MINUTES OF THE
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
Sixty-seventh Session
April 15, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Ways and Means was called to order by Chairman Morse Arberry, Jr., at 8:07 a.m., on Thursday, April 15, 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
ASSEMBLY BILL 321- Revises fees for certain court-appointed attorneys in criminal proceedings.
Chairman Arberry announced the hearing on AB 321 would be deferred to a later date.
ASSEMBLY BILL 344- Makes appropriation to Nevada Special Olympics for administrative expenses.
Mr. Doug Nicholson, Executive Director, Nevada Special Olympics, explained the Nevada chapter had been struggling financially for several years. He had assumed leadership of the Nevada Special Olympics in November 1992, and since that time all creditors had been paid.
Mr. Nicholson said he accepted the position of Executive Director because he felt the Nevada chapter was worth saving. Nevada Special Olympics had been in jeopardy of losing its accreditation from Special Olympics International. He noted Nevada's program currently ranked below all other state programs because of its unsound financial program.
Mr. Nicholson explained Special Olympics played an important role in mainstreaming individuals with mental retardation by providing organized sports training and competition. Programs such as Special Olympics helped those individuals gain the assurance they could be productive members of their communities.
Mr. Nicholson stated the challenge he faced was to turn the program around financially. His plan was to reduce the budget by 14 percent, develop a statewide sponsorship program, secure grant funding and develop a major fundraising project. He was confident the chapter could become viable if those goals were accomplished. The $50,000 appropriation requested by AB 344 would help revitalize the program. He expressed optimism regarding the future success of the chapter and said he would not leave his position until his goals were accomplished.
Mr. Nicholson related a story about a young boy who was unable to speak after being injured in an automobile accident. The boy regained his speech when he was enrolled in Special Olympics and had the opportunity to become involved in the sports competitions offered by the program.
Mr. Nicholson introduced Mr. Byron Lauderbaugh, a Special Olympics coach. Mr. Lauderbaugh said he had been involved with Special Olympics for 18 years. He reiterated the importance of the program. He noted Special Olympics offered not only the opportunity to participate in sports competitions but also the opportunity to socialize with others. He said it would be difficult for local programs to operate without the support of a sound state office.
Mr. Heller asked how the $50,000 appropriation would be spent. Mr. Nicholson replied the appropriation would fund operating expenses. One of his objectives; however, was to use a portion of the $50,000 to establish a reserve fund which could be carried forward from year to year. He noted the 14 percent budget reduction represented approximately $50,000.
Mrs. Williams inquired whether the threat to the accreditation was due solely to lack of funds. Mr. Nicholson responded the threat to the accreditation was not due to lack of funds alone. Accreditation was also based on training and certification programs and accounting procedures.
Mrs. Williams asked where the main office of Special Olympics was located. Mr. Nicholson replied the office was located in Las Vegas.
Mr. Marvel asked how many individuals could be enrolled in the program if it was properly funded. Mr. Nicholson answered it was possible 5,000 individuals could benefit from the program.
Chairman Arberry called for public testimony in support of or opposition to AB 344. There was none.
ASSEMBLY BILL 369- Makes appropriation to department of education for adult literacy program.
Ms. Mary Peterson, Deputy Superintendent, Department of Education, stated AB 369 would provide for the expansion and establishment of literacy education opportunities for Nevada's uneducated and undereducated adults. Additional funding would allow the expansion of existing programs throughout the state and establishment of new rural literacy programs and workplace literacy programs. She noted illiterates and functional illiterates lacked the basic skills to fully participate as workers and citizens. Those lacking minimal skills could become dependent upon society for the necessities of life. She pointed out the social and economic costs of illiteracy were staggering.
Ms. Peterson explained literacy education programs gave uneducated and undereducated adults the opportunity to learn basic skills essential for coping in today's and tomorrow's world.
Ms. Peterson reported approximately 13 percent of Nevada's population, or 156,000 people, were functionally illiterate. According to the 1990 census, 227,297 people over 16 years of age did not have high school diplomas. This figure represented a .428 percent increase from the 1980 census. Additionally, federal funding to support literacy programs was dwindling.
Ms. Peterson explained the intent of AB 369 was to increase awareness of the need for adult literacy programs in Nevada.
Assemblyman Val Garner, District 14, expressed the hope that if additional resources could be found in the budget, some of those resources could be directed toward the problem of literacy. He noted while the illiterate population seemed to be invisible, they were visible within the prison system, the welfare rolls and the homeless population. He said Nevada had not made much of a commitment to this problem and urged support for this bill.
Chairman Arberry called for public testimony in support of or opposition to the bill. There was none.
ASSEMBLY BILL 371- Makes appropriation for establishment and operation of pilot program for foster grandparents in certain school districts.
Assemblyman Jan Evans, District 30, said she was honored to present AB 371 for the committee's consideration. She introduced Ms. Mary Ann Dyer, Director, Northern Nevada Foster Grandparent Program, and Ms. Doris Isaeff, a foster grandparent volunteer, and invited them to explain how the program operated in Nevada, the current funding mechanism and how the funding proposed by AB 371 would help the program.
Ms. Dyer indicated she was also speaking on behalf of Mr. Fred Morgan, Executive Director of Clark County Foster Grandparents. She explained the majority of the program was federally funded ($329,000). The state provided an additional $40,000 through the Division of Aging Services. The program supported approximately 200 foster grandparent positions throughout the state who were working with at-risk youth.
Ms. Dyer stated the program focused on low-income senior citizens with a need to supplement their income. The foster grandparents were placed in youth-related agencies and reimbursed for out-of-pocket volunteer expenses plus a stipend of $2.45 per hour and program-related fringe benefits. She noted this represented tax-exempt income for the seniors and did not impact their retirement benefits. As a result, the program was desirable to many seniors and there was a long list of seniors wishing to volunteer.
Ms. Dyer noted volunteers were required to work 20 hours per week in order to provide the daily, ongoing support needed by the children. She explained volunteers were currently working in 38 agencies and providing over 40,000 hours of service per year. Volunteers had to submit to background checks and annual physical examinations and to attend monthly in-service training sessions and workshops.
Ms. Dyer noted Nevada had the fastest growing senior population in the nation and should tap that resource to assist agencies in desperate need. She stated Foster Grandparents was the most cost effective program. The hourly cost of foster grandparent services was $2.93. In addition, Foster Grandparents assumed all personnel responsibility for the volunteers so agencies did not have to assume that burden.
Ms. Isaeff said she had been a foster grandparent for six years and found it the most pleasurable experience of her life. She explained she provided special attention and tutoring to children. She said she enjoyed the work and knew her help was making a difference to the children because their grades had improved. She planned to continue working for Foster Grandparents as long as she possibly could.
Ms. Vickie Butler, Guidance and Counseling Consultant, Department of Education, stated the foster grandparents did make a difference and there were large numbers of children as well as senior citizens who could benefit from the program. She could think of no more cost effective program for integrating Nevada's past, present and future. She said there was a need for foster grandparents within the schools. She encouraged the committee to approve whatever funding it could for this program.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked what the age limit was for becoming a foster grandparent. Ms. Dyer replied volunteers must be at least 60 years of age. There were currently volunteers in the program up to the age of 87.
Ms. Giunchigliani questioned whether the program was limited to elementary schools. Ms. Dyer replied the program was primarily intended for elementary school children.
Ms. Giunchigliani inquired how the senior's low-income status was verified. Ms. Dyer explained there was no requirement by the federal government to verify the low-income status. She explained volunteers were reviewed annually and any errors usually surfaced as a result of the review process.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked why the volunteers were assigned to counselors rather than to schools. She pointed out not all schools had counselors. Ms. Dyer said the foster grandparents worked with student assistance program teams to identify at-risk students when counselors were not available. Ms. Giunchigliani suggested the language of the bill be amended to expand the reference to counselors.
Chairman Arberry asked how extensive background checks on volunteers were. Ms. Dyer replied the school districts processed background checks for volunteers working within the districts. The requirement for background checks had been lifted for volunteers working in Social Services. She noted volunteers were always supervised by a staff person. Background checks for volunteers placed in other agencies were handled by the sheriff's department.
Chairman Arberry called for public testimony in support of or opposition. There was none.
ASSEMBLY BILL 430- Makes various changes regarding fees of state land registrar and authorization to use state land.
Ms. Pam Wilcox, Administrator, Division of State Lands, distributed
copies of an outline of the bill (Exhibit C) and a requested amendment (Exhibit D). She explained AB 430 was the bill to institute agency fees. The purpose of the bill was to impose reasonable fees for State Lands services. In the past, many services had been provided free of charge. The proposed fees were not intended to completely cover agency costs but they would help reduce the burden on the General Fund.
Ms. Wilcox referred to Exhibit C. She noted the bill authorized the agency to charge three types of fees: 1) copy fees, 2) application fees, and 3) permit fees. Historically, the agency had been permitted to charge for copies of documents related to school trust lands. Those fees were deposited into the Permanent School Fund. The bill would allow charges for copies of other types of documents not related to school trust lands. Those fees would be deposited into the agency fund.
Three types of application fees were proposed. Fees for applications for commercial uses would be $200. Fees for agricultural uses would be $150. Fees for other uses, i.e. private piers, would be $100. The fees for amendments to those permits would be $100, $50 and $10, respectively. There would be a modest fee for recreational dredging permits. In addition, the bill contained a provision for waiving fees under certain circumstances.
Ms. Wilcox reported Sections 23 and 24 of the bill set out general permit fees. She noted most of the permits would be for use of the state's navigable bodies of water. The greatest use would be for piers and buoys at Lake Tahoe. The fees proposed in Section 23 would be annual fees. The fees proposed in Section 24 would be one-time fees. The bill also provided for permit fees for other miscellaneous uses of state lands. Section 25 would allow for uses for the public benefit without charge.
Mr. Marvel asked if any of the proposed fees were included in the Executive Budget. Ms. Wilcox responded the fees were included in budget projections.
Mr. Marvel inquired how much funding the bill would provide. Ms. Wilcox answered the bill would provide revenues of $126,152 in the first year of the biennium and $127,192 in the second year.
Mr. Marvel asked if those projections were based on historical charges. Ms. Wilcox stated the projections were based on permits currently issued by the Division of State Lands for which no charges had been assessed.
Mr. Marvel asked how fees had been calculated. Ms. Wilcox said the agency had looked at fees charged by other agencies for similar types of uses. She noted the proposed fees for residential pier permits were $250 annually plus an initial $100 application fee. The costs over five years would be $1,350. In California, residential pier permits would cost $2,125 over five years. The fees proposed were still substantially lower than fees charged in California.
Mr. Marvel said he was troubled by the position the Legislature was placed in when budgets were predicated on legislation such as this and there was no assurance the legislation would be processed.
Chairman Arberry inquired whether fees would be assessed for permits on existing or new piers. Ms. Wilcox noted all permits issued over the years without charge contained language reserving the right to assess fees in the future. Owners of existing piers would be required to pay the annual fee. Application fees would be charged for new piers and buoys.
Chairman Arberry asked if the fees would be charged only for use of state land. Ms. Wilcox replied all of the permits were for use of state land. She pointed out the state owns the Lake Tahoe lake bed up to the low water mark.
Chairman Arberry questioned what would happen to the agency budget if this bill was not approved. Ms. Wilcox said she did not have an answer to the question. She pointed out the agency had suggested for some time it would be appropriate to charge fees for services. The taxpayers of the state were currently subsidizing people who used state lands. People on the California side of Lake Tahoe were paying substantial fees and people on the Nevada side were paying nothing. She expressed surprise it had taken so long for the Budget Division to draft a fee schedule. She said the existing situation was not reasonable.
Chairman Arberry asked if the proposed fees were substantially lower than similar fees in California. Ms. Wilcox replied the proposed fees were substantially lower than California's.
Chairman Arberry noted many people were leaving California and moving to Nevada as a result of the high fees.
Mrs. Chowning asked if charges would be assessed for copies of all public records within the Division of State Lands. Ms. Wilcox answered affirmatively. Mrs. Chowning noted people had a problem paying for records which they envisioned belonged to the public. Ms. Wilcox explained her staff often did not charge for single copies; however, when substantial copies of documents were requested, substantial staff time and cost was associated with the request.
Mrs. Chowning stated there was a bill pending which dealt with public access to public records which would provide access to copies of public documents. Ms. Wilcox replied her office had been working on the public access issue and was already providing copies.
Mrs. Chowning asked if the first copy would be free and charges would be assessed against subsequent copies. Ms. Wilcox responded the statute provided for copy fees. The agency staff tried to assess fees in a fair and reasonable manner. Fees were not charged to people making one or two copies for a public interest project. She said the largest volume of copying was done by title companies, and it was reasonable to charge a copying fee. Mrs. Chowning agreed. She said she would be more comfortable with the bill, however, if there was some provision for allowing free copies to members of the general public.
Ms. Wilcox referred to Exhibit D. She noted the agency was requesting two amendments to the bill. First, the reference to "...land granted to the state by the Federal Government" was inaccurate because it was intended to refer only to school trust lands. The agency suggested the phrase be amended to read "...land granted to the state by the Federal Government for educational purposes."
The second amendment would allow for some beneficial uses (i.e., river cleanup/dredging) or short-term use by non-profit groups without charge. The original language was inconsistent in this regard. The amended language would read: "The state land registrar may waive the fee for the issuance of any permit...."
Chairman Arberry called for public testimony in support of or opposition to AB 430. There was none.
SENATE BILL 289 - Corrects statutory reference to require that certain fees be deposited in state highway fund.
Mr. Bill Gosnell, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, stated SB 289 would correct a technical error in the statutes. He explained during the 1991 legislative session hazardous materials handling fees were inadvertently statutorily assigned to fund 101 rather than fund 201. This legislation would transfer that revenue to the proper account.
Chairman Arberry called for public testimony in support of or opposition to SB 289. There was none.
SENATE BILL 306 - Makes appropriation to state public works board for certain capital improvement projects.
Mr. Roger Grable, Deputy Manager, Public Works Board, indicated the Manager, Mr. Tom Stephens, had been delayed in Las Vegas and was unable to attend the hearing.
Mr. Grable expressed support for SB 306. He explained it was an early funding bill to complete design and construction on four capital improvement projects. The first project was replacement of the cooling tower at the Southern Nevada Adult Mental Health Center. Leakage from the cooling tower and rain had caused substantial damage to the roof and ceiling of the facility. He noted staff had submitted a letter to the Governor in March 1993 complaining of the conditions in their office. He said it was important construction of this project be started before June 1993. Design work had already begun. The total funding requested was $83,041.
Chairman Arberry asked if money had been appropriated in 1991 for this project. Mr. Grable replied the funding had been appropriated but had been withdrawn by the agency as part of the 1992 budget reduction program. He indicated the damage to the roof and ceiling had become much worse since 1991.
Mr. Marvel recalled the 1991 Legislature had considered this a high-priority project. Mr. Grable said it was a high-priority project and he was uncertain why the agency had agreed to the withdrawal of funding.
Mr. Marvel asked if the repair work would cost more in 1993 than it would have in 1991. Mr. Ghiggeri said the cost of repairs was considerably more than was funded by the 1991 Legislature (approximately $12,000 to $20,000). Mr. Grable noted the scope of the project had changed considerably. Mr. Ghiggeri stated the scope increased due to the considerable damage which had occurred over the current biennium.
Mr. Grable introduced Mr. Ron Crook, Project Architect. Mr. Crook stated the 1991 request was for replacement of the cooling tower with no modifications. The cost would have been approximately $20,000. Since 1991 it had been decided replacement of the cooling tower within a room was an inappropriate application. Most cooling towers were placed on roofs where they could be vented to the outside to prevent moisture buildup. The added cost would fund architectural modifications to remove the ceiling portion of the room to create an exterior location for the cooling tower. Additional funding was requested to repair the water damage which occurred during the winter of 1992-93.
Chairman Arberry asked if the present request was for replacing the cooling tower and reroofing. Mr. Crook responded affirmatively. Chairman Arberry questioned whether the new roof would be sloped. Mr. Crook noted the only roof which the project addressed was the conversion of the present cooling tower room. The slope would only be in the area of the roof which was being converted from interior to exterior space. He said the existing roof was very flat but it was comprised of new, single-ply membrane and was not leaking.
Mr. Spitler asked if the water damage to the ceiling tiles was the result of the leaking cooling tower. Mr. Crook said three sources had been identified which contributed to the damage. One was the initial design which placed the cooling tower within an interior space and resulted in excess moisture being generated.
Mr. Spitler noted the ceiling tiles were collapsing whenever it rained. Mr. Crook said the second source of damage was wind-driven rain which was seeping under a curb area. This problem would be corrected by closing off the open curbs. The third contributing factor was leakage from pipes which had broken since the original funding was requested.
Mr. Spitler asked if this project would correct all of those inadequacies. Mr. Crook replied the project addressed all three items.
Mr. Spitler inquired whether the fencing at the Southern Nevada Correctional Center would be done prior to opening the facility. Mr. Grable said the project would begin prior to opening and be underway as inmates were moving into the facility. He noted the bill had not been processed as rapidly as was hoped.
Mr. Spitler remarked if the work had been done in 1991, there would be no need for the present bill. He suggested it was the responsibility of the Public Works Board to review recommendations for budget cuts such as this and reject them.
Mr. Spitler expressed the hope the fencing at the Jean facility would be completed prior to opening. He indicated the Legislature would do its best to expedite this bill but stated this matter had been handled incorrectly.
Mrs. Williams reiterated it was the responsibility and duty of the Public Works Board not to allow similar situations to happen.
Mrs. Williams questioned whether state buildings were still being constructed with flat roofs. Mr. Grable replied the Public Works Board had established a policy setting minimum gradient standards for all new roofs. The gradient was considered sufficient for a flat profile. Flat roofs which would allow ponding water were no longer permitted.
Mrs. Williams asked if building flat profile roofs resulted in major construction savings. Mr. Crook explained flat roofs were more economical for commercial and state buildings than pitched roofs.
Mrs. Williams questioned whether there were real savings from constructing flat roofs when the cost of later repairs was considered. She asked if there was a way to calculate the real cost of a flat roof versus a pitched roof. Mr. Grable said it was unreasonable to design all buildings with flat roofs. He noted roof design had to take into consideration the equipment which would have to be mounted on the building and the esthetics of the building. The Public Works Board had attempted to compromise by setting minimum slope standards for all state buildings. He would prefer to construct all state buildings with pitched roofs.
Mrs. Williams noted cost of construction was an important consideration. Funding for services was being lost because dollars were being spent on repairs and reroofing. Mr. Grable expressed his personal opinion the Public Works Board had addressed this issue and the situation was improving. New structures were being constructed better and problems were not developing at the same rate as they had in the past.
Mrs. Williams said she would like to reinforce the message from the committee there should be an emergency team in place to deal with roof problems immediately to minimize the subsequent interior damage from leaks. She said it was unfair to place the committee in the position of having to spend additional sums of money on capital improvement projects when funding for services to the taxpayers had to be denied. Mr. Grable said he agreed with Mrs. Williams. He noted under the Governor's proposed reorganization certain infrastructure maintenance functions were scheduled to move into the Public Works Board. The Board currently was not responsible for maintenance.
Mr. Spitler noted this bill requested an appropriation of over $120,000 from the General Fund for projects which could have been completed in 1991. He questioned who made the decision to present this request in bill form rather than to present the matter to the Interim Finance Committee. Mr. Grable replied the bill was drafted pursuant to a Board-approved agency request. Mr. Spitler pointed out the funding was approved in 1991 and could have been brought before the Interim Finance Committee so the appropriation would have come from the 1991-93 budget rather than from the General Fund budget for 1993-95. He said the action was short-sighted and forced the Legislature to take the funding from future revenues.
Chairman Arberry inquired about the transfer of $156,000, allocated for a general services warehouse and design of a forestry/parks complex in Las Vegas, to the Fremont School project. Mr. Grable replied the Fremont School was unoccupied and would remain under the control of Carson City for maintenance purposes until September 1993. Total remodeling costs were estimated to be slightly over $2 million. The $156,000 would fund design of the remodel of the Fremont School and the old library building.
Chairman Arberry asked if the warehouse and forestry/park projects would be completed. Mr. Grable said the intent of the bill was to redirect bond funds from the Las Vegas projects (91-C8) to the remodeling of the Fremont School and library to make those buildings available for state use.
Chairman Arberry questioned what would happen if the Legislature opted to move ahead with the original project. Mr. Grable stated the original projects were not submitted as part of the 1993-95 Capital Improvement Program; however, if the Legislature elected to proceed with the original projects, other funding would have to be obtained for the Fremont School and library remodel.
Chairman Arberry asked Mr. Ghiggeri if funds had been appropriated in the 1991 legislative session for the warehouse and forestry/parks projects. Mr. Ghiggeri responded the funding had been approved by the 1991 Legislature. During the interim, it was decided the forestry/parks project would not be situated with the warehouse but would be located in the vicinity of the Las Vegas Wildlife/Parks office. He said he was uncertain of the status of the project.
Chairman Arberry said this request assumed the Legislature would approve the Governor's proposed reorganization plan and placed the committee in an awkward position. If the Legislature decided not to proceed with the projects using funds which had already been appropriated, new revenue sources would have to be found. The Legislature was being forced to approve agency requests.
Mr. P. Forrest "Woody" Thorne, Deputy Budget Administrator, Budget Division, stated as in the past, the Executive Budget incorporated proposals of the Governor. The governor's budget recommendation was designed to fit the circumstances of the day and the policy issues which the Governor wished to put forth. Every session the Legislature was faced with making the decision to agree or disagree with the Governor's proposals and modify them accordingly.
Chairman Arberry said being forced to pay for projects for which funds were allocated in 1991 from the 1993 budget placed the Legislature in a box. Mr. Thorne said the revenue shortfall was a problem which was faced by the Governor as well as the Legislature and required difficult decisions to be made. Given the revenue situation, these were the decisions made by the Governor.
Chairman Arberry said a meeting with the Budget Division was appropriate because the committee would not agree to this bill.
Mr. Spitler noted the committee should be aware the original proposal for improvements at the Southern Nevada Correctional Center requested $81,551. SB 306 requested $41,995. He said he understood the reduction was because construction would be performed using inmate labor.
Mr. Grable said Mr. Spitler's understanding was correct. Inmate labor would complete the construction under the direction of the Department of Forestry and with inspection by the Public Works Board. He explained this portion of the project was not included within the original scope of work. At the time the prison was built it was not considered necessary to embed the fence in concrete footings. Mr. Spitler expressed surprise the project design did not stipulate concrete for the fence poles in the wash area. Mr. Grable explained the fencing itself was embedded in concrete. The purpose of this project was to correct erosion problems and to prevent inmates from digging beneath the fence.
Mr. Spitler said if the inmates built the fence, they would know how to dig out of it. Mr. Grable stated the inmates would realize they could not dig beneath the concrete.
Mr. Spitler said it was important for the committee to understand the difference in costs between the original and the current proposal was the cost of labor and that inmates would be constructing the fence which was intended to keep them in. Mr. Grable said he was not convinced having the work done by a contractor would keep the inmates from knowing the fence design. The purpose of the concrete curb was to deter efforts by the inmates to dig under the fence.
Chairman Arberry asked if the concrete footing would require steel reinforcement. Mr. Grable answered it would not. Mr. Crook explained the wire fabric of the fence extended 18 inches below grade. The concrete footing would be an additional precaution to assure the wire could not be cut below grade. The project involved removing the dirt around the wire, forming and pouring the concrete. Mr. Grable added there would be no wire reinforcement in the concrete other than the wire fence material.
Ms. Tiffany said the Fremont School project did not seem to be cost effective. She noted the return on investment would take 17 years. She asked how the cost was justified. Mr. Grable said he had conducted a straight-line cost-benefit estimate. The usable space in the Fremont School was approximately 35,577 square feet. The intent of the project was to fully refurbish the building for use as a state office building. The $2.041 million cost covered design services and bidding on construction contracts. Agencies proposed to move into the Fremont School were currently leasing high-rent (approximately $1.00 per square foot) space in non-state owned facilities. The projected rental rate for the Fremont School was $.63 per square foot. The Education Department's rent would decrease from $252,483 per year to $153,000 per year. He noted those projections were based on 1994 numbers.
Chairman Arberry noted the refurbishing of the Fremont School was a part of the Capitol Complex master plan.
Mr. Dini explained the project had begun in 1989 under the direction of Assemblyman Marvin Sedway. The objective was to acquire all the lands around the Capitol Complex including historical sites, and bring the state agencies into close proximity. The overall plan was to bring state government together while at the same time preserving historic sites. The Fremont School was considered an historic building and fit well into the Legislature's master plan. He noted the master plan had been well thought out and was in the best interest of the people of the state.
Mrs. Evans asked if the Public Works Board had made a structural assessment of the old state library building. She said her understanding was a portion of the ceiling had collapsed. She noted the request for funding for the library had decreased from approximately $500,000 to $30,000. She asked what the plans for the library building were.
Mr. Grable replied $29,000 was requested for design only. The Public Works Board intended to complete minimum non-structural design in-house. Federal government restrictions limited tenancy in the building to agencies performing education-related functions. The agencies approved by the federal government to move into the building were Tourism and Nevada Magazine.
Mr. Grable said a report from the structural engineer demonstrated structural problems in the building and recommended solutions. Those problems were not addressed by SB 306, however. The funding requested would cover the cost of fire exits, elevator installations and compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act. The question of earthquake stability would not be addressed.
Mrs. Evans questioned how far it was prudent to proceed with design and remodeling until the question of structural soundness was resolved. Mr. Grable replied he understood only tenants who met the federal criteria would be moved into the building. Public access to the building would be limited. He noted the building had survived numerous earthquakes over the past 80 or 100 years.
Chairman Arberry asked why this project was being fast-tracked. Mr. Grable said the bill was related to the proposed reorganization plan and tenants could not move into the building until it was refurbished.
Chairman Arberry asked why the project was not included in the Capital Improvements Program. Mr. Grable replied it was included in the Capital Improvements Program. Only the design portion of the project was being fast-tracked. Originally the entire project had been recommended to be fast-tracked.
Chairman Arberry inquired if there was a cost difference between the Executive Budget and the bill. Mr. Grable said the Governor's recommended budget for the Capital Improvement Project included professional architecture and engineering design services costing $29,678. The same amount was requested by the bill. The amount for the cooling tower project was increased in the bill from $60,066 to $83,041 as the result of an additional assessment for water damage to the adjacent structure and remodeling of the interior office space.
Mr. Price noted a company from San Francisco was considering purchasing and renovating the old library building and leasing it back to the state. Mr. Grable said he had not been directly involved in those discussions.
Mrs. Williams stated, while recognizing the separation of powers, she had been bothered for a long time by the apparent lack of value placed on legislative decisions. She noted it seemed as if the Public Works Board could change legislative decisions. She questioned why the Legislature needed to be involved in the decision-making process.
Chairman Arberry pointed out Mr. Thorne had explained the Governor was sometimes forced to make certain decisions which adversely impacted the Legislature. He suggested there might be a better mechanism for funding projects than using funds allocated in a prior legislative session because this funding model could not continue.
ASSEMBLY BILL 96 - An act relating to the financial administration of school districts; repealing duplicate and obsolete provisions concerning funds maintained by the school districts; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Chairman Arberry requested committee action on the bill.
MR. MARVEL MOVED DO PASS.
MR. HUMKE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MRS. CHOWNING, MR. PRICE AND MR. PERKINS WERE ABSENT.
ASSEMBLY BILL 170- An act relating to cultural affairs; providing for the issuance of general obligation bonds to provide revenue for grants for the preservation and promotion of the cultural resources of this state; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Mr. Stevens noted the committee had previously heard testimony from the legislative counsel regarding a proposed amendment to the bill. He said fiscal staff had no concerns about the amendment.
Mr. Marvel said the legislative counsel had done an excellent job of explaining the bill and it was acceptable, with the proposed amendment, to the Budget Division and to bond counsel.
MR. MARVEL MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS.
MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MRS. CHOWNING AND MR. PERKINS WERE ABSENT.
BUDGET CLOSINGS
MANSION MAINTENANCE - PAGE 5
MRS. WILLIAMS MOVED TO CLOSE THE MANSION MAINTENANCE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR.
MR. DINI SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mrs. Evans noted the committee had raised the question of whether the Public Works Board had established a maintenance schedule for the Governor's Mansion and other state buildings. She inquired whether a response to that question had been received. Mr. Thorne replied the maintenance schedule had not yet been established. He noted the Governor's proposed reorganization plan envisioned assigning some maintenance responsibilities directly to the Public Works Board.
Mrs. Evans asked when the committee could expect to see a maintenance schedule. Mr. Thorne responded inventory and inspection of existing state buildings would be required before the schedule could be determined. It represented a significant effort and the schedule would not be forthcoming in the near future. The maintenance schedule would be developed and implemented over the next biennium.
Mr. Ghiggeri noted Tom Stephens, Manager of the Public Works Board, had earlier testified the inventory and assessment of state buildings was included in the Capital Improvement Program.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BUDGET CLOSED.
WASHINGTON OFFICE - PAGE 8
Chairman Arberry asked for remarks from fiscal staff. Mr. Stevens said there were no staff recommendations.
MR. DINI MOVED TO CLOSE THE WASHINGTON OFFICE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR.
MRS. EVANS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI AND MR. SPITLER WERE OPPOSED.
BUDGET CLOSED.
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS - PAGE 394
Chairman Arberry asked for remarks from fiscal staff. Mr. Stevens noted this budget was within the Department of Business and Industry and the committee should consider certain issues regarding the Business and Industry Administration account before closing this budget. He explained even though budget accounts within Business and Industry were closed, some might have to be reopened and adjusted at a later time when issues related to the reorganization plan were finalized.
Mr. Stevens distributed copies of a detailed listing of the Business and Industry Administration account (Exhibit E). He noted funding sources included assessments to other non-General Fund budgets within the Department of Business and Industry to assist in financing the operation of the administrative account. The director and management analyst positions were funded from assessments to boards and commissions.
Mr. Stevens referred to the second page of Exhibit E, which listed the assessments to the various boards and commissions. He explained the budget assessment would fund a management analyst position within the Budget Division and the B&I assessment would fund the management analyst position contained in this account.
Mr. Stevens referred to the third page of Exhibit E, a schedule of assessments to the individual budget accounts within Business and Industry. He said funding from the Boards and Commissions, Manufactured Housing, Consumer Affairs, Industrial Insurance and Insurance accounts comprised the $54,931 in intra-agency administrative costs.
Mr. Stevens stated the Governor was recommending certain positions within Business and Industry be targeted to assist in an overall administrative services staff pool. His understanding was the targeted positions would be transferred from the various accounts into the Business and Industry administrative account. He noted the targeted positions were listed on the last page of Exhibit E. Additionally some of those positions (indicated by an asterisk) were targeted for reorganization or deletion. Therefore, if the committee approved the Governor's recommendation, at some time in the future there would be transfers of positions from division budgets into the administrative account.
Mr. Stevens explained Manufactured Housing was one of those divisions and was on the list for budget closure action by the committee. If the committee closed the Manufactured Housing budget, the budget would have to be revisited when the Business and Industry administrative budget was closed.
Mrs. Evans stated she would prefer to have the administrative positions identified prior to closing the budgets.
Chairman Arberry requested from the Budget Division the identity of the positions to be transferred into the administrative account. Mr. Thorne indicated the list referred to by Mr. Stevens was the Governor's suggested list. The original recommendation was to delegate authority to department heads to determine exactly which positions should be transferred to administration and which positions should be eliminated. The list included the positions which the Governor had determined were the logical ones to move into the administrative account. He said further definition would have to come from the new directors but he would deliver a message to the Governor regarding the committee's desire to know the specific positions.
Ms. Giunchigliani noted the reorganization of DIR (Division of Industrial Relations) and DEISH (Division of Enforcement of Industrial Safety) was not a "done deal". She suggested the message to the Governor note the department structure was still in question. Mr. Thorne responded the resolution of the reorganization issue lay with committees outside Ways and Means and was one the Legislature would have to coordinate.
Mr. Spitler asked if there was a position within the Governor's office which oversees boards and commissions in terms of coordinating appointments. Mr. Thorne said Mr. Spitler was correct. Mr. Spitler inquired whether that position would be transferred from the Governor's office to Business and Industry. Mr. Thorne said the position would not be transferred. Mr. Spitler asked if any percentage of the board and commission assessments would fund that position in the Governor's office. Mr. Thorne stated he believed coordination of board and commission appointments was only a portion of the responsibility of one of the positions within the Governor's office. Mr. Spitler asked if that function would be transferred to Business and Industry. Mr. Thorne stated the responsibility for coordination and appointments would remain with the Governor's office. The purpose of the position assigned to Business and Industry was to provide better administrative and budget coordination.
Chairman Arberry asked Mr. Stevens to continue. Mr. Stevens noted when Scott Walshaw, Financial Institutions Commissioner, had testified before the committee, he had requested additional operating expenses amounting to $2,775 in the first year of the biennium and $3,060 in the second year to cover the cost of self-insured funding for repair of the division's data processing equipment. The self-insured funding would be in lieu of a data processing repair service contract. He pointed out the division generated the funding to cover its operating expenses and there would be no General Fund impact from this change. Fiscal staff recommended making the adjustment requested by Mr. Walshaw.
MR. MARVEL MOVED TO AMEND THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS BUDGET TO PROVIDE FUNDING OF $2,775 IN THE FIRST YEAR OF THE BIENNIUM AND $3,060 IN THE SECOND YEAR FOR SELF-INSURED DATA PROCESSING REPAIRS IN LIEU OF A DATA PROCESSING REPAIR SERVICE CONTRACT AND CLOSE THE BUDGET AS AMENDED.
MR. SPITLER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BUDGET CLOSED.
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS INVESTIGATION - PAGE 399
MR. PERKINS MOVED TO CLOSE THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS INVESTIGATION BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR.
MR. SPITLER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BUDGET CLOSED.
AUDIT PROGRAM - PAGE 401
MR. HUMKE MOVED TO CLOSE THE AUDIT PROGRAM BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR.
MRS. EVANS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BUDGET CLOSED.
MANUFACTURED HOUSING FUND - PAGE 416
Chairman Arberry asked for comments from fiscal staff. Mr. Stevens reminded the committee the proposed position transfer to the Business and Industry account would have to be addressed separately when the Business and Industry account was considered. He also pointed out funding would be transferred from this account to the Business and Industry administrative account and the Consumer Affairs account. Fiscal staff recommended approval of the Governor's recommendation with the understanding this account would have to be revisited.
MR. DINI MOVED TO CLOSE THE MANUFACTURED HOUSING FUND BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR.
MR. HUMKE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BUDGET CLOSED.
MOBILE HOME PARKS - PAGE 420
MR. DINI MOVED TO CLOSE THE MOBILE HOME PARKS BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR.
MR. PERKINS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if this account would have an impact on the Business and Industry account as well. Mr. Stevens answered there were no targeted positions or assessments in this account. Therefore, he did not believe closing of the Business and Industry account would have an impact on this account.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BUDGET CLOSED.
LOT RENT SUBSIDY - PAGE 423
Chairman Arberry asked for comments from fiscal staff. Mr. Stevens noted there had been a question by the committee whether there was sufficient funding to cover all requests. He explained recipient payments would be made on a first-come first-served basis.
MR. DINI MOVED TO CLOSE THE LOT RENT SUBSIDY BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR.
MR. SPITLER SECONDED THE MOTION.
Ms. Tiffany inquired about rent control. Mr. Humke noted a bill was pending in the Commerce Committee which would change the nature of the way the funds were distributed. He expressed his opinion the bill represented bad policy and would not pass. Whereas, funding was currently used to subsidize rent for mobile homes in place, the bill would change the method of distributing those funds for use as a moving assistance fund.
Mr. Marvel questioned the lack of performance indicators in the budget. Mr. Humke explained the fund had been accruing since the original legislation was passed in 1991 but would not become effective until July 1, 1993.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BUDGET CLOSED.
MANUFACTURED HOUSING EDUCATION/RECOVERY - PAGE 426
MR. SPITLER MOVED TO CLOSE THE MANUFACTURED HOUSING EDUCATION/RECOVERY BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR.
MR. HUMKE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BUDGET CLOSED.
HOUSING DIVISION - PAGE 441
Chairman Arberry asked for comments from fiscal staff. Mr. Stevens said fiscal staff recommended deferring action on this budget. He explained the value of 1.5 positions was targeted for reorganization savings, including the value of the deputy director position and one-half the value of the deputy director of commerce position. The other one-half of the position was currently funded from the Department of Commerce budget and was not recommended to be continued or included in the Business and Industry administration budget. Additionally, two positions were targeted for transfer to the administrative pool in the Business and Industry administrative account. He suggested the committee might want to address those issues at a later time. He noted the Fiscal Division would be receiving additional information concerning this budget.
Chairman Arberry deferred action on the budget.
LOW INCOME HOUSING TRUST FUND - PAGE 447
MRS. WILLIAMS MOVED TO CLOSE THE LOW INCOME HOUSING TRUST FUND BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR.
MS. TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BUDGET CLOSED.
MOTION PICTURES - PAGE 598
Chairman Arberry deferred action on the budget.
RURAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - PAGE 598
Chairman Arberry asked for comments from fiscal staff. Mr. Stevens noted there was a bill pending in committee (AB 208) which was related to this account but would not affect closing of the account.
MR. MARVEL MOVED TO CLOSE THE RURAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR.
MR. HELLER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BUDGET CLOSED.
COMMISSION ON TOURISM - PAGE 602
Chairman Arberry asked for comments from fiscal staff. Mr. Stevens stated the committee might want to defer action on this account. He noted an enhancement to the Motion Pictures budget would impact the transfer from the Commission on Tourism.
Chairman Arberry deferred action on the budget.
NEVADA MAGAZINE - PAGE 607
MR. PERKINS MOVED TO CLOSE THE NEVADA MAGAZINE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR.
MR. PRICE SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Heller asked if Nevada Magazine would move into the old library when the building was renovated. Mr. Thorne said Nevada Magazine was scheduled to move into the old library building.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BUDGET CLOSED.
Chairman Arberry requested a committee introduction of a bill eliminating an exception to the requirement that a court exonerate an obligor to release bail upon sentencing of a defendant.
Mr. Lorne Malkiewich, Legislative Counsel, explained the statutes contained an exception to the general requirement to exonerate a surety from liability after sentencing of the person posting bail if the defendant was required to return to court. Some judges had been using bail as a means of collecting fines. That was not the intent of the statute and this bill would eliminate the exception.
MR. HUMKE MOVED FOR BILL INTRODUCTION.
MRS. EVANS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:57 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
_________________________
C. Dale Gray
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Ways and Means
April 15, 1993
Page 1