MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
Sixty-seventh Session
April 27, 1993
The Senate Committee on Finance was called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio, at 8:07 a.m., on Tuesday, April 27, 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
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Daniel G. Miles, Fiscal Analyst
Robert Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Joan McConnell, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Fred W. Welden, Chief Deputy Research Director, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau
David Ziegler, Executive Director, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA)
Pamela B. Wilcox, Administrator and State Land Registrar, Division of State Lands, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Steve Teshara, Executive Director, Lake Tahoe Gaming Alliance
Laurel W. Ames, Executive Director, League to Save Lake Tahoe
Roderick G. Mier, Chief Administrative Office, Tahoe Resource Conservation District, Nevada-Tahoe Conservation District
Kay Bennett, Member, Carson City Board of Supervisors, and Member of the Governing Board of the TRPA
Joe L. Johnson, Lobbyist, Sierra Club
Judy Matteucci, Director, Department of Administration
Senator Raggio asked who was present to speak on the following Senate Bills (S.B.) 139 and (S.B.) 176.
SENATE BILL 139: Establishes program to mitigate environmentally detrimental effects of certain uses of land in Lake Tahoe Basin.
SENATE BILL 176: Requires submission of proposal to issue general obligation bonds to provide grants to local governments and department of transportation for projects for controlling erosion and restoring natural watercourses in Lake Tahoe Basin.
Fred W. Welden, Chief Deputy Research Director, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, distributed a copy of the Legislative Counsel Bureau Bulletin No. 93-11, dated September 1992. (Exhibit C. Original is on file in the Research Library.)
Mr. Welden pointed out a special account for mitigation of land coverage should be established in the State of Nevada and the Division of State Lands be authorized to implement it.
He stated:
That's basically what this bill [S.B. 139] does. A percentage of the money in the mitigation fund can be used to administer the program and that's the proposal you will hear from TRPA (Tahoe Regional Planning Agency) and the Division of State Lands. This is authorizing legislation here if funds become available, and they are available.
David Ziegler, Executive Director, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), stated the TRPA strongly supports S.B. 139. The agency had mentioned the need to transfer the funds, accumulating since 1987, to some Nevada entity. Over $800,000 is in the account now, and the account continues to grow. He added:
We don't consider it our money. We're simply the custodians of the money until we can forge an agreement with some other entity to expend the money for environmental improvements in the region. We need an agreement with someone to do this, and we think Nevada state lands [Division of State Lands] would be the ideal entity to expend these funds. They have experience in the area, and we believe they should be given that authority.
Pamela B. Wilcox, Administrator and State Land Registrar, Division of State Lands, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, stated:
...The proposal is for us to accept from the TRPA these excess coverage mitigation fees and to use them to acquire property and to retire the coverage from that property. This is almost identical to what we have been doing, so we don't anticipate any problems.
Ms. Wilcox distributed a draft amendment to S.B. 139 (Exhibit D),
meant to simplify the method by which property rights can be acquired or transferred. She stated:
Without this amendment the method by which property would be acquired and transferred would be that which we use for all state lands, the kind of state land that we buy because an agency needs it.
Ms. Wilcox said the state would be acquiring property in order to retire the coverage and not property that the state intends to keep. However the state does still own more than 99 percent of the
acquired parcels. A fiscal note (Exhibit E) was distributed to the committee.
Mr. Ziegler stated there is a fee when there is a reconstruction, an addition, or a structural modification to an existing, improved property at Lake Tahoe. It is a percentage of the cost (capped at 5 percent) of the improvement, assuming the improvements exceed the allowable coverage, and most do if they were built in the 1960s or 1970s.
Senator Raggio requested assurance that the cost of administration would not be paid out of General Fund payments that go to TRPA.
Mr. Ziegler said there would be no mixing of the funds. The mitigation funds are kept in a separate account. Periodically funds would be transferred to the Nevada Division of State Lands,
and there would be a contractual arrangement with the Division of State Lands regarding the administration of the funds.
Ms. Wilcox referred to a memorandum of understanding (Exhibit F. Original is on file in the Research Library.) between the TRPA and the Nevada Division of State Lands submitted to the committee.
Senator Raggio requested it be incorporated into the memorandum of understanding that the cost of administration is to be paid exclusively out of funding other than General Fund money paid to the TRPA.
Steve Teshara, Executive Director, Lake Tahoe Gaming Alliance, testified in support of S.B. 139 and stated nothing heard with respect to the proposed amendments would change his position.
Laurel W. Ames, Executive Director, League to Save Lake Tahoe, testified in support of S.B. 139 and the proposed amendments.
Senator Raggio asked if the process being discussed was the same as the process used by California. Mr. Ziegler responded it would be similar to the process used in California. He explained the California-Tahoe Conservancy, a state agency, runs a land-banking program. He said the California-Tahoe Conservancy buys and sells land coverage and other development rights as commodities. He did not recommend that Nevada go into a program like California's due to its complexity. He said the proposal was for a much simpler version which would simply transfer the funds to the state so the state could expend the funds. He declared, "It's similar, it's simpler."
Ms. Ames interjected that as a nonprofit entity the League to Save Lake Tahoe was not interested in maintaining vacant lots.
