The Assembly Ways and Means and Senate Finance Joint Subcommittee on General Government was called to order at 8:15 a.m., on Thursday,
April 1, 1999. Chairman William O’Donnell presided in Room 2134 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List.

Senator William O’Donnell, Chairman

Senator Lawrence Jacobsen

Senator Joe Neal

ASSEMBLY SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mrs. Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman

Mr. Bob Beers

Mr. David Goldwater

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mrs. Marcia de Braga (Excused)

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani (Excused)

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator O’Donnell called the meeting to order and opened the hearing on the Judicial Branch Budget.

Senator O’Donnell stated the budget appeared to contain a lot of fat and some of the budget figures needed to be justified. The budget contained a 32 percent increase overall and that was only in the work program and did not include the FY 1997 actuals.

Karen Kavanau, State Court Administrator asked Senator O’Donnell if he was referring to all 12 budget accounts or only to Budget Account 1494. He replied his reference was a 35 percent increase throughout all the judicial budget accounts being considered.

Ms. Kavanau stated at the first budget hearing the Chief Justice had indicated when the budget was crafted the previous summer, the economic forecast was quite different than it looked at the time the first budget hearing was held.

The Chief Justice had also indicated he understood the dilemma the legislature was facing and thus understood the courts would not get everything they had asked for.

Ms. Kavanau testified the courts had requested 20.5 positions but those had been prioritized and the first 12 were the most important. The list of prioritized positions was provided to subcommittee members as Exhibit C. Ms. Kavanau noted the first four positions had been requested in the 1997 Session and the legislature had asked the courts to delay the positions until the 1999 Session.

The second-four positions were related to the technology needs of the courts. Two positions were requested to support the Supreme Court and two were requested to support the state court system.

The last 4 positions in the top 12 priority list were caseload-driven positions within the Supreme Court. Those positions included central legal staff, the clerk’s office and an employee for the Administrator of the Court.

Senator O’Donnell stated Exhibit C listed the priorities but the question was where to make the cut-offs. He asked what positions were absolutely necessary. Ms. Kavanau stated it would be extremely difficult to operate the court system without the first eight positions, but the court had requested her to state that positions 9 through 12 were also very, very important because they were caseload related.

Senator O’Donnell stated the budget was fat because it was created during the time the economic forecasts were somewhat different. The trouble was that the same fat budget was submitted to the legislature. The legislature was essentially emphasizing the state could not afford the budget as presented and when the agency was asked what could be cut, a foggy dialogue existed. He requested Ms. Kavanau to go back and submit a budget that was reflective of the newest economic forecasts pared down to about an 11 to 12 percent increase instead of 35 percent.

Karen Kavanau read from prepared testimony (Exhibit D).

Ms. Kavanau continued the budget was based on the caseload and the needs driven by that caseload. If FY 1998 was added in, the average caseload increase would still be 11 percent. To pick a 4.9 percent increase because it happened to be in the year before FY 1998 as representative of future caseloads was a dangerous precept. The caseload was increasing on average much faster than 4.9 percent.

Ms. Kavanau stated the judicial branch had shown in statistically that Nevada had the highest caseload of any Supreme Courts they had reviewed. The average appellate caseload was 100 cases per judge and Nevada was hitting 400 cases per judge. There was only so much that could be done.

Senator O’Donnell agreed 4.9 percent was a little low but an average was needed. However, the budget was built on a 35 percent increase more than one-third. Ms. Kavanau stated the problem was, the budget was so large it had been hard for either side to establish proper funding mechanisms prior to the hearing. She offered to review the budget and return with a budget within certain parameters suggested by the legislature. Senator O’Donnell asked the agency to return with a budget showing an increase of no more than 12 to 13 percent. He asked the budget revisions be returned by April 9, 1999.

Steve Bremer clarified whether the Chair was looking for a 11 to 12 percent increase over the FY 1998 actuals or over the FY 1998 base budget. He explained in the FY 1998 adjusted base, because the Supreme Court had two new justices and their staff added to the court it created a significant increase over 1998 actuals. The Chair replied the court should look at the adjusted Base for those budgets when preparing the revisions.

