Seventieth Session

February 8, 1999

The hearing of the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means was called to order at 7:40 a.m. on Monday, February 8, 1999 by Chairman Morse Arberry Jr. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman

Jan Evans, Vice Chairman

Mr. Bob Beers

Mrs. Barbara Cegavske

Mrs. Vonne Chowning

Mrs. Marcia de Braga

Mr. Joseph Dini, Jr.

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani

Mr. David Goldwater

Mr. Lynn Hettrick

Mr. David Parks

Mr. Richard Perkins

Mr. Bob Price

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mr. John Marvel

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst

Gary Ghiggeri, Deputy Fiscal Analyst

Debra King, Fiscal Analyst

Cynthia M. Cendagorta, Committee Secretary

Vice Chair Jan Evans, Assembly District 30, introduced herself and Mr. Stephen Shaw, Administrator of the Division of Child and Family Services, and Mr. Bob Hadfield, Director of the Nevada Association of Counties. Mr. Hadfield also served as an advisory member of the interim study committee which studied juvenile justice issues (A.C.R. 57). Vice Chair Evans said the bill was a recommendation from the interim study on juvenile justice, better known as A.C.R. 57. Ten years ago, a study was commissioned by the legislature to conduct a needs assessment of the juvenile justice system. Vice Chair Evans had a copy of that document and said the study was amazingly prophetic, and she had referred to it many times over the years. The study told the legislature then of Nevada’s many needs, and where the state should be going. It was the determination of the A.C.R. 57 committee that it was time to take another outside look at Nevada’s juvenile justice system. That would be done to make every effort to take corrective action and make improvements in terms of staffing, programs and facilities in order to have a good juvenile justice system. Vice Chair Evans said, in the bill the committee would notice there was an appropriation requesting $100,000, which was an estimate since an RFP needed to be done, or a consultant retained, in order to know exactly what the cost might be. Vice Chair Evans said she and her colleagues thought that estimate might be a little too high, but for the purposes of getting a bill drafted, that figure was used. She reiterated that figure was likely to be reduced, so it would just be authorization for up to the amount for which they would be asking.

The second item Vice Chair Evans addressed was their objective that the study would not require a General Fund appropriation. She noted the committee would recall in 1997 the Federal Government passed a number of new measures in the area of juvenile justice. There were quite a few federal grants also available. The committee was looking at what might be obtained in the way of federal funds to fund the study. If that happened, the committee would not require funds from the General Fund.

Stephen Shaw, Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services, introduced himself and said he was testifying in support of A.B. 36. Mr. Shaw said the last needs assessment was done some years ago, and in the last 8 to 10 years the state had seen significant population growth. The division had also developed a data system, per the legislature, which was a significant advancement for the division. This was something the division did not have the last time the needs assessment was done. The division had developed some community-based projects utilizing needs and risk factors, which was a recent change. There were also significant increases in federal funds that the division was utilizing, which was another big change since the last needs assessment. Some expansion of county detention facilities had occurred, as well as the planned expansion of the Spring Mountain facility since the last needs assessment was completed. There was also the development of the secure and chronic juvenile facility in Clark County which was recommended to be constructed.

Nevada had made many strides in the last 8 to 10 years, Mr. Shaw stated, but there were still areas the state needed to look at, which A.C.R. 57 helped to focus on. The issues included whether the changes that had been made would address juvenile correctional facility needs, for how long, and where the gaps were in services and what improvements needed to be made. Also, were special needs populations being served, were community-based services being utilized prior to commitment to state correctional care. Mr. Shaw felt the needs assessment had helped the division, and helped the state years ago, and it was time for it to be updated.

Mr. Shaw reiterated the division was attempting to identify federal dollars to finance the needs assessment. Chairman Arberry asked when the division would have information concerning a funding source. Mr. Shaw responded he hoped within the upcoming 30 days the division would have an idea about the possibility of finding federal funding. The division was also looking at some private funding sources. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if youth were screened for mental illness, the same as in the adult prison system. Mr. Shaw said there was a uniform assessment done to screen for mental illness, substance abuse and family issues.

Ms. Giunchigliani questioned if the division screened for special education. Mr. Shaw said they did, and the division required records from special education, and had mental health professionals conducting the assessments. Ms. Giunchigliani pointed out not every child who might qualify would have been served by a school district, and asked if there was any type of educational assessment done. Mr.

Shaw replied not when the child first came into the system, but that once the kids were in the school system they could then be tested. Almost 70 to 80 percent of the division’s kids were special education kids.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked Mr. Shaw if he was familiar with a program called the 8 percent solution, which was a diversion program that targeted those youth who would potentially not become a second time offender. Was this something the needs assessment would take a look at, or would it be a separate issue. Mr. Shaw wasn’t sure about the program, and said there were the 8 percent and 18 percent solution programs in California, with which he was familiar, if this was the same program. Pursuant to A.C.R. 57, the division was developing those types of tools to help focus on the population that needed extra attention.

Robert Hadfield, Executive Director of the Nevada Association of Counties, introduced himself to the committee. Mr. Hadfield said Nevada’s counties shared responsibility with the State of Nevada for the administration of the juvenile justice system in the state. Mr. Hadfield wanted to go on record supporting the bill and urging the committee to approve the measure as well. The work done over the previous years was significant in terms of helping the state better understand what was happening with Nevada’s youth and communities. Great progress had been made with a number of new programs, and A.C.R. 57 identified some clear areas for continued study. Mr. Hadfield thought that was an area where the best data and information was needed. He urged the committee to support that, so the committee could go forward to make positive changes to the system.

Chairman Arberry asked if there was anyone present either in favor of, or in opposition to A.B. 36. No one present wished to testify.

There was no action on A.B. 36.

Chairman Arberry then announced the committee would move on to the open hearing on A.B. 48.

A.B. 48 was withdrawn.

Mr. Dini stated A.B. 48 had been withdrawn and a budget revision had been provided to Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst. Mr. Stevens said the Budget Division had supplied an Executive Budget revision that included a recommendation from the Governor to include the $200,000 requested in AB 48 in the department’s budget. That would be an issued studied by the subcommittee.

Leonard Gang, General Counsel and Executive Director of the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline introduced Michelle Wright, Staff Assistant, and Janine Eisenberg, part-time assistant to the standing Committee on Judicial Ethics and Election Practices. Mr. Gang explained the commission was created by constitutional mandate and served to receive and consider complaints regarding allegations of judicial misconduct. He briefly described the commission by saying it was created in 1976 and had functioned consistently since that time. The commission’s scope had expanded over the years and included jurisdiction over justices of the peace and municipal judges in addition to Supreme and District Court judges. The commission also had acquired jurisdiction over masters and referees who performed judicial functions.

Continuing, Mr. Gang referred to an update of performance data and statistics (Exhibit C) which reflected the commission’s workload. Mr. Gang said on the last page of the handout, it was shown the complaints the commission considered had increased significantly over the years. That last page contained performance data from 1990 through 1999. In 1993 and 1994, the commission was involved in litigation at the Supreme Court, and as a result the existence of the commission became known throughout the state. As a result, the number of complaints received increased dramatically. The even-numbered years seemed to generate more complaints than the odd-numbered years, although 1999 was the exception, with 101 complaints already being filed.

As for the commission’s budget, it was requesting a 6 percent increase in funds, with 5 percent of that increase falling into two categories.

Mr. Gang went on to say the commission hired investigators to investigate complaints and also hired attorneys to prosecute complaints if they proceeded to that stage. In the base year of the budget, the commission slightly exceeded the amount of money appropriated for investigators. Due to that, Mr. Gang had requested an increase in that category. The recommended appropriation was $45,000 and he requested an increase to $50,000. In the attorney category, the appropriation was $50,000 for each year, which was changed to $5,000. The attorneys who had served as prosecutors for the commission were willing to serve in a public service capacity, at one-half of their normal hourly rate. That had not increased since 1984, but might reasonably increase somewhat in the future.

Continuing, Mr. Gang said the complexity of the cases seemed to be increasing, as well as the length of time it took to hear cases. Because of that, the amount expended for prosecutors had increased over the years.