Roderick G. Mier, Chief Administrative Office, Tahoe Resource Conservation District, Nevada-Tahoe Conservation District, expressed support of S.B. 139.
Kay Bennett, Member, Carson City Board of Supervisors, and Member of the Governing Board of the TRPA, testified in support of S.B. 139.
There was no opposition to S.B. 139.
Senator Raggio closed the hearing on S.B. 139, and opened the hearing on S.B. 176.
Mr. Welden stated:
Testimony throughout the interim study highlighted the need to emphasize the implementation of existing TRPA plans. In most instances implementation of plans requires significant funding. This bill addresses one of the funding needs. One of the most important implementation needs in the basin is erosion control and revegetation. This measure addresses that aspect of the funding needs in the basin.
Currently there are federal programs and at least one California program that addresses the erosion control and revegetation. Fifteen percent of the federal Santini-Burton money goes to this, and the California Tahoe Conservancy, as one of their programs, budgets about $3
million a year on the California side for erosion control and revegetation. A portion of Nevada's 1985 Tahoe bond money went to this as well. That bond money is now expended. The committee looked at these factors and suggested a proposal should be placed on the ballot to issue $20 million in general obligation bonds to support grants to local governments and the Nevada Department of Transportation for projects associated with erosion control and restoration of stream environment designs. That's the measure you have before you now.
Mr. Ziegler brought a book of photographs for the committee to view, stating "the photographs portray both problems and solutions of the nature we are talking about." He added the TRPA strongly supports S.B. 176, thinking it represents a great opportunity for the people of the state to help arrest the decline and the clarity of Lake Tahoe. He read from Exhibit G, Nature of the Problem, and submitted a financial plan (Exhibit H).
Mr. Ziegler stated the strategy to create the remedial program is cost-sharing. There should be a local, regional, state and federal cost-sharing approach. He added, "We've identified 29 different sources of funding that could be brought to bear on the problem." Mr. Ziegler said he would provide a copy of the list upon request, and added:
If we can develop a match of about 50 percent, and I think we can, using federal, local and funds that we collect regionally, the bonds, if you were to approve them, and the voters were to approve them, would take care of about 8 to 10 years of projects in Nevada, and meet about 80 percent of our erosion- and runoff-control needs.
...The entire state benefits if we can arrest the decline in Lake Tahoe's clarity. Washoe County, Douglas County, the GIDs [General Improvement Districts], the conservation district and Nevada DOT [Department of Transportation] benefit from the infusion of the bond monies to help them get the job done. The Tahoe economy benefits from an enhanced product for visitors. We'll have a tidier, better-looking, more environmentally sound product to share with our visitors. The expenditure of erosion-control funds in the region will benefit the economy and has multiplier effects. Every dollar spent has more than a dollar's benefit to the region.
...The bi-state compact, which is embodied in the Nevada Revised Statutes requires TRPA to implement programs to attain water quality standards. The compact also requires us to provide for orderly growth and development consistent with those standards. To keep this balance between protecting the precious resource and providing opportunities for the people of the State of Nevada, I think we need to press forward with opportunities like S.B. 176, and we strongly urge your support.
Senator Raggio asked, "If the general obligation bonds were approved how does that amount, if it were obtained from sales of bonds, become effective?" He asked, "Is it a match of some kind for all of these other sources? Without this is other funding not available? What's the bottom line on this?"
Mr. Ziegler replied:
The bill draft that is in front of you suggests that the Nevada Division of State Lands would write the regulations for the expenditure of the funds and would administer the grants. I think it would be an option of the State of Nevada to set a matching amount, to require non-state grants of a certain percentage, say 50 percent or more, or less.
...In the 1985 bond act there was no set amount of required matching funds, but there was a...lot of other funding that was brought to bear on the problem. We have a concept paper that we are sharing with the congressional delegation in Washington, D.C., suggesting a $60 million federal commitment to this program over the long haul. There are local general funds that can be brought to bear on the problem, usually for operations and maintenance once the projects are installed.
We also collect mitigation funds on additional development in the Tahoe region, and that generates about $1 million a year regionwide. I think that would be an option that would be open to the state to set a matching amount or just to encourage the use of other funds in cooperation with these. This would give the state a lot of leverage to leverage federal and other monies.
Senator Coffin referred to Exhibit G and stated:
You talk about $76 million so far has been spent on erosion and runoff, but the $284 million remains to be spent. Then in the next paragraph you say, `TRPA estimates the long-term cost of stream environment zone restoration at $125 million, a quarter of that in Nevada.' How much of the $284 million would be in Nevada?
Mr. Ziegler replied:
It's about $60 million. It's the sum of $17.7 million in Washoe, $12.9 million in Douglas, and $30.3 million for Nevada DOT [Department of Transportation].
Senator Coffin inquired what the state's obligation would be.
Mr. Ziegler responded:
Those amounts I just recited are the needs in those counties.... In Carson City we have not reported any erosion- and runoff-control needs because there is very little private land in Carson City up at the lake, and no private or local street and road networks up there that require this kind remediation.