Chairman O’Donnell stated it was not his intent to cut positions for the court and if the court returned with their own adjusted budget, everyone would be better off.

Senator Jacobsen asked Ms. Kavanau how the court predicted its growth.
Mr. Bremer replied the court looked at past trends of filings over several different years and compared fiscal year to fiscal year. They also checked for any anomalies or any unusual differences over time that could be explained. At that point the court established, based on history, what the caseload would look like in the future.

Senator Jacobsen asked if that meant it was sort of business as usual, not like some of the district courts where suddenly they had a certain case that dragged on creating a financial drain. Ms. Kavanau responded the court had not had the opportunity to do a weighted caseload study but that would certainly take the quality and complexity of certain cases into account. It was hoped that could be done during the next biennium. Another large factor was the number of district court judges. There were currently 51 district court judges and a possibility existed that number could increase by 5 to 7 additional judges as a result of the 1999 Legislature, which would result in a 10 to 15 percent increase.

Assemblywoman Chowning stated the budget was based on a growth rate of 12.5 percent and yet the actual-to-date was only 4 percent increase.
Ms. Kavanau explained the Supreme Court had shown in analysis, which showed through experience, the average over a 5-year period was 12.5 percent. By adding in FY 1998, which was not available at the time of the analysis, the percentage dropped to 11 percent.

Chairman O’Donnell stated another concern of the subcommittee was the new regional justice center. He asked what the projected rent figure was expected to be. Ms. Kavanau replied the Supreme Court was not prepared to respond to that question during the current hearing. The court had planned to provide information on the regional justice center at a hearing on Monday April 5, 1999. However, Steve Bremer had been working with Justice Becker who had been on the project for many years and the study was complete.

Steve Bremer stated the packets were delivered on March 31, 1999, to members of both the Senate Finance Committee and the Assembly Ways and Means Committee in preparation for the April 5, 1999, hearing. It included an overview of the regional justice center. The anticipated rent was $1.86 per net square foot for a space of 20,000 square feet. The packet also included an analysis of what it would cost to lease in the regional justice center versus what it would cost to rent in private space. All attendant costs were also computed.

The courts had attempted to estimate a comparison of what the operating and maintenance costs would be in the regional center as opposed to private space. The Chair stated the question was whether the intent was to lease all 20,000 square feet at once or whether the space would be increased over time.
Mr. Bremer replied analysis had revealed it was much more cost effective to lease the 20,000 square feet up front and then build out only the space, as it was needed. He added Justice Becker could speak better to the issue and would attend the hearing on April 5, 1999.

Chairman O’Donnell asked if the court could provide a "phase-in" plan and
Mr. Bremer replied Justice Becker had the "phase-in" plan and would present it at the hearing the following week. The Chair also asked for the break-even point of leasing the regional justice center versus renting private space. Ms. Kavanau commented there was no fiscal impact in the FY 2000-01 biennium for the regional justice center.

Senator Jacobsen referred to the priority list dated 3-30-99 contained in
Exhibit C and referred to earlier testimony that the first eight positions were the most important and asked for an explanation of what those positions did.
Ms. Kavanau replied the first four positions included a deputy clerk, a judicial executive secretary, a principal staff attorney and a staff attorney for the criminal division that were all a part of the original request for an expanded court in A.B. 343 of the 1997 Legislature. The 1997 Legislature asked the court to defer funding those four positions until the 1999 Legislature because the two new justices would not be on board until January 2000. Those positions were directly related to caseload and were projected as a need two years previously.

The fifth position on the priority list was a Senior Information Systems Manager. The court currently had no qualified person on staff who knew how to plan, implement, and maintain court-wide or organization-wide technology. As the court became more and more dependent on technology they would need someone with expertise in information technology. Currently, the entire information technology team consisted of two network administrators.

The sixth position was a Management Analyst III that would help in the Planning and Analysis Division. The division was created in 1995 in direct response to a need for statewide court statistics. Testimony at the time had indicated Nevada ranked 49^th or 50^th in gathering statistics concerning court system workloads.