Mr. Gang went on to say in the base year 1998, the commission returned $1,240 to the General Fund, with which he was quite pleased. Mr. Gang observed one of the significant things in the budget was the commission proposed to incorporate the standing Committee on Judicial Ethics and Election Practices into the commission’s budget as a decision unit. The standing committee was suggested by the Supreme Court during the 1997 legislature, and was also funded. The committee was to be placed under the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline as a budget item, but through some legislative oversight, the budget remained in the Supreme Court.

Mr. Gang said he served as Executive Director of the committee for the previous 2 years, and administered the committee’s budget. The Supreme Court, legislature and commission all agreed that the committee was appropriately under the auspices of the commission and not the Supreme Court. The committee consisted of 28 members and had not functioned until sometime in March of 1998. The committee members were appointed by the Board of Governors of the State Bar who appointed attorneys, the Governor who appointed the layperson, and the Supreme Court which appointed the judicial people who served on the committee. This was done the same way in which the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline was appointed.

Mr. Gang noted the committee functioned in two areas. Part of the committee rendered written opinions on requests by judges for interpretations of the canons of judicial ethics. The committee had issued six opinions which were published, filed with the Supreme Court, and distributed to judges. A separate, very important function was to consider complaints regarding judicial campaigns. One of the main functions of the committee was that because of the manner in which the commission functioned, it could not expeditiously consider complaints of election misconduct in a meaningful time frame. Because of that, the committee was created to be able to serve on a 12-hour basis during the last 2 or 3 weeks of the primary and general elections, so if a judicial candidate had a complaint, the committee could be quickly activated.

During the 1998 general election, Mr. Gang said the committee had considered eight election complaints, all of which involved district court races. The committee also held eight hearings in which decisions were rendered. Mr. Gang added there were lawsuits pending against the committee by three candidates, two of which were successful. Those lawsuits challenged the constitutionality of the committee because it rendered decisions, which indicated certain advertisements should not have been used because they violated Canon Five of the Canons of Judicial Ethics.

The committee was not unhappy the lawsuit had been filed, which was currently in the beginning stages in federal court. This question was a significant one, that needed judicial interpretation. The creation of these types of committees, which considered complaints in judicial races was a fairly new concept in the United States. There were probably a dozen states with a similar type of committee, for example, one in Georgia, which functioned almost identically to the one in Nevada. The first elections it considered were also in 1998, and it had also been sued, and was in federal court in the 11^th Circuit Court in Georgia. Mr. Gang reiterated the question was a good one and needed to be raised to clarify exactly how the committee could function and what authority it had.

Mr. Gang said there was very little difference in the committee’s recommended budget from the previously approved budget. The main difference was in the
out-of-state travel category. The chairman of the committee was an attorney from northern Nevada, and the Vice Chairman, also an attorney, from southern Nevada. The American Judicature Society conducted a college of judicial ethics every 2 years, and in the committee’s budget Mr. Gang included funds for the chairman, vice chairman, and staff person to attend that college, which was a different location each time. According to this, Mr. Gang budgeted for East Coast travel since the college was often held there. He felt it was necessary and important for the chairman and vice chairman to attend the college, which was a 2-day intensive learning process that assisted them in their jobs.

Mr. Gang observed the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) had approved a $15,000 appropriation for the committee to hire counsel to represent it during the lawsuit. Mr. Gang was of the opinion that amount would be sufficient, and he was not requesting additional funds. Vice Chair Evans referred to the Judicial Discipline budget and the need for additional resources for out-of-state travel, and indicated the request for out-of-state travel increased by $10,000. Mr. Gang said that reflected combining the committee’s budget, which included the out-of-state travel for both the commission and the committee. The numbers increased in the second year because the second year in the biennium was when the American Judicature Society conducted its college.

Mr. Gang reiterated he had requested funds for the committee chair, vice chair and staff position to attend. That was the reason for what appeared to be a dramatic increase in those figures. The commission’s budget approved the same number of persons, six, to attend the college every other year. The commission had three new appointments in 1999, one in each category. Usually three new people would attend the college along with staff personnel. Vice Chair Evans said it would then cost a little over $4,000 each to attend the college. Mr. Gang said there was a total of nine positions, not three, combined like the budget proposed. In decision unit 901, which was the combination of the committee and the commission, the numbers appeared higher than normal.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked who did the initial review of the complaints that came in to determine whether or not they moved forward. Mr. Gang responded he reviewed the complaints initially to ensure the complaints met the requirements, but the commission actually reviewed every complaint. There were no staff decisions to dismiss complaints without them proceeding to the entire commission.

Ms. Giunchigliani queried if the entire panel heard the complaints or if there was a panel which first determined if they had jurisdiction or not. Mr. Gang answered the entire commission reviewed the complaint, and met on an as-needed basis, usually every 6 to 8 weeks. The committee decided if the complaint should be dismissed or proceed to investigation. At that meeting, the committee also reviewed the results of the investigation if one had been conducted.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if, in terms of the suggested merging of the two committees, Mr. Gang had looked at streamlining that part of the process so the entire commission would not have to be paneled. She asked if that would help move matters along. Mr. Gang replied that would not help because the committee’s function was distinct from the commission, and not interchangeable. She asked if there would be an inherent conflict of interest in terms of the two merging. Mr. Gang answered there was no conflict of interest, and added the two really complimented each other. That was because the committee received complaints regarding judicial elections under Canon Five, which dealt with political matters and election practices. After the committee considered those complaints and held a hearing, it had the authority, by Supreme Court rule, to refer the matter to the commission. The complaint would then proceed in the manner of a normal complaint, so there was no conflict between the two. In fact, the committee was created to compliment and assist the commission in its functions.

Ms. Giunchigliani clarified the commission on judicial discipline determined whether or not a complaint moved forward, even though Mr. Gang provided a staff report. She asked Mr. Gang to discuss costs for contract services under the recommended plan. Mr. Gang said contract services consisted of two main categories, one for investigation and the second for attorneys. When the commission decided a matter should be investigated, he would hire an investigator who he had used for the last several years. That person also functioned as the investigator for the Ethics Commission. In 1995 the legislature had appropriated $45,000 for that purpose, which was the first time the commission’s jurisdiction was expanded, and it received a sufficient appropriation to function. That amount had not been increased until 1999, and Mr. Gang was requesting a $5,000 increase in that area.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if Mr. Gang was looking for an independent contractor to fill the Executive Director position. Mr. Gang said he served as Executive Director and General Counsel, was an employee of the State of Nevada, and was planning to retire in the year 2000. Mr. Gang said the statutes provided the commission with the authority to contract for its employees, and he pointed out the commission could choose to have a full-time executive director, split the functions, and contract for general counsel. That was only a possibility and there was no plan at that point to do so.

Continuing, Mr. Gang pointed out if the commission could not find a full time Executive Director General Counsel, it might choose to separate those functions.

Ms. Giunchigliani wanted to know if the commission was planning on changing any other staff positions to which Mr. Gang replied they were not. Ms. Giunchigliani asked why there was not a Clark County office if the majority of complaints came from southern Nevada. Mr. Gang said there was not enough staff, and the commission leased space in northern Nevada. Also, most of the time the location did not cause a problem. If the commission traveled to southern Nevada, there were four commissioners traveling, excluding staff. If the commission traveled to northern Nevada, there were three commissioners traveling. Ms. Giunchigliani said the percentage of commissioners in each part of the state would affect the commission’s status, but that percentage was not static depending on appointments that were made. She said she hoped, through the budget, the legislature could take a look at the actual costs. If the legislature was going to consolidate, at least there could be a presence in Las Vegas since some of the Supreme Court justices were going to have some facilities there. In this case, it might save some money down the road.