Senator Coffin asked if the $20 million proposed would be a continuation or a beginning of a series of bond issues that would be proposed to the voters.
Mr. Ziegler responded, "It would be the second in a series, the first one having been in 1985." He said the first sale had included the purchase of land, but no such purchase is considered with this bond issue.
Senator Coffin wondered if the sale of bonds would have to be done again and again. He questioned whether the requested funds would be enough.
Mr. Ziegler responded:
Certainly that's a valid concern, and I wouldn't want to have to come back to you 2 or 3 sessions from now and say the estimates have skyrocketed. The ...needs estimates on the California side are much higher than those in Nevada, which might lead one to believe that the Nevada side estimates were too low. But I think there are other reasons why the California estimates are higher, one being that they get a lot more precipitation on the California side, and therefore it's more difficult to deal with the problem. Also there is a much higher density of population, and therefore your street and road network on the California side is much more dense...more road miles. I am comfortable with the Nevada estimates.... I think a program like this would carry us for about 8 to 10 years, and [alleviate] the need on the Nevada side.
Senator Coffin asked, "That puts us up against our bond limit, doesn't it?"
Senator Raggio stated, "I think the issue...is not necessarily against the bond limit but, contrary to the information presented by the budget office, on the point where the bonding begins to affect the ratio of the revenues, that begins to affect our bond rating."
Senator Coffin wondered if the voters in southern Nevada would be supportive of another bond issue.
Mr. Ziegler said the TRPA would encourage the voters to support the bond issue. He suggested the state manage the bonded indebtedness in the most fiscally responsible way it can; and if recession or other economic reasons caused the sale of the bonds to be deferred until conditions improve, there would be no problem as far as the TRPA is concerned.
Senator O'Donnell asked what would happen if the monies were not expended for environmental protection and the proposal was delayed until two or three sessions from now.
Mr. Ziegler stated nonsupport would create future problems for TRPA. "There would be an argument raised...that we were emphasizing growth and development over resource protection, and there might be arguments to try to slow down, or put the brakes on growth and development in the Tahoe region."
Ms. Wilcox stated:
As a state officer I'm not in front of you to urge you to pass this [S.B. 176] because I understand the serious implications of another $20 million general obligation bond issue at this time. I rather want to explain to you how we implemented the last bond issue and how we would do this if it were to pass this session, or I think more likely some session in the future.
The first bond issue was $31 million. The law allowed us to spend up to a quarter of that on erosion control and the remainder on property acquisition. We did do that. We've spend about $7.5 million on erosion-control projects at the lake. That money all went as grants to local governments. We funded eight projects in Washoe County, seven projects in Douglas County. There was a match required [of 25 percent], ...and that match came in a variety of ways, sometimes local dollars, sometimes federal dollars.
We also required local government to agree to the long-term maintenance of the project, whatever the project was. These were almost all roadside or cut-sloped developments, where they went in and used a variety of kinds of vegetative or rock stabilization, combined with drainage channels and sediment ponds to track the runoff so it could not end up in the lake. We did this in cooperation with the Nevada Tahoe Conservation District without whom it would have been very difficult for us to do it.
The Nevada Tahoe Conservation District was involved in writing the original water quality plan for the lake, which went through an inventory of erosion control work that needed to be done. They assisted us by prioritizing potential projects and overseeing work as it was done in the field. Their expertise was extremely valuable. The program went very smoothly. All the projects are completed. As far as I know, there have been no problems of any significance.
The only real difference between...this program [and the previous one] is that this one has no property acquisition component. A larger difference is that the first time through we decided only to look at local government projects, not state projects. This bond issue would also allow us to pick up NDOT projects which we did not do the first time through.
Senator Raggio asked what the state of California is doing with respect to erosion control other than what has been previously alluded to on the special fund.
Mr. Ziegler responded:
In summary, the California Tahoe Conservancy uses both a bonded funding and also just budget authority that they obtain annually through the budget process to do these types of programs on the California side. In 1985 through 1991 they awarded $21.8 million for 56 projects. We are projecting their short term obligation authority at about $3 million a year. Since they are pretty short on bond funding right now that's budget authority they are getting from the legislature. They also do wildlife enhancement projects which have a water quality benefit, and they spent $1.4 million on that from 1985 through 1991. Caltrans also expends state funds....
Mr. Teshara said the Tahoe Gaming Alliance is a member of the Transportation Coalition which is an informal advocacy group consisting of the major business property rights and environmental groups in the region. The coalition would like to be supportive of S.B. 176, because it does provide some very badly needed monies to the Nevada Department of Transportation for its share of remedial actions necessary at Lake Tahoe.
Mr. Teshara said NDOT has a significant need for funds at Lake Tahoe which were not provided by the prior bond measure. He called the provision for local governments an important component of the bill.
Senator Raggio asked when the TRPA is going to approve the loop road around the California/Nevada south end of Lake Tahoe.
Mr. Ziegler replied that the TRPA governing board certified the environmental impact statement in 1992. The loop road is an element of the regional transportation plan. The City of South Lake Tahoe let the design contract last month, and upon completion of the design the TRPA would start to process a permit for the loop road.
Senator Raggio asked, "Do you anticipate that to become a reality?"
