The joint subcommittee on Public Safety, Conservation and Transportation was called to order at 8:15 a.m., on Wednesday, April 21, 1999. Assemblyman Chris Giunchigliani, Chairman and 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.

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Chairman

Mrs. Vonne Chowning

Mr. John Marvel

Mr. Richard Perkins

SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator Lawrence Jacobsen, Chairman

Senator Joseph Neal

Senator William O’Donnell

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mr. Bob Price (Excused)

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Chairman Giunchigliani announced the subcommittee would begin with review of budgets within the Department of Motor Vehicles/Public Safety (DMV/PS), asking Debbra King, Program Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) to present the overview.

Ms. King advised the subcommittee would be closing the Motor Vehicle branch of DMV/PS, and there were some overriding issues she wanted to bring to the subcommittee’s attention. The first issue for consideration was staffing. She went on to explain the Motor Vehicle branch had requested a total of 50 new positions over the biennium within the following divisions: Drivers License, Motor Carrier, Registration, Emission Control, and Field Services. Ms. King felt the subcommittee should be aware of certain aspects overall related to staffing for DMV/PS. When the department initially presented Project Genesis, it indicated that based on the new technology, by FY 2002 it would be overstaffed by a total of 165 positions. Ms. King noted DMV/PS had promised its staff there would be no layoffs, however, she felt it would be very difficult in FY 2001 to continue those positions.

Further, advised Ms. King, the subcommittee should be aware that between now and December 1999, the Motor Vehicle branch would have some extraordinary staff resource requirements. Staff would be providing ongoing customer service on a day-to-day basis, along with testing the new computer system, training for the new system, and the implementation of that system. With full implementation of Project Genesis scheduled for August 1999, Ms. King noted there would be a great deal required of staff through December 1999. The subcommittee should also be aware that in the Field Services account, there were 19 positions that had been vacant since July 1, 1997. Ms. King stated in the Motor Vehicle branch there were 85 total vacancies, or over 10 percent of its 825 total authorized positions.

As the budgets were reviewed in terms of staffing, Ms. King indicated the subcommittee might wish to consider the following options:

1. Authorize no new positions and instruct DMV/PS to fill the existing vacancies as quickly as possible to alleviate the short-term staffing needs. That would result in approximately $1.7 million in ongoing annual savings; however, if the department were instructed to do that, the vacancy savings would need to be reduced by approximately $1 million per year.
2. Authorize only the 10 positions scheduled to begin in July 1999, and direct DMV/PS to transfer vacant positions to fill short-term needs. Currently, there were 12 positions in southern Nevada authorized since July 1997, but not filled. Those positions could be moved to northern Nevada to fill the needs in the Carson City office, the Galletti Way office in Reno, or in the rural areas.
3. Authorize the 13 positions requested because of anticipated new customer service windows due to the Carson City remodel, the opening of additional windows at the Galletti Way office which had not been previously staffed, and the office in Fallon, which would also have additional windows due to an authorized remodel.
4. Authorize all positions recommended in The Executive Budget.

According to Ms. King, if the subcommittee did not elect to authorize all positions, the vacancy savings would need to be reduced, however, she noted LCB staff could calculate the reduction, depending upon the option selected by the subcommittee. Ms. King stated that regardless of the option chosen, the subcommittee might wish to include language in the Appropriations Act to allow the department to come to the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) to move and reclassify staff as the new technology system stabilized, and staffing needs were better known. Ms. King noted the department could move staff between budget accounts, between north and south, or whatever it felt necessary to best run the operation.

Continuing, Ms. King stated the other major issue was reorganization. She advised DMV/PS had proposed to reorganize into four divisions: Field Services Division (already in existence); Compliance and Enforcement Division; Management Services Division; and, Central Services Division.

Ms. King noted no closing reports had been prepared by staff regarding the proposed budget accounts, because they would be closed based on whether or not the subcommittee approved the proposed four divisions, and the staffing requested in the other accounts. She explained reorganization would move staff and costs from existing budget accounts into the new accounts.

Senator O’Donnell stated it was somewhat disconcerting because there were positions from 1997 that had not been filled, and he asked Mr. Drew to explain to the subcommittee why those positions were vacant.

John Drew, Acting Director, DMV/PS, testified that without a doubt, the fact that those positions were not filled was the department’s fault. The positions had been originally coded to the wrong division, which did not preclude them having been filled and placed within the proper divisions. That was his understanding from the department’s personnel staff, and when the problem was recognized, the department did not take adequate steps to correct it. According to Mr. Drew, the positions simply "fell through the cracks by the wayside." He reiterated it was clearly the department’s fault.

Senator O’Donnell then asked what those positions were, and if they were needed, such as Highway Patrol troopers. Mr. Drew advised the positions were entirely on the Motor Vehicle side; there were 11 positions in southern Nevada and 6 in northern Nevada. Mr. Drew announced that with him was Ginny Lewis, who was in charge of the budget unit with the Administrative Services Division, and if the subcommittee requested a specific breakdown, either Ms. Lewis or the department’s personnel staff could provide that information.

Chairman Giunchigliani thanked Mr. Drew for his honesty, and advised the subcommittee was not attempting to cast doubts on anyone. She then recognized Mr. Marvel.

Mr. Marvel asked Mr. Drew if he agreed there were 85 vacancies within the department. Mr. Drew indicated that figure did somewhat amaze him, and he checked with personnel staff, who recalculated the figures. He noted two positions had been filled, making the vacancy total 83, which did not make much difference. Again, Mr. Drew stated the department, on the Motor Vehicles side, had not done a very good job in recruiting and ensuring that its vacancies were filled in a timely fashion. The department was currently attempting to implement a process somewhat like it had in place for the Highway Patrol and the Parole and Probation Division. That process consisted of a pool of people who had completed all the necessary steps and were simply a phone call away from being hired, rather than waiting until vacancies occurred before starting the process. In other words, explained Mr. Drew, the department was attempting to be proactive in that area so the same situation did not occur again.

Mr. Marvel disclosed the only thing that bothered him was the fact that the department was asking for 50 additional positions when there were 83 current vacancies. Further, Mr. Marvel stated he would recommended the subcommittee adopt option one, as previously explained by Ms. King.

