The Subcommittee on Public Safety, Conservation, and Transportation was called to order at 8:15 a.m., on Friday, March 5, 1999. Senator Lawrence Jacobsen, Chairman presided in Room 2134 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List.

Senator Lawrence Jacobsen, Chairman

Senator Joseph Neal

Senator William O’Donnell

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Chairman

Mrs. Vonne Chowning

Mr. Richard Perkins

Mr. Robert Price

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mr. John Marvel (Excused)

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Chairman Jacobsen explained the committee would review the first agenda item, Department of Transportation, and upon completion of that presentation, Senate members would be excused as those members had previously reviewed the remaining agenda items. At that time, Ms. Giunchigliani would assume the duties of Chairman.

Chairman Jacobsen then invited Tom Stephens, Director, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) to commence his budget presentation by giving the committee an overview and explanation of any major problems or concerns.

Mr. Stephens informed the committee there were two NDOT staff members with him to assist with the presentation, and introduced them as follows: Gerry Colquhoun, Chief, Financial Management Division, NDOT and Jerry Ross, also from the Financial Management Division, charged with state budget issues. Further, Mr. Stephens noted a number of other NDOT support personnel were present in the audience, and he introduced them in the event they were called upon to respond to committee inquiries: Jeff Fontaine, Deputy Director; Jenny Neill, Special Assistant to the Director; Rod Johnson, Assistant Director, Operations; Susan Martinovich, Assistant Director, Engineering; Roger Grable, Assistant Director, Administration; Tom Fronapfel, Assistant Director, Planning Division; Kent Cooper, Coordinator, Program Development; Russ Law, Chief Engineer, Operations Analysis; Wayne Teglia, Equipment Superintendent; John Hull, Special Analysis; and Dennis Baughman, Special Projects Officer. Mr. Stephens noted John Price, Federal Highway Administration, Carson City Office was also present. He explained NDOT was the only state agency that received federal funds and had its own resident "overseer." The Federal Highway Administration also had offices in San Francisco, California and Denver, Colorado, and those offices were a major asset for NDOT.

Chairman Jacobsen extended the committee’s welcome to all. He advised Mr. Stephens he felt the booklet entitled "State of Nevada, Transportation, Facts and Figures, January 1999" (Exhibit C – Original on file with the Research Library, Legislative Counsel Bureau), was a first-class publication. According to Mr. Stephens, the booklet had been created by Russ Law, with the assistance of other NDOT employees, as a "fact" booklet for public information.

Ms. Stephens indicated one major issue facing NDOT was reauthorization of the Federal Transportation Act entitled, Transportation Equity Act for the 21^st Century (TEA-21), which would provide approximately $70 million in additional federal funds, and was part of an extremely complex federal budget. Mr. Stephens assured the committee NDOT was programming projects as quickly as possible. He stated there were several superprojects currently underway as described in the handout entitled, "NEVADA Highway Superproject Program," (Exhibit D), and NDOT would continue to work on those projects. NDOT realized a huge increase in its budget because of TEA-21 funds, and was asking for 51 new positions to augment the current base number of 1,585, which did not include the seasonal employees. Mr. Stephens felt that was a relatively small increase. The request for equipment purchase had been reduced from the $9 million level of the last biennium request to $7.5 million, mainly due to NDOT’s equipment replacement policy.

NDOT suffered various challenges in the course of its work, and Mr. Stephens informed the committee on March 4, there was a hearing in Senate Transportation regarding the Big Springs area in southern Nevada. He stated U.S. 95 in northwest Las Vegas would pass close to that area and there was much controversy regarding possible encroachment because of the planned expansion. Mr. Stephens emphasized it was NDOT’s recommendation not to encroach on that area, but rather to acquire additional right-of-way consisting of approximately 60 homes across from Big Springs. At the Senate hearing, a special license plate was approved for the Big Springs area, which consisted of 200 old growth Cottonwood trees, and was the source of Las Vegas Creek. Mr. Stephens stated he had been to the area and perhaps there were larger trees at the edges of the valley, but there were no larger trees anywhere in the center of the valley. He estimated some trees to be at least 100 feet tall, and even though they might not be considered remarkable if located in northern Nevada, they were certainly remarkable for the southern Nevada area. There had also been controversy over an endangered butterfly species in Carson City, which delayed the first phase of the Carson City Bypass for a period of 1 year.

Mr. Stephens reported there was also concern about air quality in the Las Vegas area and what effect it would have on planned projects. He explained a recent decision regarding Atlanta, Georgia had shut down all highway projects in that city, a total of 61 projects, due to a decision handed down by the District of Columbia Federal Court of Appeals regarding clean air. Las Vegas was suffering a compliance problem which was not quite as severe as Atlanta’s, however, Mr. Stephens stated he had met with Carol Browner, Administrator, Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding the problem. The first agency penalized if there was an air quality problem would be NDOT via the Highway Fund. While NDOT did not claim expertise in air pollution control, he stated, it paid close attention to possible problems in that area.

Ms. Giunchigliani inquired if there was a role the state could play in southern Nevada regarding pollution control, such as requiring large construction projects to build satellite parking areas and bus individuals back. Mr. Stephens stated the scheme established by the Federal Transportation Act, which was the predecessor of TEA-21, began to strengthen local planning in 1991. He explained the Federal Metropolitan Planning Organization’s agency at the county level in southern Nevada was the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC). That commission played an extremely active role in planning and also offered support to various programs such as the share-a-ride program. Mr. Stephens declared more could be done for pollution control in southern Nevada, and some of the larger employers should be forced to comply with the commitments made when developments were in the planning stage. Large hotels were required to promote clean air projects, and Mr. Stephens indicated they needed to do more in the way of follow-up, however, he felt RTC was on the right track. Following the guidelines for those clean air projects was essential for NDOT, because it prevented EPA rulings against highway construction in the southern Nevada area.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if RTC had the authority to force employers to comply with clean air guidelines. She stated it appeared that the city simply allocated the number of parking spaces according to the size of the building, and inquired if RTC had the capability to mandate that at least half of those spaces be placed at a satellite area. Mr. Stephens replied the RTC alone did not have that capability, however, all pollution measures were considered by the county commissioners, who could impose such measures, but those measures were usually very controversial. Mr. Stephens noted that eventually county commissioners would be forced to put more controversial programs into place in order to comply with EPA rulings.

Ms. Giunchigliani then asked if the debate on the fixed rail or monorail systems entered into the pollution picture, and were TEA-21 or Highway Fund monies involved. According to Mr. Stephens, there were a number of rail projects under consideration in Las Vegas. One was the super speed rail project between Las Vegas and Los Angeles, which was proposed to bring in additional tourism. The first leg of that project would be from Las Vegas to Primm, Nevada, at a cost of approximately $1 billion. An application had been filed by the City of Las Vegas with the Federal Highway Administration for funds to complete that first leg as a demonstration project. In TEA-21, approximately $950 million had been appropriated to build such a demonstration project, and Mr. Stephens indicated between 10 and 12 cities were currently competing for planning money. Eventually, one city would also be awarded the construction money.

The other issue being considered, explained Mr. Stephens, was the fixed guideway system. Two such guideway systems were considered by the legislature last session, one was being sponsored by RTC to serve the resort corridor, and would eventually continue to the suburbs. He advised that was a light-rail system, and there was also a privately funded monorail system currently in operation. That system operated between Bally’s Hotel/Casino and the MGM Hotel/Casino. The car currently in use by that system was very labor-intensive, and would eventually need to be replaced. According to Mr. Stephens, the monorail was scheduled for further extension to the Las Vegas Hilton Hotel/Casino, including additional stations, and would also be privately funded.

Mr. Stephens advised the first light-rail section of the RTC system was being planned to run from the Stardust Hotel/Casino to downtown Las Vegas, however, local funding would be required and RTC had been unable to identify that local funding source as yet. There was some question as to the eventual viability of running light-rail to the suburbs because of the low population density in Las Vegas. It was a very large area with single-family homes and very low density. Mr. Stephens stated for example, in the Washington, D.C. area, metro stations were surrounded by high-rise apartments, even though they were in the suburbs. Ms. Giunchigliani stated there was no funding at the current time for either project, and indicated nothing had been requested. Mr. Stephens stated NDOT was not in charge of the projects, so he could not testify as to funding.

According to Ms. Giunchigliani there had been a flurry of sound wall bills, and she thought that issue had been resolved last session. Mr. Stephens replied NDOT had hundreds of miles of roadways through urban areas, and could spend hundreds of millions of dollars building sound walls on every piece of road to protect adjacent property owners. NDOT felt the sound wall issue was a combination NDOT and local government problem.

He explained local governments, under Nevada law, were required to approve proposed highway routes. For example, stated Mr. Stephens, in Henderson, city officials were required to approve all proposed highway routes. He advised when NDOT proposed the original highway route, the surrounding land was largely vacant on either side. The city approved 18 subdivisions after freeway construction began, and no noise mitigation was required on the construction. City officials felt NDOT was responsible. The city had received a special federal appropriation of approximately $6.5 million from TEA-21 funds to construct sound walls. During last session, NDOT had committed $2 million for berms in Henderson, and the city committed $800,000 for that project. Mr. Stephens stated he used Henderson as an example because it was an exception to the rule. The rule was that NDOT would spend $2 million per year putting up sound walls if there was a 50 percent match from local governments, homeowner’s associations, or other sources.