Mr. Ziegler replied:
In all candor...the financing for the loop road is in question at this time. The bankruptcy of one of the redevelopment projects on the California side has dramatically affected the revenue stream and thrown a great shadow over the financial feasibility of the loop road. All the entities involved in the redevelopment project are now scrambling to try to figure out another financing approach.
Senator O'Donnell addressed Mr. Teshara:
These two particular bills have come out of the interim oversight committee of the TRPA. ...Since I sat on that board I would like to know what your feelings are in terms of its productivity and effectiveness of that particular oversight committee."
Mr. Teshara commented:
We have support of the continuation of the oversight committee. It does provide a very important forum for the various members of the public and constituent groups at the lake to provide testimony to various issues having to do with TRPA and other interests of the State of Nevada at the lake. We understand that the resolution speaking to continuing that is moving forward, and we do support that. It does provide for a lot of the work necessary, which is very detailed and of a great complex nature, to be done at the local level to provide the legislature a presence, and members of the public and groups at Tahoe a forum for discussing these issues, so that by the time the next session of the legislature comes in you already have a lot of these issues distilled for your consideration. We do believe that committee is extremely important and would hope it would be in place again between this session and the subsequent session here in Nevada.
Ms. Ames stated the League to Save Lake Tahoe is strongly supportive of S.B. 176. There is also very strong support for the bond measure from local governments. Many of them have adopted resolutions in support. She added, regarding the sale of bonds, the $20 million would be spent over 8 to 10 years. In terms of sales of bonds it would be $2 million to $3 million a year, which would be discretionary. The bonds would not have to be sold if the financial situation did not warrant it.
Ms. Ames recommended one amendment to S.B. 176 in order to maintain consistency. She called attention to section 1, line 6, which refers to restoration of natural water courses. In the Tahoe Basin "stream environment zones," is a phrase used in the threshold standards and is carried on throughout all the TRPA documents.
Senator Rawson wondered if the term "water courses" dealt with runoff that would allow for more than a stream environment
Ms. Ames said, "I understand this was intended to track the current TRPA program. We would accept anything broader."
Senator Raggio stated the loop road has been a thorn in the side of getting things done in Lake Tahoe. Traffic has backed up on roads around the lake and caused pollution problems for a long time. He asked, "What's the position of the League to Save Lake Tahoe on the loop road and the completion of the loop road project?"
Ms. Ames replied, "We signed...a redevelopment agreement that supported construction of a loop road. The Caltrans-dictated design for that road is freeway-style. It's 140 feet wide."
Senator Raggio asked, "Does it complement the existing loop road that is on the Nevada side?"
Ms. Ames replied it is substantially larger. She continued:
We are also working diligently to get light rail money for the City of South Lake Tahoe. We did get them $7 million to do right-of-way acquisition and preliminary engineering in the likelihood that the loop road was not built. It is now estimated at $40 million. The light rail would then be an offset to the traffic congestion on Highway 50.
There is plenty of room...to convince Caltrans that the current roadway design is substantially greater than is needed. The costs, because of that, are substantial as well.
Senator Raggio said the loop road has to be resolved rather quickly, as it is long overdue. He asked Mr. Ziegler why there is no financing for the loop road in the near future.
Mr. Ziegler replied:
In the redevelopment agreement that was signed in 1987, the revenue stream would have provided for the acquisition of almost the entire right-of-way for the loop road. At that time there was still an open question as to how the construction of the loop road would be paid for, and that was a problem to be solved later.
With the bankruptcy of the Hodge property, my understanding now is that even the acquisition of the right-of-way is in question...The design parameters that Caltrans has insisted upon [and...one of the dreams is that U.S. Highway 50 would someday transverse the loop road, and what is now Highway 50 would become more of a pedestrian-oriented local street]...seem to be rather massive and do seem to contribute to a high cost. So you've got financing going one direction, and costs going the other direction, and a widening gulf between them.
Senator Raggio stated the Senate Committee on Finance has been asking about the loop road for over a decade. He added:
Every roadblock in the world has been set up because somebody, or people, did not want the loop road ever completed. It sounds like a lot more of the same. I think it's a disservice to the basin. It's a disservice certainly to this state. We're asked to cooperate on important issues of this kind, and it's disturbing to see that still a major problem...There is certainly gridlock on this issue. Somebody should be putting their heads together and getting that project completed.
Senator Coffin asked if there are other financing means in order to keep the project going. He mentioned it is the property which is in danger and encouraged raising the property taxes at Lake Tahoe. He suggested creation of a regional approach through a tri-county effort.
Mr. Ziegler responded the financing plan was to share costs among all levels of government. He said there are loans available through the federal Clean Water Act from the revolving fund. TRPA has proposed that local assessment districts be formed and the loans be paid off from those streams of funds. He asserted if the share or burden were increased on the property owner it would become politically unacceptable.
Senator Coffin reiterated his position preservation of the lake would be to the advantage of property owners. He asked if they had been polled.