Chairman Arberry asked if separating the Executive Director and General Counsel positions would cost additional money. Mr. Gang responded that separating the functions of the Executive Director would not cost additional funds. If the commission chose to do that, it would be accomplished within the amount of money appropriated by the legislature. Chairman Arberry added his concern was the commission could hire an executive director and cut the salary of the person being hired to do the job Mr. Gang was doing, since that person would not be providing the same functions, and would not be a lawyer. Mr. Gang said he simply wanted to raise the possibility of splitting the functions, since he did not know which way the commission would go on this. He anticipated the commission would attempt to hire someone to serve as executive director and general counsel, since it was an efficient way of doing things. In the event the commission couldn’t find someone to fill that position in that category, they could separate the fractions. Mr. Gang said he specifically pointed out in the budget proposal he did not request additional funds, and could make that change within the amount appropriated. Mr. Gang agreed if the commission chose to split the functions the executive director would be at a lower salary, with the remaining funds used to hire general counsel on an hourly basis, in the same manner the special prosecutors were hired.

Mrs. Chowning asked about the judicial complaint and tracking process. She observed in 1997 and 1998 there was a total of 260 complaints, and yet in another part of the budget she saw 269. She assumed those were in the performance indicators and wanted to know which sanctions were given to what types of cases, in terms of family court judges and justices of the peace. She also asked about the fines assessed, and asked for clarification of that process. Mr. Chowning noted on a chart that one of the penalties imposed on a justice of the peace was labeled "other" and asked what that meant. In terms of district court judges, there were 153 complaints processed with only one of them resulting in a fine assessment. Mrs. Chowning said that should be part of the performance indicators in order to give the committee a better tracking mechanism, since the numbers she was looking at were confusing. She asked Mr. Gang to provide her with a more complete report. Mr. Gang said he would be happy to meet with her to go over the charts which represented different categories he could discuss in detail at a later date.

Mr. Gang thanked the Ways and Means Committee and the legislature for appropriating sufficient funds in the past for the commission to function. He thought the commission performed well, and said everyone agreed the committee performed a valuable and needed task in the state, providing an outlet for persons with complaints.

Ms. Giunchigliani added she would track the Committee on Racial and Gender Bias since it was not under the commission’s jurisdiction, but she felt its work was important. Mr. Gang said he would appreciate it if the legislature would correctly place the judicial ethics committee’s budget into the commission on judicial discipline’s budget instead of the Supreme Court’s.

Mrs. Evans asked if there was a conflict of interest. Mr. Gang said no and added when they proposed creating the committee, the court agreed it should be administered by the commission. Vice Chair Evans asked if the documents the Committee on Ways and Means had at that point needed adjustments to reflect the change of placement. Mr. Gang responded he thought it was simply a technical matter that was inadvertently placed under the wrong budget. Vice Chair Evans asked if there was anything else that needed to be reflected in the commission’s budget for the operation of the Judicial Ethics and Election Practices committee. Mr. Gang said that was correct and as long as the legislature approved the committee’s budget, the commission’s budget and the committee becoming a decision unit under the commission’s budget, there were no further requests. Mr. Gang was thanked for his presentation and excused by Vice Chair Evans.

Vice Chair Evans said the committee would move to Volume III of The Executive Budget, Department of Transportation, and introduced Mr. Stephens and colleagues. Tom Stephens, Director of the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), introduced himself, Gerry Colquhoun, Chief of Financial Management, and Jerry Ross, Senior Budget Analyst. Mr. Stephens also introduced Jenny Neill, Special Assistant to the Director, who was in charge of public information, customer service areas, and legislative matters along with the following staff members: Jeff Fontaine, Deputy Director; Susan Martinovich, Assistant Director of Engineering; Rod Johnson, Assistant Director of Operations; Tom Fronapfel, Assistant Director of Planning; Roger Grable, Assistant Director of Administration; Russ Law, Chief of Operational Analysis; Kent Cooper, Chief of Program Development; Dennis Baughman, Hearing Officer; and John Hall, who was in charge of financial forecasting.

Mr. Stephens said he would like to first review what NDOT was working on. The budget item was very large, which might encourage the committee to ask what the department did with all of that money. Mr. Stephens referred to a fact book he passed out (Exhibit D on file in the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau) and said it addressed everything a person would want to know about Nevada’s highways. NDOT had over 1,600 employees, and the budget totaled over $400 million per year. He thought the committee would see some visible and dramatic results in southern Nevada in the next 3 months. The first phase of Interstate 15 widening would take place in the following 30 days and included the first 7 miles from the airport interconnecter out to Lake Mead Drive going to Henderson. Spring Mountain would be completed in early April and the north-to-west and east-to-south ramps of the Spaghetti Bowl would be completed by early April. Therefore, going to or from "the Strip" to Summerland, there would be a two-lane ramp to go through the Spaghetti Bowl. Travelers would see dramatic improvement in the Spaghetti Bowl just because those ramps were being opened. There were also early completion bonuses of $10,000 per day associated with the ramps. One ramp would be completed and would likely collect the full early completion bonus, which amounted to just under $1 million. The other ramp would be completed on time. A $10,000 per-day penalty could also be charged by the state for every day the work was late, without worrying about going to court. Mr. Stephens said the companies worked very hard to meet those deadlines.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if Mr. Stephens had to get special statutory approval to implement the early completion program. She thought the bidding process restricted some groups or places. Mr. Stephens said that was not the case. Ms. Giunchigliani said she was interested in terms of school construction. Mr. Stephens, as a former manager of the Public Works Board, said he thought that issue was built into the contract. If a contractor thought the state was giving him too much time to complete a project, he would probably apply some of that money to reduce the bid so he would get it. Therefore, there was not much risk on the part of the state to give an early completion bonus.

Mr. Stephens addressed TEA21, and referred to a map (Exhibit E), describing the Transportation Equity Act for the 21^st Century as the biggest piece of legislation to come out of the previous Congress. The Act was passed 9 months late, in June of 1998. He said Nevada was very fortunate to have received the increases in funding which amounted to an extra $70 million a year. By the department’s calculations, the state would get about $200 million a year instead of the $130 million the state had previously averaged under the Intermobile Service Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). When constituents asked about ISTEA projects, they were generally referring to a special subcategory of ISTEA, called enhancement projects, which were spent for non-traditional items like sidewalks, restoring railroad depots and landscaping. Nevada had around $4 million a year it was required to spend on enhancement projects. The 1997 legislature approved one of these projects statutorily, at Crystal Bay. Mr. Stephens said he did not want to get into too much detail on ISTEA unless someone had a detailed question. He said federal funding was very complex, with many rules to work through.

Mr. Stephens noted his customer service program was something he was very proud of, and said his department affected the lives of every Nevadan every day. One of the things NDOT had done was to create new initiatives to improve customer service, including implementing the Freeway Service Patrol. That program cost around $800,000 a year and was included in the budget. The volunteers who drove roadways in vans to help motorists responded to almost 2,500 incidents per month. Among those were 81 accident assists, and the volunteers actually helped the highway patrol by asking questions and helping to stabilize situations. It saved money because it allowed the highway patrol to respond to more critical situations.

Mr. Stephens said the volunteers stopped and helped 35 pedestrians per month. A few years prior Nevada had one of the highest state highway pedestrian fatality rates anywhere in the country on a per mile basis. NDOT had saved at least one pedestrian life, and the person had sent a letter describing how the Freeway Service Patrol saved his life. Pedestrian deaths in Clark County were very high, with 46 deaths in 1996 and 45 in 1997. In 1998, there were only 31. Mr. Stephens said people should not be walking along the freeways, and the Freeway Service Patrol helped with that during peak traffic. He noted the existence of the NDOT website, and said the committee could get weather and road conditions at any of 25 sites in Northwestern Nevada at that address. NDOT also had a highway advisory radio in the Lake Tahoe Basin, which was up and operating, as well as a toll free telephone number.

Continuing, Mr. Stephens referred to Exhibit F, and said the department mentally divided its programs into three categories. One was a maintenance and preservation category, the second a capacity category, and the third a
super-project category. The super projects were those which took many years to finish and required environmental impact statements, buying right of way, and design. The list of superprojects before the committee identified priorities for the department, each to begin construction in the next 4 years. Mr. Stephens observed the list called for $1.4 billion, and some would get special federal funding, while the department would have to sell bonds to finance others.