The seventh position was a programmer/application support person to maintain the newly installed case management system in the clerk’s office at the court. There was currently no technical support for the system, which was installed in November 1998.

The eighth position was that of a Management Analyst III to support the court statistics project by focusing on hardware, software, and communications that would be required in every court to participate in the Uniform System for Judicial Records to produce court statistics.

Assemblywoman Chowning requested the courts in reviewing their budget to ensure that no grant positions in the previous budget cycle were moved to the General Fund for the current biennium. It was desirable that such positions would continue to be grant-funded.

Chairman O’Donnell closed the hearing on the Judicial Branch Budget and opened the hearing on the Department of Administration Budget.

DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION - BUDGET PAGE ADMIN–1 THROUGH 115

Assemblywoman Chowning noted there was a full-time Senior Management Analyst position authorized in 1987 that was shown in The Executive Budget as a Principal Management Analyst. She added that position was authorized to oversee the budgets of the professional and vocational boards. Funding was to have been provided through an assessment to each board, and during interim periods a request to change that structure had been made twice and had not won approval either time. The current budget request would increase the General Fund support by approximately $54,000 in FY 1999-2000 and by $58,000 in FY 2000-01. The assessment to the boards would go down to $9,250. It was important to retain the position, and no complaints had been received from the various boards concerning the amount of assessments. She asked Mr. Comeaux to explain that portion of the budget plan.

Assemblywoman Chowning also questioned the Performance Indicator and Sentencing Commission positions. She stated performance indicators had not been coming through as well as legislators thought they should and the position had been in place for 4 years.

The Sentencing Commission’s report back to the legislature had only consisted of one page. Perhaps the position was not properly funded if the results of
2 years work were reported in a single page.

Perry Comeaux, Director, Department of Administration, explained the agency interpretation for the position relating to the boards and commissions was that the fee to the boards and commissions was based on time spent working on those accounts. In previous years, accurate time records were not kept but currently, as part of the statewide cost allocation plan, records were being kept. The records indicated about 27 percent of the analyst’s time was spent on boards and commissions. The remainder of time was spent on other accounts as assigned. The agency proposed the funding plan from an equity standpoint.
Mr. Comeaux stated he would not object if the boards and commissions paid 100 percent of the position from the standpoint of availability. He would not recommend elimination or reduction of time for the position because the analyst carried a full caseload like any other analyst and any reduction would adversely affect other analysts.

Assemblywoman Chowning confirmed the analyst in question spent only about 27 percent of their time on the duties for which it was allocated. Mr. Comeaux stated the 27 percent figure was what he remembered. Assemblywoman Chowning stated on March 22, 1999, Mr. Tracy Raxter had stated the figure was 12.5 percent. Mr. Comeaux stated 12.5 percent was the correct figure. He stated the budgets for the boards and commissions were fairly clear-cut. They did not require the type of detailed analysis some of the other budgets did.

Assemblywoman Chowning confirmed Mr. Comeaux agreed that funding could continue to come from assessments to the various boards. Mr. Comeaux agreed and stated it could be justified from the standpoint that a position needed to be available for that function.

Mr. Comeaux referred to the Sentencing Commission position and stated that position was half-time Sentencing Commission and half-time other Budget Office duties. In the time since that position was created, that appeared to be a proper allocation. He added there was a real flurry of activity when the Sentencing Commission met and then the position was available to perform other functions. The position had produced a lot of work for the commission but Mr. Comeaux had not been aware that only a one-page report for the biennium had been produced. He stated he would talk to the analyst regarding the issue.

Assemblywoman Chowning directed Mr. Comeaux to provide staff an accounting of the work activities for the three positions in question. Specifically, she wanted to know how much time was spent on the functions the positions were created to perform, and how much time was spent doing Budget Office work.

Chairman O’Donnell stated the Hearings and Appeals Division had requested a system to track the schedule of hearings under Worker’s Compensation and asked what had happened to that $150,000 allocated for that system.
Mr. Comeaux replied approximately $35,000 was spent by the Hearings Division and the office was scheduled to revert the remaining $115,000. He explained the project was a long sad story. The division’s computer system required duplicate input of information into separate systems that could not be merged. The $150,000 was budgeted to acquire a case-tracking system that would be networked and allow them to enter information only one time. The system was also supposed to allow scheduling of hearings and appeals. The division worked with the Department of Information Technology (DoIT). A real problem resulted between the expectation and what was delivered.