Mr. Ziegler responded he did not know what limit might be acceptable. He said the TRPA work program includes, as a pilot effort, the creation of two assessment districts, one in Douglas County and one in Washoe County in the next 5 years to plumb the depths of public opinion. Under the existing state statutes in Nevada and California, it is a protest type of procedure. The local supervisors, or county commission, sits as the assessment board, and listens to protests from property owners. When the protests reach an uncomfortable level, such as 49 percent, or 51 percent, then the assessment district goes down. Usually the commissioners will not float an assessment if there is a protest of more than 20 percent to 25 percent.
Mr. Mier referred the committee to a final report on the previous Tahoe bond act and the work that had been done in the Tahoe Basin, which he had previously submitted on March 24, 1993, when he had testified in behalf of the state reorganization. He stated the board of directors from Nevada-Tahoe Conservation District does support S.B. 176 at this time.
Joe L. Johnson, Lobbyist, Sierra Club, added his support for S.B. 176. He addressed Senator Coffin's remarks:
One of the considerations...where development has been limited, the values of existing homes have escalated significantly in the last assessment year, and there is a great deal of protest in this process, just in the evaluation...I would suggest...the possibility of creating a tax-increment district to meet these demands would be appropriate. This would allow some of the increase in taxes due to increase in valuation by limited development to go into areas that are deemed necessary within the local area.
Senator Coffin thought Mr. Johnson's idea could be workable. He acknowledged the cap on bonding might have to be removed.
Senator Raggio commented that the property owners at the lake would argue they are not the only ones in the basin who are causing the problems. A major problem is a lot of people, who are not property owners at the lake and are using the basin.
Judy Matteucci, Director, Department of Administration, stated:
If you would like to talk further about the situation with the bonding...the issue is not so much the matter of coming up against our limitation. It is more a matter of the rating agencies getting concerned about our level of debt. We are proposing $60 million in the Executive Budget, $24.6 million of which does go to pay off the rest of the- or issue the rest of the park bonds that are outstanding. We have always taken the approach that if the voters have approved it, that is the top priority for bonding....
Ms. Matteucci acknowledged prioritization is needed. She cautioned that issuance of bonds is getting close to a level that would threaten the state's bond rating.
Senator Coffin asked Ms. Matteucci if her office has done any studies on other means of financing at Lake Tahoe.
Ms. Matteucci replied, "We have not launched into that particular area of review."
Senator Jacobsen wanted the record to reflect he had received a phone call from Noel Manoukian, legal counsel for Incline Village General Improvement District, who was unable to attend this hearing due to depositions he was taking during this time period.
Senator Raggio closed the hearing on S.B. 176. He opened discussion on Bill Draft (BDR) 54-1715.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 54-1715: Increases license fees for real estate brokers, broker-salesmen and salesmen.
Senator Raggio asked, "What amount does this raise for the General Fund?"
Ms. Matteucci replied, "It raises about $459,000 over the course of the biennium for the General Fund."
Senator Raggio stated, "We request this [BDR 54-1715] for a committee introduction at the request of the administration."
SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 54-1715.
SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Glomb asked why there is a need for an increase in fees and new fees. She added, "Where does it go?"
Ms. Matteucci replied, "It goes directly into the General Fund, and then the real estate division is supported by a General Fund appropriation." BDR 54-1715 resulted as a suggestion from the agency in order to meet targets set by the budget office.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator Raggio held action on S.B. 176. On S.B. 139, he stated
if the committee is interested it would probably entail an amendment. He suggested all administrative costs must be paid out of the fund.
Senator O'Donnell suggested adding a "codification of the process by which they deed restrict and make the land not usable for building purposes."
SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 139 WITH THE AMENDMENT BEING THAT SUGGESTED BY THE DIVISION OF STATE LANDS (EXHIBIT D) AS ITEMS 1 AND 2; THAT ALL ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS IN CONNECTION WITH THIS BE PAID OUT OF THIS SPECIAL FUND; AND THAT ANY ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY WILL HAVE THE UNDERSTANDING THE PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBJECT TO FURTHER DEVELOPMENT.
THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY SENATOR RAWSON.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
The committee took a recess at 9:25 am. The committee resumed at 9:40 a.m.
Senator Raggio opened hearings on budget closings.
Daniel G. Miles, Fiscal Analyst, reminded the committee the following boards had been held pending the decision to fund a new position in the Director of Business and Industry's budget, which would be a coordinator-type of position.
Board of Accountancy - Page 515
Board of Architecture - Page 517
Board of Certified Shorthand Reporters - Page 519
Board of Chiropractic Examiners - Page 521
Board of Contractors - Page 523
Board of Cosmetology - Page 525
Board of Dental Examiners - Page 527
Board of Dispensing Opticians - Page 529
Board of Examiners in Veterinary Medicine - Page 531
Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers - Page 533
Board of Hearing Specialists - Page 535
Board of Homeopathic Medical Examiners - Page 537
Liquefied Petroleum Gas Board - Page 539
Board of Marriage and Family Therapists - Page 541
Board of Medical Examiners - Page 543
Board of Nursing - Page 545
Board of Nursing Facility Administrators - Page 547
Board of Optometry - Page 549
Board of Oriental Medicine - Page 551
Board of Osteopathy - Page 553
Board of Pharmacy - Page 555
Board of Physical/Occupational Therapy Examiners - Page 557
Board of Podiatry - Page 559
Board of Psychological Examiners - Page 561
Board of Public Health Sanitarians - Page 563
Board of Registered Engineers - Page 565
Board of Social Worker Examiners - Page 567
Senator Raggio reminded the committee no decision had been made regarding the position to coordinate the boards. He declared the decision should be made as to whether an assessment should be imposed against each board to support the position.
