MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
Sixty-seventh Session
March 22, 1993
The Senate Committee on Finance was called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio, at 8:03 a.m., on Monday, March 22 , 1993, in Room 223 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Vice Chairman
Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen
Senator Bob Coffin
Senator Diana M. Glomb
Senator William R. O'Donnell
Senator Matthew Q. Callister
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman Marcia D. deBraga
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Daniel G. Miles, Fiscal Analyst
Robert Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Steve Abba, Program Analyst
Joan McConnell, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Gary Simmons, Director, State Predatory Animal and Rodent Committee
Pete G. Paris, Jr., Chairman, State Predatory Animal and Rodent Committee
P. Forrest (Woody) Thorne, Deputy Budget Administrator, Budget Division, Department of Administration
Stephanie D. Licht, Executive Secretary, State Board of Sheep Commissioners
Fred M. Fulstone, Jr., State Board of Sheep Commissioners
Rich Lee, 1st Vice President, National High School Rodeo Association
Fred Dressler, Jr., Chairman, Nevada Junior Livestock Show Board
Sue Hoffman, Member, Nevada Junior Livestock Show Board
Doug D. Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau
Tony Clark, The Adjutant General of Nevada, Department of the Military
Tischa Johnson, Administrative Officer, Division of Emergency Management
William Gary Crews, Legislative Auditor
Michael Spell, CPA, Deputy Legislative Auditor, Audit Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau
Karen Larsen, Director, Administrative Services, Clark County
Janet Johnson, Principal Budget Analyst, Budget Division, Department of Administration
John Siegfried, Vice President, Operations, Sodium Cyanide Production Facility (CYANCO)
Marvin Carr, Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPC)
Press Clewe, Washoe County Emergency Management Administrator
Vince Swinney, Washoe County Sheriff, State Emergency Response Commission (SERC)
Susan P. Stewart, Manager, Environmental Affairs, Titanium Metals Corporation (TIMET)
Larry Farr, Fire Marshal, City of Reno Fire Department
Predatory Animal and Rodent Control - Page 490
Gary Simmons, Director, State Predatory Animal and Rodent Committee, distributed a packet (Exhibit C) with an Executive Budget Narrative Statement, a graph and reports detailing accomplishments for the past year. He also distributed a report (Exhibit D) regarding budget pages 490, 496, and 498. After explaining the contents of the exhibits, he asked Mr. Paris to speak.
Pete G. Paris, Jr., Chairman, State Predatory Animal and Rodent Committee (PARC), requested the committee approve the budget today. There have been a great many predator problems within the last few years with coyotes, mountain lions, squirrels, rodents and other animals which are constantly increasing in the farmlands. He did not feel the drought had anything to do with the problem.
Senator Rawson asked if opening up hunting of mountain lions would control the problem.
Mr. Paris said the mountain lion is a game animal and is hunted in the wintertime as well as by the private sector. There are more animals than the hunters can take. Special dogs and equipment are needed to catch the lions. Regarding the coyotes, today it is strictly shooting, aerial hunting and trapping.
Senator O'Donnell noted the overall budget was reduced 17 percent from the last year's budget, and asked if operation is feasible under the new budget.
Mr. Paris remarked, "We just keep fighting with the resources we have." He added there is better use of the dollars by using an airplane.
Senator Raggio asked, "How do we establish the loss of cattle and sheep caused by coyotes and mountain lions?"
Mr. Paris stated the ADC (Animal Damage Control) will have the figures.
Senator Rawson asked why there are not federal funds showing on the budget.
Mr. Simmons said the federal program spends a great deal of money nationally with the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) National Agricultural Statistical Service (NASS). Regarding the loss of livestock, Mr. Simmons referred the committee to the top of page 3 in Exhibit C for statistics in the State of Nevada. He mentioned the loss of cattle to predators, but the biggest loss is in the sheep industry from coyotes, followed by mountain lions. Cattle can be killed by the activities of the coyotes chasing them, perhaps into a fence where they are trampled to death.
Senator Glomb asked if this budget is funded through the General Fund, and if there are any assessments or dues from ranchers.