The Interstate 15 widening, from Las Vegas to the California state line would be started within the following 30 days, and would be open to traffic by the end of 1999. The goal was to have the road ready for New Year’s Eve 2000, which would be a very big deal and a very big traffic jam. He suggested the Monday after the holiday also be made a holiday to help with the traffic returning home. New Year’s 1999 would occur on a Saturday, which allowed Saturday and Sunday to return home, creating worse traffic jams that the 1998 New Year’s which fell on a Friday and gave people more days to get home.

Mr. Stephens said the new Barstow Interchange should be open by the end of 1999, and NDOT was working with California and aiming for fall 1999. Barstow was where Interstate 40 and Interstate 15 joined. Mr. Stephens said it was pretty obvious that it was impossible to bring two interstates, each with four lanes, together and continue them as one interstate with four lanes without having a bottleneck. Reconstructing the interchange would help, but there was still 29 miles of interstate between Barstow and Victorville that would have to be addressed. There was money in TEA21 for that, and NDOT was contributing some of its federal share to that $140 million project, which would not be on line for a least two years. Mr. Stephens said they needed to start those big projects, or they would never get done. That was the whole point of the superproject program.

Mr. Stephens said U.S. 95 was the most crowded freeway in the state. NDOT had done a major investment study, which was supported by all the local governments. NDOT was finishing up an environmental study and attempting to avoid Big Springs, where there were contentious issues being raised. As soon as the environmental impact study was completed, NDOT could start buying right-of-way. Mr. Stephens added there were hundreds of homes, businesses and apartments to address. One of the early phases of the project would be widening the lanes in each direction from Rainbow North to Craig Road. That did not require right of way so NDOT could start that. A new school would have to be built and the students moved from one school to the school next door. It would be necessary to relocate people, so it would be a multi-year project.

NDOT was working on the freeway between Reno and Carson, and had 9 miles left between Winters Ranch and the Mount Rose Interchange. That project was very difficult from an engineering point of view, because it was being built up on the side of a hill, and would have the longest bridge in Nevada crossing Galena Creek in Pleasant Valley. There was a $5 million consulting contract for that area and NDOT was digging holes, to determine out what the foundations looked like. NDOT had bought some of the right of way, and was negotiating to buy more.

Mr. Stephens reported the Boulder City Bypass was moving a little slower and needed to have an environmental study done on it. It was somewhat dependent on the Hoover Damn Bypass, since wherever that bypass came out, one end of the Boulder City Bypass would have to hook up there. An early phase of the Boulder City Bypass would require the construction or extension of Interstate 15 from Henderson to where Interstate 95 went south. There was an interchange between Railroad Pass and Boulder City where 95 and 93 joined. The freeway needed to go at least out to Interstate 95 to relieve some of the traffic. The Railroad Pass area was one of the most bottlenecked four lane undivided highways in the state, and was a big problem. While Boulder City had some control over growth, there were golf courses, railroad museums, and other projects which would affect traffic. Also, traffic between Phoenix and Las Vegas all went across the bridge into Boulder City. NDOT was focusing on some sort of bypass or upgrade of the road in Boulder City, although NDOT did not know exactly how that would look.

Phase One of the Carson City Bypass was already committed to, and NDOT was already doing the design, had the right of way, and was ready to start building bridges there. Phase One took the project from the base of Lakeview Hill to US 50, and would help residents of Dayton, Yerington, and commuters who did not use the Six-Mile Canyon Road from Yerington to go to Reno. Phase Two of the Carson City Bypass, planned for the future, would go from US 50 down to the Tahoe Junction, and NDOT was already working on right of ways and drainage issues. Drainage that came from the first phase ran into the second phase, so NDOT had found it necessary to get involved with drainage and right of way for that project. Funding for design was not yet identified and was a lower priority than the other projects. The Hoover Dam bypass was on a federal reservation, so NDOT did not own or maintain the road across the dam. Arizona and Nevada were working together to get the Federal Government to fix that problem. NDOT should be getting a record of the decision on the environmental statement later in the summer of 1999, which should move the project forward. There was a $41 million appropriation from TEA21 that Arizona received for the bridge, and an additional $4 million both Arizona and Nevada received as a special grant in 1999 to continue with the design of that project. NDOT still needed a lot more money, since it was a $200 million project. With $41 million already committed to the project, NDOT was working on special quota and public lands grants to get the Federal Government to help fund it. Trucking associations were very supportive of the project, and the department might be back before the legislature with some sort of special funding mechanism supported by truckers, because it was such a busy trucking route.

Vice Chair Evans asked about the arguments over right of way on Interstate 580 and US 395. She said some people in NDOT’s drive path were resistant to some of the plans that were published. Vice Chair Evans asked where Mr. Stephens stood on that issue. Mr. Stephens explained during the 1970’s and early 1980’s there was talk about the alignment of the route between Reno and Carson. The 9 miles Mr. Stephens was talking about was just part of the alignment, and they had started building south of Meadowood Mall on the alignment. The alignment was selected, not from an engineering point of view but from inputs from the various people who lived along the route. NDOT wanted to put the alignment to the west of Virginia Street, where there were some homes and ranchettes, but residents were opposed to that. Then NDOT built in a very marshy area, which was why the road was on an embankment.

From Mt. Rose, Mr. Stephens said the department either wanted to go near Callahan Ranch to the west of the mountains, or through Pleasant Valley. There were residents in both areas, so the compromise was a line somewhere between the two, halfway up the mountain. The big bridge would go over the creek that came out of the mountains. Once the alignment got further south, it would drop down and connect into the existing freeway where it would end near Winters Ranch, by the big white farmhouse. It was a very difficult alignment, from an engineering point of view, but represented a compromise with all residents. Since that time, there had been complaints from certain housing developments, but the developers had known in advance where the freeway was going to be. The decision to locate the freeway there was made 15 years ago, so Mr. Stephens said he didn’t know what to say about that. NDOT was also trying to repave Geiger Grade and were experiencing problems with that as well.

Vice Chair Evans asked if there would be more negotiations on the location of the alignment. Mr. Stephens replied St. James Village had signed an inverse condemnation suit against NDOT for $20 million. The suit was because St. James felt its development was affected by the fact the freeway was going to be there. Mr. Stephens said the development was built long after the freeway was designated to be there. One of the conditions for development was St. James had to leave a corridor open for the freeway. Mr. Stephens said those issues would have to be decided by the courts. He added all the land was forestland, and developers decided to build an upscale development, knowing the freeway was going to be there. He thought they went into it with open eyes. The department had been trying to buy their land for a couple of years, but the developers didn’t accept the offers, so they would end up in court. NDOT wound up in court frequently. Vice Chair Evans asked what all the bridging did to NDOT’s lane mile costs in terms of construction. Mr. Stephens answered the project was not cheap, and said it was near $30 million per center line mile on a freeway, which was still cheaper than building in Las Vegas along the strip where the land was almost $12 million per acre.

Mr. Stephens wanted to discuss what NDOT was doing in terms of construction, and started off with the Las Vegas area. He said he thought everyone in Las Vegas had seen what NDOT was doing there. He referred to a large map of Las Vegas which he had brought with him, and talked about Cheyenne Avenue where NDOT was building a bridge that would open its first phase in 1999. The department would build a new bridge and then tear down the old one. The Spring Mountain project would open in early April as well. The trick with the three projects was NDOT was building completely new facilities there, while keeping the traffic moving. Mr. Stephens said the traffic was moving during the day as well as it was before NDOT started the project, when the increased traffic was considered. When the Spaghetti Bowl was completed the public would see dramatic improvements. Mr. Stephens added when the freeway got too crowded, traffic went to the surface streets; then when the freeway was improved they would go back to using the freeway which resulted in a bump in traffic. Therefore, the improvement would not be as dramatic as if somehow the volume of traffic could be kept at 340,000 cars a day. Instead, the first year the Spaghetti Bowl would have 400,000 cars using it.