Senator Coffin stated the idea of hiring the new position at this time is "poorly timed" although it has merit.
SENATOR COFFIN MOVED TO DISAPPROVE THE PROPOSAL FOR AN ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT ON BOARDS TO FUND THE POSITION.
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Glomb stated she has spoken to members of some of the boards; and while they are not objecting to the assessment for the position, they have not been told what the position entails and what the person in the new position will do for them.
Senator Raggio referred the committee to a letter he had received from the Nevada State Board of Accountancy (Exhibit I).
Senator Callister stated the new position could be beneficial to many boards, in particular the Board of Contractors where many unlicensed contractors are operating outside of their jurisdiction.
Senator Raggio also felt the new position is untimely.
Ms. Matteucci stated she is still in support of the position and the position is a needed function to aid the boards in operating more effectively. She asked who would supervise the boards if the position was left unfilled. Senator Raggio stated the department heads would be available.
Ms. Matteucci declared it would be asking too much for the director of the new Department of Business and Industry (B and I) to meet with all the boards. Senator Raggio responded some of the boards will not be under the jurisdiction of the Department of Business and Industry. Ms. Matteucci said all the boards would fall under the Department of Business and Industry under the reorganization plan.
From a review of audit reports, Ms. Matteucci found seven boards in violation of the law because they had increased their budgets beyond what had been authorized. She asserted they had not operated within the bounds of either the State Administrative Manual or the law because they had failed to obtain the approval of the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) or to have contracts approved.
She averred the position being proposed would keep those people informed and serve as a contact point for the administration.
Senator Callister asked where the position would be physically located, in the south or in the north.
Ms. Matteucci said the position had been placed in the director's office of the Department of Business and Industry, and physical location had not been determined to date.
Senator Callister was in favor of the position if the person would be responsive to consumer concerns over unlicensed individuals in all of the boards. He stated, "I support it. I think the demand is there."
Senator Glomb stated she, too, is leaning to support the position. Some of the board members she talked to felt it would be beneficial to have a contact person at the state level.
Senator O'Donnell said he was under the impression the person in the new position would facilitate some sort of conformity amongst all the boards so there would be a law change in the next legislature, or the following legislature, in terms of protecting the boards and doing what is right so they do not have liability.
Ms. Matteucci said the purpose of the position is to facilitate the exchange of information both between the boards and the state government and to serve as a contact point.
Senator Raggio stated:
Unfortunately every board in this state has been apprehensive about this...before the session. They weren't informed fully as to what the purpose of it was; they were extremely fearful of that. That fear is carried through to this day. We're still getting communications from them. They see this as inappropri-ate. They see no real purpose for it. They feel...that this is an attempt to reduce their independence. They see it as opening the door for regulation by the state in what have been their functions of licensure and discipline. It just hasn't been sold properly, and without exception we are inundated...with complaints. I have received nothing from these boards indicating support for this concept. That's the problem we're faced with.
Senator Glomb asked if the boards are currently being assessed.
Ms. Matteucci said the boards are already being assessed for a position in the budget office, a person who looks at their financial reports, their budgets, their contracts. She attested only two of the boards have complained about the new position. Senator Raggio disagreed with her.
Senator Callister suggested tabling the matter for a day or two; and let Ms. Matteucci put in writing exactly what the new individual is to do, what his/her obligations will be, and where he/she is likely to be situated. He claimed there is a need to allow the executive branch some involvement between boards and commissions and state government.
SENATOR COFFIN AGREED TO WITHDRAW HIS MOTION, AND SENATOR JACOBSEN AGREED TO WITHDRAW HIS SECOND.
Senator Raggio, although against deferring the decision any longer, held the budgets on all boards, budget pages 515 through 567, and the new position until tomorrow, April 28, 1993.
Motor Pool - Page 228
Senator Coffin declared he was trying to get a cost benefit analysis of the difference between buying cellular phones, which are less expensive to purchase, but are much more expensive in the long run to operate, versus radios. He recommended staff view the completed analysis and then let the motor pool make the choice. Senator Coffin said he tends to favor the radio aspect.
Senator Raggio held budget page 228 until staff submits the requested analysis.
Department of Museums, Library and Arts - Page 1120
Mr. Miles stated, "This budget is museums and history's portion of this new department, and we don't have any recommendations or comments on this particular budget."
Mr. Miles stated one clerical position was transferred to the Carson City Museum budget. Within the budget there are reorganization savings worth two positions, which would be the current director's position because a new director of the entire department will be created, and an accounting position.
SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GOVERNOR'S RECOMMENDATION.
SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Callister had visited with individuals who are significantly concerned about the budget. He commented:
Between what we are now combining into the new museums, libraries and arts, ...if you looked at both the positions that have been unfilled over the biennium, as well as the reductions that have been made over the past 2 years, and then some of the consolidation savings, you're talking about a significant...reduction in the total level of staffing.
Mr. Miles confirmed there have been significant reductions in the library area in the last 2 years. In the reorganization there are apparently the value of four positions eliminated.
Senator Callister commented that of the proposed reorganization savings, as a result of the vacancy savings from positions that have remained unfilled, and reductions 2 years ago, the new collective department will be off to a very shaky start in terms of their staffing. He added:
Of all the various agencies we have had before us, I think they made the most compelling argument in terms of the overall staffing reductions they have been compelled to bear. I would urge the committee to give serious consideration to...retaining the senior accountant position, which...is scheduled for being eliminated. ...I would urge the members of this committee to keep some director position which I believe exists now but is unfilled and also scheduled for elimination. ...We need a director somewhere in southern Nevada.
Senator Callister said he was also troubled by reductions in the library and state librarian's office, and the bookmobile reductions.
Senator Raggio invited a determination from the committee. The committee decided to hold the budget. Neither Senator O'Donnell nor Senator Rawson voiced an objection to holding the budget.
State Museum, Carson City - Page 1124
Mr. Miles commented the director's position in this budget has been vacant since 1983, and the assistant director has been operating the museum. Part of the reorganization savings would be to eliminate the assistant director's position. The director of the current Department of Museums and History suggests rather than eliminate the existing position, to not fund the director's position and refund the assistant director's position, accruing small savings.
Senator Rawson asked about the increase in fees. Mr. Miles stated there was no fee for children and the fee was raised from $2 to $3 for adults over 18 years of age, which was agreeable to Senator Rawson.
Senator Raggio asked Ms. Matteucci if the recommendation was to move the position from unclassified to classified service. Ms. Matteucci responded the recommendation was to change the position from an unclassified position to exempt-merit service because the position would be appointed by an elected official.
SENATOR GLOMB MOVED TO ADJUST THE BUDGET TO ACCOMMODATE THE RETENTION OF THE POSITION OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR AND CONTINUE TO DELETE THE POSITION OF DIRECTOR; ADJUST THE REGULAR APPROPRIATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994 DOWNWARD $12,554 AND FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995 A $489 ADJUSTMENT; UNDER EXPENDITURES, RETAIN THE SAVINGS OF THE DIRECTOR'S POSITION; AND INCREASE OR ADJUST REORGANIZATIONAL SAVINGS IN THE AMOUNTS THAT ACCOMMODATE THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR'S POSITION, $39,128 IN FY 1994, AND $52,495 FY 1995.
SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Callister voiced his understanding the director of Carson City position would be left unfilled. He commented he had been told it would be preferable to lose the Carson City directorship while retaining a director in Las Vegas.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Nevada Historical Society - Page 1128
Mr. Miles said there were no adjustments recommended.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR.
SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Glomb asked how many positions are being eliminated. Senator Raggio said there were none.
Senator Coffin inquired about three positions supposed to have been deleted in the 1991-1993 biennium.
Ms. Matteucci said this budget shows no position reductions and she could not recall if they were deleted. She added:
They were specifically instructed in the budget process not to ask for restoration of the positions because they had to maintain the cut base. That did not deter many agencies but some agencies did not submit a request for the positions. ...We gave them targets that essentially held them at their base budgets minus reductions.
Senator Coffin asked, "Didn't we lose some of the positions we created in the last session, particularly a curator?"
Ms. Matteucci replied, "Very possibly. In many of the cases when the agencies came up with their proposed eliminations they eliminated new positions that were empty. ...There were 266 positions that were laid off...." She was unsure if any came from this agency, saying most of them were in mental health or prisons.
Senator Coffin stated the agency accumulates vast amounts of valuable donations and has no one to catalog the donations they receive. He opined sometimes agencies are intimidated. Senator Raggio reminded him of the revenue limitations.
Senator Callister averred there is significant distinction. He
declared:
Many of these agencies, in the context of reorganization...are...about to become some new agency with a yet-to-be unnamed head. So I think the comments Senator Coffin makes are appropriate, that the normal give and take that goes on between an agency and the committee is somewhat exacerbated because of that tension about who is going to have the job after all this shakes out. ...It makes it a little more difficult to come by that precious commodity, information, this session.
SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO APPROVE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED.
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR COFFIN VOTED NO.)
* * * * *
Nevada State Railroad Museum - Page 1132
Mr. Miles said the staff had no recommendations.
SENATOR GLOMB MOVED TO APPROVE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR.
SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Railroad Depot - East Ely - Page 1136
SENATOR GLOMB MOVED TO APPROVE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR.
SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Raggio recalled a visit to the depot. He stated there is a volume of work to be done, but the question of sufficient revenue exists. Senator Jacobsen interjected restoration work on the depot would be affected by the disposition of the honor camp budgets.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator Rawson stated the Ely area has a world-class collection of train material and foundry equipment. He added: "Anybody on the committee should try to keep alive the idea of looking to this that it not be dissipated or lost. Somewhere in this decade we've got to try to secure that."