Ms. Lewis indicated while on the surface it appeared there were 83 vacancies throughout the Motor Vehicle budgets, she felt there were some issues that needed to be "brought to the table." For example, in the Registration Division budget, there were currently 10 vacant positions, which Ms. Lewis explained were not vacant by choice, and as the subcommittee was aware, that budget had experienced a revenue shortfall. When that occurred, the department looked at salary savings first, and it had been forced over FY 1998-99 to hold those 10 positions vacant. Ms. Lewis explained the Motor Carrier Division was also standing at five vacancies. She noted in the fall a potential revenue shortfall was anticipated by the Motor Vehicle Privilege Tax Commission and, in an attempt to be proactive, the division backed off filling its positions. Ms. Lewis reiterated that was not done by choice. There were also positions held vacant so that in the event the reorganization was approved, there would be positions available for reclassification for the new "world." Ms. Lewis believed positions that would not impact a program were held vacant so that there was a vacancy to reclassify for the reorganization. Those were the factors that drove the high vacancy level, and Ms. Lewis felt they needed to be taken into consideration before a decision was made.

Chairman Giunchigliani thanked Ms. Lewis for the clarification, although the subcommittee had been advised the Registration Division had 25 vacancies and Field Services had 57 vacancies.

Senator Neal noted the reported number of vacancies, stating he was forced to ask what process the department used to put its budget together in terms of staffing. Ms. Lewis explained at the time the Field Services budget was developed, she held the position of Chief of the Driver’s License Division, and it was felt the staffing needs in southern Nevada had been addressed in prior budgets. Therefore, Ms. Lewis stated, the focus for the next biennium was to review the Galletti Way office in Reno, where there was a tremendous wait for services. The 1997 session approved staff for Saturday services for the Galletti Way office, and the department implemented that service in January 1998, however, missed the "mark" on how many staff was needed. Ms. Lewis disclosed the Saturday service had begun, and essentially there were now six days of service with long waits every day.

Senator Neal then asked if the department went back and completed an assessment of needs for all the divisions, in terms of staffing, and then arrived at a count of what positions were actually needed. Ms. Lewis replied the Field Services budget enhancements were divided into three areas: Carson City, Reno-Galletti Way, and rural. Further, she explained, for each area, the department developed a staffing formula based either on the number of windows which required staffing, or on the number of employee work hours versus the transaction counts for those offices.

Senator Neal stated the formula would not work unless there was an assessment of needs. The department had 80-plus vacancies, and he felt it needed to start with its current employees and assess their responsibilities, in order to ascertain whether or not the vacancies should be filled. Senator Neal emphasized the department should present that information to the legislature, rather than the legislature informing the department it had those vacancies. Ms. Lewis indicated Senator Neal was correct, and the department hoped that once a decision was reached on the staffing to be funded over the next biennium, the situation could be corrected.

Senator Neal inquired who made the decisions regarding staffing within DMV/PS. Electing to respond was Mr. Drew, who noted that was a collective decision, and the respective divisions, such as Drivers License or Registration, would submit staffing needs and work with the director’s office, to ascertain the level of need for the division at that time. Senator Neal asked who made the decision as to what positions were needed. Mr. Drew replied that was the responsibility of the director’s office and the budget unit at the time the division submitted its staffing needs. After proper review, the request was forwarded to the Governor’s Office. Senator Neal observed if the director did not follow through, the department could again miss 80-plus vacancies; Mr. Drew agreed.

While he did not want to belabor the situation, Senator O’Donnell asked if the positions were not filled, would there be problems in the registration area in the future at the Las Vegas office, with long lines of people waiting for service. Mr. Drew advised the more potential problem area would be northern Nevada, where the department had not had the opportunity to review the opening of new service windows. The same problems that caused DMV/PS to address the southern Nevada area were now occurring in northern Nevada as well. He believed, for the most part, there was adequate staffing in southern Nevada even with continued growth in the area. Mr. Drew noted it was the remainder of the state that was causing concern within the department.

Senator O’Donnell then inquired if the legislature eliminated the additional positions during the first year of the biennium, and allowed the department some time to staff-up and complete background checks, et cetera, would the department be amenable to such action. According to Mr. Drew, if Senator O’Donnell was contemplating a delay in additional staffing for one year to give the department the opportunity to bring staff into the existing vacancies and provide necessary training regarding the new technology, he believed DMV/PS could work with that plan.

Chairman Giunchigliani stated Mr. Drew did not revisit the whole issue of southern Nevada staffing, which she felt was part of what created the problem as well. Over the years, the legislature attempted to reduce the waiting period at the DMV/PS offices to 30 minutes and, in fact, the divisions were now providing service within 11 to 12 minutes. As noted by Mr. Drew, because that issue was not revisited, the divisions were actually currently overstaffed in southern Nevada at the expense of rural and northern Nevada. Mr. Drew indicated he would agree with that observation and, in terms of the actual service windows in southern Nevada, the problem had been addressed. Again, part of the department’s concern was to ensure the renewal by mail program and some of the backroom operations did not suffer due to lack of staffing.

Chairman Giunchigliani reminded the subcommittee’s that Mr. Marvel had earlier asked it to consider option one, which would reduce DMV/PS’s vacancy savings by approximately $1 million in order to fill the existing positions. Mr. Marvel agreed, and replied he would make it an official motion.

Senator O’Donnell noted option one would eliminate all requested new positions, and stated he felt that would be tantamount to admitting that the legislature made a mistake 2 years ago when it authorized the 10 positions that were never filled. DMV/PS said it would work to complete staffing during the interim, including background checks, or whatever needed to be done in order to fill the vacancies. Senator O’Donnell advised the department could not just go out and hire 83 people, because it did not have the resources to take such action; there was not a pool of people within the state to choose from. Senator O’Donnell’s recommendation would be to maintain the vacancy savings during the first year of the biennium, and allow the department additional time to staff up for the second year of the biennium.

Chairman Giunchigliani stated, for purposes of clarification, the motion currently under consideration would allow the department to retain the 83 positions, which could be filled, and eliminated the additional 50 requested positions. She felt such action would allow the department to initiate background checks for new employees, and it could still move forward without restriction of its operations. Senator O’Donnell proposed that the subcommittee consider augmenting the motion by allowing DMV/PS to approach IFC if it discovered additional positions were needed.

Chairman Giunchigliani stated staff advised that could not be done. Mr. Ghiggeri explained IFC did not have Highway Fund money from which to provide an allocation, as there was only General Fund money appropriated to it. If there was an appropriation of Highway Fund money to the IFC for allocation, then Senator O’Donnell’s proposal would be possible. Historically, advised Mr. Ghiggeri, Highway Fund money had not been available in the IFC allocation.