Mr. Stephens said Clark County, not NDOT, was building the Beltway, but NDOT would take responsibility for the maintenance of it after it was built. Where the Beltway joined at Interstate 15, NDOT was designing the interchange, although heretofore it had been a county responsibility out of the taxes the county collected. Since NDOT was building it, the county would take money they collected locally and apply it to that project, as opposed to applying it to some other project in the valley. There would also be a number of large developments where the Beltway went close near the airport, near Lake Mead. There were no interchanges between the Lake Mead and Blue Diamond Interchange, so NDOT was working with the county to develop some, and hoped those interchanges would be largely paid for by developers. The people who owned the land would profit by the interchanges. NDOT therefore, felt landowners should pay for most of the costs of the interchanges.

In the northwest in the town center, there were four different structures north of Anne Road. NDOT was going to extend US 95 as a freeway there. In addition, NDOT was doing a number of maintenance projects. Mr. Stephens said he had never turned down a maintenance project in Clark County, due to the traffic volumes which gave them first priority in the preservation budget. That was a very defensible way of doing things. He referred to Exhibit G, a map of the state of Nevada, which showed the projects NDOT was working on in the State. Mr. Stephens said in early June it would be difficult to drive to Las Vegas because of six separate projects on US 95, between Schurz and Indian Springs. There would be a lot of construction and that area was one of the most difficult traffic control situations, since there were not very many nearby detours of Nevada roads. Mr. Stephens reported NDOT’s had a very large and ambitious construction program. There was concern that NDOT was paying too much attention to capacity projects, but Mr. Stephens said that was not at the expense of maintenance.

The map for Elko county (Exhibit H) showed the contract projects NDOT had done since 1993, as well as what they were planning for 1999. Mr. Stephens said there were very few sections of road which were not given some sort of major treatment in the county. Not every county was the same, but in every county major maintenance had been done to preserve the good system of Nevada’s highways. There was also major work done on US 50 and US 28. Near Winter’s Ranch, NDOT was trying to construct a median barrier, and put a big drainage structure under the road since there were flooding problems near there in previous years. As soon as NDOT had some construction time, possibly in June, it would be finishing up the median barrier, which was in a very dangerous section of the highway. A median barrier had been placed all the way up Spooner Summit, which was also a very dangerous section of road.

NDOT worked on Geiger Grade in the summer of 1999, but had promised to cease construction between July 1 and September 12 so as not to impact Virginia City tourism. Mr. Stephens said that made the project a little more expensive, but benefited Virginia City and the people using Geiger Grade. Sometimes NDOT would pay more money on construction to reduce inconvenience to the public and for the economic development of the communities.

NDOT was doing major work on McCarran and on Fourth Street in Reno, as well as on the Pyramid Interchange in downtown Sparks which would be done in July. NDOT would break ground for the Clearacre offramp at McCarran in the summer of 1999.

Continuing, Mr. Stephens identified the repeat DUI offender’s mandate which would be coming out of TEA21. If the state did not comply with what the Federal Government wanted, the government would reduce federal highway funds by $1.5 million per year for 2 years, and then $3 million each year after that, which represented a percentage of the state’s highway funding. Basically Nevada had very tough repeat DUI offenders laws, since the state actually sent people to prison. There were 500 people in prison for 1 year for third-time repeat DUIs. Mr. Stephens said that might be as many people who were in prison in the rest of the United States combined. He reiterated most states did not send people to prison for repeat DUIs, but instead had probation, house arrest, and county jail programs. The new federal bill required 5 days of prison or 10 days community service for second-time DUIs, and 10 days of prison for third-time DUIs.

The portion of the mandate the state did not have that the Federal Government was requiring was for second time DUI offenders. The Federal Government wanted those people to have a 1-year hard suspension of their driver’s license, which was different from the Nevada 1-year suspension in which after 90 days the person was allowed to drive to work and back. There was no such provision in the federal law for that, so Nevada would have to eliminate that provision in state law.

The other area where Nevada did not match the federal requirement dealt with vehicles and license plates. Mr. Stephens explained the mandate required either the vehicle to be impounded, the license plate taken away, or an interlock device installed. The interlock device was such that a breath analysis was needed in order to start the car. Nevada did not have that in its law, and would be penalized for it. Those second-time offender laws might have the effect of reducing the number of third-time DUI offenders in jail. If the law was really tough on people the second time, they might not get to the third time. Mr. Stephens said NDOT was proposing this, as opposed to DMV or another agency, because DMV was not the agency that got assessed with penalty fines to the tune of $3 million per year. Legislation was drafted by DMV’s attorney general, and the DMV was supporting what NDOT was doing. Mr. Stephens said he also knew of a number of DUI laws of various types which were being proposed by legislators. He thought maybe the laws could be combined. Chairman Arberry said that would not be desirable because the legislature would want to consider each proposal individually.

Mrs. Cegavske asked if the Federal Government was promoting blood alcohol limit of .08. Mr. Stephens said that was a separate mandate and it did not have nearly the financial penalty as the other mandate. The Federal Government did want the states to limit blood alcohol levels to .08, and there was an incentive bonus for which Nevada would get around $500,000 more a year. Mrs. Cegavske asked why Nevada didn’t go to 0.0 if the goal was to stop people from drinking and driving. She added the 0.8 standard sent the message it was acceptable to drink a little and drive, with which she had a real problem. Mr. Stephens responded that was an area where he did not make the policy. However, Mrs. Cegavske’s bill from the 1997 legislature, which required teenagers to have 50 hours of training before getting their driver’s licenses, was certainly something he appreciated since his son was 15½ years old and would have to take those courses. Mr. Stephens said many of the older schools did not have functioning driver simulators, which he had toyed with the idea of funding.

Mrs. Cegavske said many of the schools had either sold the simulators or given them to other schools. Mr. Stephens said he thought some of the money presently used for traffic safety could be used as matching funds for the school districts to replace or repair some of the simulators. Those machines were very important, in particular those that simulated accidents, since that could not be taught on the road in real life. In the simulators, accidents and mishaps could be simulated but most of the schools couldn’t do that. Mr. Stephens said with all of the safety money the state received in special grants, funding should be provided for that program. Mrs. Cegavske said she would be more than happy to work with Mr. Stephens on that.

Mr. Stephens said the Federal Government wanted the state to limit the blood alcohol levels to 0.8 and was also mandating the changes for repeat offenders. He said he had briefing sheets he would get to Mrs. Cegavske detailing exactly what would be in the law. Mrs. Cegavske said she and the Chair of the Committee on Transportation were recalling in committee in the 1997 session there was discussion of putting highway phones in northern Nevada and in the rural areas. She asked if phones had been set up along any of the northern Nevada roads they had discussed. Mr. Stephens said there was money in the budget to do a call box program, including 28 call boxes located every two miles on Interstate 15 between Las Vegas and Prim. As far as the rural areas were concerned, it looked as if it would be extremely expensive. Mrs. Cegavske said those areas were where the boxes were the most needed, since there was no cellular use there. Mr. Stephens said there were no telephone wires there either and radio transmitters were extremely expensive. Mrs. Cegavske reiterated there was a larger need in the rural areas than on Interstate 15. Mr. Stephens replied there were 500 cars per day on US 50, and 30,000 cars per day on Interstate 15, so the volume of traffic might be a better predictor of need. Mr. Stephens said even if phones were installed on U.S. 50, the response time to the nearest hospital was tremendous.

Vice Chair Evans asked what the effective date of the federal legislation on the 0.8 blood alcohol level mandate was, as well as that on the second-time DUI offenders mandate. Mr. Stephens said the second time DUI offenders mandate was effective October 1, 2000. In other words, the state had to do something during the 1999 session, or they would lose the first $1.5 million.