Mr. Simmons replied the budget is funded by the General Fund, the PARC (Predatory Animal and Rodent Control), and the PARC wool growers have an assessment on sheep. The cattle industry does not have a specific assessment on itself. Regarding the lack of performance indicators in the budget, Mr. Simmons remarked:
We had some performance indicators. We adjusted them. We have a new computer-reporting system and perhaps they
didn't get in there. We are a small agency in terms of the state. We have internal indicators we use within our program. These are the numbers you'll find in terms of the number of acres we are working and the number of calls we respond to.
Grazing Control - Page 496
Mr. Simmons stated this cooperative program operates with the federal government, the states and the grazing boards. The federal program provides the uniform framework nationwide for a control program to deal with the publicly-owned resource which is wildlife.
The public has an overall, overriding interest in wildlife. It is an appropriate government role in managing both the proliferation of predatory animals and the damage they do.
Senator Raggio asked, "Will this be impacted in any way by any proposed federal legislation?"
Mr. Simmons replied, "Very possibly. It's difficult to tell what's going to happen in the grazing schedules, and what kind of monies might return to the grazing boards." One potential might be that this money would not come back to grazing boards, but would go into the General Fund, and the new grazing formula would be causing range improvements to happen by the ranchers and therefore there would not be a need for this money coming back. It would be part of their grazing fee. If they escalate the grazing fees, there might be more money coming back to the grazing boards in total.
Senator Raggio asked, "How is the enhancement being funded?"
Mr. Simmons stated the funding comes from the grazing boards. Part of the grazing boards handle their own money locally and bring money into the state this way. The agency has to come before the legislature to get approval to spend the money.
Wool Growers Predatory Animal Control - Page 498
Mr. Simmons mentioned the funding from the wool growers is the head tax (20 cents per head) that comes into the program. The wool growers use their monies in several different ways. One section of their money was earmarked for this program to help control predation.
Senator Jacobsen asked who is responsible for collection of the fees.
Mr. Simmons understood the tax is collected by the county tax assessors, then goes into the General Fund earmarked for these accounts.
Senator Raggio asked, "All of these programs are going to be under the new Department of Business and Industry, and there is an Agricultural Bureau?"
P. Forrest (Woody) Thorne, Deputy Budget Administrator, Budget Division, Department of Administration, replied, "That's correct."
Senator Raggio asked, "Does this reorganization cause any concern to any of the boards and commissions you deal with?"
Mr. Simmons replied:
I think any time we encounter change there is going to be concern...I don't understand all the details yet, and I
think the PARC committee is concerned because they would be downsized considerably, should they continue to exist, and would report to another committee who in turn would report to the director of this new agency. We're concerned about getting lost in the shuffle.
Senator Raggio asked if any of the boards had discussed the fact
they would be combined into some board of agriculture under the reorganization.
Mr. Simmons said Ms. Licht would be speaking from the wool growers perspective shortly.
Mr. Thorne stated:
The committee on Predatory Animal and Rodent Control is going to remain an independent committee. The five-member composition will change in that instead of there being one ag[agriculture]-board member on the board there will be two, because one of the members was with the sheep commission, and they are being consolidated with the Agricultural Board.
Mr. Thorne continued by stating Judy Matteucci, Director, Department of Administration, will be meeting with the various boards being rolled into the Board of Agriculture, getting their input on what would be the best composition of the board and how best to deal with those issues.
Senator Raggio commented, "It sounds like it might be better to keep them free-standing rather then try to roll them in and have a portion of the board be functioning in some different way than the others." He requested the "reconstruction" be submitted to the committee as soon as possible.
Mr. Simmons addressed some additional budget requirements. There is a pressing problem with having enough money to cover the cost of the vehicles the employees operate. Also funds are lacking to use in the aerial hunting program.
