The Joint Subcommittee of Ways and Means and Senate Finance on Public Safety, Natural Resources and Transportation was called to order at 7:30 AM, on Wednesday, February 24, 1999. Chairwoman Chris Giunchigliani presided in Room 2134 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List.

ASSEMBLY SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman

Mrs. Vonne Chowning

Mr. John Marvel

Mr. Richard Perkins

Mr. Robert Price

Senator Lawrence Jacobsen, Chairman

Senator Joseph Neal

Senator William O’Donnell

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Chairwoman Giunchigliani called the meeting to order and opened the hearing on Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, Training Division, Budget Account 3775.

John Drew, Acting Director, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV) presented Budget Account 3775 from written testimony (Exhibit C).

Senator Neal stated he did not hear the reason why DMV wanted to split their training from POST and what that would mean in terms of enhancement of the training. Mr. Drew replied the point DMV had tried to make was that with the size of the department and growth in sworn personnel, after 1992 they began to run into conflicts with the basic academy and its ability to provide training. DMV was beginning to chew up 80 to 85 percent and sometimes more of the available slots at the academy thereby causing a problem with some of the rural counties and their ability to send officers to the POST academy. The second issue was that the POST academy curriculum was primarily designed for officers that performed their law enforcement functions within communities. DMV sworn personnel had a slightly different mission. In the Highway Patrol Division that mission was:

• Traffic;
• Traffic Enforcement; and
• Traffic Management.

With Parole and Probation the mission was community custody. The Investigation Division’s mission was just that (investigations) and with Capitol Police it was with patrol and the security of state buildings. Those missions were not necessarily the same type of function a normal law enforcement agency, sheriff or police department performed. The Training Division would give DMV the ability to structure curriculum more specific to its needs and allow the POST academy to continue structuring their curriculum for local agencies.

Assemblyman Marvel asked what the eventual role of POST would be. Mr. Drew replied POST had a couple of different primary functions. Their job was to regulate the training in a basic academy whether that training was given by POST or done in a law enforcement agency with its own academy. POST regulated and audited those outside academies. POST was to provide basic Category I, II and III training to those agencies that did not have the capability to provide the training themselves. Also, POST was to be involved in the continuing education of all law enforcement in the state and through the POST Committee set the regulations and standards for those officers to follow.

Assemblyman Marvel asked if Highway Patrol would have continuing education through POST. Mr. Drew stated any time it was possible to do something in conjunction with POST or any other law enforcement agency in the area of continuing education, more officers could be involved in the training and it was more cost-effective. Highway Patrol would be involved in that respect.

Assemblyman Marvel asked if community colleges offered training similar to what POST provided. Mr. Drew responded they did in the area of the basic academy efforts. The community college in Las Vegas, Western Nevada Community College, the High Sierra Academy in Reno, and the community college in Elko had become involved in the process. Mr. Drew stated a number of community colleges across the nation were involved in similar efforts but there were still some inherent problems in having them conduct all Category I training for the state. Many of the programs were relatively new and the POST Committee had not yet audited any of the community college courses to verify the standard of training provided.
Mr. Drew noted he was not suggesting the courses were substandard, only that there were some standards POST needed to ascertain were being met. Assemblyman Marvel noted his understanding that some peace officers were receiving their Category I certification through community colleges. Mr. Drew stated that was correct.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated she appreciated the clarification as the legislature had funded auditing of community colleges in the past two sessions and asked if Mr. Drew’s statement was that it wasn’t being done, and if so, the subcommittee would need to hear from Mr. Clark regarding why it was not being done when that budget was heard. Mr. Drew reiterated the candidates receiving training through community colleges were receiving certification however, the POST Committee was supposed to perform audits on those colleges just as they did any other law enforcement academies in the state. He understood that was not being done.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani referred to Mr. Drew’s comments regarding the budget to fund a training division and stated DMV had brought the idea before the committee for the past two biennium’s without winning approval. DMV had also taken the idea before the Budget Division twice in the current biennium without winning approval. The Chair commented it was frustrating for legislators to have to keep revisiting issues because the agency had not made their case effectively in prior sessions.

The Chair noted testimony indicated implementation of the division was to improve the quality of training and deliver improved services to the public. The performance indicators did not show any service relationship to the public or to the department. The performance indicators projected 125 peace officers and in year 2000, the basic academy hours would be 100,000 and that jumped to 896,000 in 2001. Chairwoman Giunchigliani referred to page DMV-204 of The Executive Budget at Governor recommendations and asked how many hours DMV predicted each of the 125 officers would be trained. The current requirement was 480 hours of training per individual and the projections would seem to require approximately
800 student hours each. Dennis Kollar, POST Academy Commander, replied the minimum hours for Category I training was 480 hours. The existing NHP curriculum was 23 weeks and the existing curriculum for Parole and Probation varied from 15 to 18 weeks because they were currently sending their candidates to a variety of academies. The Chair stated the current performance indicators did not really reflect actual training hours. She asked what POST was trying to show. Mr. Kollar stated the performance indicators tended to be more workload statistics than performance indicators.

Mr. Kollar indicated POST could include a better breakdown and articulation of how student hours were developed. Chairwoman Giunchigliani said that would be helpful and asked that the agency also include breakdowns by divisions. She added the subcommittee was looking for outcome-based indicators. The Chair noted the "1-5" on the course evaluations performance indicator and asked if the course evaluations only had students checking boxes from 1 to 5. Mr. Kollar replied the evaluation form had a variety of components related to curriculum such as instructors and facilities. Other questions related to overall quality of the course ranging from excellent to poor corresponding to the "1-5" rating. Chairwoman Giunchigliani requested Mr. Kollar to break those out because course evaluations did not give the subcommittee an indication of how students rated curriculum versus facility needs or other areas. Mr. Kollar stated they would be happy to provide the detail requested. The Chair noted if Mr. Drew was stating the purpose of the training division was to improve the quality of training, the performance indicators needed to substantiate the quality of current POST training. Mr. Kollar commented, with its own training division the department would be able to customize their curriculum and tailor training to their individual divisions. Mr. Kollar gave an example that Highway Patrol troopers could receive more training in traffic investigation and traffic control while Parole and Probation could receive training more specific to their function.

Assemblyman Perkins noted if the basic academy requirement was 480 hours, he was struck by the fact the NHP curriculum was 23 weeks. He added most Category I peace officer academies were 16 to 17 weeks. He asked why the NHP academy needed to be so much longer than other basic academies. Mr. Drew said the current structure was for NHP cadets to go through the NLEA academy for
16 or 17 weeks and then they went to a 5 or 6 week NHP specific academy for further training in their traffic, hazardous material and commercial functions. One hope for the training division was to review the 23-week curriculum and see if restructuring the first 16 to 17 weeks of training could scale it down. Currently NLEA tried to provide training in general law enforcement, however NHP troopers only performed many of those functions occasionally.

Assemblyman Perkins stated that explanation did not agree with the performance indicators. Mr. Drew replied as the curriculum of the training division was established, clearly the agency would need to revisit the performance indicators and craft performance indicators more suited to the division’s functions.

Senator Jacobsen stated a concern that rural areas did not have the capability to establish their own academies and relied on POST for that function. He opined more emphasis should be placed on basics and make sure there was uniformity when working under mutual aid situations. Quality was important but the first consideration should be that one training should fit all, especially in the basics. He stated he was not in favor of splitting the training in any manner. He acknowledged each agency had different requirements such as hazardous materials but the basics needed to be complete and uniform. Senator Jacobsen also noted the agency had changed directors 4 times in as many years which translated to a change of goals. Mr. Drew replied it was not the desire of the agency to establish an academy so totally different from what other academies were teaching. He noted DMV would continue to follow POST core training regulations. Beyond that the agency would like to structure further training to meet the department’s missions.

Senator Neal stated he had driven the roads of Nevada for 26 years and he saw the function of DMV similar to what was explained but took the explanation one step further. His observation was that NHP was the direct representative of the state out on the road as well as serving standard law enforcement functions. NHP worked in urban areas as well and should also have proper skills comparable to other law enforcement officers wherever the troopers served in those settings.
Mr. Drew agreed the officers of Highway Patrol, Parole and Probation, and Investigations did need to have broad-based skills. In rural areas especially, officers were often called upon to back up local law enforcement units.

Mr. Drew asked Ray Sparks, Deputy Director, Public Safety, with his historical knowledge of previous sessions, to comment. Mr. Sparks commented for the record of the historical evolution of the department’s attempts to establish training divisions. In 1992 then-Director Weller consolidated the POST academy with the Highway Patrol Academy to create the Nevada Law Enforcement Academy. In subsequent sessions the department attempted to formalize that organizational unit as a training division. In the statutes enumerating the divisions of the department the NLEA was not specifically recognized.

Mr. Sparks specified the current proposal was a little different in that it was attempting to undo what was done in 1992 and to allow the department to have its own law enforcement training program again.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani noted she and former director Weller had several differences of opinion concerning some of his proposals and he also made unauthorized changes after the legislature adjourned sine die. The legislature wanted to do what was best for the state, the officers and within the budget. She noted the continued debate she had heard was whether or not POST allowed training slots to be available for rural agencies. The agency had yet to provide sufficient justification for establishment of a separate training division. She asked how many POST slots DMV was taking that did not allow access to rural agencies for proper, timely training. Mr. Drew replied that generally speaking the NLEA academy had between 50 to 52 slots in each session. DMV was taking
80 to 85 percent of those slots. In one instance they had even taken 97 percent of available slots.

The Chair asked for clarification of how many local officers did not receive their training because DMV had taken up so many slots. Mr. Kollar replied the maximum numbers of students NLEA could accommodate was 52. On average DMV utilized about 60 percent of the slots by POST calculations. On one occasion an academy had 49 students and 42 of them were DMV cadets. The standard procedure was to reserve 30 of the maximum 52 slots for DMV which allowed 22 slots for local agencies and other state law enforcement agencies. Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if that was both academies, POST and NLEA. Mr. Kollar replied to get to the heart of the question, the real issue was how many other agency personnel were compelled to wait for another academy or go elsewhere for their training. The average was that 6 to 10 cadets per academy were turned away. The Chair asked for actual statistics on how many seats were available, how many cadets on a monthly basis over the past year had not been able to access the training, and were the cadets rural or urban. She explained that would help legislators to understand what the root of the problem was and the actual needs. She asked for confirmation that the NLEA conducted at least two academies per year and
Mr. Kollar agreed.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked what was preventing NLEA from meeting the needs of law enforcement agencies for training. She specified:

• Was it the administration;
• How the academy determined what seats were available; or
• Who was available.

Mr. Kollar replied the maximum of 52 students was predicated on the fact there were only 52 dormitory beds available, the number of people who could be put on the firing range at one time, the number of cars available, and the number of people placed in a classroom to still maintain a reasonable instructor/student ratio.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated actual statistics supporting those limitations were needed because testimony indicated an average. She also asked who made the determination to set aside 30 seats for DMV rather than allowing those seats to be available for rural cadets. Mr. Kollar stated he would attempt to get the requested information. Mr. Kollar noted the academy had not historically tracked the number of people who tried to get into an academy and were refused entry. Those candidates were placed on a priority waiting list for the next academy. The staff had recently begun tracking that kind of information.

The Chair stated the subcommittee must decide whether a need existed if cadets were placed on a priority waiting list and could also be certified through community colleges. Mr. Kollar stated experience showed those placed on a waiting list did not obtain training elsewhere but waited for a NLEA academy.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani noted Mr. Drew had responded to a question by Assemblyman Perkins that the performance indicators could be developed as the plan was developed. She asked if a plan existed. Mr. Drew replied that he did not mean to convey the thought that the agency did not know what it wanted to do. But, as they went through and developed the program the department would like the ability to modify the performance indicators to more closely resemble what they were doing. The Chair explained the subcommittee acknowledged the inception of a new administration and the short time frame available to create a budget, but DMV staff must also create a budget that properly reflected the needs of the people of Nevada and not just give a pool of funding to an agency.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked Acting Director Drew to confirm if the Genesis Project had a training component and whether the training division would duplicate that. Mr. Drew replied the training division as it was proposed was strictly for sworn officers on the public safety side. He recalled his opening comments and referred to the business plan presented in Exhibit D that the agency should have a training division which provided training for all employees throughout the department. The agency would use the same methodology with the rest of the department as used with the public safety side. That methodology would be to identify those training components and individuals scattered throughout the department involved in training and transfer them to the training division. In other words they would consolidate existing services. Once Genesis training was completed, that aspect would go away or sunset. However, one or two individuals would be assigned to Genesis training. In future legislative sessions the same methodology would be followed in requesting those positions be transferred to the training division of the department.

The Chair stated legislators were under the impression that Project Genesis proposed a training unit of not just one or two people, but an actual unit.
Mr. Drew stated strongly that the recommendation was under Budget Account 3775. Genesis would stay on the motor vehicle side of the department and the training division specified in Budget Account 3775 would supply public safety training only. The Chair recalled Mr. Drew’s earlier testimony that the ultimate goal would be to move into the civilian area of the department training needs. Mr. Drew replied the agency was not trying to create a justification but was trying to consolidate the training within the department. Existing resources would be moved to the training division. He gave an example of Highway Patrol giving training on defensive tactics could be opened up to other divisions such as Parole and Probation or Investigations.

Senator Neal referred to the business plan, Attachment A of Exhibit D which showed an organizational chart. He noted the budget showed eight positions in the division and the organizational chart showed nine. Mr. Drew explained the organizational chart showed nine positions and accounted for the Administrative Aide he had referred to earlier to be transferred from Highway Patrol, and stated that information had been inadvertently left out of the budget. Mr. Drew requested the position be included in the final budget.

Senator Jacobsen stated he was confused. In his service on the subcommittee he had understood communication was the goal of Genesis, not law enforcement. Some things were outside the jurisdiction of the training division and Senator O’Donnell agreed. Mr. Drew replied Genesis was a part of the motor vehicle side of the department and there was no attempt to commingle that with the basic academy. He added it was not unlike any other major law enforcement agency in the state that had its own training bureau.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani said it was her understanding that nearly all Parole and Probation cadets went to community colleges for their basic training and asked for actual figures on how many that represented. Mr. Kollar replied the majority of Parole and Probation cadets attended Southern Nevada Community College or Truckee Meadows Community College, however an average of three to five cadets attended the NLEA academy. The Chair requested the subcommittee be provided with exact numbers and what divisions were actually attending what training academies.

The Chair asked the Budget Division to address the errors in Budget Account 3775 and what others were yet to come to light. Mr. Drew replied it was his understanding that all the adjustments but the ones he had referenced in his testimony of step and grade in the transferred positions, and the one position that was missed were the only necessary adjustments. Chairwoman Giunchigliani referred to Budget Revisions 33 and 76 and asked if those were the only amendments affecting Budget Account 3775. Carol English, Budget Division responded they were still working on a couple of revisions that affected the Investigations budget transfer module. The Parole and Probation and Highway Patrol modules should be complete. Those still to be resolved were the transfer modules between the NDI and Parole and Probation and training division budgets. Any adjustments would be made in the revenue neutral modules in General Fund budgets.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani requested the impact of cost allocation on the General Fund, Highway Fund and Other Funds based on the training division. Ms. English replied the proposal for the current biennium was to include the public safety side only, and in the future if the department decided to expand the division to the non-sworn side then the cost allocation would have to be expanded. The Chair replied agency testimony indicated the ultimate goal was absolutely to expand the training division to the non-sworn side, so the subcommittee needed to know whether the Budget Division was asking for a commitment of another budget next session based on what was done in the current budget process. Mr. Drew stated he was not sure the agency would be asking for a budget increase in 2 years but would be looking at what resources were currently available that could be transferred to the training division. He added that was not to say the agency would not be before the legislature or the Budget Division asking for an increase in the training budget. The Chair reiterated every budget during the current session seemed to be taking funds out of the Highway Fund and the subcommittee needed to know how the costs would be allocated.

John Drew stated the training division would have the capability to track the number of Highway Fund cadets versus those who were General Fund cadets and how the funding was expended. The Chair asked if there were currently any projections. Mr. Drew replied when developing the enhancement modules the department looked at how many cadets were from each budget and came up with rough percentages of personnel and operating costs. The Chair requested a copy to provide a "snapshot in time."

Senator Neal asked if overall training had changed in areas such as threat assessment linked to events such as the Oklahoma City bombing and others.
Mr. Drew agreed. He added any time there was a "critical incident" it must be reviewed in light of whether the officers were properly trained to respond and if they were not, why, and what could be done to correct it. That was an ongoing process. It involved not only basic training but continuing education as well.

Senator Jacobsen commented legislators were pulled in a number of directions but basically they wanted to apprehend the violators or those people who broke the law. Another important consideration was to offer officers protection and training as well. Mr. Drew replied the safety of officers and safety of the public was incumbent on the training provided by the department.

Senator O’Donnell commented on the growth over the 15 years he had been a legislator. He stated he was encouraged that the DMV had come forth to split the training units and provided training geared specifically to the Highway Patrol. He added the legislature could scrutinize the budgets as much as they wanted but Senator Neal had it expressed it very well. The Highway Patrol officers were the first impression that individuals often received.

Assemblyman Perkins asked Mr. Drew to provide numbers of individuals from the non-Highway Fund positions involved to ensure the funding followed the position. Mr. Drew replied the department would provide the information. In development of their presentation DMV staff had looked at the current attrition rate of Parole and Probation officers which was 34 officers per year and they added the Governor’s recommendations for additional staff. Investigations had a vacancy rate of three per year.

Assemblyman Perkins asked if the 80-85 percent of cadets currently served by POST were no longer served by POST, how large POST academies would be and would it still be efficient to run them. Mr. Kollar replied the POST budget was prepared as a status quo budget but contained a contingency module that covered the eventuality of DMV creating its own training division. POST had prepared some performance indicators relative to the split. In the first year of the biennium POST projected training of approximately 35 Category I officers in only 1 academy. POST would also hold 1 Category II academy approximately 7 weeks long with approximately 20 officers trained. POST also anticipated running two Category I academies a year down the road with about 25 cadets each. Mr. Kollar testified his prediction of 60 percent of cadets being from DMV was fairly accurate and when that workload was removed, the resources DMV had loaned to POST went away as well so the remaining training officers at NLEA would be the same cadet/instructor ratio as at the present time.

Assemblyman Perkins said the heart of the matter was that the legislature was presented a POST budget of $1.1 million that was projected to continue. The DMV training division would create another budget of approximately $800,000 to split the two divisions. He agreed with Senator O’Donnell’s comment that Highway Patrol officers needed to be as professional and well trained as possible because of their public contact and safety. The nexus of the original proposal were complaints from the rural law enforcement agencies that POST was either full or all the classes were being offered only in Carson City. Mr. Perkins added the legislature could not continue the program status quo and throw more money at the problem. The training must be funded as efficiently as possible.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani said looking at the budget and projections it appeared the workload of POST would be cut by 40 to 60 percent and yet the budget was only reduced by $19,000. Mr. Kollar replied the POST function included the NLEA program and continuing education and certification. Within that program were the DMV responsibilities that had been largely supported by on-loan staff and resources. The POST budget in and of itself did not truly reflect the cost of running the program currently. Included should be the salaries of three Highway Patrol troopers, building maintenance paid for by Highway Patrol, and others. The Chair asked for a breakout of the total costs including salaries. She stated the matter came down to a cost of about $7,000 to train a cadet through POST versus $2,000 to train a cadet through a community college. Maybe there needed to be offsets in costs or different charges to be made and if the offsets were shifted it would have a significant impact on the rural counties.

Senator Neal asked if POST taught constitutional law. Mr. Kollar replied affirmatively. He added it was taught by Rhonda Clifton, deputy attorney general. Senator Neal asked if POST taught police procedures and Mr. Kollar stated they did. It was a broad topic with specific topics taught by a variety of officers. The Chair stated a list of POST training classes had been provided two legislative sessions ago and suggested that might be helpful.

Ray Sparks responded to Assemblyman Perkins’ concerns stating the budget proposal before the subcommittee was for no new money and was an actual reduction in costs from the currently combined training programs. The proposed training division would take existing resources from Highway Patrol, Division of Investigation, and Parole and Probation and consolidate them to form the training division. There was some additional General Fund cost because Parole and Probation had not been funded to provide all their basic training, however that was offset by reductions in other areas. The POST budget was reduced if the training division was funded but by a fairly small amount.

Mr. Sparks agreed with Assemblyman Perkins that the combined training academy of POST and DMV was a noble experiment that had not worked out. As noted earlier, the sheriffs and chiefs were not happy with the service through POST and the department was not happy with the training its officers were receiving. As a means to address that problem, the agency had proposed the DMV training division and to have POST continue to provide training for rural law enforcement officers.

Assemblyman Perkins thanked Mr. Sparks for the explanation but added subcommittee members were struggling with the fact that with any budget there had to be a road map to figure out where funds were coming from and going to. In Budget Account 3775 he acknowledged the transfer of officers and other efforts to maintain a flat budget but just in the E-375 enhancement module there were General Fund appropriations being added that equated to "new money." He requested the department to provide details of how the transfers were to occur and how the bottom-line added up to the same as, or less than what was currently funded. Mr. Sparks replied they would do so and noted the budget was complicated because of all the transfers and reductions in other areas to offset the General Fund appropriations.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked Mr. Sparks to also provide why the agency originally requested $1.2 million but the Governor only allocated $862,000 and what was left out. Mr. Drew stated when the agency first proposed a training division budget there were new positions requested to conduct continuing education and other duties. But because there was no new money available the positions were cut. The Chair asked how many positions were cut and stated the reality was that even though the budget was supposed to stay flat the agency had felt new positions were necessary for the program. Mr. Drew replied the positions were civilians who would be used in records and other functions.

Assemblyman Price asked if the agency followed new technology that might be of assistance to officers especially in the rural areas. Mr. Drew replied the divisions were continually looking at new technology in all areas and resources permitting, the department tried to stay abreast of new technologies.

The Chair closed Budget Account 3775 and opened the hearing on Budget Account 3816.

Marvin Carr, State Fire Marshal, introduced Dave Drew, Chairman of the Fire Standards Training Committee and Ron Pierini, Chairman of the State Fire Marshal’s Advisory Board.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked Mr. Carr to cover the following issues in his presentation:

• Performance Indicators – none of the indicators reflected outcomes;
• Whether or not a fee increase was built into the budget;
• How many school facilities plans checks were performed;
• Did the agency do on-site reviews or what type of interlocal agreements were in place with local fire departments; and
• To speak to licenses and fees and what was driving increases in that portion of the budget.

Assemblywoman Chowning asked Mr. Carr to indicate how the recommendations from the Clark Commission were being addressed because she saw none of those recommendations reflected in the budget. There were five positions recommended because of the tragedy and yet she noted a decrease in positions in the budget.

Assemblywoman Chowning asked Mr. Carr to provide information on what was generating the projected license and fees increase and in the area of plans checks what would happen if the construction industry experienced a slowdown. She noted the division seemed to have difficulty maintaining a stable revenue source.

Mr. Carr stated Budget Account 3816 basically remained status quo. To answer the question concerning fees, there were no anticipated fee increases in the budget.

One significant feature of Budget Account 3816 was that the agency could fully fund the budget from fees with only a minimal $1,000 appropriation from the General Fund. Mr. Carr stated in the past, the legislature and Budget Division had provided "start-up" money from the General Fund. The agency felt that if the plans review remained stable, they should be able to maintain the status quo and not impact the General Fund.

Mr. Carr stated one reason for the change was the agency had completely reorganized their plans review process. Plans were completed more quickly and were gaining business because they were performing better.

Mr. Carr stated the budget reflected an increase in travel based upon the fact the State Fire Marshal’s office was without a fire marshal for over a year. That position was filled as well as one deputy position and the travel increase came because it was important to get into the rural areas and do a better job there. He added the State Fire Marshal had not traditionally concentrated on the rural areas as much as mandates required. They were limited in staff and needed to keep their inspectors in close proximity to the offices in Carson City and Las Vegas, to conduct inspections in state-owned buildings.

Assemblyman Marvel asked Mr. Carr how much latitude his office gave local building inspectors acting as deputy fire marshals under interlocal agreements.
Mr. Carr replied the local inspectors were given a great deal of freedom providing they met the interlocal agreement requirements for qualified inspectors, however the State Fire Marshal’s office still conducted inspections of all state-funded buildings, health care facilities, and schools. Local inspectors did inspections on smaller businesses under guidelines from the fire marshal’s office. If code violations occurred the local inspectors were required to work with the fire marshal’s office to determine an acceptable alternative.

Assemblyman Marvel asked for confirmation of whether the local inspectors helped the fire marshal’s office in administering their job and Mr. Carr agreed. Assemblyman Marvel asked if most counties had qualified inspectors. Mr. Carr replied as the population and construction industry increased the counties would have to keep pace.

Assemblyman Marvel asked what the status was in Lyon County. Mr. Carr explained Lyon County, through their interlocal agreement had a contracted fire protection engineer who performed their plans reviews.

Assemblyman Marvel asked if any counties had opted to hire their own fire marshal. Mr. Carr replied that in counties with a population of less than 35,000 if the county developed their own system, the state agency would work with them through an interlocal agreement.

Chief Jim Reinhardt, East Fork Fire and Paramedic District, Douglas County responded his agency was one of three jurisdictions that had an interlocal agreement with the State Fire Marshal’s office. Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked what other agencies had such an agreement. Mr. Carr replied there were interlocal agreements between the state agency and Douglas County, Lyon County and the City of Elko.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked Mr. Carr to explain the difference between the interlocal agreements for actual fire marshal services and those agreements with some school districts. Mr. Carr replied the State Fire Marshal’s office was responsible for inspecting or initiating inspections of all schools. If local governments did not have the local expertise, his office provided those services. The schools were typically inspected by the state. The Chair asked how often each school was inspected and Mr. Carr replied hopefully that was done on an annual basis but he could not positively say that was happening. Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked with the growth of schools, how many plan reviews were requested and completed and what types of compliance checks were made. Mr. Carr replied his staff would review those compliance issues or they would contact the local fire authority and request the follow-ups be done locally. The Chair added at that point the process seemed to blur. She noted in the school where she taught a monthly fire drill was conducted by the local fire department but that was different than an actual review for fire safety. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated she never recalled seeing anyone walk through her school to do a review in the 20 years she had taught there. Mr. Carr replied it was very difficult in that area of the state to conduct the necessary reviews and the local fire jurisdictions would conduct reviews on the agency’s behalf. The Chair noted there should be some accountability to the State Fire Marshal covering that responsibility.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if a person wanted to request a review of a specific building how should it be done. Mr. Carr replied the person could contact the State Fire Marshal’s office and the person in authority in the local jurisdiction would be contacted or the state agency would do it themselves. The Chair asked what feedback the State Fire Marshal’s office received and Mr. Carr replied a copy of the report would be sent to his office. Ms. Giunchigliani followed by asking what authority the fire marshal had to enforce a change. Mr. Carr replied a sworn deputy could be sent to enforce needed changes.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated many counties used portable classrooms in their schools that did not have ramp access in and out of the buildings and asked what position the fire marshal’s office took on that issue. Mr. Carr replied the fire marshal’s office did not address American’s with Disabilities Act requirements specifically unless they affected the entrance or egress in fire safety.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani noted the budget reflected plans checks were down and yet fees were up and asked what was driving the budget. Mr. Carr replied the building plans review fees were generated by new construction. Interlocal agreement funds were shared with local agencies. Local agencies had adopted their own fire code standards that must be at least as stringent as state standards.

The Chair asked who was liable if a review was signed off by a local jurisdiction. Mr. Carr replied the local jurisdiction would be liable. The state agency had liability in the 15 smaller counties.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated licenses and fees in the budget for 1999 were projected at $317,806, in year 2000 jumped to $440,067, and in 2001 went to $503,669. She stated in the budget the agency request was for a
$3.5 million budget, however, the Governor’s recommendation was $1.3 in each year of the biennium. Mr. Carr replied the agency had asked for eight additional inspectors to cover the issues the Chair had been discussing.

Assemblywoman Chowning asked what was contained in unfunded decision unit 999. The unfunded budget request was for $1.9 million and $1.8 million respectively in each year of the biennium with no explanation. She asked what those funds had been intended for, the justification for the request, and why it was cut. She asked how much of the unfunded unit funds represented the eight positions that had been requested. Mr. Carr stated he would provide the information.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if decision unit 999 included the proposal to combine with the hazardous material budget that had not been approved. Mr. Carr replied it was. The Chair directed Mr. Carr to provide subcommittee members with a breakout of the 999 category, the actual cost of the eight positions removed from the budget request by the Governor, and a justification of duties assigned to the eight positions.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked Mr. Carr to refer to a 1981 funding study to stabilize sources of funding and last session she had asked the agency to review the bulletin and make recommendations. Mr. Carr replied the study was S.C.R. 23 of the 1979 Legislative Session and was reflected in the Administrative Budget Account 3834.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked Mr. Carr what was the current charge for a plan review. Mr. Carr replied the fee schedule was part of the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) and was based on square footage. The Chair asked if that fee structure was adequate or whether other combinations should be considered.
Mr. Carr responded he felt the fee structure was adequate. He added fees ranged from $250 up to $5000. The Chair asked why plans reviews had gone down and yet fees and licenses had gone up. Mr. Carr replied the figures were confusing but he explained before reorganization of the fire marshal’s office in the past few months there were a lot of old plans, but since that time plans reviews had been brought up to date, decreasing plans review time to 20 to 25 days for larger plans and 5 or 6 days for smaller plans. That created a jump in plans reviews that really was not indicative of the overall picture. Future revenue would show a reduction because plans reviews were now being processed as they arrived.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani noted plan review projections were based on a
14 percent increase while revenue was projected to increase by 38 percent in
FY 2000. Mr. Carr stated the projections were based on new state buildings and the fact that several school bond issues passed in the November 1998 elections.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked what kind of revenue was generated through licensing of the fire protection industry. Mr. Carr replied the agency projected revenue in the FY 2000 of $440,000. The Chair asked what the projections were based on and Mr. Carr responded it was based on an increased number of businesses. The Chair directed Mr. Carr to provide the subcommittee with the increase in number of businesses from 1998 to 1999 and what fees were charged.

Senator Jacobsen noted he, Senator Neal and Mr. Carr were a part of the initial fire study in 1981and some of the recommendations had still not been adopted. He asked if some of the recommendations were still viable or whether another study should be conducted to update the issues. Mr. Carr replied the review of S.C.R.23 of the 1979 Legislative Session had basically addressed what was done during the Henderson Pepcon explosion. Those recommendations were reviewed jointly by both fire boards as directed and their subsequent recommendations were considered when the eight additional inspectors were requested.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani referred to the agency performance indicators for state building inspections which indicated an actual of 150 and projected to go to 175 in 1999, 225 in year 2000 and 250 in 2001. She asked how many state buildings there were. Mr. Carr said he would research the question. The Chair asked for further details on licensed facility inspections, number of schools, and asked
Mr. Carr to provide how many inspections were requested versus how many were actually performed. She stated her appreciation of the huge backlog that had been brought current. She requested Mr. Carr to provide how the performance indicators would be affected if the eight inspectors had been brought on board.

The Chair noted the major issue in the budget was one of a policy or statutory change that would allow the agency to maintain or establish a reserve. Mr. Carr replied the agency would receive "start-up money" from the General Fund and then at the end of the fiscal year the funds were returned, sometimes in excess of what was provided at the beginning of the fiscal year. He expressed the opinion of the agency was that the budget could be maintained through their fee structure and in a manner of speaking, they could control their own destiny and not require funds from the General Fund each budget year.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani agreed the legislative goal was to get the fire marshal’s office to be a self-supporting agency, however, everyone needed to remember that the construction industry was a "boom and bust" industry. The budget needed to anticipate changes otherwise the changes might result in a fee increase. She asked if the schedule review proved reasonable or whether there were changes that could be made in how plan fees were collected or charged. She added that portion of the budget would need to be assessed to see if there were other methods which could be crafted to provide the fire marshal’s office with startup funding. She stated her intention to work with staff and Senator Jacobsen to devise a plan different than having it reserved or set up in the manner suggested by the Budget Division.

The Chair confirmed Mr. Carr’s testimony to state there was no plan check fee increase, but the large numbers of facilities were driving the revenue projections. Mr. Carr agreed.

Roy Slate, Board of Fire Services, testified the Chair’s comments were very refreshing. As a 5-year member of the Fire Services Board he had stated time and again that Nevada Revised Statutes obligated the State Fire Marshal’s office to do certain things. He had suggested the agency ask for appropriate resources to accomplish those tasks. Through the state budget process the agency was trying to suggest to legislators what might be an appropriate increase without creating friction. He added the legislators seemed to be suggesting the agency honestly portray the needs of the office to accomplish the statutory obligations. He suggested the legislature might be very surprised.

Mr. Slate addressed Senator Jacobsen’s comment regarding S.C.R. 23 of the 1979 Legislative Session. He stated that report suggested the same thing, provide the resources necessary to accomplish those objectives. It wasn’t as easily done as stated. Through the process of the Fire Services Standards and Training Committee and the Board of Fire Services review of the report, they had tried to make those suggestions and Fire Marshal Carr’s original budget request reflected those efforts at least to a reasonable degree. Assemblywoman Chowning’s earlier request to see what the original proposals were would give legislators a better picture of what those obligations were.

Assemblywoman Chowning stated forcefully that the fire marshal inspections translated into life safety for all citizens. The performance indicators did not provide the necessary picture. The subcommittee preferred to see activity versus revenue and the total number of inspections possible if they had appropriate staff. She asked what percentage of the total the agency was able to accomplish and what percentage was desirable if the positions were available.

The Chair added that as things had been shifted into interlocal agreements, the local agencies kept the plan check fees and Mr. Carr agreed. She hoped the agency had looked at the collections. Mr. Carr assured her the agency had.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if a flat fee was charged under fire safety for fire extinguisher checks. Mr. Carr replied the fire extinguisher services were licensed annually at a flat fee. The Chair asked what the fee was and how long ago, if ever, it had been increased. Mr. Carr replied to his knowledge the fee had not been increased in a long time. The Chair commented that was an area that should be looked at because to justify staff needs there might be areas that should be properly increased and if that were the case it might directly translate into the safety issue of making sure staff was adequate. Mr. Carr agreed.

Senator Neal said, if he was correct, the agency testified it would need additional authority to carry out its mission. He stated he had reviewed the agency mission statement and the statutory authority in the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). He was disturbed because the agency was part of the life safety community of the state and should not have to collect funds to become self-sufficient to provide safety. Senator Neal said NRS 477.010 through NRS 477.250 seemed to provide adequate authority to meet that particular obligation. The legislature’s function was to find the means to keep the agency functioning. The Chair was referring to a budgetary policy change not a statutory policy change. Mr. Carr responded that the fire marshal’s office had sufficient authority for its mission but was restrained by the fact they were fee-generated and they did not generate enough fees to do the job properly. Mr. Slate concurred with the response and stated there was plenty of authority but not enough resources.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if the agency had authority to increase fees it needed or whether further statutory authority was needed. Mr. Carr replied regulations in the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) would need to be revised.

Senator Jacobsen asked Mr. Carr to update the subcommittee on the Storey County explosion and its aftermath. He noted at the time it happened there was criticism of the agency. Mr. Carr responded the issue was addressed somewhat in Budget Account 3834 but he would try to provide more detail. The Mustang explosion occurred in a county that was not under the authority of the State Fire Marshal. The authority was present only if they were asked to assist. Mr. Slate interjected a similar situation had occurred in his jurisdiction of Washoe County, Truckee Meadows Fire Protection District. The scope of the Clark Commission was statewide and he had testified extensively. It was noted there that the State Fire Marshal would be the jurisdiction in the more rural counties in terms of enforcement. The point was made that a number of those types of hazardous facilities in rural areas might not be getting adequate enforcement.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if the fire marshal’s office had the authority to issue a cease and desist order to shut down a facility found to be unsafe. Mr. Carr concurred except in the counties in which the fire marshal had no authority. Those counties were Carson City, and Clark and Washoe Counties. The Chair asked for clarification that the fire marshal had no authority at all in those counties. Mr. Carr replied unless they were asked for assistance they had no authority except for schools because schools were a separate political subdivision. The Chair asked what statute limited that authority and also the NAC references that covered the fire marshal’s office.

Assemblywoman Chowning asked if the fire marshal’s office had authority in Nye County and Mr. Carr replied affirmatively.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani noted the agency had previously had six plans examiners but the budget only authorized five and asked Mr. Carr to explain. Mr. Carr explained at the beginning of the budget process the agency requested funding for six plans check examiners but one was eliminated early on.

Senator Neal stated during the 1973 Legislative Session the fire marshal’s authority was limited in some counties including Clark County. Mr. Carr reminded the subcommittee that they still had authority in those counties with interlocal agreements for state buildings, schools, health care facilities and child care facilities.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated a budget revision was needed on the module containing the plans examiners’ training because the funding was not backed out to reflect the change. She asked if the agency would still maintain their rate of review without filling the sixth position. Mr. Carr replied the position was eliminated in the re-organization but the five remaining should be sufficient for the workload. The original position in the budget request was for a fire protection engineer and despite the agency’s best efforts the position could not be filled at the allocated salary.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked Mr. Carr to provide staff with justification for the vehicle purchases shown in the budget requests. She noted many agencies purchased older vehicles and then came back in the next budget cycle with a request to purchase new vehicles. The agency was allocated five new vehicles in the 1997 Legislative Session and two more were being requested in the current budget.

Senator Jacobsen asked the agency to provide information on accounts receivable, especially any outstanding accounts. The auditors were developing a list on all agencies to determine an approximate total of outstanding accounts. Mr. Carr replied they no longer had outstanding receivables after the reorganization of the plans review process. Through that process all outstanding accounts were collected and payment had to accompany an application for plans review. The change also accounted in part for the jump in plans review fees.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked Mr. Carr to explain the callback procedure for emergencies. Mr. Carr responded that traditionally a callback list was provided to Nevada Highway Patrol and staff was called in that particular order. Pay for callbacks was in the form of compensatory time. On occasions when revenue was left at the end of a funding cycle, those who had callback time on the books were offered an opportunity to exchange compensatory time for salary.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani said procedures seemed to suggest that vehicles were being used for commuting versus callback, which was not an accepted use of the vehicles. Mr. Carr replied, currently the only people taking vehicles home were sworn deputy fire marshals and they were on call. They all took vehicles home because of the geographical separation of the deputies’ areas. The Chair asked how often deputies were called back. Mr. Carr stated 120 arson fires were investigated in the previous fiscal year. He added another contributing factor was a deputy often left from his/her residence to travel to another part of the state. The Chair stated the budget contained no justification to support take home vehicles. Arson fires might have occurred but there was no documentation to show those resulted in callbacks. Up to 30 percent of total mileage was incurred in commuting to and from work. The Chair recalled in the last legislative session one investigator was to be designated for callbacks and that position was allowed to take a vehicle home. Mr. Carr replied that philosophy worked relatively well until the geographical division of the state was considered. The Chair directed the agency to provide justification for deputies taking vehicles home.

Senator Neal stated since the fire marshal’s functions included fire protection and hazardous waste investigation it appeared staff had to be available to respond to such unscheduled incidents. Mr. Carr agreed.

Senator Jacobsen asked what percentage of emergency calls to the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety involved the fire marshal’s office. Dave Drew, Douglas County Fire Protection District, stated very few incidents in Douglas County required the assistance of the fire marshal’s office. Douglas County had its own investigation staff and handled their investigations internally. Chief Jim Reinhardt testified if they had a suspicious fire, the State Fire Marshal’s office was notified in accordance with their agreement and NRS statutes. The fire marshal was called if they were needed for expertise outside the scope of the volunteer investigative team. Roy Slate stated as a former fire marshal and assistant chief in the City of Elko he had used the fire marshal’s office extensively. His agencies did their own investigations but used the fire marshal for expertise and resources. In his current position in Washoe County he had requested assistance of the fire marshal as recently as 2 weeks previous.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani noted there was a vehicle in Elko, two in Las Vegas and two in Carson City with sworn officers, but the issue was not just with the fire marshal’s office. The debate seemed to rise every 2 years because vehicles were provided in the budget for sworn officers in marked units which were then used for commuting, most often not on a callout issue. Also, when vehicles were authorized, some agencies purchased cheap vehicles and then in the next budget cycle requested new vehicles. Bryon Slobe stated another issue was that each vehicle carried several thousand dollars of equipment to respond efficiently and provide assistance. There had been two vehicle burglaries with loss of equipment that never got replaced. Both occurred at the Stewart facility. Other units had been drained of fuel and tires slashed. The issue was one of officer safety, maintaining equipment, and keeping it safe and in a useable condition to be available to respond. The Chair responded the issue was that vehicles were authorized for callout purposes and the budget provided no justification of callouts. Mr. Carr responded the agency would supply the requested information.

Senator O’Donnell expressed his opinion the debate on the vehicle issue was primarily in the Assembly. He related a story about a friend who wanted to buy a house and specifically requested Senator O’Donnell as his realtor, to look for a home in a neighborhood where a highway patrol vehicle was parked. The Chair responded she appreciated Senator O’Donnell’s point but that was not a good use of taxpayer’s money in the long run.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked Mr. Carr if there were any vehicle requests in Budget Account 3816 and he replied there was one vehicle requested and one in the other budget.

The Chair closed the hearing on Budget Account 3816 and opened the hearing on Budget Account 3834.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated performance indicators needed to be realistic and provide justification to show outcome. She referred to performance indicator
10 – Issuing permits with an error rate of less than 2 percent. Yet the projected 1999 rate was 100 percent and asked if that meant the agency would have a
100 percent error rate. Mr. Carr replied the obvious, that the intent was to achieve 100 percent accuracy.

Assemblywoman Chowning requested what percentage of the total of firefighters were receiving training represented in performance indicators 1 and 2. The indicators on training gave numbers, not an overall picture of who was not receiving training. Mr. Carr replied he would provide the requested information.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani noted the fees from the Beatty Dump had declined as expected. Mr. Carr added the anticipation was that the fees from Beatty would not only decline but would cease. The Chair asked Mr. Carr to project in what year the Beatty income might cease. Mr. Carr replied he had received a letter from the Division of Environmental Protection that indicated the proper permits were in place but the department was running out of material to dump at Beatty so it might become inefficient to continue operations there. It might be all right for the next few months but only $50,000 had been placed in the reserve since the preparation of the budget. He anticipated no further Beatty income in the fiscal year.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani noted in building the budget it appeared a General Fund appropriation was necessary to offset the Beatty income. She asked what other alternatives were considered to make up the funding loss. Mr. Carr replied the only other way to generate revenue on the training side of the budget was through the hazardous materials inspection fees. The agency had addressed that option when asking for additional deputies the agency believed would generate additional funding. The Chair asked how much fund deficiency was projected to be offset by the deputies. Mr. Carr provided the subcommittee with Exhibit E which contained a proposal based on a study conducted in Winnemucca, also contained in Exhibit E.

Studies were also done in Elko and Carson City. The additional Hazmat inspectors were the only other way to generate income for training. The Winnemucca study was very detailed and looked for operations that did not have a permit for Hazardous Materials Storage. The study compared the business licenses of the area to the amount of permits issued for hazardous material businesses and concluded thousands of businesses in the state were being missed.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked it that conclusion resulted in the 61 percent non-compliance rate. Mr. Carr replied the agency had chosen a rural but larger and somewhat self-contained community. In the Carson City survey over
100 businesses were missed. He added the agency was "not getting the job done in hazardous material facility inspections." The proposed budget would allow the agency to do a better job in that area, make the agency more visible, and do a better job of life safety and property protection. The proposed program in Exhibit E

was based on what one inspector would generate. The estimate would generate, above expenses, $31,503 in FY 2000 and $30,413 in FY 2001. The program would not only pay for itself but would generate additional funds for training as well.

The Chair asked if the pilot program was approved where the 4 inspectors and
1 clerical position would be located. Mr. Carr replied the agency would place one inspector in Elko, one in Winnemucca, and two in Las Vegas. Carson City was fairly well covered with the headquarters office. The Chair asked where the fire marshal’s office did not have jurisdiction and asked if that went back to the limitation of authority placed on the agency in the 1973 Legislative Session.
Mr. Carr agreed. He added the agency did permit hazardous material inspections throughout the state. The confusion came from the fact inspectors in Budget Account 3816 were limited in their authority.

The Chair asked if the pilot program had been submitted to the Budget Division and if the Budget Division had made any recommendations. Mr. Carr replied the original pilot called for eight inspectors and that was revised to four inspectors and one clerk because administratively the agency needed to grow with the program. Other reasons for the pilot were to ensure the program could be self-sustaining and provide funds for the training program. Don, Hataway, Deputy Director, Budget Division replied the budget office would take a look at the pilot.

Mr. Carr referred to Senator Jacobsen’s question regarding the Clark Commission and stated the last two pages of Exhibit E contained the recommendations of the Clark Commission.

Recommendation Number One was that those businesses that created higher degrees of hazard must be inspected four times a year and all businesses that handled hazardous material must be vigorously inspected at least once annually. Mr. Carr commented the agency was trying to work toward that goal and it was hoped by adding the positions it would generate enough money to sustain the program and provide for training.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked how many businesses handled hazardous materials and must be inspected. She noted 2,661 businesses were currently permitted. Mr. Carr explained the Tax Commission licensed 125,146 businesses in Nevada. Approximately 39 percent or 48,806 required no hazardous material permit. That left a balance of 76,340. The fire marshal currently permitted 2,661 and taking into consideration the agency knew there were 73,671 that may or may not handle hazardous material, and possibly 25 percent of those businesses might never be found there were still thousands of businesses that should be inspected and/or permitted.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if there were some counties in the state that did not issue business licenses. Mr. Carr replied the figures he provided were drawn from the Tax Commission rolls. The Chair confirmed Mr. Carr’s figures extrapolated what businesses might deal with hazmat but was there no way to know what business actually had hazardous material. Mr. Carr stated there was no way to be sure without inspecting all the businesses. The Chair asked if statute or regulation specified hazardous material definitions.

Dave Drew stated as an operational fire fighter it was very scary to have to respond to businesses not knowing what might be stored there. Mr. Drew spoke for the Fire Standards and Training Committee and the Board of Fire Services, which had looked at several methods to raise funding such as a fee for tire disposal, and there was legislation proposed to utilize a portion of the insurance premium tax on fire insurance. Mr. Drew stated even though Budget Account 3834 was titled hazardous materials it also encompassed fire training. It was encouraging to see emphasis on contract instructors to make the program cost effective. If revenues were generated by the additional inspector positions, the funding would go directly to training.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani noted the agency had made a request to combine Budget Accounts 3816 and 3834. Mr. Carr replied the agency had originally made that request for ease of administration, but the most important reason was to allow the agency to make better use of its personnel. With the two-budget system, if a trainer traveled into a rural area and found a state building that needed inspection, the trainer would have to come back and an inspector would have to be sent out. The intent of the request was to cross-train individuals and allow one person to perform both functions. The Chair asked if the agency intended to go forward with cross training even though the Budget Division had not recommended combining the two accounts. Mr. Carr responded through cross training the agency could better use existing personnel and travel more economically, especially when traveling into rural areas.

Assemblywoman Chowning stated Budget Account 3834 contained approximately $600,000 in each year of the biennium for unfunded decision units and asked what it represented. She asked Mr. Carr to provide staff with what Clark Commission recommendations were not being implemented and what impact that would have on the public. Assemblywoman Chowning also asked who was responsible for inspection of the hazardous material sites in Washoe and Clark County. If there was such a huge area of need not being met in a small area such as Winnemucca, how much more was there in the large counties. Mr. Carr replied the local fire departments in the larger jurisdictions did a complimentary job of inspecting their own areas. The problem was not in the metropolitan areas of Las Vegas but in such areas as rural Clark County. Mr. Slate had addressed the problem in his area. Since the Mustang explosion they had made a concerted effort, in coordination with the fire marshal’s office to really catch up in Washoe County.

Mr. Carr stated the bottom line was the fire marshal’s office simply needed to do a better job. The agency did not oppose the Governor’s recommendation in the budget and could live within its mandates. He noted the Budget Division had been more than fair. The problem was, to meet the mandates of the fire marshal’s office the agency needed to get more people in the field.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated Mr. Carr’s comments translated back to the pilot program the Budget Division planned to review and to Budget Account 3816 where fees should be increased within the agency’s authority.

The Chair stated the funding from the General Fund to replace loss of funds from the Beatty Dump should have been placed in an enhancement decision unit rather than in the base budget. She requested the Budget Division to review the issue.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani requested a cost benefit analysis for the trainers.

Assemblywoman Chowning referred to the tire tax mentioned earlier and noted it was $2 per tire. She recalled the revenue from that tax generated millions of dollars. The recycling of tires would have some nexus to hazardous materials. She stated the current funding allocation had nothing to do with tires and although changing the allocation to the State Fire Marshal would create a hole in that budget, at least it would generate funds and allocations more appropriately. Assemblywoman Chowning asked staff to review the issue.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked the status of the bill draft for a 1 percent insurance tax and Mr. Carr replied it should be out in the next few days.

Senator Jacobsen asked what jurisdiction or responsibility the State Fire Marshal had with regard to military installations. Mr. Carr replied the agency had no authority on military installations and would only be involved if the agency was invited. Senator Jacobsen asked if any federal funding might be available to the agency for inspections on military installations.

Assemblywoman Chowning requested a copy of the Clark Commission report and asked how the recommendations were being implemented in Budget Account 3834. She asked if the request to increase the population cap was a bill draft request. Mr. Carr replied it was not out yet but a bill draft would be forthcoming.

Mr. Carr stated the intent was not to increase the fire marshal’s authority but to keep the 15 rural counties under the authority of the fire marshal. He referred to the Clark Commission report which had recommended the population cap be increased to 50,000. It did not impact any interlocal agreements or plans reviews but brought the agency up with the times.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated the subcommittee simply needed to know the training was being provided for rural areas. Cross training was under way. The funding could not be shifted because in 2 years those resources might not be present. That might also be why the Budget Division had not recommended combining the budget accounts. The subcommittee needed to proceed with caution and Mr. Carr agreed.

The hearing on Budget Account 3834 was closed and the Chair announced the subcommittee would proceed with the agenda as far as possible and remaining budgets would be heard on March 5, 1999. Senator O’Donnell announced the Senate subcommittee members would continue to hear all items on the agenda.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated as in most of the other budgets, Budget Account 4706 had performance indicators that were not outcome based. The subcommittee requested details on the impact to the Highway Fund in the budget. In the Internal Audit Bureau there was no justification of the function of the bureau. The Chair asked for an update on assessors who performed DMV functions. The Chair stated the concern of the Highway Fund was whether the funding mechanism complied with the constitutional limitations for the use of Highway Funds. Several letters of intent were issued by the 1997 Legislature and should be reported on.

John Drew, Acting Director, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, stated the budget was actually prepared prior to his appointment as acting director and deferred to Ray Sparks, Deputy Director, Public Safety.

Ray Sparks stated in light of the questions by the Chair, he had prepared a presentation that would go through the budget requests in order module by module, however he would address the subcommittee’s concerns first.

Mr. Sparks provided the subcommittee with revised performance indicators
(Exhibit F). He explained the Director’s Office had tried to include a few performance indicators that would reflect outcomes, particularly in the area of internal investigations. He offered to incorporate suggestions from the subcommittee into the performance indicators. The Chair referred to revised performance indicator 2 that stated "the percent of distributed press releases published or aired on local media outlets – 80 percent was distributed." She asked 80 percent of what, to whom were they distributed and what information, and how many people saw them. Mr. Sparks responded performance indicator 2 was an attempt to get to some type of an outcome. The intent of the indicator was to measure the percentage of the press releases the department issued that were actually picked up by the media. The department wanted to target an achievable standard.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani referred to performance indicator 6 – "the number of Curbside News employee newsletters published" and asked if any type of analysis was done to see if the newsletter was being read and whether employees felt it was informative and helpful.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani referred to performance indicator 8 – "number of internal audits completed." She noted there were no actuals, only projections and asked how many should have been completed. Mr. Sparks replied the performance indicators for internal audits were based on the number projected to be accomplished within the fiscal year and the department felt they would reach
100 percent of that projection. The Chair asked what percentage of total audits pending the 18 in each year of the biennium represented. She asked if the department could target certain areas every so many years for comparison.

The Chair referred to performance indicator 9 and asked how many assessors should be audited against the projection of two. Mr. Sparks replied the projections and indicators were based upon the resources available.

The Chair asked what authority the auditor carried to compel compliance.
Mr. Sparks stated because the county assessors operated as agents of DMV, under an agreement there was some authority to enforce the recommendations. That authority might be simply terminating the agreement. The experience had been that most of the county assessors complied willingly with audit recommendations.

The Chair noted the first auditor came about due to an incident in White Pine County and asked when the second auditor was approved. Mr. Sparks stated it had been a while but he was not sure when. The Chair asked what was being done if there were no actual numbers. Mr. Sparks replied the second auditor position had experienced excessive turnover in the past 2 years and was vacant a large percentage of time including the present. The vacancy had detrimentally affected the productivity of the program.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked how the first auditor position spent his/her time. Mr. Sparks replied he had conducted a couple of audits, but for the past few months the position was focusing on the department’s compliance with the state’s requirements for internal accounting, and administrative controls. The auditor was specifically reviewing each division for compliance. Once that was accomplished, that task would revert to a maintenance effort on his part. One of the performance indicators was to maintain compliance with internal accounting and controls. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated the department needed to justify the need for two internal audit positions.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked Mr. Sparks to discuss the Highway Fund.
Mr. Sparks explained Budget Account 4706 was funded primarily by the Highway Fund. A small General Fund appropriation paid a portion of salary for the Deputy Director, Public Safety (Mr. Sparks’ position) because of the General Fund programs under that position. The Chair asked if, with the current funding mechanism, the department was in compliance with the intent of Highway Fund use. Mr. Sparks asked the Chair to restate the question. The Chair stated there were constitutional limitations on use of the Highway Fund and the majority of the budget was funded by the Highway Fund. A fine line existed that tended to blur in some of the budgets and she asked if the Highway Fund should be used for construction or maintenance. Mr. Sparks replied the question went back to issues discussed in several legislative sessions regarding the 22 percent cap on the DMV for use of Highway Funds, to specify what functions were deemed to be administrative expenses of the Highway Fund. Mr. Sparks stated in his opinion, there had never been a definitive answer to the question.

Mr. Sparks stated if the subcommittee was asking if the Director’s Office should be funded to a larger degree by General Fund monies and a lesser degree by Highway Fund monies, that argument could be made. The department had grown over the years and assumed many more General Fund programs than in the past. The Chair gave an example of the planning and research office which was 100 percent funded with Highway Funds. Mr. Sparks stated that was not an inappropriate way to fund the office although there were other ways it could be funded. The Chair asked if the planning and research office was tied to maintenance, construction and administration of highways. Mr. Sparks said many of the responsibilities, activities and duties of the proposed planning and research unit would relate directly to programs that were truly Highway Fund programs. The Chair asked for those specifics to be provided to the subcommittee. Mr. Sparks stated the department had provided a general overview of the types of activities they wanted the positions to perform. It was not specific to a particular budget account or fund.

The Chair stated it would be helpful to have a percentage of General Fund activities compared to Highway Fund activities supervised by the department. The Chair noted supervision of Parole and Probation was totally Highway Funded and asked where that line came in. Mr. Sparks stated the DMV could do a fairly high level analysis of the funding structure based on percentage of dollars. He reflected in the past, in performing cost allocations, particularly in the Administrative Services Division, those attempts were somewhat feeble. The DMV did not have the accounting expertise to do that type of cost allocation in a manner satisfactory to the legislature but they did their best.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani went back to the internal affairs unit and asked how DMV planned to allocate the program costs in future years. The department could provide the information at a later time.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked Mr. Sparks to explain payment to the Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP) of one-quarter of vehicle purchase costs each year.
Mr. Sparks replied the budget proposal was for the two controversial vehicles assigned to the director and deputy director, public safety. The vehicles were actually assigned to the NHP fleet. The payment would be a rental or lease of those vehicles based upon 25 percent of the total cost per year. The Chair asked for the actual cash value. Mr. Sparks replied the total cost was $11,000 per year for both.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked what were the operating costs for the attorney general’s staff. Mr. Sparks responded the department paid the attorney general around $700,000 per year for legal services. The Chair asked if the department was receiving the services needed and Mr. Sparks replied he was not aware of any concerns in that area.

The Chair asked for a description of costs of deputy attorney general functions paid by the Department versus those paid by the attorney general. Don Hataway, Budget Division replied the fee for deputy attorney general services was based upon the actual number of hours provided to the department or any other agency. It was part of the attorney general’s cost allocation plan that would be updated shortly. The Chair asked for particulars on operating costs. Mr. Hataway replied overhead and the attorney’s hours were all rolled into the attorney general’s cost allocation plan. Mr. Sparks commented the budget request included a small amount for a pager and a cellular telephone to be provided to the senior counsel. All other costs were in the attorney general’s budget and the DMV paid the assessment to the attorney general.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani indicated the budget included two management analyst positions in decision unit E-126 creating a planning and research office and asked what the assigned duties would be. Mr. Sparks replied the DMV would like the positions to be available for a variety of activities. One primary responsibility would be the maintenance of the written policies and procedures. The positions would also assist in departmental strategic planning, drafting administrative regulations, and responding to questions from various agencies.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked how that differed from the administrative officer. Mr. Sparks replied the Assistant to the Director was primarily functioning as an ombudsman handling customer issues in person, through telephone complaints and all correspondence from the Director’s Office. The Chair requested the original job description when the position was first funded. Mr. Sparks stated the current description had been provided but DMV staff would try to locate the original job description.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani noted enhancement modules E-900 and E-910 recommend the transfer of staff from the Parole and Probation Division and NHP, to organize the internal affairs unit. Mr. Sparks responded the DMV had an internal affairs office for about 6 years staffed by officers on temporary assignment from the Divisions of Parole and Probation, NHP and in the past from Investigations. Currently there were two NHP officers and one Parole and Probation officer assigned to the unit. The costs and associated costs for those staff were maintained in the individual division budgets. The intent was to isolate those costs and the department proposed to transfer them into a discrete unit within the Director’s Office. The Chair asked if a new budget account should be established and then funded by an allocation to the General Fund sworn position and to the Highway Fund sworn position. Mr. Sparks replied that was exactly the intent. The Parole and Probation position would be allocated from the General Fund and the NHP position would be allocated from the Highway Fund. The Chair stated a separate budget account would be desirable.

The Chair asked if the positions were back filled. Mr. Sparks replied they were not. Chairwoman Giunchigliani expressed concern that funding for the positions in the individual divisions were caseload based, and asked what effect not back filling the positions would have on their divisions. Mr. Sparks replied the Parole and Probation Division did use a staffing formula based on caseloads. The reality was the theoretical 75 cases that one position would carry would then be distributed through other officers. The Chair noted in the Sixty-ninth Legislature an attempt was made to give the Parole and Probation Division some decent caseload monitoring and the transfer would have a negative impact. Mr. Sparks commented even if the position stayed within the Parole and Probation budget, the internal affairs investigations would still have to be accomplished so the workload would remain.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked how many internal affairs cases were open and how many had been closed. Mr. Sparks replied in FY 1998 the unit closed
107 investigations and the difference between the total number of investigations and those closed were open cases. The Chair asked if all complaints were investigated. Mr. Sparks replied the three unit staff probably investigated 50-some of the 107 investigations closed. The remainder, consisting of minor complaints such as someone alleging a policy violation, were referred to the individual divisions for investigation. The internal affairs unit still received the complaint, assigned it to the division, and reviewed the completed investigation. Even though those cases were assigned to divisions, the internal affairs unit still had some activities to perform. The Chair restated her concern over the affect on Parole and Probation caseload no matter how the position was funded, to accomplish something with a 50 percent record. She requested specifics on the number of cases and how many were originally anticipated when the unit was first established. Mr. Sparks stated particularly in law enforcement agencies, there was a need to make sure that the officers vested with extraordinary authority were exercising that authority properly within the law, regulation, and policy. The Chair asked the department to provide from the cases investigated by the officers, how many actually related to the officers versus other types of policy issues or complaints. Mr. Sparks replied he was pretty sure they all related but staff would double check.

The Chair closed the hearing on Budget Account 4706 and opened the hearing on Budget Account 4714, Administrative Services Division.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani noted again the performance indicators included no outcomes. She gave an example of including the average vacancy rate. The subcommittee needed a better picture of what the division was doing.

Dennis Colling, Chief, Administrative Services Division, DMV, explained he had been in his position 3.5 months. He introduced Ginnie Lewis, Assistant Chief, with tenure in the position of 6 or 7 weeks. Mr. Colling provided the subcommittee with an updated set of performance indicators (Exhibit G).

Mr. Colling stated the mission of the Administrative Services Division was to provide professional, timely and accurate support services to the director, the various divisions of the department, and other associated agencies. Support services included:

• Fiscal accounting;
• Personnel services;
• Travel arrangements;
• Payroll;
• Warehousing;
• Inventory control;
• Mail Services;
• Facilities management; and
• Budget analysis.

Budget Account 4714 was primarily funded through the Highway Fund with small amounts from the General Fund and federal fund monies. The base budget recommended continuation of the division with 64.51 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions.

Decision unit M-200 might generate a few questions. In M-200 the division asked for two additional positions in the personnel services area with an eye to growth of the department and increased responsibilities.

Decision unit E-175 contained additional travel for two currently authorized loss control officers. The division had a difficult time filling one of the positions, but both were currently filled. Decision unit E-175 also included a new phone system for the Fallon office, new counters and locking drawers for the Reno office, and painting and new tile for the Carey street office in North Las Vegas.

Decision unit E-710 contained a request for one new vehicle. The request was for a cargo van at the Las Vegas warehouse to replace an old worn-out, excessive mileage vehicle.

E-720 contained funding for two leased fax machines and necessary phone lines for the personnel offices in Carson City and Las Vegas. New cassette tape players were requested for personnel hearings.

E-730 recommended replacing worn carpet in the Sparks and Douglas offices, a security system upgrade for the Elko office, and painting and treating of windows in the Reno office.

E-900 transferred two storekeeper positions and related costs to NHP. There was one position in Reno and one in Las Vegas who currently performed only NHP tasks and were more properly funded in that budget.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked it the Budget Division agreed with the concept of the cost allocation and direct charging cost to the appropriate budget account.
Mr. Colling stated his agreement. Carol English, Budget Division, also concurred.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if the Budget Division recommended transferring direct costs from the administrative budget to separate appropriate budgets and also asked if the same allocation process was used in all department budgets.
Ms. English replied the employees insurance and building rents were still contained within the administrative budget. Those costs could be placed in the other budgets in the future but it might be very time-consuming to change the remainder of the budget process at its current stage. The bottom line would be no impact to the Highway Fund or the 22 percent limit. The Budget Division could look at building future budgets in that manner. The Budget Division did agree with the concept of cost allocating. The Chair noted staff might prefer to fix it right the first time around.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if tasks were ever retained when positions were moved. Mr. Colling replied tasks and positions were moved together.

The Chair asked if the Administrative Services Division was doing the federal grant reporting. Mr. Colling stated the two positions in the E-900 module were storekeepers. The Chair stated it appeared the federal grant reporting was still done by Emergency Management but the two positions were gone. Ginnie Lewis, Assistant Chief, replied there seemed to be some confusion. The transfer in E-900 referred to two storekeepers who were doing functions for Highway Patrol. The Chair was referring to some federal reporting and Ms. Lewis was not sure of the connection.

The Chair stated in 1993 the division received a transfer of two positions from Emergency Management performing grant management activities. Mr. Colling replied those monies transferred in had no relationship to the E-900 storekeepers. It did not appear the General Fund match was included in the base budget. It appeared the General Fund appropriation decreased from $116,000 in FY 1998 to $77,000 in FY 2000 and $79,000 in FY 2001. The positions were originally federally funded but were no longer performing those functions. Ms. Lewis replied Ms. Giunchigliani was correct, the General Fund might not be at an appropriate level. Two positions from Parole and Probation were transferred into the budget, which were General Fund positions. It was her understanding there should be a match to the other positions and division staff would research further and report back to the subcommittee.

The Chair asked who currently performed federal grant management activities.
Mr. Colling replied his understanding was that when a grant management unit was within Administrative Services, the unit was unable to perform all the duties necessary with that unit and some duties went back to the individual divisions. The Chair requested a delineation of what duties could not be performed and who currently performed those duties. Mr. Colling replied he would provide that information. Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked Mr. Colling to clarify that the positions were still within the Administrative Services Division but some of the duties had been relegated back to the divisions without receiving positions to perform those functions. Mr. Colling agreed.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if in the case of Parole and Probation the positions were transferred back as well as the functions. Mr. Colling stated they were. He clarified the positions were not solely dedicated to Parole and Probation duties. They were doing and had been doing an extensive level of work for Parole and Probation. The Chair commented Parole and Probation would be queried when their budget was heard as to whether they experienced a loss of any kind of service with additional duties assigned to the two positions. Mr. Colling agreed.

The Chair stated staff would review copying and filing costs that could have been reduced and reflected in savings. She asked if the division had a staffing ratio and Mr. Colling said they did not.

The Chair asked if any of the departments and/or divisions had staffing ratios.
Ms. English replied in some of the Public Safety side, DMV budgets did have staffing ratios. The Chair added it would be helpful in crafting future budgets to know what the ratio ought to be and what was being tied to what responsibility and job description.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked Mr. Colling to provide in the performance indicators; average vacancy rate by budget account and the average length of time it took to fill positions. He stated his staff would collect the information.

The Chair asked Mr. Colling to explain the three-position budgeting unit that was supposed to monitor the department’s budget account activities and assist the divisions in developing budgets. Mr. Colling replied in his opinion the unit was absolutely a necessity for the department. The department was very diverse with a large number of divisions and an oversight of the budget activities was needed within the divisions. A monitoring unit was needed to track and ensure that each of the divisions maintained their budget integrity. The unit was needed to serve as an analysis and review for all the questions that came out related to fiscal and budget operations. Mr. Colling stated he believed in the unit and if he had prepared the budget he would have requested additional positions. The unit was seriously understaffed and under financed. The Chair asked if there was data to support the effectiveness of the unit such as what they had achieved and how many budgets they tracked. Mr. Colling stated that could be provided.

Assemblyman Marvel asked if the license plate collections for prison industries was reconciled. Mr. Colling replied Mr. Skolnik had not communicated with him and he would have to research to provide that information.

The Chair closed the hearing on Budget Account 4714 and opened the hearing on Budget Account 4733, Public Safety Information Services.

The Chair addressed the Budget Division stating Budget Account 4733 did not reconcile between agencies paying for the account. Currently The Executive Budget had a $1 million shortfall in FY 2000 and a $924,000 shortfall in FY 2001. Ms. English responded the Budget Division was working on the problem. It was discovered that a module had been left out of the Criminal History Repository budget and in looking at it, the Budget Division also became aware the court assessment revenues were going to be re-projected on March 1. The Chair confirmed there could be a reduction to offset or possibly an increase. Ms. English replied it looked as if there would be more court assessment revenue so there might not be a deficit.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani highlighted the issues the subcommittee wished to hear about concerning Budget Account 4733:

• A detailed explanation of the increase in the base budget;
• A description of how concurrent users were developed and who needed a license;
• How licenses for access were allocated; and
• It appeared in some cost allocations from the General Fund, Highway Funds were used to balance the account and did that allocation meet the constitutional limits of the Highway Fund.

Carol English, Budget Division, addressed the issue of Highway Fund allocation. It was the desire of the Budget Division to attempt to realistically fund the budget from appropriate revenue sources. However, due to declining revenue projections in the General Fund, it was felt that was not possible. The Chair asked if there had been a $1 million shortfall. Ms. English replied she did not have those figures. The Chair stated the base budget had only $155,000 left in General Fund support to pay for the Public Safety Information Services. The difference of $534,000 in
FY 2000 was being charged to the Highway Patrol instead of Parole and Probation. The Executive Budget in FY 2000 recommended $878,000 and $626,000 in
FY 2001 for services provided to the divisions of Investigation, Parole and Probation, State Fire Marshal and Parole Board. The Chair stated it went back to the genesis of proper funding and asked if the Budget Division was hoping for revenues in another area of the budget that would clean up the practice.
Ms. English replied there was a small amount of federal funding in some of the smaller budgets but the majority of funding came from the General Fund and the Highway Fund. Over the years, the General Fund had not paid its proportionate fair share. For the current budget cycle, when it was time to try to "step up to the plate" and make that happen, the situation with the General Fund simply would not allow it and the costs were transferred to the Highway Fund.

The Chair asked if there was an inherent problem with the allocation of funds in Budget Account 4733 and when the problem was discovered. Ms. English replied there had been a problem and she had tried to fix it for the next biennium but she did not know how far back the problem went. The Chair requested Don Hataway, Budget Division to provide research for the subcommittee on when the problem was discovered.

The Chair requested Alan Rogers, Manager, Public Safety Information Technology to present his overview. Mr. Rogers provided subcommittee members with an overview document (Exhibit H). He noted the document contained performance indicators which attempted to look at areas that would indicate potential problems. Mr. Rogers gave an example of a problem of "uptimes" in the systems. The performance indicators helped management monitor and manage activities.

Mr. Roger stated the increase in the base budget arose from the Sixty-ninth Legislative Session which funded a hot-site backup in Las Vegas. The hot-site was up and functioning and was used when Information Services moved to their new facility in Carson City. The hot-site functioned very well with very little down time during the move. The cost increase was that in the base budget year no maintenance costs were paid on the hot-site system. The system was installed during that year and had a 6 month warranty. The maintenance costs started in
FY 1999 and were included in the work program. The Chair asked what the maintenance costs were. Mr. Rogers replied he would supply that information but it was roughly $80,000 to $100,000.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked where the increase in telephone line services originated. Mr. Rogers replied those charges increased because as the state services expanded, the division had to provide network telecommunications to multiple sites throughout the state. It was a constant upgrade process to provide speedy and current technology. Unfortunately, those costs were driven by the common carriers used. Mr. Rogers added the state did not have its own networks. The increases were for expansion and new technology services. The Chair asked if those increases should be considered under enhancements rather than in the base budget. Mr. Rogers stated he did not feel the increases were an enhancement because they were an ongoing function which was service and demand driven. Other departments using technology likely had similar types of increases. The Chair stated it would more appropriately fit into enhancement units for future budgets in determining how costs were driven. Mr. Rogers stated the budget did include some enhancements for network costs for new services. The base increases were just increases to existing services.

Assemblyman Marvel asked Mr. Rogers the status of statewide networking and whether there was a statewide plan. The Chair noted a statewide plan for DMV networking was included in the Genesis Budget which was to be heard on Tuesday, March 2.

Mr. Rogers stated Budget Account 4733 maintained the law enforcement network that was totally separate from the Motor Vehicles side of DMV. It supplied networking for only criminal justice and law enforcement. Assemblyman Marvel asked how many different networks there were. Mr. Rogers responded sometimes the term was used to describe point to point communications which could include a leased line from one point to another, and shared or unshared pipelines. He added if an agency was using their pipeline to capacity it did not make sense to share it. But if there was excess capacity in a pipeline it could be shared similar to the capitol improvement project to install fiber optics throughout the capitol district because it would have excess capacity. The agency worked very closely with the Department of Information Technology (DoIT) and where resources could be shared the agencies worked together.

Assemblyman Marvel asked if there was some kind of a chart that showed all the different networks and who shared what services. Mr. Rogers replied his division had provided a chart in Exhibit H that showed their network and all the connections but he had nothing like that for the rest of the state.

The Chair stated DoIT should have such a chart and they would be appearing before the money committees to complete their budget.

Mr. Rogers explained user licenses were based on the division’s calculations of concurrent users. Most licensing did not require one license per person or per station. A calculation was made of the number of people who would be using the network at one given time and licenses were based on concurrent use. All the division’s licenses were based on concurrent usage. Where 800 people might be accessing a given program the department would license 400 concurrent licenses making the assumption that half of the users would be accessing information at any given time. Each program was based on a different formula. Usage could not exceed the number of licenses so the agency had to plan for peak periods. The Chair requested Mr. Rogers to confer with staff and provide at least the formula to ensure the right departments were being billed concurrently.

The Chair apologized to those in the audience prepared to present other budgets but the Assembly members were subject to the call to the Floor of the Assembly. Remaining budgets would be heard the following Friday. Senator Jacobsen would continue hearing other budgets as the Senate Finance Subcommittee on Public Safety, Transportation and Natural Resources.

The joint subcommittee hearing was adjourned at 10:55 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Cindy Clampitt,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Chairman

DATE:

____________________________________________

Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen, Chairman

DATE:_______________________________________