Mr. Hettrick asked how much money was in the budget for the phone system. He noted that adding phones did not stop fatalities, and there was cellular service available on Interstate 15. The call boxes were also two miles apart, so the cellular phones were faster and would be accessible due to the amount of traffic and people with phones using the road. For that reason, Mr. Hettrick had concerns about spending the money. Mr. Stephens said it was a policy issue the department was certainly willing to take guidance on. There was $500,000 per year in the budget for the program, which was more than NDOT would need. If the Transportation Committee could give NDOT some guidance on where the phones should be, and maybe decide to put up some pay phones at certain junctions, it would help. Perhaps they could subsidize Nevada Bell putting up some phones, for example between Fallon and Eureka, where the only phone was in Austin, which had remained broken for some time. Mr. Stephens said maybe a program could be started, in conjunction with Nevada Bell and the Public Service Commission to install more phones. That was a non-traditional area in which he could use some guidance, he added. Mr. Hettrick said his interest was not to put the phones in rural Nevada, although he agreed the problems of communication were worse on rural highways. He reiterated he was more concerned with the expenditure of money on the Interstate 15 corridor, since so many people had cellular phones.

Mrs. Chowning requested there be more discussion on the phone issue in the Transportation Committee, and said she knew someone who was killed in an accident in Lincoln County, while going to Las Vegas. She felt that was tragic since there was no cellular access or form of communication that would work in the rural areas. Mrs. Chowning thought there was a report that was to come to the committee about radio communication, which she would like to see. She added in terms of the Interstate 15 call boxes, not everyone had cellular phones, which was why it was necessary to have the call boxes. Mrs. Chowning asked if sound walls, which were included in the northwest area of US 95 northwest, were an up-front concept in all of the projects were they were needed, so they would not have to go back and piece-meal the projects later. Mr. Stephens said when the capacity of a freeway was expanded NDOT put in sound walls, and almost the entire length of US 95 would qualify for that. He said it was easier to do the whole road that way. NDOT was not planning to go on to all of the other freeways without the benefit of another project, and just start constructing sound walls. To begin with, it was very expensive to retrofit sound walls, although there was a special appropriation to do sound walls in Henderson. In the 1997 session, Nevada committed $2 million for that purpose, and then got part of the money designated from the congressional delegation. Chairman Arberry thanked Mr. Stephens and asked him to move on to the budget and highlight some of the items which were pressing.

Mr. Stephens brought up the 3.3 percent increase in employees for the department, and referred to Exhibit I, which identified 52 new positions, 26 of which were in Carson City, 22 in Las Vegas, 3 in Reno and 1 elsewhere in the state. Chairman Arberry asked if there was office space for all of those people if the budget was approved. Mr. Stephens said they were modernizing NDOT on a piece-meal basis so as not to interrupt the work done there. Modular furniture NDOT was placing throughout the offices had created extra space, which helped. Also, in the budget, NDOT was moving from the old type of photographic reproduction which created more space. NDOT did a small remodel in the annex and that created more space. Mr. Stephens said there were around 560 people assigned to Carson City, and the budget recommended adding 26 people there. NDOT would have to add an addition to the Las Vegas maintenance shop as part of the department’s capital improvement program for additional buildings to accommodate additional crews.

Chairman Arberry said he knew at times NDOT got complaints about the cleanliness of the freeways around Charleston and Rancho. He asked if additional staff would help NDOT keep the freeways a little cleaner since Las Vegas was such a tourist city. Mr. Stephens said the way NDOT tried to approach cleanup was with Honor Camp inmates, or with contracts. However a new position, which Mr. Stephens personally requested, was a landscape architect. There was no one in the department who had the job of worrying about landscaping and would champion that cause. Although that did not directly answer the question, Mr. Stephens thought that position would create greater emphasis on the cleanliness issue. He said perhaps the department could consider options such as using colored rocks like they used on the Beltway, which looked nice, as opposed to using all lawns and trees.

Mr. Goldwater noted Mr. Stephens had been an advocate for funding Washington D.C. office, and asked if he felt the department was still getting its money’s worth out of it. Mr. Stephens said he did, and even felt NDOT could increase its contribution to that office. The $70 million increase in funding that the department received this year was a result of a concerted effort by the congressional delegation and the people in Washington working for them. Mr. Goldwater asked if the congressional delegation would not have been able to get that money without the Washington office. Mr. Stephens said the delegation relied very heavily on the Washington office and the consultant to provide information.

Mr. Goldwater said he had lived through the 1998 campaign where it seemed to him everyone took credit for increased transportation. Mr. Goldwater said it seemed like a mixed message. Mr. Stephens said he had spent a lot of time in that process and felt the Washington Office was extremely valuable, and were also very valuable in the year to year extra money NDOT received. Practically the only things in the whole federal budget were discretionary funding and transportation. Mr. Goldwater asked if Mr. Stephens had a separate lobbyist. Mr. Stephens said the department had a lobbyist in Washington, and a technical consultant who was a former administrator for the Federal Highway Administration, and was also an engineer. Mr. Stephens said the consultant understood the workings of the Federal Highway Administration and helped NDOT work in applications and interpret the laws. The consultant did not go to any congressional delegations but Nevada’s, and therefore was not a lobbyist. The consultant and the lobbyist worked closely together and with NDOT. Mr. Stephens said having a presence in Washington was extremely important for Nevada.

Chairman Arberry said the committee had noticed there was a 100 percent increase in what NDOT was paying for the Washington office. Chairman Arberry asked Mr. Stephens to talk about that increase, and the justifications for it. He asked why other agencies were not paying for that increase also. Mr. Stephens said NDOT felt the Washington Office spent a lot more time on highway issues then what was allocated before. He said he thought the committee had heard from the Commission on Economic Development the Washington office was not needed as much as it once was. Bob Shriver testified to that also. NDOT used the Washington office a great deal, which was why the department had agreed to the increase. Mr. Stephens said the Washington office was looking at an increase from $86,000 to $106,000 per year. NDOT was going to support the entire inflationary increase in the Washington office, as NDOT’s share of what the office was working on was increasing. Heretofore the costs of the Washington office had been split between three agencies; Commission on Tourism and Economic Development, and Transportation. NDOT felt they were getting a greater share than they were originally, which was why the department had agreed to cover the increase. Chairman Arberry asked if that money was coming out of the Highway Fund. Mr. Stephens answered it was.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the Washington Office would be included in the budgets for economic development and tourism. Mr. Stephens said the increase in the funding recommended for the Washington Office would not be financed by NDOT. Ms. Giunchigliani suggested the committee could ask for the full funding of the Washington office out of the Highway Fund, and take the numbers completely out of the tourism budget. Mr. Stephens said the Committee on Tourism felt the Washington Office was very valuable, but the Commission on Economic Development had concerns. Ms. Giunchigliani said Mr. Stephens had never shown any performance indicators to the committee that the Washington Office had done anything for tourism or economic development. That was something the committee had been requesting. Mr. Stephens said something like two-tenths of 1 percent of the federal money NDOT received went towards both the Washington office and the consultant. That was a very miniscule part of the budget. Ms. Giunchigliani said she couldn’t argue with that, but the committee was trying to get a handle on the consultant’s performance indicators. Chairman Arberry urged Mr. Stephens to take the committee through NDOT’s budget.

Mr. Stephens said the first item was personnel which was always based on the number of positions. He said the budget was driven by the number of personnel authorized for the department, by the extra money NDOT had for design, and for maintenance positions in Las Vegas due to growth. NDOT had two positions in the budget for right-of-way, which was the first time that division had been increased in a number of years. The next category was land and building improvements, which was a cash flow category. The money expended depended on the number of projects, what was under contract, and so forth. NDOT did not spend all of the money in that category unless the project demanded it. All the money was paid outside the department, for example, to right of way, consultants and construction. That amount of money varied from year to year and was driven by the projects and not the budget, unless the legislature wanted to limit it by stopping the projects. The reason the amount of money was so low in FY 1997-98 was the federal TEA21 Act was delayed. The equipment budget was $13.5 million, which was divided into three categories; vehicles, operational equipment and equipment for new positions. The vehicle amount was $7.5 million per year for the 2 years of the biennium. To equip the new positions recommended in the budget, $1 million was requested in the first year of the biennium. The operational equipment category was $5 million for the first year, and $2.6 million for the second. Therefore, the first year of the biennium $13.5 million was recommended which dropped to $10.1 million in the second year. The 1997 session gave NDOT $9 million for vehicles, and NDOT was requesting $7.5 million in the current budget request.