Sheep Certification - Page 501
Stephanie D. Licht, Executive Secretary, State Board of Sheep Commissioners, distributed a handout, including a revised budget, (Exhibit E) and discussion ensued. She stated:
As the sheep commission law is now written there is language in it calling it the Sheep Inspection Account. The budget language as is presently proposed under reorganization calls it a Certification, and that's really not a very accurate term. I would like to respectfully request that you consider changing the name of that budget account from Sheep Certification to Sheep Inspection, just to keep the money where the law is or vice versa.
Regarding the revised budget, Ms. Licht thought it would be a good time to discuss the misunderstanding or disagreement about who is going to get what from whom, and how they are going to get it:
When I received our line item, detailed budget from Mr. Pinkerton, dated January 22, we were assessed a first-time cost allocation that has never been assessed our
self-funded financed program before. It was in the amount of $5,865 each year of the next biennium. Now the sheep inspection tax only takes in $10,000 a year...We get a lot of people on the border areas of the state coming in who pay a pro-rated amount on their sheep. If they have 1,000 sheep and are here for a month, we take 1/12 times 1,000 and they pay $.30 on that amount into the account. Because of drought conditions that amount has gone down a little bit. We maintain an income of about $10,000 a year. I was very concerned that state cost allocation was rated at 58 percent of our annual budget for 2 years.
I contacted the budget office. The budget director and Mr. Thorne met with us last week to discuss this particular area of concern with us. In discussing our budget with them, and with their consequent talking to the consulting firm that does state cost allocation, our assessment for the budget completed in 1988, almost 3 bienniums ago, was reduced about $2,000 a year.
My recommendation at this time is since the law was passed after the audit was done, I would like to appeal to you and request the costs for that audit be reduced to $1,000 to be split over the biennium at $500 a year.
Mr. Thorne stated the revised budget pages 501 and 502 were a result of the discussions with Ms. Licht.
Senator Raggio pointed out a possible error on the revised budget for State Cost Allocation and asked the staff to review and resubmit. He suggested the budget does not leave much with which to run their program at the current State Cost Allocation amount of $3,873.
Mr. Thorne said the State Cost Allocation could be reduced further if the committee so desires.
Senator Jacobsen agreed with Senator Raggio that there would be little left with which to operate the agency if the State Cost Allocation amount remains at $3,873.
Senator Glomb requested comments from Ms. Licht regarding the reorganization plan.
Ms. Licht remarked:
What reorganization, as it is now constituted, does to the Department of Sheep Commissioners is the sheep commissioner will be functionally and administratively crippled and disabled through incorporation into one seat on a 10-member board of agriculture. The sheep commis-sion will be deprived of its right of self-determination with regard to both office and secretarial staff. The autonomous decisions the sheep commission has over matters particular to the sheep industry and control over the funds the industry collects from itself will be diluted from 300 percent to 10 percent. The commis-sioners now decide how the money will be spent. We will be one person on a 10-member board.
The office at this time, which costs the state or the fund nothing because it shares facilities with the Nevada Wool Growers. It shares office machines and capabili-
ties. The only thing the sheep commission has in that office is its own telephone where people call in for permit numbers to bring sheep into the state.
Ms. Licht mentioned she currently works out of her home part-time for a salary of $250 a month. She added:
The office which costs the sheep commission nothing to operate and is staffed by me, the part-time, intently interested, totally involved, $250 a month secretary has been ordered moved out of the industry environment in which it is and foisted upon a detached, indifferent, already full-time staff person in the Department of Agriculture. We were told, `you will take your materials to the Department of Agriculture,' period.
Regarding the office change, there has been no communication, no planning, no orderly pattern regarding this move from the office. We didn't know about it until 2 weeks ago.
Instead of being allowed sovereignty over our self-supported, fiscally competent, self-reliant organization, designed to be responsive to the unique aspects and problems and modern-day dilemmas facing our industry, the sheep commission is wrested from specific industry control, and by decree ordered into the oblivion of a huge centralized government.
Therefore, having basically been kicked out of the sheep wagon, I hope you'll forgive my inexperience and naivety in announcing the independent formulation and development of a carefully designed, uncomplicated, viable alternative to the present reorganization plan. As it consists of only two pages of double-spaced outline and two simplified charts, the review process should only take us a couple of days. I'm having a committee of diverse people from several different industries and government agencies look at it and make recommendations before I take it to people and talk about it a little more in detail.
If none of you object, I will be more than happy to drop a copy of my rough draft for you to look at.
Senator Raggio suggested Ms. Licht provide her rough draft to the fiscal staff and asked Steve Abba to assist her.
Fred M. Fulstone, Jr., State Board of Sheep Commissioners, stated he appreciated the Governor's attempt to streamline but does not want to be streamlined out of their local control.
High School Rodeo Association - Page 573
Assemblyman Marcia D. deBraga, due to laryngitis, turned the testifying over to Mr. Lee.
Rich Lee, 1st Vice President, National High School Rodeo Association, distributed a letter outlining the request and the functions of the Nevada State High School Rodeo Association (Exhibit F). Discussion ensued.
Nevada Junior Livestock Show Board - Page 578
Fred Dressler, Jr., Chairman, Nevada Junior Livestock Show Board,
introduced himself and Sue Hoffman, Member, Nevada Junior Livestock Show Board.
Senator Raggio asked to hear a little bit about the board.
Ms. Hoffman stated there are seven members of the Nevada Junior Livestock Show Board, including herself. The board has been in existence for 54 years. The purpose of the board is to encourage and educate young people in the fields of livestock agriculture. They support various 4-H and Future Farmers of America (FFA) programs, events and activities throughout the year. The majority are 4-H horse shows and various other competitions and events that center around the livestock industry. Each year approximately 1,000 young people are affected through the competitions and educational programs.
Not all of the young people will go into the field of agriculture as a career, however they all will be consumers of agricultural products. Through this program better educated, well-informed consumers of agricultural products are made.
The budget requested by the agency is for a total of $30,283. The Governor's recommendation is below that figure. An enhancement was requested but not recommended...The agency would not be able to pay the board members to attend board meetings or to reimburse them for their travel to the board meetings, which meet quarterly.
Doug D. Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau testified in support of the budget for the Nevada Junior Livestock Show Board.
Military - Page 1445
Tony Clark, The Adjutant General of Nevada, Department of the Military, read from written testimony (Exhibit G), and distributed a brochure, Economic Impact of The Nevada National Guard (Exhibit H). The Governor's reorganization plan would place the Department of the Military within the proposed Department of Public Safety as a division. The International Guard and the Army National Guard will remain as constituted.
General Clark stated the primary increase in Operating Expenses, under Expenditures, is in the annual payment to the Washoe County Airport Authority for common use fees at Reno Cannon International Airport.
Senator Glomb asked, "How are your federal dollars determined?"
General Clark replied:
It's determined on a federal program on what it costs to operate the units we have in the state that have been assigned to the state. The operation and maintenance agreement is 100 percent federal funded. They provide those funds on what it costs to fly 18 F4's, to maintain them, to provide fuel, to take care of the personnel, training, etc. The same applies to the tank battalion in Las Vegas.
The increase in Utilities, under Expenditures, takes into account inflation, the new facilities in Carson City, and additional planned facilities to come on-line during this biennium; an organization maintenance shop in Yerington, one in Stead, and a
dining/medical facility at the Air Guard Base in Reno, and an avionics facility in Reno.
Troop strength is 1,035 in the Air Guard and 1,790 on the Army Guard side. In addition there are 69 state employees. Regarding tanks, General Clark stated there is troop strength in Yerington, Fallon and Hawthorne. There are no longer tanks kept in Carson City.
Senator O'Donnell asked if there are going to be some layoffs due to the reduction of the current 69 employees to 47 employees.
General Clark stated 15 fire fighters from the Air Guard Base in Reno have already been laid off, but he feels comfortable with the amount of remaining employees.
Senator O'Donnell was dismayed that money is being deleted from the budget on the educational side for the troops.
General Clark stated in the upcoming biennium the entire educa-tional assistance program is being deleted, $65,000 a year for 2 years, or $130,000. He added it was a difficult program to give up, but lack of funds necessitated the deletion of the program. The program was purely state funded and had no federal matching of funds. Federal benefits still exist for members of the armed forces.
Senator Raggio asked General Clark to address the enhancements portion of the budget.
General Clark said one of the enhancements is a new janitor for the new maintenance facility on Fairview in Carson City, which opened about 6 months ago. The federal government pays 75 percent of the salary. The state pays 25 percent. The Training Site enhancement
is 100 percent federally funded. The Air Fire Program enhancement reflects the layoffs of the 15 firemen. It is a 100 percent federally-funded program for the payroll. The $73,000 deals with some of the remaining fire fighters, plus equipment and training for them, and some small amount of funds for the operation of the Western Regional Fire Training Center in Stead. The Environmental Program is also federally funded, to aid in environmental cleanup, particularly to remove underground storage tanks that are leaking or have been in the ground for a long time.
Adjutant General Construction - Page 1452
General Clark stated there is a $60,000 recommendation from the Governor of state funds for a state maintenance shop to be built on the facilities in Carson City for state maintenance employees and their equipment. The pad is already in. A metal building would replace an existing metal shed.
Emergency Management - Federal Grants - Page 1470
General Clark testified in place of David H. McNinch, previous Director, who left his position 2 weeks ago to work in the private sector.
Senator Rawson said he received letters from numerous people talking about what they consider to be a confiscation of funds. He asked General Clark, "Are you familiar with that?"
General Clark said he was familiar with the situation involving SERC (State Emergency Response Commission) funds, and explained:
This is an account that is entirely federally funded. They are grants that come into the state, which are utilized to operate the various programs that you see under Expenditures.
The current positions are currently 12. They would go down to 10. Two of those would be transferred to data processing from the Department of Military, currently under the Division of Emergency Management.
Page 1472 deals with enhancements. The federal funds and the agency transfers deal with the environmental protection monies, the DOE (Department of Energy) grant, and the SERC fees which are collected by the State Emergency Response Commission. They would essentially come through DEM (Division of Emergency Management) but ultimately be distributed to the user local Emergency Management Commissions by public safety....The agency is requesting four new employees. They are 100 percent federally funded by Department of Energy grants. The Governor recommends two would stay with the agency. The other two are elsewhere in the budget and they go to data processing.
Emergency Management Assistance - Page 1468
General Clark stated:
This is a flow-through account. Federal funds come to the agency. Two-thirds of those funds are flowed through in Emergency Management Assistance Grants to the local jurisdictions. One-third is retained for overhead and expenses in operation of the agency.
Senator Raggio asked if there is a listing of grants made to local governments.
General Clark said he did not have that information with him but could provide it to the committee at a later time.
Senator Raggio said the committee wants to see when the funds were received, when they were distributed, to whom, and the amounts. He asked who has been supervising the program.
Tischa Johnson, Administrative Officer, Division of Emergency Management, responded, "The chief of plans and programs, Bill Langley, is the program manager of the Emergency Management Assistance Grant, and the director would also be assisting."
General Clark referred to an Audit Report done by the Legislative Auditor (Exhibit I) distributed to the committee, which audited this account, finding a number of deficiencies, and made recommendations which were accepted and are being implemented at the present time. He added:
I have directed, since Mr. McNinch left, that 50 percent of the 1993 funds be allocated and paid to the local jurisdictions immediately. The paperwork for the checks to be cut has already left our offices for the state controller's office. Any adjustments that need to be made will be made during the third and fourth quarters.
Senator Raggio said the auditor had commented these are serious problems plaguing the grant management process.
General Clark commented, "There is no question but that the federal funds were received and we did not, as an agency, get them out to the local jurisdictions as quickly as we should have."
Senator Raggio asked how the reorganization will affect these programs.
General Clark saw no direct effect on the programs by the reorganization. He remarked it is more of an administrative housing situation than it is any change in the way the system operates. The division will move over, out from under what is now the Department of the Military, to the Department of Public Safety, but under the Division of Military, remaining in essentially the same administrative position as long as the procedures identified by legislative audit are put into effect and cross-checked.
Emergency Management - Page 1461
General Clark stated:
The administrative control of SERC, the executive officer and administrative support, would roll into the Division of Emergency Management so that the director of emergency management would be the executive officer of SERC. Those positions were overlapping to a degree anyway. There would be some savings by eliminating one of the positions. There already was administrative support in the Division of Emergency Management so you don't need to hire additional administrative support. I don't see that the operations of the State Emergency Response Commission will change at all...and it is still controlled by federal legislation.
Senator Rawson commented he received a letter indicating SARA Title 3 (Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986) established a fee structure to build a contingency fund to assist LEPC (Local Emergency Planning Committees). He added:
It talks about how some of these funds are set up specifically to be granted by the federal government only if certain things were in place. It suggests that this will change all of that, so we will lose federal funding.
General Clark said:
I don't think it will change anything at all...It deals with form rather than substance. What I envision happening as a result of the reorganization is the State Emergency Response Commission is 25 members. It exists presently as a separate, independent commission. It will continue to exist. However, the executive director will not be an independent employee, but the director of emergency management. Its administrative support will be provided by the Division of Emergency Management administrators rather than having independent, separate administrative support.
Senator Raggio asked Mr. Crews to briefly go over the audit (Exhibit I) on the Division of Emergency Management.
William Gary Crews, Legislative Auditor, stated:
This audit was the result of a special request from the legislative commission in January for us to go in and
take a look at the Emergency Management Assistance program. We notified the chairman of the audit subcommittee, Mr. Dini, last week that we had an audit report ready for presentation. We issued the report this morning in accordance with [Nevada Revised Statutes] NRS 218.
Michael Spell, CPA, Deputy Legislative Auditor, Audit Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, read pages 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Exhibit I.
Senator Raggio wanted an explanation as to how this situation was allowed to happen.
General Clark said the deficiencies did not come to his attention while he was acting director for approximately 16 months. There were two jurisdictions in communication with General Clark about payments not having been made in a timely manner and were paid immediately once notification was received. There was no reason at that time to question the remaining jurisdictions to find out if they were having difficulties as well. He added:
Part of the problem, I suppose, was that Mrs. Johnson who takes care of the processing of the grant funds and the payments was assisting me in managing the agency as part of a management team, which took time away from her processing those accounts.
Senator Raggio raised the question of whether or not the proposed reorganization is wise, or whether the situation should be looked at in some other fashion.
General Clark said, "I think as long as there is a full-time director with the agency that these types of things, given the controls that legislative audit has identified, would not occur in the future."
Senator Raggio asked what role the commission plays in this situation.
General Clark replied, "The State Emergency Response Commission does not play any role in this aspect at all. It deals more with transportation of hazardous materials."
Karen Larsen, Director, Administrative Services, Clark County, distributed Exhibits J and K and stated:
Within my department is our Division of Emergency Management. We have attempted to work extensively with the state Division of Emergency Management over the last several years to try and implement the programs that we have on the local level.
Ms. Larsen proceeded to read Exhibit J and referred to Exhibit K.
A letter (Exhibit L) from the White Pine County Sheriff's office was distributed to the committee. Discussion ensued.
Ms. Larsen stated, "At a meeting with the budget office, it was told to us that approximately $237,000 would be going towards staff at the state level."
Janet Johnson, Principal Budget Analyst, Budget Division, Department of Administration, stated:
The $237,000 is approximately correct as to what the cost will be for administration in the Division of Emergency
Management. It is also correct that figure is higher than what it would have been had it stayed in SERC under the existing configuration of staff. They just recently added a Management Assistant to that staff. Whether or not there would be additional staff acquired down the road is unknown.
The figures that are in the budget currently provide for the same level of grant distribution as has been done in the past, with a very large contingency. At the request of the counties it was agreed that we would transfer the monies for the grant distribution to the administrative offices of public safety. They felt those people would correctly distribute their monies for them, and they felt more comfortable with them doing it and so we agreed to make that transfer.
Senator Raggio asked, "Is the same level or percentage going to the local planning commissions under this proposal, or is there a much higher amount now going to be used for the administration in the new department?"
Ms. Johnson replied, "Those things are correct. There is a higher amount as far as the cost of administration, but based on the revenue projections that were given to us by the SERC people there is the same level, approximately $118,000..."
Senator Raggio asked, "Why are we going to use more of it for administration than for the purpose for which it was designed and that is to flow through to the local planning commissions?"
Ms. Johnson was unable to answer the question.
Ms. Larsen stated, "The basic bottom-line concern is that we are going from a program that currently costs $60,000 to administer to a program that costs $237,000 to administer...Efficiency- wise that can't make sense to us."
Senator Raggio stated, "Budget is saying that more money is going to the locals than before, but the cost of administration is increasing dramatically."
Ms. Larsen said, "We don't understand where the extra money is coming from to go to the locals." She added there were some old fees that still continued in the State Emergency Response Commission budget set at $300,000, as a work program the agency was available to take in, that were supposed to be collected by the fire marshal's office about 6 to 8 years ago. Nothing has ever been realized in those funds.
Senator Raggio requested the budget office to revisit the questions presented at this hearing regarding this budget.
Mr. Thorne stated, "There was an indication recently that the $300,000 will not materialize. If that is true, the $618,000 in Fiscal '94 would come down by $300,000."
Senator Raggio asked, "How does that impact the administration of the other budgets?"
Mr. Thorne replied, "It would impact the amount of the grant awards that would be available. There was $118,000 that was awarded in Fiscal Year '92, so there would still be a significant increase over the amounts available in the past."
Ms. Larsen stated, "That's basically our concern is that we would end up without a budget and possibly without grants in the reorganization."
John Siegfried, Vice President, Operations, Sodium Cyanide Production Facility (CYANCO), stated he is also the chairman of the Humboldt Country LEPC, and a member of SERC. He expressed his fears of SERC being "zeroed out." He added:
I think we're breaking down the partnerships that were established between the private sector, between the grass-root sector that delivers those facilities the services they need, and the government. We've had an excellent rapport between all those agencies to the extent that not too many months ago SERC voted to increase fees to private industry to over $100,000.
Mr. Siegfried stated SERC desires to remain autonomous, wants to maintain control of the budget, wants to do exactly what the federal government has directed them to do, and SERC has done a good job. He recommended, "Leave SERC alone and allow it to function as it has proven itself in the past until such time as it is broken. Then we'll fix it."
Marvin Carr, Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPC), represent-ing several counties, stated the rural areas have had the same problem with pass-through funds. He testified in support of keeping SERC as it currently stands and having their contingency-fund budget restored.
Press Clewe, Washoe County Emergency Management Administrator, said he totally concurred with the "last three presenters." He added:
SERC is not broken. It is working very efficiently and it performs a vital function in getting dollars back into the committee from which they came, to do two very important things; to protect people and protect property. Washoe County has been very lucky in receiving grants from SERC in the amount of $23,200 in the past 2 years, used for training and equipping our three-department hazardous material response team...The processing of how the reorganization plan will work to help local government, who are the responders to hazardous materials is missing....
Vince Swinney, Washoe County Sheriff, State Emergency Response Commission (SERC), stated he is also a charter member and a continuing member of SERC and concurred with the previous testifiers on behalf of SERC.
Susan P. Stewart, Manager, Environmental Affairs, Titanium Metals Corporation (TIMET), said TIMET is a member of SERC, representing the private sector. She, too, echoed the comments of the people on behalf of SERC. TIMET feels SERC is working and should be left as it is.
Senator Rawson asked if Titanium Metals Corporation has received an increase in assessment.
Ms. Stewart replied, "I'm not familiar with this particular item. I'm not sure if that was a settlement as a result of some other activity."
Larry Farr, Fire Marshal, City of Reno Fire Department, stated the SERC and LEPC operations are a fine example of public and private
partnership and need to continue to exist, and supports them remaining a separate entity.
There being no further business before the committee, Senator Raggio adjourned the meeting at 10:41 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Joan McConnell,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Finance
March 22, 1993
Page 1