Chairman O’Donnell asked if it was a problem similar to the Nevada Operations Multi Automated Data Systems (NOMADS). Mr. Comeaux responded it was not that bad because the Hearings and Appeals system actually worked, it just did not work the way it was expected. There was still some duplication of input required and the scheduling portion did not work effectively. The division was currently using a tracking system used by the Division of Industrial Relations (DIR). The situation was not ideal but DoIT had not been able to help them find what the division felt was needed. Mr. Comeaux stated his belief that neither side had been effective in defining system needs or finding an appropriate resource. It was not known what affects would be felt on current hearings and appeals procedures when 3-way insurance became a reality.

Chairman O’Donnell stated he understood the Hearings Reserve Account could not be used for computerization. Mr. Comeaux replied the nature of the reserve account was that funds in the account were held to hire additional staff during a biennium in the event caseloads increased. In the biennium before last the Nevada Attorney for Injured Workers (NAIW) had approached the Interim Finance Committee for permission to use part of that reserve for their information technology system. During the 1997 Legislature, a letter of intent was issued that stated the reserve was only to be used for additional caseload-driven positions. Mr. Comeaux stated if funds were placed in the reserve specifically for information technology that should work.

Chairman O’Donnell referred to the budget in general where 2 days ago the Governor had vetoed a fee increase approved by the legislature. He stated his understanding of the Governor’s desire to not raise fees or taxes, which was admirable. However, some of the fees such as evasion, restitution or compliance fees reimbursed the state. He asked if there was any flexibility in the Governor’s Office regarding raising of fees. Mr. Comeaux stated his understanding of the Governor’s position was that since he just took office in January, there was a lot more about state government and its programs that he did not know, than those he did. The Governor did not want to disturb the status quo until he had an opportunity to make his own recommendations to the legislature as to what should be done, and how budgets should be funded.
Mr. Comeaux stated there were boards and commissions and other agencies of state government that had the statutory authority to adjust their fees by regulation. The Governor would not object to those types of increases that were already a part of the process.

The real problem would be with any statutory fee increases. Chairman O’Donnell stated as Assemblywoman Chowning was also aware the transportation committees had a number of bills that involved fee increases. Chairman O’Donnell stated the Lake Tahoe license plate passed by the 1997 Legislature was a fee increase from which funds went into the General Fund and then on to the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). Those fees helped fund some of the environmental mitigation that occurred at Lake Tahoe. It was a very good bill, but it did include a fee increase. A transportation bill in the current legislative session would raise fees on license plates for the Future Farmers of America (FFA). He stated the plates would mostly be purchased by parents and the money would go toward the raising of farm animals by students for that program. Mr. Comeaux stated he had not talked to the Governor about that specific fee, but he was not sure the Governor would view the license plate fee as a fee increase because it was making something additional available to the public that was a voluntary purchase. Mr. Comeaux stated the problem seemed to occur when a fee was increased from existing levels.

Chairman O’Donnell stated there were situations where crimes were being committed and the number of dollars spent to fight those crimes would actually cost the state less money than if the situation was allowed to exacerbate for another 2 years. He stated his appreciation for the fact the Governor had just come on board and wanted to take some time to look at certain situations but he noted the state did not stop running in the meantime. Chairman O’Donnell asked the message to be conveyed to the Governor to please look at what was holistically good for the state.

Assemblyman Goldwater stated he concurred wholeheartedly with the Chair but wished to state the concern in somewhat different terms. He was not going to sit as a legislator and beg the Governor or anyone to raise fees. He added he did not want to raise fees either unless it was necessary. The license plate issue was an outstanding example because no one had to have the special license plate but no one had to have the real estate license either and there should be some consistency. The legislature needed to know what the policy was so that they could react to it.