Mr. Stephens said there was no increase in out-of-state travel, instate travel,
out-of-state inspections and audits, or Honor Camp payments. In the area of airplane operations, there were routine costs of about $350,000 per year, in addition to certain maintenance costs, which varied from year to year. NDOT did not limit the maintenance, so when it was time to do something in that area, it was done. He added there was no increase in board expenses, although NDOT might need to approach the Interim Finance Committee in that area. The NDOT Board had indicated it wanted to be more active and meet more often than the previous board, which would cost NDOT a little more. There was no increase in bike path planning, which was funded by 50 cents from the proceeds of each driver’s license. In terms of sales of gas and oil, there was no increase.

Mr. Stephens said the Agency for Nuclear Projects was recommended to receive $400,000 from NDOT in each year of the biennium. That agency had been doing nuclear transportation studies with federal money and wanted to continue those efforts. One of the proposals dealing with nuclear transportation was to offload the nuclear waste in Tonopah and Beatty, and take it around in giant trucks with multiple tractors. There was talk about tearing down the Exchange Club in Beatty so the trucks could make it around the corner. All of that needed to be studied in great detail, so the money would be given to the Agency for Nuclear Projects and that agency would decide where to spend it.

Mr. Stephens said the consultant’s area of the budget dealt with the planning, data processing, legal, audit and human resources consultants. Half of the category dealt with pass-through grants to locals. There was about $3 million in the FY 2000 budget out of $5.7 million for pass-through grants that came from the Federal Government. Planning studies consultants had grown from the actual in 1998 of $359 million to $993 million. That was because of the additional federal money being given to planning under TEA21, some of which went to do planning studies and some to research. Data processing had a fairly significant jump from the current level, much of which was to network new personal computers which were Year 2000 compliant. NDOT would be buying the new computers in advance of 2000, but would be networking them afterwards. Mr. Stephens pointed out a slight increase in the audit division due to federal audit requirements.

Chairman Arberry asked why the level of expenditures for capital improvements had decreased over the last 3 years, given the increase in revenues and in maintenance and construction cost needs. Mr. Stephens answered the capital expenditures category had not actually decreased, but had held the same. Part of that was because NDOT held on to that program before the department knew what the federal funding program would be. Some of the federal funding proposals actually showed a reduction for Nevada, and until the legislature passed the federal funding, the FY 97 year was a "let’s see what is going to happen year," which hurt NDOT a little. Mr. Stephens said the budget was at $288 million in the work program that year, although he did not expect it to rise to that level. NDOT was very optimistic that by the year 2000 funding would be up to the $290 million per year level. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was held up on the Carson Bypass, because of the butterfly, which would have meant NDOT would have been purchasing more right of way by then. The EIS had been held up on US 95, on the northwest corridor in Clark County, because of the Big Springs issue. The $20 million NDOT was going to contribute to the Resort Corridor Frontage Road had not yet been allocated because the resorts had held up their contribution. That included Frank Sinatra Boulevard. NDOT anticipated that right of way cost would be much larger in the next biennium, as NDOT started buying those hundreds of homes. Mr. Stephens said he fully expected, within the next 4 years, to be up to $400 million in that category, if the projects moved along. Mr. Stephens reiterated NDOT did not spend the money unless it needed to be spent. The fact that the legislature gave NDOT a certain amount of dollars did not mean the department tried to spend it in the land and buildings improvement category.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if NDOT’s administrative costs could be broken out from the construction and maintenance costs. Mr. Stephens said NDOT did not have a way to do that since that would mean splitting every one of their accounts into separate categories. NDOT had an administrative overhead where they calculated administrative support costs which he believed was something less than 5 percent. Part of that issue also depended on what the legislature defined as administration, which was an illusive term. Ms. Giunchigliani asked how Mr. Stephens defined it, since NDOT developed performance indicators which indicated they could separate the two costs. Mr. Stephens replied NDOT would define administrative costs the way the legislature wanted them defined. He asked if there was a state definition the legislature wanted the department to use. For example, when he considered a district office, he did not consider administrative costs, since that office would not be there unless NDOT was doing maintenance and construction out in the district. Mr. Stephens considered administration to be the people who were doing the budgeting and overseeing the program at headquarters. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if NDOT just affixed the 5 percent estimation of administrative costs across their budgets. Mr. Stephens said he did an analysis of 1,586 employees, and divided them into maintenance, construction and engineering, administration and right of way, and planning. He figured there were 166 employees devoted to administration, or 10 percent of the work force. That included data processing, accounting, people who prepared the bids, and payroll, to name a few. Mr. Stephens said he considered that a very low percentage considering two-thirds of the budget was spent outside the department. Once anyone started spending a lot of money on consultants, their administration would grow as far as the number of employees went. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if at least Mr. Stephens could take those 166 employees and show the committee a projection of what NDOT’s administrative costs would be. Mr. Stephens said to remember the employees only amounted to around 20 percent of the entire budget. Two-thirds of the budget was items NDOT was actually administering. Mr. Stephens said there were 12 people in Carson City who worked for the Federal Government that watched NDOT and oversaw what they were doing.

Ms. Giunchigliani said maybe NDOT was a little different, and the legislature might have to look at how it defined administration within that context. She suggested NDOT come up with some ideas about how the department defined administrative costs and the legislature could take a look at it so the legislature and the department were not always arguing over the definitions. Mr. Stephens said the second step would be to divide the costs, but that could not be done until NDOT got its computer system modified.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if Nevada had ever looked at putting some kind of strict jaywalking laws in place on Las Vegas Boulevard. Fines could be attached and split between the county and the state. Mr. Stephens said the assumption behind the law, if was going to be a deterrent, was that the people would be aware of the law. It was not likely that tourists would be aware of the law, or that the state would tell them about it as they entered the state. NDOT’s approach had been to put in some barriers and pedestrian overpasses. Ms. Giunchigliani said people could still cross on the sidewalks, which seemed to defeat the entire purpose. Mr. Stephens said if you put sidewalk barriers around the base of the pedestrian overpass, people could not get out on the street, unless they leapt over them. Ms. Giunchigliani said it was the people’s responsibility, but that she also wanted to see the new landscaping protected.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked Mr. Stephens to briefly explain why funding for nuclear projects office was in NDOT’s budget. She was looking at the link between transportation and those projects, and NDOT letting the nuclear projects office decide how the money would be expended. Mr. Stephens said the Nuclear Waste Project Office had been studying transportation for years and had a list of what had been studied and done. Many of the items on that list were the types of transportation NDOT had done, such as transport of goods and people. Mr. Stephens said if Nevada started transporting nuclear waste, there would be a tremendous burden and cost on the highway fund, dealing with ports of entry, and upgrading the highways. It was good someone was reviewing that issue so there was a direct benefit from the Highway Fund. The decision to put money there was an administrative decision, which NDOT did not just make in one day. The types of things the Nuclear Waste Project Office was studying were things NDOT was also worried about.

Ms. Giunchigliani did not question the funding of the program, but wanted to make sure it went in the proper place. She asked what highway projects might not be able to be done with the diversion of those funds. Mr. Stephens said NDOT was moving ahead with every project that it could get designed, through the environmental impact process, and constructed. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if there would be delays caused by moving some of those projects ahead, based on NDOT’s calendar, with some of the diversions of those monies. Mr. Stephens said the moving of projects ahead was not an issue of dollars, but was instead an issue of design and permitting. For example, someone saw one butterfly in Carson City and NDOT’s project was put on hold for a year. That was something NDOT tried to work its way through, but there was no way to force the environmental process, and no way to bulldoze the human issues when the department was trying to do right-of-way and someone wanted to stay in their house a little longer. Everyone needed to have a fair hearing and the larger the project, the more likelihood it would be delayed.