NDOT felt local governments had some responsibility for residential developments and should pay half the cost for sound walls. Mr. Stephens stated there were very few takers on the $2 million offer, as it was felt NDOT should bear the full cost. Throughout the various legislative districts, there were persons who requested legislation to implement the building of sound walls. Eventually, he explained, it could cost millions of dollars to construct those walls. According to Mr. Stephens, most people who lived in homes adjacent to freeways had purchased those homes long after the freeways were built, however, felt if sound walls were installed, it would increase their property values.

According to Mr. Stephens, the last piece of the puzzle was that if NDOT expanded the capacity of a road, which in turn increased the noise level, it would construct a sound wall. That was what had occurred in Las Vegas with the expansion of Sahara, and sound walls were also being constructed on U.S. 95 in northwest Las Vegas, and the approach to the Cheyenne interchange on I-15. Mr. Stephens stated NDOT was going to reconstruct the "spaghetti bowl" (I-80 and Highway 395 interchange) in Reno, and sound walls would be constructed around that site because of the expansion.

Chairman Jacobsen indicated the committee realized air quality, environmental concerns, and sound barriers had become real priority issues for NDOT, and inquired if any one of those had attained top priority. He also asked if NDOT was mandated by federal guidelines to make any one of those areas a major concern. He advised when he attended a meeting of the Federal Public Lands Committee, members indicated there were some proposals which rural areas in the west would not like. Mr. Stephens replied air quality was NDOT’s number one concern, because if a project was not in compliance with federal mandates, the outcome would effect road construction first. Most air quality improvements around the country were the result of modifying the automobile itself. He indicated there were several components to the air quality problem, and dust in the air was one. As part of the U.S. 95 project in northwest Las Vegas, NDOT would add High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes for buses and cars containing two or more persons. Mr. Stephens stated he felt if traffic jams could be relieved, it would help the air quality, however, the school of thought was if the highway was expanded, it would create traffic. He stated he did not think taking care of the congestion in Las Vegas would create traffic, because the traffic was already there and NDOT was attempting to relieve congestion.

Chairman Jacobsen stated one of his concerns was many of the rural roads were still dirt, and inquired what percentage of the roads controlled by NDOT were dirt. Mr. Stephens replied NDOT had a few gravel roads, but it was a very small percentage, and advised most dirt roads were county controlled. Chairman Jacobsen stated the dirt road through the Dangberg property in Douglas County created more of a dust hazard than any other road. Mr. Stephens related that Clark County had initiated a program to pave its dirt roads and perhaps Douglas County could look into such a program, as it was not a state issue.

Ms. Chowning stated she would like to compliment NDOT on its work so far with local officials regarding sound walls. The City of Las Vegas was a prime example, because it had secured the necessary funding for its matching portion, thereby creating a partnership between the city and state. Ms. Chowning inquired, for the record, what was happening with the project for the City of Henderson. The state had agreed to pay a set amount for construction of the sound wall, and the city agreed to pay its share; however, she was informed the city had not been required to put up the money because its portion was granted through federal funding. She advised she did not think there had been any progress toward building the sound wall, and she wondered if the project was being "stonewalled," or if the information she received was incorrect.

Mr. Stephens stated emphatically that her information was not correct. In fact, he advised, representatives from NDOT recently met with Assemblyman Perkins and presented him with a complete chronology of everything it had done regarding the sound wall in Henderson. He would be happy to share that information with the committee, and copies of the report would be forthcoming. Basically, stated Mr. Stephens, the project was designed and construction was ready to begin last summer. The city then received additional money from TEA-21 and decided to change the design. NDOT changed the design to a poured-in-place sound wall, however, approximately 6 weeks ago, the city decided it wanted a different type of sound wall. NDOT was in the process of changing the design once again, and Mr. Stephens hoped by late summer the project would be out to bid and under construction. However, if additional right-of-way needed to be purchased because of the changes, additional time would be required to appraise the property, condemn it, et cetera. Mr. Stephens stated he did not know where the funding would be generated for those costs. Currently, without purchasing additional right-of-way, the project total was over $8 million, $6 million in federal monies, and $2 million in state monies. Anything beyond that amount would have to come from the city, because NDOT had only obligated $2 million. Mr. Stephens stated, in effect, the state money would provide the match for the federal money.

Federal money was not received at 100 percent, explained Mr. Stephens. The city received authorization for approximately $6 million, but would only realize 90 percent of that amount. Mr. Stephens stated he had informed city officials of that fact, and explained that every agency allocated funds from TEA-21 would only receive 90 percent of that allocation due to budget caps. Therefore, if the City of Henderson went above the total $8 million allocation for the sound wall, it would need to secure additional funds.

Ms. Chowning asked Mr. Stephens, for the record, if he felt the City of Henderson was paying its fair share of the sound wall costs. Mr. Stephens stated he felt the city would ultimately end up paying more than originally projected, due to the fact the budget would probably exceed $8 million because of the additions. According to Mr. Stephens, the city was driving the design, and NDOT was not placing any restrictions on the project, however, every additional dollar over budget would be paid by the city. Ms. Chowning indicated she felt the state was doing its fair share, and she wanted to make sure the local entity also kept up its end of the bargain.

Chairman Jacobsen asked Mr. Stephens to review performance indicators, something the committee had placed a great deal of emphasis on during past sessions, as they told the committee not only what NDOT was doing, but how successful it was.

Mr. Stephens replied the first performance indicator reflected the percentage of highways requiring maintenance, and basically that figure had gone down somewhat due to NDOT’s maintenance practices. The projection was 45 percent for FY 1998, and the actual percentage was 40. Regarding the percentage of highways receiving maintenance, the projected figure was 12 percent and the actual was 15 percent. Mr. Stephens advised NDOT hoped to maintain 16 percent in FY 1999, 17 percent in FY 2000, and 18 percent in FY 2001, which would involve a very ambitious maintenance program. The third performance indicator showed the percentage of highways requiring overlay or major reconstruction, and Mr. Stephens explained the lower that figure, the better. If NDOT was able to catch up its backlog, that figure would decrease, and the projected trend would continue on a downward scale to FY 2001.

Continuing his presentation, Mr. Stephens explained in performance indicator four, percentage of highways receiving an overlay or major reconstruction, as the percentage of highways needing reconstruction decreased, the percentage of completed projects would also decrease, and that was basically what had occurred. Regarding the fifth performance indicator, highway maintenance cost by lane mile, he explained that could be viewed one of two ways. If NDOT was doing everything very efficiently, that figure should go down, however, if NDOT was performing the job by actual physical maintenance of highways, then it should go up. Mr. Stephens stated he believed the genesis of that figure would be a division of the total number of highways in the state.

John Hull, NDOT, explained performance indicator number five only addressed NDOT-maintained highways. The formula consisted of the total amount of money spent on maintenance divided by the number of miles, to arrive at the figure. Mr. Stephens advised there were approximately 15,000 lane miles throughout the state, and the more money spent on maintenance, the higher the costs, which accounted for the slight increase in FY 1998. Continuing with performance indicator number five, vehicle miles on NDOT maintained roads, Mr. Stephens stated that was the traffic on the roads, and was an indicator of the wear and tear on the highways. Since NDOT could not control the number of vehicles using the highways, that performance indicator simply established traffic growth.

Performance indicator number seven, design engineering costs as a percentage of project costs by fiscal year for typical projects, listed two categories, one for consultants and one for staff. Mr. Stephens stated NDOT’s in-house costs were generally lower that those costs generated by use of consultants, however, he felt that indicator did not portray the complete picture. He explained consultants were generally involved in the larger, more complex projects with higher design costs. For example, designing a project such as the "spaghetti bowl" in Reno would incur higher costs than designing an overlay project in the middle of the state. Mr. Stephens did not feel the disparity between 8 percent and 4 percent for use of consultants versus staff was cause for alarm.

The eighth performance indicator, construction engineering cost as a percentage of construction costs by fiscal year for all projects, also contained two categories, staff and consultants. Mr. Stephens explained NDOT did hire consultants for various projects, and the projection for FY 1998 was 18 percent versus 13 percent staff use. NDOT used the consultants in the more remote areas so staff would not be required to relocate. The construction of highways was a very inspection-intensive process because the product was actually manufactured on site, and had to meet the testing requirements. The last performance indicator, administrative support costs, was a percentage of the total budget. According to Mr. Stephens that represented administrative overhead which amounted to approximately 4 percent.

Chairman Jacobsen stated he noticed maintenance costs were up, and inquired if night operations had any affect on those costs. Mr. Stephens replied in the affirmative, and explained in recent years NDOT had done many "open grade" projects, which included a good grade of asphalt material. That material was excellent for skid resistance and water drainage, however, the cost was greater than chip-sealing. Mr. Stephens reported there were temperature requirements for laying "open grade," which caused longer work hours and that had driven costs up in recent years. Further, he stated, it was becoming increasingly difficult to find good material around the state, especially in Elko County.

Chairman Jacobsen asked if NDOT found night operations effective even though they were more costly. Mr. Stephens stated NDOT found night operation necessary to alleviate traffic problems, especially in urban areas. He did not feel NDOT had a choice in the matter, as it could not hold up traffic to the degree necessary during peak hours. He explained some states would not do night operations for fear of disturbing persons living close to the project. For example, NDOT recently completed a night project in Las Vegas which caused some discomfort for those persons living in the area. However, the alternative would have effected a major business district if completed during the day. Before the project began, Mr. Stephens stated NDOT approached the city council and explained the options, whereby the council agreed to a night operation; those were tough decisions for local officials to make.

Chairman Jacobsen then inquired if any members from southern Nevada had concerns regarding NDOT night operations, or noise factors dealing with construction.

Ms. Giunchigliani replied ideally for the traffic load, it made good sense to operate at night. Regarding the performance indicators, she stated they were not outcome-based, and the committee wanted a better picture. For example, she felt indicators could state the reasons for cost increases, i.e., night operations, overtime, rising cost of materials, et cetera. Those would be helpful to the committee when reviewing the budget. Mr. Stephens replied it was extremely difficult to quantify all work being done by NDOT. For instance, lane miles on interstates would be far more costly than lane miles on roads used by 200 cars a day. NDOT was driven by projects, and performance indicators were based on the larger projects, which were very costly. According to Mr. Stephens, NDOT offered monetary awards to avoid project delays. He indicated the "spaghetti bowl" project in Reno contained $4 million in early completion bonuses, which would be added to the project cost. He stated he did not know how that could be categorized in the performance indicator for lane mile maintenance.

Ms. Giunchigliani noted at times legislators became too fixated on the numbers contained in performance indicators, and perhaps it would be better to have captions or a one-line explanation included. She felt incentive bonuses were not used enough in state government, and if projects could be completed ahead of schedule, that would be a success. She suggested performance indicators not only be number-based, but also include outcomes or cost savings.

Ms. Giunchigliani then asked Chairman Jacobsen if the committee wanted to discuss the issue of diversion of Highway Fund monies for non-traditional programs. Chairman Jacobsen replied in the affirmative. She then inquired if highway construction projects were delayed or eliminated, would that impact projects which used diversion funds. Mr. Stephens stated he did not feel there would be an immediate impact, however, some out-year superprojects described in Exhibit D might suffer delays if less funding was available. NDOT projects currently under design and implementation for this biennium would not be impacted.

Mr. Stephens emphasized there were various funding options open to NDOT, i.e., special federal grants, and bond sales. If NDOT needed to sell bonds, it would approach the legislature via the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) if necessary. Mr. Stephens stated NDOT had the capacity to sell approximately $500 million in bonds, but no bonds had been sold in the past 4 years, and no sales were anticipated in the current budget. When the construction level of the superprojects, (Exhibit D), was reached, he stated bond sales would be necessary. A funding shortfall would possibly effect the superprojects at the lower end of the scale, such as the second phase of the Carson Bypass or the Boulder Bypass. According to Mr. Stephens, he did not foresee an impact on projects in the current biennium, however, some had a long lead-time, and projects for the current biennium had been activated some time ago.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if Mr. Stephens envisioned issuance of bonds to fund non-traditional activities such as the Nuclear Waste Project. Mr. Stephens stated the committee should remember the NDOT budget was $440 million, and the supplemental or one-shot allocations funded via the Highway Fund totaled approximately $47 million. He explained the capital improvement projects for the Department of Motor Vehicles/Public Safety (DMV/PS) each biennium included construction of new buildings. DMV/PS also generated significant revenue for the state through license and registration fees, and other services. In actuality, Mr. Stephens stated, DMV/PS did not expend more revenue than it generated, and excess revenue was reverted to the Highway Fund.

The one-shot allocation for Integrated Financial Systems (IFS) was absolutely essential to NDOT for conversion of its computer systems for year 2000 compliance. Mr. Stephens stated NDOT approached the legislature for funding to complete the conversion in-house, however, the legislature instructed NDOT to integrate with the entire state system. Mr. Stephens addressed the one-shot allocation for the Benefit Services Fund bailout, stating NDOT was one of the largest users of the self-funded insurance plan because many of its employees lived in rural areas where no Heath Maintenance Organizations (HMO’s) were available. The current issue of the failure of the state health system had greatly impacted the morale of many NDOT employees, because there were no HMO’s available. NDOT, while casting no blame for current problems, was certainly supportive of that appropriation. Mr. Stephens indicated he saw nothing on the non-traditional Highway Fund appropriation list which he felt was unusual.

Chairman Jacobsen indicated the committee was sometimes misled by the Authorization Act, and assumed all available funding could be obligated, which was not the case; he asked Mr. Stephens to speak to that issue. Mr. Stephens replied the Authorization Act allowed funds to be carried over each year as the Federal Transportation Act was reauthorized by Congress. For example, in FY 1998, NDOT carried over $55 million in authorizations to TEA-21, and basically would use those funds to complete remaining projects from FY 1998. It simply continued the balance of funding, he advised, which was the method used by the Federal Government. He indicated NDOT only planned on receiving 90 percent of the available funding, however, occasionally there were extra federal monies available. Mr. Stephens noted at the end of 1998, NDOT received an additional $3 million in reallocation funds from other states which could not spend those allocations. On September 30, 1998, NDOT was also able to secure an additional $1 million in federal funds.

Chairman Jacobsen instructed Mr. Stephens to address the budget modules, beginning with Module M-100.

Mr. Stephens informed the committee he felt Module M-100 was money well spent, because NDOT needed representation in Washington, D.C. States such as Nevada, which were 85 percent federally owned, received $200 million per year in federal funds, and suffered tremendous air quality problems, needed the best representation possible in Washington, D.C. Mr. Stephens stated he felt NDOT was currently receiving that representation.

Ms. Chowning noted the Washington office was also funded by other departments, and asked why NDOT’s budget included the total cost of the contract increase. Mr. Stephens stated traditionally NDOT, the Commission on Economic Development, and the Commission on Tourism jointly funded the Washington office, however, priority was given to NDOT issues.

Chairman Jacobsen commented that committee members should visit the Washington office if given the opportunity, as it would give them a better perspective of the work done. Mr. Stephens declared Nevada’s Washington office was one of the better offices there. The Washington consultant was the leader among transportation staff, and was the person who drafted the resolutions for the National Governor’s Association. Mr. Stephens reiterated it was not just a person sitting at a desk in Washington, D.C., but rather an informed individual who could ally Nevada with other small western states for federal funding grants.

Chairman Jacobsen asked about Module M-630. Mr. Stephens responded that Lake Tahoe had formed a metropolitan planning organization under the auspices of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). The formation of that organization required special legislation because the area did not qualify as a community with over 50,000 people, and was a bi-state coalition. NDOT was working with California to fund a number of projects to protect Lake Tahoe. Also contained in Module M-630 was the increase in research programs and planning consultants as a result of TEA-21. Two percent of federal funds were allocated for research and planning, explained Mr. Stephens, and when TEA-21 increased NDOT’s funding, that amount increased accordingly; Mr. Stephens noted that module was 95 percent federally funded.

Senator O’Donnell inquired how the project was progressing on the north shore of Lake Tahoe. Mr. Stephens answered it was currently on winter break, and would be more costly than NDOT originally anticipated, however, the end result of the project would exceed expectations. Projects at Lake Tahoe were usually more expensive due to the short construction season and the stringent environmental controls. Senator O’Donnell then asked when NDOT would begin work on the project. Mr. Stephens stated the project should commence by mid-April if weather permitted, and should be completed by the end of June.

Mr. Stephens informed the committee he wanted to distribute pictures, (Exhibit E), depicting the transport of mining equipment in Elko County via I-80. He explained while it might be an exaggerated view of what nuclear waste transportation would look like, it would give the committee an idea of the scope and size of such a conveyance. He stated nuclear waste transportation vehicles might be smaller than the one depicted in the picture, and explained the vehicle shown was actually an autoclave for the Twin Creeks Mine. However, it was the type of transportation under discussion to travel a route from Caliente to Tonopah, through Beatty to Yucca Mountain in order to deposit nuclear waste. The Nuclear Waste Project Office would monitor such transportation, explained Mr. Stephens. He wanted the committee to have an idea of the impact on the highway system such transportation would cause. The transport shown in the exhibit caused $50,000 damage to the roadway, however, the mining concern paid for repairs. Ms. Chowning stated she appreciated being informed of the amount of damage done and paid for. Mr. Stephens stated that represented only the direct damage; there was underlying damage which would ultimately shorten the life of the highway, and could not be calculated.

Ms. Chowning indicated when the committee toured NDOT offices, it was reported the freeway service patrol program had been extremely successful, and she wondered if some of the proposed positions would be used in an effort to expand the patrol beyond 7:00 p.m. She noted a few years ago in Las Vegas, two gentlemen were killed while assisting a motorist push his vehicle off the freeway. She wondered if NDOT was considering expansion of that program. Mr. Stephens replied he could not answer that question, as he was unaware of future expansion plans for the program. He noted, however, the freeway service patrol program had been expanded in the interim to include not only U.S. 95, but also an afternoon patrol on I-15. Mr. Stephens indicated the question would be whether or not a morning patrol would be included on I-15. If additional funding was required, NDOT would approach IFC with a funding request.

Senator Neal asked what the date was of the picture (Exhibit E). Mr. Stephens stated he thought it was approximately 2 years old, but would provide the exact date.

In conclusion, Mr. Stephens advised the committee the budget approved by the legislature was not what drove NDOT expenditures in the project areas, as those were driven by federal funds. Those funds were monitored constantly in order to ensure there was no overspending. He assured the committee NDOT would not spend money just because it was allocated by the legislature, and all projects were closely monitored.

Chairman Jacobsen thanked Mr. Stephens for his presentation, and inquired if there were any questions or comments from the audience. Hearing none, Chairman Jacobsen excused the senate members, and turned the meeting over to Chairman Giunchigliani.

Chairman Giunchigliani advised the next budget item for committee review was DMV/PS Highway Patrol.

Colonel Michael Hood, Chief, Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP), stated Budget Account 4713 was the primary operating account for NHP, and was authorized 507 full time positions in FY 1998, and 522 positions in FY 1999. The base was adjusted according to the guidelines set forth in The Executive Budget, and unless the committee had further questions he would progress to the maintenance and enhancement modules.

Hearing none, Colonel Hood explained Module M-200 provided for staffing for the Las Vegas area of the southern command, which included salaries, travel, operating, and equipment costs. The request was directed toward achievement and maintaining 34 percent of a trooper’s total time available for proactive patrol, and was based on the formula for the "Urban Trooper Allocation" staffing model. Colonel Hood advised he would address that formula because there had been some problems with it. A complete inspection of the reporting criteria was recently completed, which generated new forms for consistent reporting throughout the state. Those forms had been in use since October of 1998 and Colonel Hood felt the numbers were an indication the format was working.

Chairman Giunchigliani asked Colonel Hood to provide those numbers to the committee, because the formula was one of the areas it wanted to probe. The committee was under the impression the formula had been changed to a different model from that introduced at the 1997 session. She asked Colonel Hood if the model had, in fact, been revised. Colonel Hood replied one of the big problems with the formula was inconsistent reporting, and not actually a problem with the formula itself, but rather a problem with the uniformity and consistency of reporting on a statewide basis.

Chairman Giunchigliani then asked if overtime activities had been segregated from the formula. Colonel Hood replied in the affirmative, and indicated NHP was working with Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) staff in an attempt to arrive at a working formula. Chairman Giunchigliani noted the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system had never been completed, so the formula model was based on estimates only. She inquired if that would cause an increase or decrease to NHP’s budget. Colonel Hood assured the committee there would be no changes during the current biennium, and the budget would stand as recommended; he felt the funding was adequate to continue the mission. A reporting system was in place, which simply needed to be fine-tuned and an adjustment made to the actual working of the formula.

Chairman Giunchigliani stated if the uniformity of the reporting had been adjusted, could that be reviewed in order to determine budget adjustments. The committee would ask Colonel Hood to review the NHP budget to ascertain where adjustments could be made. Colonel Hood stated he could do that, however, it had only been approximately 2 months since the new reporting system went into effect. While she appreciated that, Chairman Giunchigliani stated the original reporting system was based on estimates as well, so the committee might as well look at the current information, which might prove to be more accurate in the long run. Colonel Hood indicated he would comply with the committee’s request.

Continuing, Colonel Hood presented the following information:

• Module-200 also included a request for seven trooper positions for the Las Vegas area for FY 2000, and four troopers in FY 2001.

• Module E-375 provided for staffing for the Reno urban area of the northern command and included salaries, travel, operating equipment and lab costs associated with those positions. The request was for 11 troopers in FY 2000 and one trooper in FY 2001.

• Module E-376 provided for staffing for the rural areas of the state outside the Las Vegas and Reno urban areas, and was based upon a modification of the previously mentioned formula. The request was for two trooper positions in FY 2000 and two trooper positions for FY 2001.

Chairman Giunchigliani inquired about the formula used for the rural areas. Colonel Hood explained the rural staffing formula was not the same as that used in the urban areas. Different factors were used and it also used a different unobligated time factor. Chairman Giunchigliani asked if the formula was based on lane miles, and inquired if the formula was adopted by regulation or policy. Colonel Hood replied lane miles were part of the formula, and it was adopted by policy. Chairman Giunchigliani stated by adopting a separate formula for rural areas, additional trooper positions might not be approved.

Colonel Hood acknowledged there would be a time when all rural areas would be staffed to the maximum allowed by the formula. The only difference would be if a rural area increased in population and became an urban area. For example, he explained, Elko was currently under the rural area formula and if the city suddenly experienced a surge in population and was no longer considered a rural area, the formula would change. Chairman Giunchigliani inquired what the population figure needed to be for consideration as an urban area. Colonel Hood stated Carson City was classified as an urban area with a population of approximately 55,000, which was borderline.

Chairman Giunchigliani stressed during the last legislative session, additional trooper positions were approved for the rural areas. Colonel Hood stated positions were increased in the Las Vegas urban area last session, and also in the northeast rural area. The current request was for the areas of Hawthorne, Fernley, Tonopah, and Mesquite. Colonel Hood advised he would provide the committee with a breakdown of troopers needed in those areas, also based on the rural formula. That formula considered primary miles of the roadway, secondary miles, and controlled access miles. Determining the average length of time it took a unit to randomly patrol every highway in the patrol area during a certain period of time would provide the average interval between two consecutive passes. The formula consisted of a math formula: miles primary, plus miles secondary, plus controlled access, times two, divided by days in the week, patrol speed, shift length and patrol intervals. Colonel Hood stated that was the same formula used last session.

Chairman Giunchigliani stated perhaps the committee should review the formula proposed during the 1995 session and the one currently in use, in order to ascertain if there were differences. That would help the committee make a determination regarding staffing patterns. Colonel Hood stated the rural formula had not changed, and the controversial formula was the one used for urban areas. Chairman Giunchigliani advised she thought the committee had accommodated NHP in properly staffing all rural areas, not just the northeastern portion of the state.

Chairman Giunchigliani asked Colonel Hood to address the CAD system, which was funded in 1995, however, was not yet complete. Colonel Hood replied NHP had recently approached the IFC for additional revenue from forfeiture funds to assist with completion of the system. In The Executive Budget, NHP was requesting additional monies for maintenance of T-1 fiber optic lines for use by the system. Persons currently working on the system had projected a completion date of July 1, l999, however, Colonel Hood assured committee members that date would not be met. He estimated it would be at least January 2000 before the CAD system was operational. The delay was being caused by entry of roadway data, and NHP had down-loaded as much information as possible from NDOT, but many entries were still being made by hand, i.e., road, intersection, and trooper beat information. Chairman Giunchigliani stated the Census Bureau should have a program listing streets and addresses, and asked if that information could be shared. Colonel Hood stated NHP had looked into that possibility, but had been unable to locate the exact data entry information required for the CAD system.

Chairman Giunchigliani asked why that particular program was selected. Colonel Hood explained several years ago NHP administration requested what it felt would be full funding for the CAD system, however, the original request was grossly under-funded and the current administration had continued to struggle with that fact. NHP was also experiencing problems actually putting the program together, although some progress had been made during the past 3 years. He emphasized the system was close to being totally installed. Chairman Giunchigliani asked if NHP received assistance from the Department of Information Technology (DoIT). Colonel Hood stated NHP had not received any assistance, and was programming information in-house. He assured the committee he would accept assistance from any agency that offered to help.

Chairman Giunchigliani asked how much revenue had been expended on the system to date, and what additional revenue was requested in the upcoming budget cycle. Colonel Hood stated with him at the hearing was Major John Bawden, the Deputy Chief in charge of financial matters. Major Bawden introduced himself to the committee and related the amount expended to date on the CAD system amounted to the initial allocation. The funds approved by IFC were used to install the Record Information Management (RIM) system, an element of CAD. Beyond that, NHP had invested staff time for those persons actually working on the development of the geographical file. Within the current budget, there was an enhancement module to support the T-1 fiber optics line, which would allow NHP to network the CAD system. Mr. Bawden explained the current request went beyond the original proposal and the initial allocation, and would allow NHP to install "stand-alone" CAD systems in each center, and also resolve the problem of bringing the data together at NHP headquarters.

Chairman Giunchigliani noted that enhancement unit E-381 consisted of a request for approximately $118,000 each year of the biennium, and requested the total expenditure to date for the CAD system. Mr. Bawden indicated he would provide that information to the committee. Chairman Giunchigliani stated it was her understanding the individual who developed the CAD system was still in-house, was that correct. Mr. Bawden replied in the affirmative. Chairman Giunchigliani stated the legislature had been debating the issue of creating individual computer systems internally within departments since 1993, and it was becoming apparent that such systems did not perform well. She advised she was curious why the practice was still continuing, a factor which DMV/PS should take into consideration as well, because it could end up "stuck" with a program that did not work. The legislature kept "dumping" money into such programs, and the problem continued to grow more complicated each session.

Chairman Giunchigliani asked Colonel Hood to advise the committee of the status of the VHF high band radio project. He stated NHP had recently issued a letter of intent to award the bid to Motorola, and should begin receiving infrastructure and parts by the end of the current fiscal year. Colonel Hood indicated NHP felt the program was up and running well, and on the way to completion. The plan was to bring Las Vegas online with the current allocation. Chairman Giunchigliani inquired what was the projected completion date. Colonel Hood stated the project was being done in phases, and NHP would be required to request additional monies. There was a one-shot appropriation from the Highway Fund included in The Executive Budget, which would be allocated to infrastructure. Chairman Giunchigliani asked how much money NHP had received to date; Colonel Hood responded approximately $2.9 million, and the one-shot appropriation amounted to approximately $9 million. Chairman Giunchigliani asked exactly what infrastructure that $9 million would fund. Colonel Hood explained the consultant was currently working on a breakdown, and upon completion, copies would be submitted to the committee.

Chairman Giunchigliani inquired if the one-shot appropriation was approved before the Request for Proposal (RFP) was issued so the company knew in advance there was a $9 million appropriation. Colonel Hood replied NHP hired a consultant to ascertain what was needed to put in a high band radio system across the state. After that, the RFP was put out to bid. Was the one-shot appropriation to address the RFP award, asked Chairman Giunchigliani. Colonel Hood replied in the affirmative, and stated when NHP arrived at the final figure, it would complete the project, and there were be no further requests for funding unless there were proposed changes. Chairman Giunchigliani then asked when the committee could expect to have the final cost figures. Colonel Hood stated according to representatives from Motorola, the bid should be completed within 3 weeks. Once again, Chairman Giunchigliani asked if the plan was fully designed before the RFP was issued. Colonel Hood reiterated NHP met with the consultant, established what was needed to install a complete high band radio system with trunking capability, then the RFP was released and bids were received.

Chairman Giunchigliani asked when the RFP was released. Electing to respond was John Drew, Acting Director, DMV/PS, who stated part of what Colonel Hood was alluding to was the original one-shot appropriation from the previous session. A consultant was hired with that money for completion of a radio system design. That had not been accomplished to date, explained Mr. Drew, because the design could not take place until the vendor was selected. Now that the letter of intent had been awarded to Motorola, the consultant would work with both NHP and Motorola to complete the design. There were certain aspects of the radio system, such as infrastructure, mobiles, portables, et cetera, which NHP knew were absolutely necessary. The aforementioned approximately $9 million should complete the radio system, however, Mr. Drew could not promise that would be the absolute end of funding requests. He explained the change from low band to high band had also changed the propagation of where the mountain top locations would be placed. There could be additional mountain top locations, however until the radio design was done, NHP would not know the outcome. Mr. Drew indicated any further funding requests should be minimal.

Chairman Giunchigliani asked how much of the $2.9 million allocation was actually paid to the consultant. Mr. Drew responded it was approximately $400,000 and that contract also called for the radio design. She asked who made the decision to put out the bid and then have the company who was awarded that bid design the system in consultation with the consultant. Mr. Drew explained the consultant was primarily responsible for designing the radio system and working with the vendor and their equipment, which would factor into the consultant’s design of the radio system. Chairman Giunchigliani expressed her concern that NHP was, "putting the cart before the horse." If the consultant was hired to complete the design, why was that not done, because the equipment Motorola used should not effect the design.

Mr. Drew responded under normal circumstances, that was exactly what would have happened, however, DMV/PS knew as a department it did not have the ability internally to design such a major system, and the one-shot money had already been awarded. Mr. Drew agreed that to a certain extent, the "cart" had been put before the "horse," in that NHP had purchased basic equipment which was absolutely necessary before the radio design was completed. Mr. Drew reported in an ideal situation, the consultant would have completed the design of the radio system, and then put it out to bid. The problem was that the need to replace the radio system in Las Vegas was so critical, the process was accelerated. Chairman Giunchigliani asked what would happen if the consultant and Motorola were informed there would be no further funding, and they needed to design a system that "fit" the available funding. She added she knew some constraints were actually put in place by the legislature, but NHP should have waited to request the money until the system was designed. Chairman Giunchigliani instructed Mr. Drew to provide the committee with information about the plan, the actual dollar amount, what was currently in place, the design, and all aspects of the project.

Mr. Drew stated he felt NHP had provided the most up-to-date information available to it, and the only thing which could not be factored in until the propagation study was complete were any new mountain top locations. Chairman Giunchigliani asked why a change from low band to high band had not been previously reviewed with regard to a possible change in mountain top locations. Mr. Drew responded NHP was aware of the possibility, because every radio study done had always included a reference to such sites. Would it be possible to extrapolate that information from a previously completed study inquired Chairman Giunchigliani. Mr. Drew replied that had already been attempted without success, and explained there might only be four new mountain top locations, which was not a significant number.

Chairman Giunchigliani asked, other than the $9 million, would the only other charges anticipated by NHP for the project be the cost of mountain top locations. Mr. Drew indicated it was possible that cost could be included in the $9 million allocation, however, until the actual design was completed at the end of the year, the final cost was unknown. One problem was the logistics of visiting mountain top locations, which had to be done during the summer months. Chairman Giunchigliani inquired if the consultant would require an advance payment from the $9 million to complete the design, or could the committee make distribution contingent upon the plan being designed and approved by IFC, thereby "kick-starting" the funding. Mr. Drew stated he would review that possibility and report back to the committee.

According to Chairman Giunchigliani, the only other real issue the committee wanted to review in the NHP budget was reimbursement on vehicles from the Insurance and Loss Prevention account. Major Bawden advised he would provide that information to the committee as soon as possible.

Regarding Module E-383, which requested additional furniture, Chairman Giunchigliani indicated when a position was authorized, the furniture for that position was also authorized, and inquired if that was a duplicate request. Colonel Hood replied it was his understanding the furniture was for new positions, or replacement furniture. The Module addressed purchases for common areas, and appeared to include new furniture purchases for positions previously authorized, explained Chairman Giunchigliani, and requested clarification. Also, she asked when the new building would be completed. Colonel Hood stated the new building was high on the Capital Improvement list, but had not yet been approved; it would be a 2 to 4 year projection. Chairman Giunchigliani then inquired if the request for furniture was for that new building. Colonel Hood explained NHP had requested a temporary location prior to completion of the new building, and the request for furniture in The Executive Budget was for the temporary location, and would be transferred to the new building upon completion.

Ms. Chowning requested a breakout relative to the equipment cost category of NHP’s budget, because only numbers were shown and the committee did not know what justification was used; she also asked if the furniture purchase was being included with equipment costs. Colonel Hood stated he would be happy to provide the breakout relative to that category for committee members.

Chairman Giunchigliani inquired if there was further testimony forthcoming on the NHP budget.

Gary Wolff, Nevada Highway Patrol Association indicated he wished to present testimony, along with NHP Trooper Stewart Handte, past vice president of the association. Mr. Wolff stated the only concern he had in the entire NHP budget was the radio system. As the committee was aware, in 1995 the legislature appropriated money for a study of the NHP radio system. There was no doubt the system was failing, and the association’s concern was not what type of system was designed, where the mountain top sites were located, or even if towers were used, but with credibility before the Assembly. For instance, he explained, the company that completed the current study was also the consultant for the project. Mr. Wolff explained the in-house radio manager could provide the story of what was occurring regarding the system, however, that person was not present at the hearing. The committee was only hearing one side of the story, which was unfortunate, but was a constant occurrence. The managers appeared and presented testimony, but the workers and technicians who put the programs together were never allowed to present their testimony.

Mr. Wolff called attention to the fact the RFP had been done in October, 1998 and approved by the very consultant NHP hired to design the system, the same consultant that was paid $400,000. The program was 1½ years behind schedule and Mr. Wolff stated the association’s concern was that NHP would have another disaster like the Nevada Operations Multi Automated Data Systems (NOMADS). Radio systems, explained Mr. Wolff, could be quite expensive and the NHP desperately needed a new system in place; there had already been several incidents involving officer safety, and the system was also important to public safety.

Mr. Wolff likened the situation to "policing of America," asking how a consultant could come into the state, complete a study, tell NHP what was needed, including the number of towers, and outline the schedule to disperse funds. The legislature appropriated $5.7 million over the last 2 biennia, and now the cost was at $12 million. He stressed the system did need to be built, but requested honesty with the legislature from NHP; he did not feel the association’s credibility should be questioned because of information provided by NHP. Mr. Wolff then invited Mr. Handte to address the committee.

Mr. Handte stated he would relate the facts surrounding an incident which occurred on February 19, 1998, involving a high-speed chase which originated in Winnemucca, and continued west on I-80 toward Reno. Troopers working in the Reno area were notified of the high-speed pursuit, and responded by setting up road spikes on I-80 near the Tracy-Clark Power Plant exit. Troopers then waited for the pursuit to reach that location, where they hoped it would terminate. Unfortunately, as often happened in high-speed pursuit situations, things do not always go as planned, and the pursuit went off-road near Fernley. The problems incurred involved the use of two radio channels, the outlying and the local channels. Troopers from Reno were operating on the local channel and the outlying channel was picking up radio transmissions regarding the pursuit as it approached Fernley. Because of the existing radio system, troopers were unable to copy what was taking place in the outlying area, and could only ascertain the status of the pursuit via cellular phone conversations between supervisors at Tracy-Clark Power Plant and the actual officers involved in the pursuit.

Mr. Handte related one trooper had been sent to meet the pursuit near Fernley, where the chase became rather hectic, going off-road and into a canyon area. A foot pursuit ensued and troopers waiting at the Tracy-Clark Power Plant did not know what was happening due to the radio communication problem. He indicated he had attempted to contact a vehicle that was 3 miles ahead of him in a canyon on the tactical car-to-car channel, but was unable to do so. That had been a problem inherent in the Fernley area for many years. As a state trooper, Mr. Handte stated his concern was twofold, public safety and safety of officers. Fortunately, he explained, the pursuit that ended in Fernley involved no personal injury. Mr. Handte stated there had been many incidents that could have turned "sour" very quickly and resulted in injury. His concern would echo Mr. Wolff’s sentiments, that the new radio system should have been up and running long ago, and he felt that troopers were playing "Russian Roulette" with the current system on a daily basis.

Chairman Giunchigliani thanked Mr. Handte for his presentation, and advised Mr. Wolff she appreciated his criticism as part of the overall discussion regarding what needed to be done to make the system work. She asked Mr. Wolff if he had any suggestions other than his concern regarding the consultant. Mr. Wolff advised the persons who made the decisions did not know a "resistor" from a "transistor," while the technicians who worked with the radio system were never present at the hearings; the people who could answer the committee’s questions were not present. He noted the legislature provided the money for projects, however, when it was no longer in session, the projects had a way of taking several different "turns." He believed that situation arose because of political games being played within divisions and departments, and in the current situation the game-playing continued with Motorola and Erickson. Mr. Wolff informed the committee Erickson had bid $3,000 on the hand-held radios while Motorola bid $750, an enormous bid gap. Unless technicians were permitted to appear before the committee and present testimony from their perspective, it would continue to hear only one side of the story.

Mr. Wolff admitted he did not know how to fix the problem, but emphatically stated the association did not want to be blamed for stalling a system that should have already been operational. The only system currently up and running was at Round Mountain Mines, which was constructed by in-house personnel with the cooperation of the mine, because the Nye County Sheriff would no longer tolerate the horrible radio communication. Apparently, he advised, NHP had signed contracts and the state was stuck with those contracts.

Chairman Giunchigliani thanked Mr. Wolff and Mr. Handte for their presentations, and queried the audience for further questions or testimony. Hearing none, the hearing was closed, and the hearing opened on Budget Account 4728.

Colonel Hood stated Budget Account 4728 was funded through the Highway Fund, and authorized 15 full time positions in FY 1998 and 15 positions in FY 1999, and the base had been adjusted accordingly. The only actual change in the budget was included in Module E-375. He went on to explain during the 1997 Legislative Session, the statute which required the former Public Service Commission (PSC) to investigate and review the background of out-of-state companies for fitness to be licensed for the transportation of hazardous materials within Nevada, was deleted. Via a Bill Draft Request (BDR), the division was seeking to reinstate that statute as a NHP responsibility with the provision that the applicant companies offset division costs for travel when it was conducting an investigation. If approved, it would be an offsetting expenditure, and other than that, Colonel Hood explained, there were no changes within the budget account.

Chairman Giunchigliani asked Colonel Hood to explain who was currently conducting the investigations. He replied it was currently handled by the NHP. When the PSC separated, NHP lost the authority to bill companies, and the requested legislation would address that issue.

Daryl Capurro, Nevada Motor Transport Association, reported emergency response and hazardous materials were tied together, and the previously referenced bill was S.B. 167, currently being considered by the Senate Committee on Natural Resources. That bill was currently undergoing an extensive amendment to include S.B. 82, which would deal with the issues regarding the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC), as well as NHP and the industry. Essentially, explained Mr. Capurro, the section of statute dealing with that area had been passed into law approximately 10 years ago and had not been adequately updated to reflect federal alliance changes. The alliance was originally the pilot program in which Nevada was one of four states that entered into an International Registration Plan (IRP), or International Fuel Tax Administration (IFTA) type of compact agreement. Mr. Capurro reported that agreement had expanded to include six states, with two additional states slated to join.

While he felt it was very necessary for Nevada to change the law, he indicated it should also include suggestions relative to SERC. Under the law, 20 percent of the fees charged for regulation of hazardous material transportation were allocated to a contingency account for SERC, included in its budget under the category for licenses and fees, and 80 percent was allocated to the Highway Fund. SERC’s budget reflected approximately $95,000 a year for the next 2 years of the biennium in that category. Mr. Capurro stated that figure was likely to remain flat or decrease, because as more states entered into the alliance program, Nevada’s share would probably decrease. That would create a problem for NHP, for the industry, and for SERC. According to Mr. Capurro, what the association would propose was the elimination of the 20 percent fee allocation transferred to SERC, thereby allowing that percentage to also revert to the Highway Fund. Hazardous material investigation costs could then be directly transferred from that fund to SERC. He explained, for the most part, it would be a "trading dollars" situation. Mr. Capurro revealed his purpose for addressing the committee was to advise that the association was currently working on three different issues in an attempt to condense them into one bill which would eventually be heard by the committee. Further, the NHP and SERC were in full agreement with the association regarding the concept of that legislation.

Chairman Giunchigliani asked if Mr. Capurro envisioned a new line item in the NHP budget to receive the hazardous material allocation. Mr. Capurro replied he assumed it would be a separate item under SERC’s budget, which he felt was better because in the past the legislature had conducted an interim study to determine where all the small separate accounts were located. By placing an item in the SERC budget, it would be more easily tracked.

Ms. Chowning advised there was reorganization last session, which resulted in overlapping regulations and investigations of carriers. She inquired who had been conducting those investigations, and how the fees were being distributed.

Mr. Capurro replied there was some overlapping or joint responsibility between the Transportation Safety Authority (TSA) and DMV/PS. There was legislation being considered which would eliminate that dual responsibility, making insurance and safety the full responsibility of DMV/PS. Through NHP and the Registration Division, safety was handled for every other class of vehicle in the State of Nevada except those under TSA. He assured Ms. Chowning those investigations were being done by NHP.

Colonel Hood added NHP was currently handling those investigations at the same funding levels as previously approved. Mr. Capurro indicated the association fully agreed with the language of S.B. 167, which restored the authority to charge for out-of-state investigations. Ms. Chowning inquired if NHP was currently handling the investigations with existing staff and no additional budget dollars. Colonel Hood stated there were funds available through funding for permits, which amounted to approximately $500,000 per year. Twenty percent of that amount went to SERC to support 11 commissioner and 2 civilian positions.

With no further questions, Chairman Giunchigliani closed the hearing, and opened the hearing on Budget Account 4738.

Colonel Hood explained the account was funded by the General Fund and authorized eight full-time positions in both years of the biennium. The base was adjusted in accordance with the guidelines set forth in the budget instructions, and there were no major changes in the account.

Chairman Giunchigliani asked Colonel Hood to address performance indicators, asking about number one, which addressed threats towards the Governor. She asked how many threats were handled and in what time frame. Colonel Hood explained the division was to respond to threats within a 2-hour time frame, which complied with other dignitary protection services nationally.

Chairman Giunchigliani stated indicators number three and four appeared to be the same. Colonel Hood advised indicator number three, minimize security breaches and inappropriate contacts, addressed the interior portion of the Governor’s Mansion, and number four addressed the exterior areas. He went on to explain an inappropriate contact would be someone approaching the Governor’s Mansion, knocking on the door, and asking to talk to the Governor. Chairman Giunchigliani asked how many incidents involving inappropriate contact had occurred; Colonel Hood replied there was one internal breach and 12 external breaches.

Review of the budget indicated a vacant lieutenant’s position, and Chairman Giunchigliani inquired if it could be eliminated. Colonel Hood stated that was currently under discussion with the Governor and staff, and the position was being considered for elimination. The division was running a test to see if that was a possibility; the duties were currently being handled by a sergeant. The position had only been vacant since the first of the year and with the change of administration it had been difficult to establish a set schedule. Chairman Giunchigliani advised the committee would review that issue again during budget closings.

With no further information forthcoming, the hearing on account 4738 was closed. Colonel Hood requested the committee hear Budget Account 4709 next.

Colonel Hood informed the committee the repository operated under statutory authority of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 179A, and the account was authorized 60 full time positions in FY 1998-99. The base budget was adjusted accordingly with requirements set forth in the budget instructions. Module M-200 contained a request for an additional NCJIS Specialist position in FY 2000. Other than that, there were no major budget changes. Chairman Giunchigliani observed there was a flat level of activity per the performance indicators, and ask for justification for an additional staff person. She asked Dennis DeBacco with the Criminal History Records Repository to speak to that issue.

Mr. DeBacco explained the position was being requested due to legislation enacted last session, along with an increased activity level within the court system throughout the state. He stated there had been a Legislative Audit of the Administrative Office of the Courts and statewide courts, which suggested a rather dismal relationship with the repository. The agency anticipated increased activity in the new biennium, with more and more courts coming online with the repository. Mr. DeBacco disclosed that did not necessarily indicate a computer-to-computer interface, but rather a manual process, particularly in the area of protective orders. As new courts statewide were brought into the repository program, it would require additional personnel training, and would require the repository to conduct compliance audits, ensuring those courts were working within statutory guidelines and various federal mandates included in other systems the repository made available.

Chairman Giunchigliani asked Mr. DeBacco to provide the committee with documentation and statistics to justify the position. She then asked about the status of the civil name-check program. Mr. DeBacco explained last session the legislature approved a pilot program that included six primary hotels in southern Nevada. The repository got off to a rather slow start in initiating the program, however, all six pilot programs were currently operational and enjoying success. The hotels appeared to be very pleased with the level of service being provided by the repository. Some of Chairman Giunchigliani’s concerns from last session were built into the program to ensure and safeguard against the information being used inappropriately.

Chairman Giunchigliani inquired about fees. Mr. DeBacco replied there was a $12 fee for the name-check service, of which the repository retained $8 for its services, and $4 was forwarded to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. That represented payment for services it provided to the repository via an interface with the Clark County Criminal History Records System. Mr. DeBacco assured the committee the $8 per case covered the cost and met the projected transaction volumes from the six hotels.

Chairman Giunchigliani stated the actual cost figure for FY 1998 was $9,183. The projected figures were $50,000 in FY 1999; $80,000 in FY 2000; and $84,000 in FY 2001, and asked what caused the increase. Mr. DeBacco stated those figures anticipated adding properties and, in fact, four additional accounts were recently given the "green light" to purchase the necessary equipment needed to come online with the repository. Would the committee then see commensurate staffing costs, inquired Ms. Giunchigliani. Mr. DeBacco stated at the IFC meeting in May, there were three positions frozen by the committee and the repository was to return to a subsequent meeting and report when it would need to activate those positions. Because the repository got off to such a slow start, those positions were not included in the budget for the next biennium. From the repository’s perspective, that would not create a substantial problem, and Mr. DeBacco suggested as the repository brought more properties online, it would reach the threshold of work that could be completed with existing staff.

Chairman Giunchigliani asked if the repository was still considered a "pilot" program, to which Mr. DeBacco responded it was beyond the pilot, and he could not continue to refer to the program in that manner. The program had been adequately tested, users were very happy, and there had been no complaints from citizens because of inappropriate checks. There had been challenges, not so much in the criminal history background information, but with the accuracy of the records. Oftentimes, he explained, people claimed the record was not theirs, and there was a process in place for challenging those records. More often than not, a person would claim the record belonged to a brother or sister, et cetera. Chairman Giunchigliani advised that would be a good performance indicator, to track how many and what type of challenges were made against the repository.

Mr. DeBacco reiterated the most common inquiry was because of criminal record entries which persons claimed were not theirs. Many of those inquiries were generated from the firearms program, where persons were approved to purchase weapons. He reported the repository had never held an administrative hearing. Further, he explained the issue of teachers being required to pay the fee twice had also been resolved. If a person currently held a professional license which had been issued within a 6-month period, that person was exempt from paying duplicate fees when employment was secured. Mr. DeBacco stated that was from the perspective of the repository, and he could not speak for the school districts, but he had not heard any reports of duplicate fee payments.

Ms. Chowning stated when legislators recently toured the repository, they viewed the side-by-side pictures of fingerprints on the computer. She asked if there was equipment that would provide an instant overlay so that the person conducting the visual check would not have such a difficult time, and if it was available, had the repository requested funding to purchase such equipment. She noted the budget showed a major decrease from the repository’s request for equipment.

Mr. DeBacco replied the repository was currently using state-of-the-art technology by way of automated fingerprint identification systems, and what the legislators viewed was state-of-the-art. The overlaying of fingerprint impressions was not a reality at the present time, as that level of technology was not available yet. The current computer technology actually revealed whether or not an identification match had been made, and a fingerprint technician simply verified that match. Prior to that technology, it used to take a fingerprint technician studying a side-by-side comparison to establish that fact. Ms. Chowning inquired if the repository was satisfied with the decrease in the equipment purchase category. Mr. DeBacco responded in the affirmative. He reminded the committee the repository had approached the fall IFC meeting with the request for a very significant enhancement for the Automated Fingerprint Information System (AFIS). That went hand-in-glove with the repository moving out of the existing facility to commercially leased space, which was scheduled in April, and at the same time installing the AFIS upgrades in order to transition from the old system to the new without interrupting productivity.

Chairman Giunchigliani asked Mr. DeBacco to furnish the committee with a breakdown of figures for the sex offender registry (budget page DMV-136), and explain the fluctuation. He stated he would provide that information.

With nothing further to be presented, the hearing was closed, and the hearing opened on Budget Account 4703.

Mr. Drew explained account 4703 contained monies which had been legally and civilly forfeited from criminal defendants. In the past, the Division of Investigations had always maintained that the first priority for the account was to provide the state match for the federal grant that funded Budget Account 3744, Narcotics Control, which provided a portion of the narcotics enforcement program for the Investigation Division.

Additionally, stated Mr. Drew, account 4703 had funded training and equipment purchase in the past when General Fund monies were not available. The training was in compliance with federal and state guidelines for the expenditure of the money. During the upcoming biennium, the division was requesting to expend approximately $351,000 from the account as a grant match for Budget Account 3744, and during the second year of the biennium, the grant match would be approximately $337,000. In addition to the grant match, the division would request a one-shot appropriation from the account for approximately $163,000 which would be used as funding to replace 29 computers and associated equipment. Under normal circumstances, the division would not ask to replace computers from account 4703, however, it was imperative that those computers be replaced in order to run existing department programs and it was felt the Forfeiture Account was the only option available, given the current state of the General Fund. In the future, it was the intent of the division not to pursue that type of expenditure.

Chairman Giunchigliani stated, by way of clarification, the division would not request General Fund money in the future for computer replacement. Because of the current state of the General Fund, Mr. Drew assured the committee the funding for computer replacement would be from the Forfeiture Account. Making the assumption that the General Fund would again become healthy, the division would like to revert to replacement of computers from General Fund monies as was done in the past. Mr. Drew stated the revenue source for the Forfeiture Account was not guaranteed, and did fluctuate. Chairman Giunchigliani stated the account contained a sufficient revenue balance, and if the legislature authorized purchases using forfeiture monies, it would continue to do so until the agency requested a return to General Fund money.

With nothing further to come before the committee regarding Budget Account 4703, the hearing was closed. The next item for committee consideration was Budget Account 3743.

Mr. Drew informed the committee Rick Cypher, Acting Chief, Nevada Division of Investigations (NDI) would present the budget.

Mr. Cypher advised NDI had statutory responsibility under NRS chapters 481 and 453 for statewide narcotic enforcement, and to provide investigative assistance on a statewide basis to sheriff’s, police chief’s, and district attorney’s. He stated he had provided the committee with a copy of the division’s investigative highlights, (Exhibit F), to give members some idea of how NDI accomplished its mission. Those highlights represented only 28 cases out of the 2,029 cases handled in 1997-98. He indicated during the last legislative session, the committee directed NDI to prepare separate performance indicators for General Fund Budget Account 3743 and the Narcotics Control Federal Grant Account, 3744, and those had been presented to the committee, (Exhibit G).

Mr. Cypher indicated he would begin with review of the General Fund Budget Account 3743. The four significant changes to the account from the last biennium were in the base budget with the elimination of four positions and associated funding for the Vehicle Investigations Project for Enforcement and Recovery (VIPER) program. The enhancement requests were as follows:

• Module E-710 requested two concealable voice transmitters for officer safety while conducting undercover operations;
• Module E-711 requested nine locking filing cabinets; and,
• Module E-712 requested 16 vehicles to replace vehicles that would exceed 100,000 miles during the biennium.

Mr. Cypher informed the committee Module E-900 would be addressed by Mr. Drew. Based on reorganization of state government, Mr. Drew stated the 1995 session had recommended that three criminal investigator positions from the Bureau of Enforcement (BOE) within the Registration Division be transferred to NDI in an effort to consolidate some of the investigative activities within the department. Mr. Drew stated his predecessor made the recommendation that the positions be moved back to the BOE. Based on his discussion with the Governor’s Chief of Staff regarding the desire to complete functional reviews of DMV/PS, along with other departments in order to determine future consolidation, the possibility of further consolidation was being considered in the area of public safety. While Mr. Drew was not suggesting there be an actual technical adjustment to the NDI budget, he would request that the committee consider leaving the three BOE positions with NDI. There was a possibility that after the Governor’s Office completed its review there would be a recommendation for further consolidation within the public safety area.

Chairman Giunchigliani stated while she appreciated the reasoning behind Mr. Drew’s request, she wondered if it would make more sense to review those positions where they were originally housed, versus where the legislature had diverted them. She felt that would present a better picture of the duties of those individuals. Mr. Drew stated it was his understanding from the last Cabinet meeting that the Governor’s Office intended to review each division’s function and determine where the positions should be housed. Chairman Giunchigliani stated when she looked at the performance indicators, she could not tell what the BOE investigator’s jobs were prior to relocation to NDI. Mr. Drew stated under BOE, those positions were primarily regulatory, with criminal investigations spread throughout. It would not be an accurate comparison because NDI conducted 100 percent criminal investigations versus the BOE, which was 80 percent regulatory and 20 percent criminal. He stated he would provide the numbers to the committee via revised performance indicators.

Chairman Giunchigliani advised one of her concerns last session was that BOE was charged with conducting auto theft related investigations, and she did not want to see the BOE positions diverted from their responsibilities because of the transfer to NDI. Mr. Drew assured the committee he would provide information via performance indicators regarding the position transfers. Mr. Perkins indicated he felt the performance indicators could be improved to help measure the effectiveness of law enforcement. Perhaps, he suggested, they could include something along the lines of NDI goals regarding clearance rates, or any other information which might be of assistance to the committee in ascertaining the effectiveness of various programs. Mr. Drew stated NDI would continue in an effort to comply with that request, and perhaps the committee could suggest additional ideas.

Mr. Drew explained part of the problem was in the area of non-narcotic investigations. All NDI investigations outside the auto theft area were done by request from various law enforcement agencies. If NDI received a request to conduct a homicide investigation, it would certainly comply with that request; however, Mr. Drew advised he was not sure the NDI investigation in and of itself would have an impact on the homicide rate in the community where the investigation took place. Some measurements needed to be reviewed, such as the area of successful completion of investigations and submittal of the case to the District Attorney’s Office, versus the impact on the crime rate, per se, in the non-narcotic area. Mr. Perkins acknowledged that was the type of information the committee was seeking, the success of investigations rather than the impact on the crime rate. Since NDI was spread very thin statewide, local law enforcement agencies would have more of an impact in each primary jurisdiction than NDI, even though investigations were sometimes a cooperative effort. Mr. Perkins felt the success rate of the investigations would provide valuable program information. Once again, Mr. Drew stated NDI would definitely keep that in mind when expanding performance indicators.

Ms. Chowning stated she also wanted to address the performance indicators, because it appeared NDI had conducted only five investigations; she inquired if that indicated only five investigations were conducted other than controlled substance violations. She noted also, regarding arrests, the committee could not determine what percentage of those investigations resulted in arrests. She also questioned the assistance to other agency category, which indicated a total of eight. Further, she advised more information was needed regarding the VIPER program, as the proposal was to eliminate that program. Ms. Chowning noted there were no performance indicators to demonstrate whether or not the program was successful, if it was helpful to Nevadans, or if it was simply a waste of time. Ms. Chowning stated she had visited the Reno VIPER office, and felt the benefit of the program far outweighed the cost; however, without additional information, the committee could not make an informed decision regarding elimination of the program. According to Ms. Chowning, she had been informed the program secured approximately $2 million in vehicle recoveries.

Mr. Cypher reported he had recently responded to staff and provided statistics regarding the VIPER program. He stated he did not feel it was a waste of resources for the citizens of Nevada and was, in fact, an effective program. Since the program only began in October of 1997, it was difficult to measure just how effective it was. As an example of services provided by the program, Mr. Cypher explained it did not target recoveries per se, but targeted organizations involved in commercial auto theft, or auto theft for profit. According to Mr. Cypher, in a recent case VIPER staff worked in conjunction with the Orange County, California Auto Theft Taskforce in order to recover 24 stolen vehicles in the Las Vegas area within a 24-hour period. Mr. Cypher emphasized the program had done an excellent job in targeting such auto theft organizations in the Las Vegas area.

Chairman Giunchigliani asked how vehicle recovery valuation was determined, and was it based on the original price of the vehicle. Mr. Cypher advised the recovery valuation was based on the dollar value reported by the victim at the time of the theft. If a vehicle was completely destroyed at the time it was recovered, the valuation was based on the dollar amount placed on it before being destroyed. Chairman Giunchigliani then asked if that method of valuation had an impact on recovery dollar amounts. Mr. Cypher replied that was a possibility, and as Mr. Drew had pointed out, part of the valuation was based on insurance payments to victims.

Chairman Giunchigliani requested an explanation of how NDI interacted with the Nevada Department of Prisons (NDOP). Mr. Cypher related NDI would respond to a request from NDOP for assistance with an investigation. Mr. Cypher used an example of the case in southern Nevada where an inmate was severely beaten, and remained in a coma for a lengthy period of time. NDI spent numerous hours conducting the investigation of that incident, and the Attorney General’s Office was currently in the process of prosecuting those individuals responsible. He disclosed NDI had provided assistance to NDOP on numerous occasions.

Mr. Drew explained NDI had been assisting NDOP with both narcotic and non-narcotic investigations for approximately 20 years. Chairman Giunchigliani stated it would be interesting to see individual breakdowns related to narcotic and non-narcotic investigations within NDOP, and breakdowns of investigations for other law enforcement agencies as well. Mr. Drew stated NDI did maintain records regarding which entities requested its assistance with investigations, and he would provide that information to the committee.

Addressing Module E-197, Chairman Giunchigliani noted there were fewer staff that would require training, and inquired if the funding allocation could be reduced. She also asked for an explanation of the proposed 12-week training program, as opposed to the 8-week program approved last session. Mr. Drew explained the Field Training Officer (FTO) program, was originally designed to contain a 4-week in-house classroom portion followed by an additional 9 to 11-week actual field evaluation portion. It was recommended the classroom in-house portion be transferred to the newly established Training Division, which would be closely patterned after the NHP in-service training program. The actual field evaluation, however, would remain with NDI. Chairman Giunchigliani asked why the training segments were still bifurcated since the Training Division had been created. Mr. Drew explained the field evaluation took place in the field during actual investigations, and was not an activity in which the Training Division should be involved. For example, a new NHP officer completing his patrol car field evaluation would have an experienced officer evaluating his performance, not a training officer. He advised only the actual classroom portion of the training should take place within the Training Division, where instructors would teach the technical aspects of the job.

Chairman Giunchigliani stated it seemed every state agency was creating its own training division and those divisions were constantly being expanded, such as Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST), by adding additional classroom requirements which caused a direct budgetary impact. First, she stated, the department asked to create a training division and proposed an 8-week session, and 2 years later was asking for a 12-week training session. Mr. Drew explained the 8 weeks for the FTO program was separate from the 4-week classroom portion. Chairman Giunchigliani stated the NDI had trained four new staff in 1998 and was requesting funding to train three additional new staff in FY 2000-2001, and asked why the additional money was needed to train fewer people. She instructed Mr. Drew to have the appropriate person prepare a response to justify the request contained in Module E-197.

Carol English, Principal Budget Analyst, Budget Division, advised the committee that Module E-197 would add additional weeks to the field training program, which would increase it from an 8-week to a 12-week program. One week of the 12-week program had been requested for VIPER training, and if that program was eliminated, the training time could also be eliminated. Ms. English then asked if the committee was attempting to solicit information regarding the additional training funds requested in that Module, which would expand the FTO program; Chairman Giunchigliani replied that was correct. Ms. English declared that information would be provided to the committee.

Chairman Giunchigliani then addressed Module E-711, asking which six vehicles NDI was replacing, because the legislature authorized the replacement of six vehicles in 1995, which apparently had not been done. She asked if the current request would replace those original six vehicles. She asked Mr. Drew to provide the committee with information regarding vehicle replacement. Mr. Drew stated he was unaware of the previous allocation for replacement of vehicles, however, would research that issue and report back to the committee.

There being no further questions or testimony on Budget Account 4709, the hearing was closed. The next agenda item for review was Budget Account 4729.

Mary Lynne Evans, Executive Director, State Emergency Response Commission, stated with her at the hearing was Elizabeth Ashby, Grants and Projects Analyst. She explained Budget Account 4729 reflected personnel and operations, as well as grant monies passed through to sub-recipients. She stated all funds in the budget were fee-based.

The base budget was consistent with the Governor’s recommendation and the commission recommended no changes. Ms. Evans stated the only enhancement in the budget was Module E-710, which requested replacement of one computer and the purchase of a printer. Additionally, in Module E-800, the commission took exception to the $61,667 and the $26,025 charged in each year of the biennium respectively for the network cost provided by Public Safety Information Technology (PSIT). It was her understanding that issue was being addressed to reflect a more appropriate amount.

Chairman Giunchigliani asked about the emergency assistance account, inquiring if the commission had developed regulations. Electing to respond was Ms. Ashby, who advised that the commission was currently developing those regulations and it would, in fact, vote on them at the upcoming April meeting. Chairman Giunchigliani inquired how the commission was accessing the account without regulations in place. Ms. Ashby stated the account was not being utilized, and would not become effective until July 1, 1999.

Ms. Chowning stated the committee appreciated the work being done by the commission, and because of the potential for incidents related to hazardous materials, she inquired if a replica of an incident caused by hazardous materials was part of local emergency planning. Ms. Ashby advised the commission’s program involved only certain hazardous materials, which did not include explosives, however, she indicated several of the local emergency planning committees did have plans in the event of an incident involving explosives.

Chairman Giunchigliani asked if the commission had provided the committee with a copy of its emergency response plan. Ms. Ashby replied there were 17 local emergency planning committees, each with its own plan. Chairman Giunchigliani then asked if the commission coordinated or monitored those plans to ensure all necessary requirements were met. Ms. Ashby replied in the affirmative. Chairman Giunchigliani instructed Ms. Ashby to provide copies of those plans to Debbra King, Program Analyst, and she would disseminate the information to committee members.

Chairman Giunchigliani addressed Module E-800, stating it appeared SERC was paying for more than its portion of PSIT network costs. Ms. English advised SERC had not paid fees in the past for access to the PSIT, which needed to be addressed, because it should be paying for access to the system. She explained the budget was being reviewed regarding what costs should be assessed. The $61,000 figure was placed in Module E-800 because of the programming PSIT was contemplating for both SERC and the Fire Marshal’s Office. In an attempt to charge a portion of the fees to SERC for the benefit of using the system, 20 percent of the cost was included in its budget.

According to Ms. English, even though the PSIT actually provided a more direct service to the Fire Marshal, SERC did have access and used the system. She advised the Budget Office was considering restructuring the cost allocation plan. Chairman Giunchigliani asked for a copy of that allocation plan. She also asked if Ms. English was monitoring the Senate bills previously referenced by Mr. Capurro, to ensure there was no funding loss to the Highway Fund, which the cost allocation plan should take into consideration. Ms. English stated she had been working with Mr. Capurro and the NHP regarding the proposed legislation.

Chairman Giunchigliani asked about staffing at the commission; Ms. Evans reported the full-time staff included her position as Executive Director, and Ms. Ashby, who was the Grants and Programs Analyst.

There being no further business to come before the committee, the hearing was adjourned at 11:05 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Carol Thomsen,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Lawrence Jacobsen, Chairman

DATE:

_____________________________________________

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Chairman

DATE:_______________________________________