Senator Jacobsen pointed out the honor camp in the downtown area under the Division of Forestry is hampered for space. He suggested they could use the shop area across from the depot if the honor camp is kept in the area. He asserted having some inmates from the honor camp there on a daily basis could provide a measure of security for the depot.
State Museum, Las Vegas - Page 1139
Senator Raggio stated the issue is the director's position, which has become vacant, and was not recommended for reinstatement in the Executive Budget. The cost estimate for reinstatement of the position, historically financed with General Fund monies, is $59,382 in Fiscal Year (FY) 1994 and $59,712 in FY 1995.
Senator O'Donnell asked for an explanation of the reversion in the work program. Ms. Matteucci called attention to page A1 of the first volume of the Executive Budget. She explained it would be part of the estimated budget reductions which would go back into the General Fund and become available for reappropriation. She said, "We essentially make a revenue item out of an expenditure by not allowing the agencies to spend the money." Senator O'Donnell voiced the understanding essentially $142,000 would revert back into the museum budget.
Senator Rawson suggested the director's position be added back into the budget for this session, with the understanding gifts and grants would be accepted. Senator Raggio inquired if Senator Rawson intended that the position be funded only with money other than General Fund revenue. Senator Rawson confirmed his statement.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED THAT THE POSITION BE REINSTATED IN THE BUDGET AT THE AMOUNTS INDICATED, $59,382 AND $59,712, AND THAT UNDER RESOURCES WE WOULD INCREASE THE FUNDING FOR THAT UNDER "OTHER."
SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Callister questioned whether the motion authorizes funding from private resources. Senator Raggio agreed. Senator Callister said a more simple, direct approach should be used. He said he would like to make a motion to fund the position out of the General Fund. He asserted the position is necessary.
SENATOR CALLISTER MOVED TO REINSTATE THE POSITION BUT TO ADD ESSENTIALLY $120,000 FROM GENERAL FUND FOR THAT PURPOSE.
SENATOR GLOMB SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION FAILED. (SENATORS RAGGIO, RAWSON, JACOBSEN AND O'DONNELL VOTED NO.)
* * * * *
Senator Raggio asked for a vote on the original motion.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator Raggio, in order to clarify the motion, accepted another motion.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO AMEND THE BUDGET IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACTION JUST TAKEN.
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Lost City Museum - Page 1143
Mr. Miles stated there were no staff recommendations.
SENATOR GLOMB MOVED TO APPROVE PER GOVERNOR RECOMMENDS.
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator O'Donnell asked if there is a fee charged at the Lost City Museum.
Mr. Miles stated there is a current fee of $1 which is being increased to $2, which goes into the General Fund.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Historic Preservation - Page 1147
Mr. Miles stated there are some optional adjustments in this budget. The budget does not quite meet the 60/40 federal match requirements. When the budget was put together, the travel and operating on the General Fund side was cut. The suggestion would be in order to meet the 60/40 match requirement, to restore $1,000 in travel and $1,000 in operating, which would make the match. There is an adjustment in rent that will offset the above addition to the budget. The agency is scheduled to move into cheaper state-owned space in October of 1993, but the rent was budgeted at the higher rate of the currently privately-owned space. The rest was balanced into the grants category. It is a wash on the revenue side in the General Fund appropriation, an increase of $352 in the first year and a decrease of $293 in the second year of the biennium.
Senator Coffin was concerned about the lack of clerical assistance and the deletion of the historical marker program. Senator Raggio noted the agency had requested $10,000 for their historical marker program on the original request but it had been deleted. He said the suggestion had been made that if the $10,000 was reinstated it probably could be justified from tourism revenues. Senator Rawson suggested the honor camps might be able to keep up the maintenance on the historical markers.
Senator Raggio asked the committee for input on having the cost come from tourism. Senator Rawson responded he felt it was a good suggestion.
Senator Glomb asked if it had been explored that the Department of Transportation might assist in the historical marker program.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED THAT THE BUDGET BE ADJUSTED TO AUTHORIZE THE EXPENDITURE OF $10,000 EACH YEAR FOR THE HISTORICAL MARKER PROGRAM; THAT THE RESOURCES FOR THAT BE INDICATED AS EITHER TOURISM OR HIGHWAY FUNDING; AND THAT ADJUSTMENTS BE INCLUDED AS INDICATED BY STAFF AS NECESSARY.
SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator O'Donnell asked if the agency had given an indication what would be necessary to maintain the historical marker program. Senator Raggio responded the agency had been unable to keep up the historical marker program for several years.
Senator Jacobsen suggested DOT could get many service clubs to volunteer to keep up the historic marker program.
Ms. Matteucci commented the clerical position, which is not proposed to be reinstated, was the one that handled the historic marker program.
Senator O'Donnell suggested reinstating the clerical position as a half-time position and put $10,000 towards the historic marker maintenance.
Senator Raggio held page 1147 until tomorrow, April 28, 1993, and asked Senator Jacobsen to explore what would be a viable solution.
There being no further business before the committee, Senator Raggio adjourned the meeting at 10:48 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Judy Jacobs,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Finance
April 27, 1993
Page 1