Assemblywoman Chowning gave four different examples:

• To amplify on what Chairman O’Donnell had stated regarding license plates--To date the Lake Tahoe plate had raised nearly $12,000 each year and those revenues continued to grow. A good number of those plates were in Southern Nevada as well.
• The firefighter’s license plate would raise fees solely for the Highway Fund.
• With a disclosure that she was a real estate licensee, Assemblywoman Chowning stated she knew she conducted her business in an impeccable and honest fashion, as did many others. But there was a rapid influx of real estate persons from other states who viewed Nevada’s growth as a wonderful opportunity to hit and run and performed whatever scams they could before they left. The industry had not objected to the increase in real estate fees to provide enforcement activities against unscrupulous operators.

Citing another example, Assemblywoman Chowning noted some residents of Pahrump related a story to her of a family that had to stay in their home for 3 days because of killer bees. Those bees had to be eradicated before the family was safe. Agricultural inspections were needed and that could not be done without some type of fee revenue present to increase inspections to include such places as the K-Marts and Home Depots. Information indicated there were either no fees or the fees had not been increased in a long time and a safety problem existed.

Assemblywoman Chowning stated the legislature was in a difficult position. The killer bees had become established in Nevada and the Division of Agriculture had one budget that was a federal grant from which they would get no more funding for handling potential killer bee infestations.

Senator Jacobsen stated Senate Bill (S.B.) 174 was passed from the Senate that allowed Douglas County to add a .25 percent sales tax increase. The strange part was that the 1997 Legislature had decided to tell Douglas County how to use their revenue sources regarding room tax which took funds away from senior citizens, libraries, airports, and recreational functions. Thus during the last election the residents of the county, by 62 percent, had agreed to the rise in sales tax percentage. If the Governor viewed that as an increase in taxation, in Douglas County none of those important programs would be funded even though residents had voted for the increase.

Mr. Comeaux responded to all the comments by stating he had not specifically discussed those issues with Governor Guinn but he felt for the very reason the voters in Douglas County approved the sales tax increase, the Governor would not look at that the same way he would look at another kind of increase.
Mr. Comeaux stated he would pass along the concerns of the legislators to the Governor and try to eliminate the confusion. Chairman O’Donnell stated legislators were very understanding of the Governor’s position, in that he was new to the office, new to state government, and in his first political position. A spirit of cooperation was needed and legislators were more than willing to work with the Governor and listen to direction but it was hoped he would also listen to the needs. Some issues were federal requirements and there were other problems looming that had to be addressed.

Assemblyman Goldwater stated he had talked to the Governor and the problem stemmed not from a partisan or political issue, it just involved the principals and logistics of running government and asked that legislator’s feelings be conveyed to the Governor. The Chair agreed with Assemblyman Goldwater and stated the legislature was looking at the best interests of the state.

Chairman O’Donnell asked whether Mr. Comeaux needed funding for the Hearing and Appeals tracking system. Mr. Comeaux stated with the uncertainty of the effect of 3-way insurance and for legal compliance reasons he felt the $115,000 should not be reverted. He recommended, rather than reverting the $115,000, it should be placed into the Hearings reserve account and specifically designated for technology needs, and then if a solution to the tracking problem was found, the division could petition the Interim Finance Committee to transfer the funds to be used for those purposes.

Chairman O’Donnell opened the hearing on Budget Account 1330.

Donald Bailey, State Printer introduced Rod Corbet, Deputy State Printer and Jennifer Galentine, Management Analyst.

Chairman O’Donnell asked if the revenues in module E-125 needed to be increased to match the business plan forecast. He asked how the difference between the projected revenues and the budget expenditures were reflected in the agency budget. Mr. Bailey stated information regarding the issue had been sent to Brian Burke, Program Analyst. The explanation was that $77,310 revenue was expected in FY 1999-2000. That projected figure was speculated to become $120,212 in FY 2000-01. If the Las Vegas location was not acquired (and they hoped that it would be) that sales revenue would be done from the Carson City quick print location.

If State Printing was allowed to have the Las Vegas office, the budget figures just quoted would be up to specifications. The justification tried to explain the budget projections would either be done in Carson City if the agency did not acquire the Las Vegas location or in Las Vegas if possible.

Mr. Bailey explained the agency had taken a 60-day count of actual work done in the Carson City quick print operation that came to $15,107 and an additional cost of United Parcel Shipping to the Las Vegas area of $701. Those figures were calculated out for an entire year to arrive at the $77,310 and $120,212 respectively in each year of the biennium.

Chairman O’Donnell noted the State Printer had a position that was currently underfilled and asked how long that position would remain underfilled.
Mr. Bailey replied that was the position for the Las Vegas quick print operation. Originally there had been two open positions, one position had terminated and was reverted. The second position was a non-classified trades position that the agency wanted to use for the Las Vegas quick print operation. The position was a grade 27 step 15 or less amounting to approximately $44,000 per year.

Chairman O’Donnell asked if the quick print service planned to be located in the Grant Sawyer building. Mr. Bailey replied he had just been informed that morning that the Grant Sawyer location was approved.

The Chair asked what type of operation was envisioned for the Grant Sawyer building. Mr. Bailey replied the agency wanted to equip the office with a Super Docutech operation created by the Xerox Corporation similar to the Carson City operation. That system would allow the Las Vegas operation to do books from start to finish. The equipment would insert covers and do binding and was all computer programmed. He also envisioned some stitching capabilities and hoped to exactly duplicate what was available at the Carson City facility.

Chairman O’Donnell asked how many square feet were planned in Las Vegas. Mr. Bailey replied their original request was for 1,500 square feet but was changed to 1,200 square feet. The Chair stated it might be desirable for the operation to take on the format of a Kinko’s or other private quick print services. Mr. Bailey replied that was exactly what was being planned.

Mr. Bailey explained the Carson City Printing Office had two distinct operations: 1) The offset, frontline printing operation that handled two-color printing and the big web that was currently being installed and 2) The quick print operation that was equal to a Kinko’s or PIP store that included digital printing. He added the Las Vegas operation would be identical to the Carson City quick print operation and would provide better service to the southern end of the state.

Assemblywoman Chowning asked what the square footage cost of the Las Vegas facility would be. Mr. Bailey replied State Buildings and Grounds projected up to $1.60 per square foot but the printing office had done some research and the actual cost would be 83 cents per square foot. Assemblywoman Chowning asked if the operating costs could be adjusted accordingly and Mr. Bailey agreed.

Assemblywoman Chowning asked if the position planned for the Las Vegas operations should be reclassified and payroll adjusted accordingly. She added the position was currently allocated to a grade 37 and Mr. Bailey had testified the intent was to structure the position as a grade 27 position. Mr. Bailey replied the position was an at-will position which meant the printing office could simply classify the position in at a grade 27 and pay it in a step format similar to classified positions. The agency wanted to review the type of person who would be recruited for the position, specifically a person with a background in digital printing. Assemblywoman Chowning noted the cost difference between the two classifications was approximately $20,000 annually and asked if that much flexibility was necessary.

Jennifer Galentine, Management Analyst, explained the agency was essentially holding the position control number without knowing exactly where it would be placed. A payroll and benefit adjustment would need to be made.

Senator Jacobsen asked if the State Printing Office would be able to accommodate all the various agencies housed in the Grant Sawyer Building when that printing site opened. Mr. Bailey replied the agency intent was to serve all the state agencies in the Las Vegas building and other state agencies located in the Las Vegas area. An extension of service was also being considered to other municipalities but first priority would always be state agencies. He explained even agencies in the Bradley Building and others would be allowed to drop off printing jobs and pick them up when they were completed. The estimate was service to about 100 agencies by the time the office was fully operational. He added some agencies were in store fronts and the printing office would produce special flyers and make a whole public relations campaign in the Las Vegas area and perhaps even hold a conference to let state agencies in the Las Vegas area know what printing services were available. A standard price list would also be made available.

The Chair closed the hearing on the Budget Account 1330 and opened the hearing on Budget Account 1354.

Tracy Raxter, Administrator, Administrative Services Division stated he was sitting in for Frank Revell, Administrator, Motor Pool Division.

Chairman O’Donnell asked what the break-even point was between renting a vehicle from the State Motor Pool versus from a private agency. Mr. Raxter replied the Motor Pool reviewed private sector pricing every couple of years to ensure the Motor Pool was still competitive. He did not have the exact rates with him. From memory the rate was somewhere in the low-thirties on private rentals and the highest Motor Pool rental in the coming biennium was $23 per day.

The Chair asked if the Motor Pool rental was $23 per day plus mileage. Mr. Raxter agreed and added the Motor Pool Division vehicles did not seem to rack up a lot of mileage. Average cost per mile was one of the performance indicators and was obviously higher than the reimbursement rate used by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). A number of vehicles were in the 200 to
300 miles per month range and mileage costs per mile ran from 12 to 20 cents in the rate structure. That would mean the overall Motor Pool rental cost would be in the high twenties which was still less than commercial rates.

Assemblywoman Chowning asked if Motor Pool had to purchase 50 percent of their fleet from vehicles capable of using alternative fuels. Mr. Raxter replied in the coming biennium the rate was at 90 percent for new vehicles but there were exceptions for law enforcement vehicles. Also, the 90 percent rate only applied to metropolitan areas so vehicles purchased for use in Carson City were exempt.

Assemblywoman Chowning stated she was very uncomfortable with testimony that alternative fuel vehicles were burning cleaner without some form of testing and commented it was probably an issue to be reviewed in the two transportation committees. She suggested perhaps a 1-year pilot to test alternative fuel vehicles would be advisable. A lot of money was being spent to purchase such vehicles. She stated she did not know if that measure would be possible to review in the current legislative session.

Assemblywoman Chowning noted at the March 26, 1999, subcommittee meeting on surplus property the administrator had testified there were surplus vehicles available that burned alternative fuel. She asked if the Motor Pool had reviewed those vehicles as an option. Mr. Raxter said he was not aware of whether that had been considered but they would follow up on the suggestion.

Assemblywoman Chowning stated the legislature needed to make sure agency budgets were sufficiently funded to support the increased costs of vehicles. Some agencies were underfunded. That would be a question for the Budget Office. Mr. Raxter replied when the M-200 decision unit was crafted it included vehicles in the one-shot appropriation. The revenue in the Motor Pool budget was projected through the Budget Division and came directly from the budgets of the agencies affected. Thus, there was a direct match between the two categories.

Assemblywoman Chowning asked if the rate increases were included in the base budget. Mr. Raxter replied those rates were furnished in the budget instructions of April 1998. There would be no reason the agencies would not have figured their costs from the rates published in April. Assemblywoman Chowning stated as long as that testimony was on record and agencies did not go back to the IFC to request additional funding she was satisfied.

Perry Comeaux, Director, Department of Administration testified he believed the issue of higher costs for alternative vehicle purchases was covered in
The Executive Budget. The reason it could not be adequately demonstrated was that the figures were rolled up in the total in-state travel budget.
The Executive Budget was put together using the rental/purchase rates provided by the Motor Pool Division.

Senator Jacobsen related an experience in the previous year when he was using a Motor Pool rental car driving from Las Vegas to Caliente and had blown a tire, lost a wheel and found a few other things wrong with the car. When he returned to Carson City he had mentioned the problems to Mr. Revell and
Mr. Revell’s response had been, "We didn’t know you were going to Caliente with it, we thought you were just driving around Las Vegas." Senator Jacobsen had taken the car over to the county yard in Caliente and they went through the whole thing and had even given him two tires. He asked if the Motor Pool reservation form requested information on how or where the vehicle would be used. Mr. Raxter replied there was a spot on the reservation form that asked the time in, expected time of return, and where the vehicle was going. He noted when billings were processed, the location spot was not always filled in so Motor Pool should probably verify the location space was completed and the driver should also advise Motor Pool staff they were leaving the immediate area.

Assemblywoman Chowning stated the budget account was so meritorious, their budget should be doubled. APRIL FOOLS!

Seeing no further business before the subcommittee, Chairman O’Donnell adjourned the meeting at 10:12 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Cindy Clampitt,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator William O’Donnell, Chairman

DATE:

______________________________________________

Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairman

DATE:________________________________________