Chairman Arberry asked when the new accounting system would be operational. Mr. Stephens said NDOT was converting to the integrated financial system, which was a challenge. The costs had gone up quite a bit, although NDOT did not determine the costs, since it was allocated its share. It turned out the difficulty of including NDOT in the new system was worse than originally thought. NDOT’s goal was to have the system up and operating by July 1, 1999, but everything was tied to the integrated financial system. There would also be a period of time NDOT would need to work out the bugs in the new system. NDOT had already put some systems on line and could give the committee a full report if they wanted one. Roger Grable had been following that very closely, and NDOT had devoted some very senior people to the project, such as Tom Tatro, head of the Administrative Services Division, which was in charge of NDOT’s efforts. There was a building NDOT owned, full of people who were working on the integrated financial effort on the part of the state. Also, all of the year 2000 compliance issues were connected to that.

Chairman Arberry asked if the new system would accommodate breaking out the department’s administrative costs. Mr. Stephens said it would be possible to do, but that some care should be taken. For example, one thing that came out of the integrated financial system was NDOT was required to do daily time sheets, and the NDOT people usually worked in eight or nine different categories every day. NDOT figured that would add about 15 minutes a day to the time sheet, which, multiplied by 1600, added up to many man years to do it. Therefore, time sheets needed to be done in a manner which allowed for the level of detail needed, without adding man-years in order to get it done. Mr. Stephens said administrative costs could be identified once the new system was up and running, but NDOT would like to negotiate at what level of detail it was done so it would not be extremely burdensome and costly.

Chairman Arberry said his concern was Article VIIII, Section V, of the Nevada Constitution, Section V, Article VIIII, which limited the use of highway funds, except for administration, construction, maintenance and repair of public highways of the state. It seemed NDOT was making baby steps in carving out those dollars, which Chairman Arberry asked Mr. Stephens to address. Mr. Stephens said to get the money, for example for the Washington office, from the maintenance and repair of byways in the state, resulted in a cost. To study and do planning was a cost of the maintenance and construction of highways. By getting money from the Federal Government, it was one of the costs of doing construction and maintenance of the state. If the committee wanted to use a very strict interpretation, which require highway funds to be used only for contracts for road construction design, it would shut down the highway program. That was not the way the Nevada Constitution or the United States Constitution was interpreted; it was interpreted to determine what was needed to achieve the end result. NDOT did those types of things, like studying what was going to happen with the transportation on the highway, worrying about highway safety, and funding the highway patrol. There were a lot of things involved with highways that were encompassed in those very few words, written in the Nevada Constitution.

Chairman Arberry said he understood that Mr. Stephens was saying the Washington office was helping NDOT get funding for the highways, but that brought them back to the issue of performance indicators. NDOT’s performance indicators needed to reflect those offices were performing well. Mr. Stephens responded getting the federal money and having contacts with the Federal Government, through the Washington office, was absolutely essential to NDOT’s program. As far as the Nuclear Waste Project Office went, it was something that had been traditionally funded out of other sources, but funding was currently being requested from the Highway Fund.

Chairman Arberry said if NDOT was not allowed to draw the line, the legislature might have to. Mr. Stephens agreed. Chairman Arberry said that was why the committee was going to need some support mechanism, such as performance indicators, to say that programs were really working before the committee made a decision. At that point, these were all proposals and the committee was looking at all avenues, so saying it was cut and dried was untrue.

Mr. Stephens said it would be impossible to come up with performance indicators for the Washington office and the Washington consultant. As far as the Nuclear Waste Project Office, the committee could outline specific studies or set out tasks for the office to perform. Performance indicators were very difficult to come up with when dealing with things like that. The question was whether or not NDOT was getting the job done for the people of Nevada. Chairman Arberry said the committee wanted to make sure the Washington office was delivering what it were supposed to deliver. The committee was concerned the Washington office was just sitting and not producing, and the committee did not want them in NDOT’s checkbook if that was the case. Chairman Arberry said they just wanted to make sure the Washington office was accountable.

Mr. Stephens made the point that even though it was called the Highway Fund, the money was not sitting in a vault in the basement of the NDOT building. The fund was not NDOT’s fund, as other agencies, such as DMV were funded by the Highway Fund. There was also an allocation from the Highway Fund for the attorney general, and the state library, which Mr. Stephens did not review or pass judgement on. Mr. Stephens said the $400,000 for the office of nuclear projects was a very small amount compared to the DMV budget, which he thought was around $80 million out of the Highway Fund.

Mr. Goldwater said he was bothered that Mr. Stephens said NDOT could not come up with performance indicators for the Washington office. Mr. Goldwater said it was impossible NDOT could not come up with performance indicators for that office. He wanted to know what the person in that office did every day, hour by hour, and week by week. Mr. Goldwater asked NDOT to document what tasks that person did, whether it be lobbying, hosting or meeting. These indicators were very easy to quantify in order to make the performance indicators outcome based. Additionally, although the funding was a miniscule percentage of the Highway Fund, it was all state dollars. The Federal Government had seen fit to prohibit the use of federal dollars for lobbying the Federal Government. Those were all state dollars.

Mr. Stephens said 36 other states had offices in the Hall of States. Mr. Goldwater replied 14 did not have offices there then. Mr. Stephens said some of the states were located near Washington, D.C. and did not have offices there. Mr. Goldwater said there were so many other things the state wanted to do with that $100,000 instead of funding a lobbyist in Washington. If the state was going to fund a lobbyist in Washington, then the committee needed performance indicators, which were possible to develop.

Chairman Arberry said they were trying to get the point across that the committee did not want those funds utilized by other agencies when the funds were really needed for the highways.

Mrs. Chowning asked about bicycle paths and if Mr. Stephens could tell the committee where any present and future paths were going to be. Mr. Stephens said he would be happy to provide that information. Chairman Arberry asked if anyone else wanted to testify on the budget.

Darryl Capurro, of Nevada Motor Transport Association (NMTA), had a couple of concerns about the budget. One concern was it seemed in the past several sessions there was an effort to take highway funds for purposes that were not consistent with Article VIIII, Section V of the Nevada Constitution. One of those was in the request for money to fund the nuclear projects office. NDOT had conducted many studies on the transportation of nuclear waste. That added a concern that the next level of studies was unnecessary or was a bailout of the Agency for Nuclear Projects office budget. At some point, there needed to be concern with the application of the Nevada Constitution with regard to those areas. That would apply to many other areas of the budget, particularly supplementals, to the integrated financial system, and that the department was paying its fair share but nothing more. Mr. Capurro asked the committee to look at the budget for the Transportation Services Authority (TSA). One part of TEA21, which passed, preempted the state from regulating what amounted to a very large part of the bus market. This was an absolute preemption which went into effect in July of 1998. Several years ago, all intra-state freight was deregulated by federal preemption, and prior to that interstate freight had been deregulated.

Mr. Capurro said the committee should look at the potential for eliminating the TSA or combining it with the Taxicab Authority, or something similar. The NMTA saw the efforts of those two agencies as being very similar. For example, the TSA adopted regulations governing taxicabs and limousines that were essentially the same regulations the Taxicab Authority had been operating under for years. In essence, there was an unclear distinction between what the requirements for those two agencies were. There was very little left with respect to regulation in other areas of transportation, other than the requirements for proving insurance, and to respect and abide by the safety regulations of the state. All freight companies operating in Nevada were required to provide that information when they registered with DMV. That function was transferred when freight was deregulated a few years ago. All the elements that were left to regulation could be handled by the DMV, except the area of passenger transportation in taxicabs and limousines. The committee would be hearing more about it due to the federal preemption in the area of buses, over which there was a disagreement. Mr. Capurro said the State of Nevada had preempted a very large portion of the regulation of busing in Nevada from regulation. Mr. Capurro thanked the committee for watching over the Highway Fund and any expenditures outside the intent of the Nevada Constitution.

Mr. Stephens said he wanted to make clear the studies NDOT had done referred to those done on other types of freight, not necessarily with nuclear waste. NDOT had basically looked over the shoulder of the Agency for Nuclear Projects office to see how the office could not complement what NDOT was not involved in. Mr. Price said it would be of interest to the committee to see pictures of the trucks the nuclear planning office was intending on using to transport the waste. Chairman Arberry asked the committee to be mindful of what they requested from agencies so the committee could get through their budgets and bills as quickly as possible.

There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 11:30 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Cynthia M. Cendgagorta

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

___________________________________

Chairman Morse Arberry Jr.

DATE: