional funding the agency had requested would be used to strengthen the case against the Yucca Mountain site. Mr. Loux commented if a sufficient amount of funding was received a comprehensive study would be performed which would strengthen the state's viewpoint. Currently the agency prioritized the study of the most prominent health and safety issues.
Ms. Tiffany asked for a description of the agency's mission. Mr. Loux explained the agency was required under federal and state statute to: (1) provide public information; (2) technical oversight of the Department of Energy; and (3) provide a socioeconomic impact analysis to the state. Ms. Tiffany asked if the agency received federal allocations to perform these functions. Mr. Loux explained a direct congressional appropriation totaling $5 million was provided for state oversight of the Department of Energy. Congress recognized public confidence was essential to the success of the project.
Ms. Tiffany asked if the agency ensured the credibility of the contractors it hired. Mr. Loux explained both in-state and out-of-state contractors were used. Mr. Loux asserted a cooperative agreement between the DOE and Nevada university system had curtailed the agency's use of university contractors.
Ms. Tiffany asked who was ultimately responsible for the decision to approve the project. Mr. Loux answered in 2001 - 2005 the DOE would attempt to reach a conclusion about the site. The DOE's findings would be reported to the Secretary of Energy who will recommend the site to the President. The President will prepare an application to license the site for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Mr. Loux explained under the federal statute the state had an opportunity to veto the site, however it could be overridden by a simple majority in Congress. Finally the NRC would have a licensure hearing which would decide whether to license the facility or not. Mr. Loux commented the state intended to present information which would oppose the construction of the Yucca Mountain Repository.
Ms. Tiffany asked if the agency was accountable for its use of funds and did most of the money remain in state. Mr. Loux asserted approximately 78 percent of the funds remained in state. He commented the agency was audited every year through the single audit act. The agency was also reviewed by the Commission on Nuclear Projects, National Academy of Science and geotechnical group consultants.
Mrs. Williams noted the NRC had changed the maximum allowable radiation levels. She asked if the NRC would change any other standards for the citizens of Nevada. Mr. Loux commented when the site was originally selected in 1987, as the only site in the nation studied, the DOE presented a case to Congress which claimed: (1) Yucca Mountain could meet the existing EPA standards for radiation releases by five orders of magnitude; and (2) expressed complete confidence that Yucca Mountain would be found licensable. Mr. Loux alleged a conversation between the chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the head of the DOE had been recorded. The Director of the DOE suggested the NRC change the standards for licensure so the Yucca Mountain site could be selected. Fortunately the NRC refused to alter the licensure standards because of health and safety reasons.
Mr. Loux stated since the Department of Energy failed to change the regulatory standards through the NRC, they lobbied Congress, specifically Benette Johnson, to adopt a piece of legislation. The legislation would disregard existing EPA standards for licensure and conduct a study, with the help of the National Academy of Sciences, to approve an entirely new set of standards. The argument for establishing new standards was it would save the nation billions of dollars in research costs. The DOE was attempting to adopt standards which would allow more materials to escape from the repository. The agency's principal area of concern was the Carbon-14 standards. There is a large potential for the release of radioactive gas from Yucca Mountain. The release will occur because Yucca Mountain is highly faulted and fractured. Under the original standards the DOE was required to only allow 1,000 premature cancer deaths by prediction over the 10,000 year life of the facility; under the newly proposed DOE standards 4,000 to 5,000 premature cancer deaths were allowable from Carbon-14 alone. Mr. Loux pointed out the proposed standards had not been adopted. He commented a two year study to be completed by the National Academy of Sciences would evaluate the proposed standards.
Mrs. Williams asked how many DOE scientists had resigned because they objected to the Department's interpretation of data. Mr. Loux commented he knew of at least four scientists who resigned from DOE. They alleged DOE improperly conducted the study of the site. Mr. Loux cited a retired General who had resigned from Science Applications Incorporated, DOE's primary contractor, because DOE was perpetrating mismanagement and fraud. The General alleged DOE was spending its resources on planning facility construction rather than the merit of the site. Mr. Loux stated these allegations were now being confirmed by the General Accounting office.
Mr. Loux gave an overview of the budget. He commented three areas could be highlighted: (1) $5 million congressional appropriation; and (2) transfer of the microcomputer specialist and the costs associated with the position, $47,000, to the newly reorganized Division of Information Technology Service.
Mr. Loux indicated the contract expenditures totaling $4,506,987 allocated: $125,000 to the High-Level Waste Committee; $80,000 to other state agencies; $500,000 passed though to local governments; $100,000 to environment; $100,000 to engineering; $920,000 to geology; $1,320,000 to hydrology; $300,000 on-site representation; $650,000 to socioeconomic; $45,000 to legal; $340,000 public information; $750,000 to transportation; and five contract employees and their travel.
Chairman Arberry asked why only $150 had been allocated to training. Mr. Loux explained a training enhancement totaling $1,970 had been added to the budget.
Chairman Arberry asked if the microcomputer specialist would be located within the agency. Mr. Loux indicated the agency would prefer the specialist remain located within the agency. Chairman Arberry asked which agency would be responsible for supervision. Mr. Loux stated Data Processing would supervise the position.
MILITARY DEPARTMENT - PAGE 1445
Drennan Clark, Adjutant General, Director Nevada Military Department, commented on National Guard activities over the past biennium. General Clark explained the Military Department had avoided layoffs by eliminating six new positions, eliminating the purchase of new vehicles, reverting a large portion of the $400,000 one-time maintenance appropriation, and reducing the Educational Assistance Program. However over the next biennium the Military Department would be forced to layoff personnel, from 69.5 state employees to 46.75 employees, and eliminate the Education Assistance Program entirely. General Clark stressed the reductions resulted from budget constraints, not reorganization. The Military Department lost 15 Air Guard Fire Fighters because federal funding to support the positions had been eliminated. The other employee reductions consisted of janitors, a maintenance supervisor and a secretarial position. In addition, two administrative positions would be transferred to the new Department of Public Safety.
General Clark reviewed the Department's budget. Staff reductions had reduced Personnel expenditures from $2,581,253 to $1,740,872; operating expenses increased from $405,682 to $530,478 because of an increase in the annual fee to the Cannon International Airport; utilities expenses increased from $592,541 to $651,870 because of new facilities and inflation. New facilities included an organizational/maintenance shop in Yerington, Stead, Carson City and a room/culinary facility at the Air Guard base in Reno. Enhancement 700 funded one maintenance worker which was funded 75 percent by the federal government and 25 percent by the state. Enhancement 710 provided federal funding for a training site at Stead and Indian Springs. Enhancement 720 provided federal funding for fire fighters training and equipment.
Chairman Arberry asked what preparations the Department of Military was making to ensure riots could be contained when the Rodney King verdict was announced. General Clark commented an operations plan, coordinated with Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, would activate soldiers and airmen. General Clark stated 50 M-16 rifles and 300 gasmasks were issued to Las Vegas Metro. Additionally two M-113-A3 personnel carriers were prepared for delivery to Las Vegas Metro and a C-130 aircraft was on reserve at the Wyoming Air National Guard. General Clark stated the federal judge trying the case would give from four to twelve hours notice before he announce the verdict.
Chairman Arberry asked if the guns would contain standard issue ammunition or rubber bullets. General Clark stated the guns were military weapons with standard issue ammunition. General Clark stated a protector device precluded the weapons from being fired as fully automatic weapons. Chairman Arberry explained he had been a member of a negotiating team during the May riots and commented the team might be able to prevent another riot and asked General Clark to keep him informed.
Mr. Marvel asked the status of the maintenance/repair program for armories located throughout the state. General Clark explained maintenance would be deferred over the next biennium because of budget constraints. Mr. Marvel asked for comment on the federal defense cut backs. General Clark stated as soldiers were eliminated so were their contributions to the maintenance and repair of the armories.
Mr. Marvel asked if the Department had any indication where reductions might take place. General Clark commented two mechanized infantry companies had been eliminated and the armor battalion had been reduced by 200 people. The Air Guard was the last unit flying tactical reconnaissance therefore it was unlikely the unit would be eliminated.
Mr. Price asked if the elimination of the Air Guard benefits was necessary. General Clark commented the program was very popular with National Guard members but budget constraints had forced the elimination of the program. Mr. Price questioned the constitutionality of an intermediate director between the Governor and the Adjutant General. General Clark stated it was absolutely essential for the Adjutant General to have direct communication with the Governor. He commented the source of administrative support for the National Guard was unimportant. General Clark did not object to the National Guard's administrative support transfer to the Department of Public Safety.
Mr. Marvel asked if the elimination of the National Guard benefits had any impact on recruitment and retention. General Clark replied the elimination did have an impact on retention. Many of the soldiers were not reenlisting because of the reduction in benefits.
Mr. Marvel asked why there was such a disparity between the agency's request, $157,384, and the Governor's Recommendation, $73,001, for Enhancement 720. General Clark explained the funding was decreased because the total number of fire fighters had been reduced.
Mr. Humke commented the elimination of the National Guard benefits program would impact the moral of the soldiers. Mr. Humke asked if the Department was in jeopardy of loosing the 113th Aviation Battalion because of defense cut backs. General Clark commented the flying unit would most likely be retained. However the battalion headquarters may be eliminated.
Mr. Humke asked if the F-4 aircraft, which were extremely loud, would ever be replaced. General Clark stated the military had no plans to replace the aircraft. He did indicate there was a slight possibility the F-4 would be replaced with a Strike Eagle which was much quieter.
Mr. Price asked if the Department's fire fighters fought range fires. General Clark stated they did not.
ADJUTANT GENERAL CONSTRUCTION - PAGE 1452
General Clark explained the budget allocated federal funds for new buildings and maintenance on existing buildings. He explained the fund had not been utilized in the past because a U.S. Property and Fiscal Officer had the authority to allocate federal funds.
Chairman Arberry asked for comment on the new shop in Carson City. General Clark stated a $60,000 enhancement had been requested for a state maintenance shop.
Chairman Arberry asked if the Department anticipated receiving federal funds for the proposed Clark County Nevada National Guard complex (approximately $3.4 million for the 1993-95 biennium). General Clark explained the federal funds, $10 million, were available for four buildings at Nellis which included an armory, USPFO warehouse, organizational/maintenance shop and a combined maintenance shop. All of the proposed buildings required state matching funds which were unavailable. General Clark commented if the funds were not used by 1995 the Department would be required to revert them back.
Mr. Price asked the amount of state funding required for the new buildings. General Clark indicated approximately $1.5 million in state funds would be required for the three projects.
ASSEMBLY BILL 127 - REQUIRES STATE EMERGENCY RESPONSE COMMISSION UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES TO DEVELOP INFORMATIONAL PROGRAMS REGARDING HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Bob Andrews, Executive Director, State Emergency Response Commission (SERC), explained the intent of AB 127 was to expand the SERC Community-right-to-know-Act. He stated AB 127 would provide private facilities with information which would ensure compliance with hazardous materials legislative mandates and SARA Title III. Mr. Andrews commented the SERC was in support of AB 127.
Speaker Dini explained he was the chairman of the ACR 79 subcommittee which sponsored AB 127. He advised $20,000 from the Hazardous Materials Contingency Fund would fund AB 127. Speaker Dini stated he was in full support of AB 127.
Ms. Tiffany noted hazardous materials public information was currently provided by the Highway Patrol. Ms. Tiffany asserted if SARA Title III public information requirements were to be provided by SERC, then the information should be transferred from the Highway Patrol rather than redeveloped by SERC. Mr. Andrews explained AB 127 would expand the current information base to include compliance, information, changes in legislation and public safety information to communities. Ms. Tiffany noted the ACR 79 subcommittee's recommendation was to study existing information and then fund improvements to the system. She asserted the language of AB 127 suggested SERC would "develop informational programs regarding hazardous materials." Mr. Andrews agreed the information repository would need particular study to ensure SERC did not duplicate existing information. He explain the informational issues addressed by AB 127 would provide full information on SARA Title III requirements to private industry with updates and changes in legislation, compliance and provide public safety information to communities.
Joseph Quinn, Chief of Training and Operations, Division of Emergency Management, explained the Division had been providing training since 1987 with an extremely limited budget from federal SARA Title III grants. Mr. Quinn asserted the Division supported AB 127 because it would expand the ability of the state to provide training to the necessary parties.
AUDIT REPORT DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
Stephen M. Wood, CPA, Chief Deputy Legislative Auditor, Audit Division, explained an audit of the Emergency Assistance Program administered by the State Division of Emergency Management (DEM), as directed by the Legislative Commission, had been completed.
Mike Spell, CPA, Deputy Legislative Auditor, Audit Division, explained the scope of the audit included a review of grants awarded to local emergency management agencies by DEM from July 1, 1989 to December 31, 1992. The objectives of the audit were: (1) to assess the management controls used by the DEM to administer the Emergency Management Assistance grant (EMA); and, (2) to determine if DEM had awarded and distributed EMA grant funds to local emergency management agencies in a timely manner. Mr. Spell asserted serious problems plagued the Division's EMA grants management process. The lack of management controls had severely hampered DEM's ability to award and provide EMA funds to local agencies in a timely manner. This had put financial burdens on local agencies by forcing them to use other funds before EMA funds were received. The Division was risking the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal funds which might impact statewide efforts to maintain and improve emergency management programs.
Mr. Spell commented the audit findings were as follows: (1) the Division had placed the state at risk of losing federal EMA grant funds by not submitting required grant expenditure plans to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on a timely basis; (2) the Division had failed to notify local agencies of their EMA award allocations in a timely manner, over the past three years DEM took an average of four months to notify local agencies of their awards; (3) the Division had been slow to process locals' requests for EMA grant funds, nearly five months to get payments to local agencies; (4) the Division had yet to pay Clark County $46,000 for expenses related to its 1988 grant award, and $6,000 for 1989; (5) the Division had paid more than $390,000 over the last three grant years to local agencies after federal time limits had passed; (6) the Division failed to reallocate available EMA funds to local agencies totaling $114,000 over the last three grant years; (7) the Division had failed to comply with federal cash management and reporting requirements; (8) the Division had not established management controls to ensure accurate and complete accounting records were prepared and maintained; (9) the Division had not provided clear guidance to local agencies specifying grant administration and reporting requirements; and (10) the Director's position was vacant for 16 months, reducing the level of supervision.
Mr. Spell explained the audit had made seven recommendations in the report. The recommendations related to establishing policies and procedures to ensure a timely grant award and payment process and development of a system of management controls for the EMA program. Mr. Spell stated the agency in its response to the preliminary report accepted all seven recommendations.
Mr. Marvel asked if the agency was implementing the seven recommendations. General Clark recognized the deficiency and acknowledged some mistakes were made. General Clark assured the committee all seven of the recommendations were being implemented. Two of the FY 92 grants for Clark and Mineral County had not been finalized but would be completed soon. General Clark stated the EMA had been instructed to award 50 percent of all of the FY 93 grants immediately and catch up with the paperwork after the monies had flowed to the local jurisdictions.
Mr. Marvel asked if EMA had been penalized for late payments. General Clark commented FY 92-93 had not been affected. The late reports had been accepted by FEMA and grants were awarded.
Chairman Arberry asked if the EMA had drawn interest from the late grant awards. General Clark replied the money was in the state's account, not EMA's account, and if interest was drawn it went to the state.
Chairman Arberry asked if the 1988 grant award to Clark County which totaled $46,000 had been awarded to the county. General Clark explained records did not indicate grant money was withheld. He commented the agency was currently researching the award. Chairman Arberry asked when the research would be completed. General Clark estimated it would be completed by April 15, 1993.
Mrs. Evans asked if the director's position which had been vacant for 16 months had been filled. General Clark explained the Director had resigned from the position three weeks ago. Mrs. Evans asked why the position had remained vacant for 16 months. General Clark replied the compensation was low, $44,000 annually. He commented the last Director had been offered a position with a private industry bank which had a notably higher salary. General Clark indicated he was confident the Director's position would be filled within the next month.
Ms. Tiffany asked why only 50 percent of the FY 93 grant awards had been distributed. Mr. Spell explained the FY 93 grant year began October 1, 1993 therefore on March 31, 1993 half of the budget year would have been completed. So if the agency allocated 50 percent of the FY 93 grant award, local governments could meet their budget requirements.
Chairman Arberry asked for an estimate of the time required to fully implement all seven of the audit recommendations. General Clark assured the committee all seven of the recommendations would be implemented before June 30, 1993.
Mrs. Williams commented the unpaid grant award balances for small counties such as Lyon and Mineral could represent a major portion of their total local government budgets. She added unpaid balances were also important to the larger counties such as Henderson and Clark County.
Mr. Heller asked how the EMA had defined "timely manner." General Clark explained the agency had anticipated a one month period between notification and payment of the grant award. Mr. Heller asked that information about the operations, implementation and review of the audit recommendation be included in the performance indicators.
Speaker Dini asked if management controls were in place in the smaller accounts. General Clark assured the other accounts would process grant funds to local governments in a timely manner. He explained the EMA grant award account was larger which was one of the reasons management controls were difficult to implement.
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT FEDERAL GRANTS - PAGE 1470
General Clark explained the Executive Budget recommended four new positions for the FY 93-95 biennium which were funded entirely by grant funds from the Department of Energy (DOE). General Clark explained in September 1990 the DOE entered into an agreement with Nevada to provide federal funding to support a joint DOE and multi-state agency effort to provide environmental oversight, monitoring inspection and emergency response at the Nevada Test Site. The DEM's responsibilities for this joint effort have been to improve emergency preparedness, response and recovery which included planning and training. The specific deliverable in the agreement required the DEM maintain and calibrate radiological response equipment for first responders statewide; provide, administer and coordinate radiological response safety training; develop emergency compatibility between state, counties and the Emergency Operations Center; and ensure compatibility between state, counties and DOE communications systems.
General Clark commented the agency requested 12 new federally funded positions. Two of the twelve requested positions had not been recommended for Emergency Management but were recommended to be transferred to the proposed Information Technology Services Division which centralized data processing and communications for most state agencies. The two data processing position would be administered by the Department of Data Processing but would remain located in the Emergency Management agency.
Chairman Arberry noted an enhancement which included $60,726 for computer software and approximately $190,000 for computer hardware. Chairman Arberry asked how the money would be utilized. General Clark replied the computer project was part of an agreement with the DOE to update the OASIS system computer project. The OASIS system shared information management between the agency's operations center and the local jurisdictions.
Ms. Tiffany asked for a brief description of OASIS system and its purpose. Joseph Quinn, Emergency Management Division, explained the OASIS system was designed to link public safety entities on all levels of government during emergencies. Ms. Tiffany asked how much funding had been allocated to the OASIS system since its conception. Mr. Quinn replied $190,000 had been provided for the OASIS system. Ms. Tiffany asked the agency to provide a detailed description of the hardware and software purchased for the OASIS system.
Speaker Dini asked how many communities were connected into the OASIS system. Mr. Quinn replied four counties were connected and the remaining communities were scheduled for hook-up by 1995. Speaker Dini requested a list of the participating communities and federal and state agencies.
General Clark explained Enhancement 700 allocated additional grant funds from the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency. Also included in this category were agency transfers from the State Emergency Response Commission.
Chairman Arberry noted the disaster planning position which was funded to be responsible for the Earthquake Awareness Program had been eliminated. Chairman Arberry asked if the elimination of the position was an oversight. General Clark explained the duties of the position would be performed by the hazardous mitigation officer which was listed under the hazard mitigation category on page 1461 of the Executive Budget. General Clark commented the hard cash match grant (50/50 state/federal) funding for the position was not available in the Emergency Management - Federal Grants account. Therefore the funding was allocated from the Emergency Management Account. Ms. Matteucci interjected Enhancement 720 on page 1464 of the Executive Budget delineated the transfer.
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE - PAGE 1468
General Clark explained the Emergency Management Assistance Program provided a flow-through mechanism for Federal Emergency Management Assistance funds for local jurisdictions on a dollar for dollar matching basis (50/50 split). These funds were utilized to offset personnel and administrative expenses associated with emergency management operations. The Emergency Assistance expenditure category was used to offset the projected Federal Emergency Management Assistance funding. The federal allocation was based on a formula and was appropriated one third to the state and two thirds to the local jurisdictions. As part of the Governor's reorganization, the Emergency Management Assistance Program, which is administered by the Emergency Management Division, would be placed in the proposed Department of Public Safety.
Speaker Dini asked where the one-third state administrative fee was listed. General Clark replied the Emergency Management account listed the administrative costs associated with the Emergency Management Assistance account.
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT - PAGE 1461
General Clark commented the emergency assistance grants were the subject of the legislative audit. General Clark explained the account was used to flow through grant monies to local jurisdictions. He mentioned two positions, an administrative officer and an accountant specialist, were recommended for transfer to the Department of Public Safety.
Speaker Dini asked how SERC allocations were listed. General Clark replied SERC funding was listed under resources as line item "other." General Clark noted Exhibit D which delineated specific disaster relief responsibilities for SERC and the Department of Emergency Management.
Speaker Dini noted the proposed merger of SERC into the Department of Emergency Management. Speaker Dini suggested administrative authority be given to SERC rather than to the Department of Emergency Management. General Clark replied SERC, when compared to the responsibilities of DEM, had a very limited scope of disaster relief responsibilities.
Speaker Dini asked if a net decrease in SERC funding would result from the merger of the two agencies. General Clark replied the funding, duties and composition for SERC would remain intact. However, the Director of DEM would be responsible for oversight and administrative support for SERC programs. General Clark commented the successful operation of SERC would continue after the merger took place.
Mr. Humke noted first responder local governmental and private agencies agreed to fee assessments with the understanding SERC would administer the program. Mr. Humke asked if any dissension would occur as a result of the merger of the two agencies. General Clark asserted no change would occur in SERC operations, therefore the relationship between SERC and the agencies would not be threatened.
Mr. Humke asked if DEM was technically proficient with SARA Title III requirements. General Clark replied DEM had a SARA Title III expert on staff. Mr. Humke asked if the SARA Title III expertise contained at DEM was respected at the local level by the first responder agencies.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Karen Larsen, Lobbyist, Clark County, stated most of the concerns of Clark County had been addressed by the legislative audit. Ms. Larsen commented the DEM had failed to award Clark County $182,000 in federal grants since 1988.
Ms. Larsen explained the SERC contingency fund contained approximately $175,000 annually. Through the public hearing process local governments, state agencies and the private sector agreed to impose additional SERC fees which would provide $100,000 annually in additional funding to the contingency fund. Ms. Larsen commented the funds were allocated to the participating agencies for emergency planning, training and equipment. Ms. Larsen advocated the public hearing process and its ability to provide participatory guidance for the contingency funds. Ms. Larsen commented the current cost of operation for the SERC program was $60,000. She asserted the merger would cause operations costs to increase to approximately $237,000. Ms. Larsen stated the agencies were concerned the amount of grant funding returned to the local jurisdictions would decrease as a result of the increase in operating costs.
Ray Bacon, Executive Director, Nevada Manufacturers Association, commented the Manufacturers Association was extremely involved in the negotiations and the establishment of the SERC fees. Mr. Bacon stated the agreement for the fees was made with the understanding SERC would administer the program and maintain low operating costs. Mr. Bacon asserted DEM did not have a good performance history. Mr. Bacon advocated SERC remain an independent agency.
Marvin Carr, Member, SERC; Chairman, Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) of Lyon County; Director, Emergency Management, stated SERC had enabled many of the counties within the state to successfully address the requirements of SARA Title III. Mr. Carr asserted grant funding to the LEPC and first responder had not been significantly depleted by administrative costs.
Mr. Carr stated he did not agree with the proposed merger of the two agencies because: (1) the poor performance history of DEM; (2) increased operating cost; and (3) the elimination of the public hearing process. Mr. Carr requested the SERC Contingency Fund's administration remain under the direction of SERC.
Larry Farr, Fire Marshal, City of Reno Fire Department, advocated SERC remain a separate state agency. Mr. Farr commented the Washoe County LEPC received a number of grants which were vital to emergency operations. Mr. Farr asserted any reduction in the amount of pass-through funding would have a great impact on the county's ability to respond.
There being no further business before the committee the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
_________________________
Courtnay Berg
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Ways and Means
March 30, 1993
Page 1