Chairman Giunchigliani then asked for further discussion regarding the motion. Hearing none, she restated the motion for the committee. The motion was to adopt option one, which would reduce vacancy savings by approximately $1 million, while allowing DMV/PS to complete the hiring allocated by 1997 Legislature.

Ms. Giunchigliani announced the second item was the issue of the reorganization, and the question before the committee was whether or not it wished to reorganize the Motor Vehicle branch of DMV/PS. Regardless of the position taken, she would ask the subcommittee to consider asking IFC to appoint an oversight committee over the interim to work with the department regarding the entire Genesis Project and the reorganization, either through a letter of intent or simply included as part of the budget closing. The second issue was if the subcommittee did not approve the reorganization, DMV/PS still had authorization from the 1997 legislature, which would allow it to continue setting up field teams in order to initiate the "one-stop shop." That would also provide the opportunity to slow the project down so the legislature did not run into another "NOMADS" and could maintain some oversight and review of the project. Chairman Giunchigliani advised that was one of the decision units the subcommittee needed to review.

Chairman Giunchigliani asked for subcommittee input regarding the reorganization. Mr. Marvel inquired, since an oversight committee would be appointed, why the subcommittee could not just maintain status quo, and let the oversight committee observe what was happening with DMV/PS over the interim, and provide recommendations to the 2001 Legislature. He stated he would put that in the form of a motion.

Chairman Giunchigliani stated the motion would be to disapprove the reorganization at the current time, allow the oversight committee to work with the department to establish a proper organizational chart, and plan review of the budget at the 2001 Legislative Session.

Senator O’Donnell noted the department had presented a very good case for reorganization. Further, he felt there were some individuals who did not want it reorganized, which he felt was predicated on the fact those individuals thought they might lose their jobs. Senator O’Donnell stated there were some needs within DMV/PS, which he personally knew needed to be addressed. If the department was not given the reorganization, then it would remain status quo for the next 2 years, and the subcommittee might be placing some programs in jeopardy.

Chairman Giunchigliani advised she recognized that was a legitimate concern, but looking at the background and meeting with employees, as well as some managers, regarding the issue, there appeared to be a difference of opinion on how the reorganization would work. The issue was whether or not the field operations, which was the key or core of action attempted last session regarding Project Genesis, to ensure there was a "one-stop shop" with registration and titling, could go forward regardless of whether or not the department reorganized. That, she explained, was the key "driver" of the proposal. The discomfort seemed to stem from whether or not the legislature was attempting to take a "seven-layer structure" and make it into a "square," and then legitimize many salary increases that were somewhat buried based on pay grade increases within the proposal, just to level off that "structure." While it might have been reduced from seven to four managers, in the long run, the subcommittee might really not have addressed the issue of whether or not that action was going to directly benefit the users, while still maintaining the efficiency and ability for DMV/PS to move forward.

Chairman Giunchigliani advised, from what she had heard, there was discomfort regarding the reorganizational charts, which were not presented to the original oversight committee until August 1998, and had been revised time and time again. She felt if the subcommittee allowed DMV/PS to continue to move forward, put its field teams in place, and refocus on the technical side of Project Genesis, which was what the legislature wanted it to do, it would give the department some breathing room. Chairman Giunchigliani surmised the department might disagree with that thinking, but that was the rationale of the motion that was before the subcommittee.

Mr. Drew commented that, putting the issue of the motion aside, the department had, in fact, testified at the previous budget hearing it could continue the field operations if the realignment or reorganization did not materialize. He advised that Donna West, Project Manager, Project Genesis, was present and could inform the subcommittee of the cost involved to rewrite portions of the technology within the project if the realignment was not approved. He asked that Ms. West address the subcommittee before it made a decision.

Chairman Giunchigliani instructed Ms. West to outline for the subcommittee exactly which portions specifically would need to be rewritten. Ms. West advised there would be a 2-week planning process in order to ascertain how the department would come up with an additional period of time in its work plan to address an organizational change. She stated there was no time allotted in the current work plan delineating the August "go live" for the Genesis Project, to go back and reevaluate how the system could be "rolled out" without the planned reorganization. Ms. West felt there would be issues with the planned training that would need to be reevaluated; there were issues with the online "help" the way it had been written, because it was written with the reorganization in mind. Ms. West stated there would be an evaluation of the screens to ascertain if all the support for the screens was in place if the reorganization was not implemented. It would require at least 2 weeks to complete a revised work plan that would impact the "go live" date, and at that point, Ms. West felt the department would know exactly what the time frame was on reworking the various aspects of the program.

Chairman Giunchigliani asked, specifically, what training would need to be reevaluated. Ms. West stated the department planned the training to be organized, for example, around central services working and training as one unit. Without the reorganization, she felt that training would need to be segregated, and all training schedules reevaluated. Chairman Giunchigliani then inquired why central services could not still train as one unit. Ms. West advised, if the department was not going forward with the reorganization, she did not think it would be appropriate to train some of the staff in the proposed cross-purposes. The department would be required to review which employees had been designated for what training, and reevaluate. Chairman Giunchigliani asked if the department had already been training for cross-purposes over the past 4 years. Ms. West explained not in the behind-the-scenes functions. Chairman Giunchigliani noted that, perhaps, was part of the problem and part of the reason the subcommittee was concerned about how the plan was actually working.

Senator O’Donnell interjected DMV/PS could not go to work on the project without the approval of the legislature for the reorganization. It the department took action without legislative authorization, it would be violating the law, so it was asking whether or not it could reorganize in order to do the things it needed to do to get Project Genesis up and running.

Chairman Giunchigliani stated, while she appreciated that, previous testimony indicated that Field Services was the major issue in that portion of the "roll-out." The department currently had authority from the 1997 legislature, and would not be impeded from forming its teams, or anything else along those lines, based on the motion before the subcommittee. Further, she felt the subcommittee should be cautious of not creating a "son of NOMADS," which was part of the concern.

Ms. West stated she would like to present another example. Currently, driving schools and driving instructors were in the Drivers License Division, and that area would move to the proposed Compliance Enforcement Division under the reorganization. The entire system had been designed so that would operate as one set of screens, and Ms. West would have to determine if any screens needed to be split out and, correspondingly, if any training also needed to be split out. Chairman Giunchigliani asked why that would be necessary. Ms. West explained it was because of the two separate functions. For example, the Registration Division took care of its licensing with the Bureau of Enforcement (BOE), and the Drivers License Division took care of its own. The reorganization would combine those divisions, and also those screens.

Chairman Giunchigliani noted a piece of paper and a plan would not prevent the department from internally making those types of decisions. That would be "working within the box," instead of "looking beyond the box," from the management perspective. In addition, Chairman Giunchigliani noted that Assemblyman Humke had proposed a bill regarding the Drivers License Division, which might also effect the proposal.

Chairman Giunchigliani advised there was a motion before the committee for disapproval of the reorganization, but allow DMV/PS to continue with the authority to build its teams as previously approved by the 1997 legislature.

Senator Neal advised he thought the motion by Mr. Marvel was to create the oversight committee and continue to oversee the project. Chairman Giunchigliani explained that was the first motion the committee voted on, and Mr. Marvel’s current motion was not to approve the reorganization plan at the current time. Senator Neal then asked how DMV/PS would develop Project Genesis if the subcommittee did not allow the reorganization to go forward.

According to Chairman Giunchigliani, the department would be able to move forward because the legislature gave it the authorization to do so in 1997, which mainly addressed the Field Services issue, and so that, with Project Genesis, a "one-stop shop" could be created. Mr. Drew’s testimony was if the subcommittee did not approve the reorganization, it would not prevent the department from moving forward with the project.

Senator Neal then asked if the subcommittee was making a structural change, into which the new technology might not fit. He felt the department needed some latitude in order to fit in the new technology, and if the subcommittee prevented the reorganization, it seemed that would create a number of problems.

Chairman Giunchigliani noted the motion would need to include the authority for the department to approach IFC to move and/or reclassify staff as the system stabilized and staffing needs were better known; she felt that flexibility was necessary. Senator Neal felt the better course, as he saw it, was to have an oversight committee that would continue to report the department’s actions to the IFC, and not "freeze" the department in an old mode of doing things when it was attempting to advance by creating new technology. If the subcommittee totally shut down the department, then it had to bear the responsibility in the end for what the department was not able to accomplish. Senator Neal advised he was not willing to take such action.

Mrs. Chowning asked if the flexibility piece could be explained in greater detail. Further, she commented if the oversight committee met as it had during the last interim, it would meet approximately every 2 months as well. The IFC and the oversight committee would meet almost simultaneously, so they could work hand-in-glove in order to give the department a period of time to slow down a bit. Mrs. Chowning advised she would be in support of the motion only with the understanding that the subcommittee was supporting Project Genesis and wanted the technology piece to go forward. Perhaps the rest of the reorganization under discussion was not as critical at the current time, so the flexibility piece needed to be explained in more detail to provide an additional degree of comfort.

Ms. King explained that the subcommittee might wish to include language in the Appropriations Act that would allow the department the flexibility to transfer positions and related Highway Fund appropriations between accounts as necessary as the system stabilized. For example, with Field Services, as Internet renewal registrations came online, theoretically less people would be required to staff the counters, however, more people would be needed in back office functions to process the renewals. Ms. King stated the department would be able to approach the IFC and explain there were less people coming into the office for services, and it now needed more staff for back office functions and, therefore, wanted to move persons from counter positions into back office positions. Ms. King disclosed that would be an example of an explanation of the need to transfer staff within areas.

Senator Neal commented he brought a personnel perspective to the hearing in terms of organization. He stated if a person was asked to complete a function within a particular project, but was not able to anticipate proper staffing, and was not allowed to make managerial decisions, it would have the same effect as "pouring cold water," or stalemating the project. Further, he felt the department needed the flexibility to bring a product to a committee for oversight, let that committee review the product and make its determination, and after that changes could be made. Senator Neal pointed out the department should not be told it could not make or anticipate decisions without first seeking approval from the oversight committee, because that was the wrong approach to take. The legislature would find itself returning in 2 years with nothing accomplished by the department. Senator Neal questioned the department’s ability to work like that in terms of building those structures and putting management in place. He indicated the department had to be able to bring that full product back to an oversight committee and report what it had done, and what the organization would look like. If the oversight committee disagreed with the action taken, it could inform the department at that time. He did not feel the subcommittee could set standards where the department could not make decisions and anticipate plans for the future.

Chairman Giunchigliani appreciated Senator Neal’s comments, and from his personnel background over the years, she was sure that was the perspective he was looking at. She also felt Senator Neal would recognize an organizational plan that was not well thought out, had been revised numerous times in the process of budget closings, gave upwards of 10 percent increases to upper management staff when employees would not realize an increase, and forced quite large grade changes. It was also a plan that put the subcommittee in the predicament of adopting a reclassification plan that might not really be for the purpose of the project, but rather might be an internal "driver" that the subcommittee needed to recognize.

Senator Neal stated if the subcommittee was going to approach the reorganization in that manner, then it had to be specific, and if it didn’t want the increases to take place in terms of management, then make that specific. He did not feel constraints should be placed on the structural development of the reorganization.

Chairman Giunchigliani noted she did not feel the subcommittee "bought" into the fact that the reorganization structure was the best way to proceed, and while salaries were one part of it, they should not be the only driving part of the reorganization. She felt there were concerns about how the structure was put together and whether or not it would make Project Genesis as effective a technology as was anticipated. Even if the Assembly and Senate closed the budget differently, Chairman Giunchigliani stated it could be argued at a future point in time.

Chairman Giunchigliani reiterated the motion before the subcommittee was to not approve the reorganization, and asked Mr. Marvel if his motion would include allowing the department to approach the IFC for flexibility to move and reclassify positions. Mr. Marvel stated yes. It should be noted the motion would stand amended as follows:

Senator O’Donnell then proposed a motion for Senate consideration:

*************

Ms. King explained the Field Services account was responsible for the direct customer service operations for drivers licensing and vehicle registrations. Recommended adjustments to the account included an adjustment of the projection of the commission charged on motor vehicle privilege tax collections to reflect the population increases. The increase of that charge would result in a decrease to the Highway Fund appropriation. Ms. King explained all motor vehicle privilege tax commission was reflected in module M-200. That would change the funding in units M-201 and M-202 from the privilege tax commission as recommended in The Executive Budget to a Highway Fund appropriation. The positions requested in Modules M-200, M-201, and M-202 would fall under the committee’s previous motion not to approve any additional positions.

Ms. King noted funding was recommended in The Executive Budget for a contract with the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, in order to utilize their network to verify Social Security numbers. Also included in the account was workplace safety training; in unit E-175, ergonomic equipment and furniture, and E-178 was additional travel for meetings with the assessors and quarterly staff meetings. Ms. King stated replacement equipment was recommended in decision unit E-710, and staff removed operating supplies that should be included in the base budget. The new equipment in decision unit E-720 included a van in FY 2000 and four sedans in FY 2001 for travel from major office locations. Operating supplies were deleted from the decision unit, with the exception of the additional costs for Q-matic tickets and Q-matic maintenance for the Henderson and Sahara offices.

Ms. King advised the remaining adjustments in decision units E-900 through E-980, represented the revisions to the Governor’s recommendation on the reorganization, as requested by the department. Those decision units would apply to the Senate closing, but not the Assembly closing.

Senator O’Donnell asked if staff recommendations in the Field Services budget were based on not reorganizing the department, or did the reorganization have anything to do with those recommendations. Ms. King noted in all of the accounts, the E-900 decision units represented the reorganization. Those decision units would apply only to the Senate version of the closing. The E-900 units encompassed the reorganization, where all staff was moved into the appropriate accounts for the new organizational structure. Ms. King stated on the Assembly side, those decision units would not apply. Senator O’Donnell pointed out if there was anything that would be contrary to the motion for reorganization on the Senate side, he wanted to be alerted. According to Ms. King, the E-900 units would be adjusted to reflect the decision not to authorize new staff, but other than that, the reorganization would still apply to Senate closings.

Mrs. Chowning noted the existing vacant positions could be reassigned, albeit not through the reorganization. She stated it was not as though positions were being taken away, as the department would retain the 83 vacant positions.

Ms. King explained if the department filled all of the current positions, there would be 83 additional staff working for DMV/PS. What The Executive Budget recommended was that the department have 51 positions in addition to the 83 vacant positions. Because of the subcommittee’s earlier motion, the department would not have the 51 additional positions, but would still have the ability to fill the 83 existing vacancies. Also, Ms. King stated, under the motion to include flexibility in the Appropriations Act, those positions could be reassigned according to the department’s need.

*************

Ms. King pointed out in the Drivers License budget there were technical adjustments recommended to reduce mail-in renewal program revenue increases, because all such increases were included in the base budget. Inflation for postage was recalculated and adjusted upward; digital licenses were adjusted in unit E-125 to reflect the amounts being requested by the department, and that unit also included staff training costs. Ms. King stated in units E-125 and E-197, the request for enhanced travel was adjusted to reflect airline ticket costs of $500 for east coast and $250 for west coast; the number of travel days was revised to be consistent with the department’s request in other budget accounts. Further, equipment prices in units E-710 and E-720 were revised to be consistent with either the budget instruction prices or the department standard prices. Ms. King explained the replacement of computers in E-720 was eliminated because Project Genesis had funded computers throughout the Motor Vehicle branch.

Ms. King advised the subcommittee that based upon its prior decision, those portions of decision unit M-200 relating to additional positions would be eliminated. The remaining issue for the subcommittee to consider was the digitized photo license. Included in the budget account was funding to implement digitized photo licenses. The amount included in the budget account was not a duplicate of requests within the Genesis one-shot, but rather a request for implementation of the equipment and training for digitized photos. Ms. King noted that historically, the cost of photo licenses had been funded through a surcharge that was charged directly back to the license holder. That surcharge was currently set at $1 and there was a statute which required the department to increase the drivers license fee by up to $1 to defray the cost of photo licenses. When digitized photo licenses were implemented, the cost would be approximately $2.11.

According to Ms. King, The Executive Budget recommended funding digitized licenses through an increase in Highway Fund appropriation, however, if the subcommittee elected to fund the increase in digitized licenses through the surcharge back to the license holder, Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 483.347 would need to be changed.

Senator O’Donnell noted the two positions contained in decision unit M-200, were part of the additional positions the subcommittee previously eliminated while retaining the 83 existing vacant positions. What the subcommittee had done, he stated, was to retain the 83 existing positions, not allow the department to reorganize, and the department had to wait until October 1 to fill the current vacant positions. He noted the department would be required to wait until July 1, 2000 to reassign those positions. Chairman Giunchigliani advised the department had the authority from the Appropriations Act to implement those reassignments immediately. Senator O’Donnell stated he was mainly worried about the two Program Assistant positions that worked with fuel tax evasion. Chairman Giunchigliani informed Senator O’Donnell that the subcommittee was still considering the Drivers License budget, and would continue the discussion regarding the two positions when it was considering the Motor Carrier Division budget.

Chairman Giunchigliani advised the major question in the Drivers License budget was simply whether or not it should proceed with the digitized photo licenses, and if so, the funding would need to be authorized, perhaps via a bill which would allow the department to increase the fee up to $2.11. Ms. King stated there was currently a bill under consideration that would authorize the department to undertake digitized photo licenses, and that bill could be amended to change NRS 483.347 regarding the fee increase. Chairman Giunchigliani then inquired if the subcommittee had any objections to allowing the department to go forward with the digitized process, and raising the commensurate fee to cover the costs. The bill could also be amended to allow the department to authorize fee increases.

*************

Ms. King announced the Motor Carrier budget reflected the activities related to the regulation and taxation of motor carriers and special fuel taxes on diesel fuel. The two positions previously discussed by Senator O’Donnell were included in unit M-200; two Program Assistant positions authorized by the 1997 Legislature and scheduled to sunset June 30, 1999. Those positions were assisting in the detection of special fuel tax evasion, but based upon the subcommittee’s prior action, those positions would not be authorized beyond the sunset. Also, noted Ms. King, the Revenue Officer position in Las Vegas would not be authorized based upon the prior action of the subcommittee.

Decision unit E-126 would recommend increases in funding for the International Fuel Tax Administration (IFTA), and International Registration Program (IRP) computer system costs. Further, explained Ms. King, a Management Analyst I position was recommended in decision unit E-175; again, consistent with the prior action of the subcommittee, that position would not be authorized. Ms. King indicated conference travel funding was recommended in unit E-175, which was previously grant-funded. If the IRP contract were approved, it would consist of a $50,000 allocation to develop an interface with the financial program, in order to eliminate duplicate data entry, and $100,000 in FY 2001 to develop a fuel tracking system.

Ms. King stated unit E-197 recommended changes in travel costs due to the change in location of a conference; E-710 recommended replacement equipment and vehicles. Costs were adjusted to reflect the department’s standard prices or budget instruction prices. Ms. King advised new equipment was recommended in E-720, with computer desks and shelving eliminated due to the $1.2 million one-shot requested in S.B. 280 for furniture. If that bill did not pass, the funding would need to be placed back into the budget. Further, noted Ms. King, staff had made adjustments on telephone installation costs, which were considered technical adjustments to correct the cost.

Chairman Giunchigliani requested clarification regarding the two positions due to sunset on June 30, 1999, and the projected over staffing of the department in FY 2002. Ms. King explained with the additional staff requested by the department and with the Project Genesis projections from FY 1997, the department as a whole would be overstaffed; however, under the concept of allowing it to move staff between positions, it could move persons into the new positions.

Senator O’Donnell asked if the department currently had the authority to move staff into the two Program Assistant positions due to sunset in June 1999. Ms. King advised the 1997 Appropriations Act included language which allowed the department to move positions within the budget accounts to implement the recommendations of the Project Genesis reorganization. Senator O’Donnell asked Mr. Drew whether or not he had been given the opportunity to review the appropriate budget closing documents, and did he agree with the recommendations.

Mr. Drew commented the department was able to review budget closings with staff, but to answer Senator O’Donnell’s question, the department did not agree with all the closings. Mr. Drew felt assumptions had been made which, from the departments perspective, caused great concern. For example, the issue of the department being overstaffed by the year 2000 was information that came from the Business Process Reengineering (BPR) study that was compiled over 4 years ago. Mr. Drew felt the study made assumptions that the new technology such as Phase III, use of the Internet, renewals at smog stations, renewals by new car dealers, et cetera, would not only be in place, but also that the public had accepted the new technology. According to Mr. Drew, just because the department implemented the technology, that did not mean the public would accept or "buy into" that technology immediately. He felt the process would take time, and it would be well beyond the year 2000 before that acceptance occurred. Previous testimony indicated that in reality, it would probably be 2003, 2004, or perhaps later before the department realized some of the overall efficiencies of the technology. He would agree 100 percent with the flexibility to move positions and correct immediate problems, whether in a renewal section or customer service at windows, et cetera; Mr. Drew felt that flexibility would help tremendously. There were some concerns solely in the area of staffing. He noted if the department was not permitted to go forward with the realignment, and was not going to proceed as planned with Project Genesis, there would be staffing problems in the area of basic window service in the Carson City, Galletti Way-Reno, Fallon and Minden offices.

Ms. Lewis informed the subcommittee that the Motor Carrier budget included two Program Assistant positions. She stated the motor vehicle side, which involved customer service was one issue, however, the positions in question, which were program specific, was another issue. Those positions basically worked individually, and would not benefit from the new technology system, which was of concern to the Motor Carrier Division. Ms. Lewis felt the subcommittee was attempting to make a "blanket" assumption that all Motor Vehicle budgets would benefit from Project Genesis, however, there were many program-specific areas such as the Bureau of Enforcement and Motor Carrier. Those divisions completed their separate functions, and were not considered to be customer service field offices. Ms. Lewis felt the subcommittee was losing sight of that fact.

Senator O’Donnell emphasized he was not in favor of eliminating those two positions. He noted the Senate Transportation Committee had worked hard to ensure that the special fuel tax, which had been moved to rack in 1997, was handled properly. Now, he stated, the subcommittee was considering elimination of the positions that dealt with auditing and ensuring that unscrupulous dealers were paying their share of the tax. Senator O’Donnell advised that honest dealers were paying their taxes, and it was not fair to them when dishonest dealers evaded the tax. He felt the two Program Assistant positions were key to making sure that all dealers paid their fair share of the fuel tax. If the state did not have a fuel tax, it would not have a highway budget.

Mr. Marvel disclosed there was a bill in the Ways and Means Committee which proposed moving gasoline tax to the rack, and he stated he did not know how much of an increase in the workload that would create.

Chairman Giunchigliani inquired if the subcommittee would be amenable to a motion to continue the two positions in the budget for the purpose of collecting the fuel tax, be it gasoline or special fuels. She felt the motion should also make the department accountable, through performance indicators, for its actions regarding dealers captured, and type of revenue generated.

Mrs. Chowning agreed with the necessity of continuing the two positions, but within the 83 existing vacant positions approved to be filled, and the flexibility to move or reassign staff, she asked why the two positions were not filled in that manner. Chairman Giunchigliani stated, while the positions probably could be filled that way, she felt the issue was allowing the department to retain those positions, because of the impact of under-collection of fuel taxes. Mrs. Chowning noted the department would then have a total of 85 positions; Chairman Giunchigliani replied in the affirmative.

Senator O’Donnell felt Ms. Lewis could provide some insight on the positions. Ms. Lewis advised the two positions were currently funded, but were due to sunset in June 1999, and the request was to continue the funding into the next biennium. The positions might be captured within the 83 vacancies, however, the Motor Carrier Division was having difficulty keeping the positions filled. According to Ms. Lewis, when positions were hired in a sunset capacity, persons moved into permanent positions when possible, so there had been a constant turnover of staff.

Mr. Drew added that while it was easy to say the department would have the authority to move staff and/or positions to fill needs, that was simplistic on the surface, and would entail a great deal more work. The department simply could not take a person, move them into a different position, and work them out of classification. That would mean the department would be required to reclassify those persons, which in some instances could take several months, and the department would also need to provide training if job duties were drastically changed. Further, stated Mr. Drew, if the department changed a person’s job, as the department had experienced in a recent reclassification with over 600 DMV/PS employees, that person might not meet the minimum qualifications for the new job. Since such an employee would no longer be classified for the new position, he would lose his job and the department would be required to retest and rehire, which would drag the process out even more. Mr. Drew stated having the flexibility would be of great benefit, but it had to be done within the constraints of the existing personnel rules and the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC).

Chairman Giunchigliani inquired if DMV/PS had reviewed its overall staffing needs with consideration of the vacant positions. Since Mr. Drew was arguing that the department would run into problems even with the flexibility, she asked if the department had reviewed the classification of those vacant positions. Mr. Drew stated he was not sure he understood the question in its entirety. If Chairman Giunchigliani was referring to the 83 vacancies and the current classification, 57 positions were in field services, which was fine for counter work and customer service, however, in terms of other positions, he was not sure of the breakdown.

Chairman Giunchigliani then asked if the department had reviewed its reclassifications, in order to eliminate the predicament he previously outlined. Mr. Drew replied the department currently had not reviewed the reclassification. Chairman Giunchigliani advised it was hard for the subcommittee to anticipate the need if the department had not even reviewed the situation to see what that need was. The Governor’s budget recommended continuing the two positions for purposes of fuel tax collection. Mr. Drew stated that was correct, as it pertained to those two positions. Chairman Giunchigliani stated when LCB staff provided the budget closings, the department responded with its feelings and requests, and negotiated through the appropriate paperwork.

Ms. Lewis stated regarding the Motor Carrier budget, the manager of the program did respond with his concerns regarding the recommendation to delay action on staffing until the reorganization. Again, Ms. Lewis commented that those positions were program-specific, and whatever happened with reorganization, Motor Carrier was still an intact bureau and needed to continue to function. Chairman Giunchigliani asked if there was objection to the motion; Ms. Lewis answered in the affirmative. Chairman Giunchigliani noted the motion would continue the two positions. Ms. Lewis advised she apparently misunderstood the motion, and the main concern was that the two Program Assistant positions due to sunset were continued. Chairman Giunchigliani stated that was the motion.

Mr. Marvel conveyed he would like to verify, for the record, that the gasoline tax he previously mentioned would not go to the rack for 2 years, in order to allow DMV/PS and the Taxation Department time to make the necessary budgetary adjustments.

Chairman Giunchigliani advised the next motion would be to close the budget as recommended by staff, including technical changes, and with the understanding that based on the Senate’s previous motion, the E-900 decision units would be separately categorized.

*************

Ms. King announced she had failed to discuss the NPD-19 Reclassification Study that was reflected throughout the budgets. During 1997-98, almost all employees at DMV were involved in a NPD-19 study that was completed in approximately December 1998. There were some appeals to the Personnel Commission relative to the outcome of the study, which required decisions by the commission. Staff working with the department had adjusted all budgets to reflect the results of the NDP-19 study even though, technically, it had not yet been approved by the IFC. The NDP-19 study moved the DMV technician positions from the clerical series to the regulatory series, which had a significant budget impact of over $2.3 million in FY 2001. The reclassification had been approved by the Personnel Commission, and was reflected in all budget closings within the department in decision unit E-805.

Ms. King stated the Registration account contained the staff and costs associated with vehicle titling, BOE activities and policy/procedure making. Staff adjusted module M-100 to reflect the projected cost of Tag Plant utilities under the revised billing format proposed by the Nevada Department of Prisons (NDOP). Decision unit E-125 recommended additional funding for travel for the Terminal Agency Coordinator; E-150 recommended funding for jackets, hats and coveralls for the BOE investigators to use when participating in raids. Ms. King went on to explain unit E-175 recommended additional funding for in-state travel for supervision and meetings, and travel for investigations. It appeared there could be some duplication of travel and training costs in decision unit E-175 and the base budget. Ms. King advised if the subcommittee elected to reduce the decision unit by the amount of travel included in base, it would reduce the decision unit by $11,215 in each year of the biennium.

Ms. King explained E-197 included items that had been excluded from the base budget, however, budget modification number 32 requested those items be taken out of the decision unit because they actually had been included in the base budget, and amounted to a data entry error. Decision units E-710 and E-720 recommended new and replacement equipment. Ms. King noted replacement equipment had been reduced by $75,790 by elimination of vehicle replacement, based on a request from the agency. Ms. King stated the cost of the dyes for the license plate presses was reduced and equipment prices were reduced to reflect either the department’s standard price or the price in budget instructions. Furniture in the Carson City office was eliminated because of the department’s $1.2 million one-shot request for new furniture via proposed legislation. If the bill was not approved, Ms. King stated the allocation would need to be added back into the budget. Decision units E-805, E-806, E-938, and E-939 were eliminated because previous action in the Nevada Division of Investigations Budget Account eliminated the transfer of the BOE positions back to Registration.

Senator O’Donnell stated a bill had passed in Senate Finance, which would allow expedited titles to be processed by DMV, over and above the normal title process, and increased the fee. He wanted to make sure Registration was properly staffed to handle that process at the window, and asked Chairman Giunchigliani if there would be staff to handle the process with the budget closures previously approved by the subcommittee. Chairman Giunchigliani asked if the bill anticipated a fiscal note. Senator O’Donnell stated the bill would raise revenue. Chairman Giunchigliani then asked if the legislation itself anticipated a fiscal note. Senator O’Donnell replied it did not. Chairman Giunchigliani inquired if it required staffing; Senator O’Donnell explained it probably would require staffing, however, it was one of the bills that needed to move from committee quickly; he likened it to A.B. 311, which might, or might not need staffing. One reason, he explained, was because there was no way to anticipate the number of titles that would be requested and, therefore, staffing might or might not be needed.

Chairman Giunchigliani noted, as with any legislation that dealt with the potential of raising revenue, it would first be necessary to ascertain whether or not the Governor would veto the bill. Secondly, a determination would need to be made regarding staffing needs, which could be handled outside the budget, however, the Senate apparently did not anticipate staffing needs. Senator O’Donnell stated the Senate did anticipate staffing needs, and because he sat as a member of the subcommittee, he could deal with details for the DMV budget; however, he stated he did not realize most of the subcommittee would excise 51 positions out of that budget.

Chairman Giunchigliani stated, with all due respect, Senator O’Donnell voted for that motion. The motion was to let DMV continue with the 83 vacant positions that it had never bothered to fill, nor bothered to reclassify based on need within the department, regardless of whether reorganization occurred; the subcommittee felt there was no justification for the 51 additional positions. Further, Chairman Giunchigliani noted that testimony from the director was that DMV/PS could proceed with the program regardless of whether or not the additional positions were approved. Senator O’Donnell asked if Chairman Giunchigliani could then give him the assurance that the new title process would be taken care of. Chairman Giunchigliani stated she would not assure him of anything, since she did not run the department.

Chairman Giunchigliani indicated she would accept a motion to close the budget as recommended by staff, without the additional positions based on the earlier motion, reducing the travel allocation, and with the E-900 decision units captured separately in budget closings, based on the previous motion.

*************

Ms. King explained the staffing cost in the budget account reflected the cost needed to administer the program for verification of liability insurance for motor vehicles registered in Nevada. The base budget was adjusted to restore postage costs that were accidentally reduced during budget preparation. That required a second adjustment to decision unit M-100, in order to calculate inflation. Decision unit M-200 reflected demographic increases in the program, with revenue projections reduced to match the projected population growth, and the increase in operating costs compounded. The additional funding recommended for the postage sealer was reduced because related costs were included in base.

Continuing, Ms. King stated unit E-175 addressed additional training for staff and rural area assessors, and meetings with industry representatives. E-197 recommended enhancements in travel and training. The out-of-state travel costs were reduced to reflect the length and cost of the conference trips recorded in other department accounts. The number of trips to conferences was decreased to two national conferences and one regional conference each year, and registration fees funded in the training category were reduced to match the agency’s request to, "send two people to the same training included in base." Ms. King advised the cost of replacement chairs was decreased to the department’s standard price and decision units E-893 and E-894 would not effect Assembly closing, but would effect Senate closing. Those decision units contained staff recommendations regarding the reorganization. If the department did reorganize, staff would recommend movement of some positions, and Ms. King stated she had discussed those moves with departmental staff, and they were in agreement. The movement would simply align the positions within the budget account where they were supervised.

*************

Ms. King stated the account represented the smog certificate fee that was in effect in Washoe and Clark Counties. She advised the subcommittee that there was a projection of the account reserve included in the closing report, based on The Executive Budget and other budget closings to date. Decision unit M-200 recommended an additional position, which the subcommittee had eliminated via a previous motion. Decision unit M-201 recommended increasing costs due to demographic growth in agencies supported by the account. Ms. King explained The Executive Budget recommended increases in travel, training, uniforms, and physicals in decision unit E-125. Staff reduced out-of-state travel to reflect amounts included in base budgets, and staff physicals and uniforms were moved to a separate category as recommended by the Budget Division, which was consistent with the other accounts within DMV/PS.

Decision unit E-126 recommended re-implementation of the visible smoke enforcement program, which had been eliminated by the 1997 Legislature. Ms. King noted the program was previously handled by the Highway Patrol. The department recommended continuation of the program with staffing by BOE uniformed investigators who would stop visibly smoking vehicles. The cost of the program’s equipment, furniture, vehicle, and computer prices were adjusted to meet the department’s standard. Also, the registration for Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) was adjusted because a Training Division was previously authorized for the department. Ms. King commented the department had testified that the visible smoke enforcement program would have minimal impact on air quality, however, the program did increase public perception that government was doing something about air pollution. The total cost of the program, after adjustments, was $301,000 in FY 2000 due to new equipment costs, and $224,000 in FY 2001.

Decision unit E-175 recommended additional training for criminal investigations and travel, however, based upon the decision to allow criminal investigations to remain with NDI, the funding for criminal investigations training in the decision unit was eliminated. Ms. King stated funding for state agencies from the account was increased in decision unit E-375, and The Executive Budget also recommended funding 100 percent of the costs of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) from the account. In addition, positions for State Parks and the Forestry Division were recommended for funding from the account. Ms. King advised the decision unit would change as other budgets were closed. Also of note, the transfer of funds to the various agencies would depend upon passage of S.B. 511. She noted the budget could be closed without passage of the bill, because if it did not pass, the funds could not be transferred and would revert to the reserve.

Ms. King advised the department directed a memorandum to staff requesting that the number of vehicles being replaced in the account be reduced from 29 to 10. That reduced decision unit E-710 by over $400,000. Decision units E-895, E-896 and E-897 contained staff recommendations for the reorganization applicable to the Senate closing. If reorganization was approved, Ms. King stated the decision units would more closely align the staffing within particular budgets.

Senator O’Donnell asked if Motor Vehicle Emission Control was the budget where money was used to fund the TRPA account. Ms. King replied in the affirmative, stating it was decision unit E-375. Senator O’Donnell then asked how much would be taken from the Highway Fund in support of Lake Tahoe. Ms. King replied the budget had nothing to do with the Highway Fund, but rather was the pollution control fees collected. Senator O’Donnell implied he understood, and inquired how much revenue would be allocated to TRPA from the budget account. Ms. King stated the total budget funding was $2.6 million in FY 2000 and $2.5 million in FY 2001, which was an increase of approximately $1.5 million each year. Of that increase, $1.3 million in FY 2000 and $1.4 in FY 2001 was allocated to TRPA. What would TRPA do with those funds, and would it be used for pollution control, or would it be used to operate the agency, asked Senator O’Donnell. Ms. King stated the allocation would provide 100 percent of the funding for TRPA. Senator O’Donnell advised the subcommittee he would not vote in support of that decision unit.

Ms. Giunchigliani informed subcommittee members the motion should consider disapproval of the four positions in decision unit E-126, which was the visible smoke enforcement program, with closure of the budget basically as recommended by the Governor, noting Senator O’Donnell’s opposition to decision unit E-375.

Chairman Giunchigliani explained the main issue was whether or not money from the budget in decision unit E-375 should be allocated to TRPA. As a Clark County resident, she was aware that there was a feeling that Clark County funded a good portion of the budget; however, she felt TRPA was a statewide issue, not just a southern or northern Nevada issue. Chairman Giunchigliani noted the public voted overwhelmingly for bonds for the program, with the southern part of the state carrying the vote. She indicated there was pending legislation (S.B. 511), which actually anticipated such a funding shift. Further, she did not feel TRPA should be separated into a regional issue, and it should be the fact that the Governor, whether right or wrong, recommended using some of the funds from the budget for TRPA, due to the fact that funding was not being capitalized. Chairman Giunchigliani stated she believed there had been discussion regarding a sunset on the allocation. Perhaps part of the motion might be that the subcommittee would recommend the legislation regarding the funding proposal include a sunset stipulation at the end of 2 years, so the budgeted reserves were not drained.

Senator O’Donnell inquired if anyone researched what the detriment to the account would be. Chairman Giunchigliani stated the initial discussion was that the money in reserve had not been put to use, and that was the reason the Governor recommended the TRPA allocation, because the reserve had not been used for pollution control.

Senator O’Donnell then inquired if the allocations were anticipated from the budget account’s reserve; Chairman Giunchigliani answered in the affirmative. Senator O’Donnell stated it was his understanding the air pollution accounts for Clark and Washoe Counties were separate from the Motor Vehicle Pollution Control account, however, it would still take money from Clark and Washoe Counties, along with the rest of the state, in support of Lake Tahoe. Senator O’Donnell pointed out he felt that was a departure from what normal legislative action; now air pollution control money was being used in support of Lake Tahoe. He stated, in his personal opinion, if the public knew and understood that the legislature contemplated taking every dollar from smog checks and using it to fund Lake Tahoe, he felt the public would object.

Chairman Giunchigliani remarked that passage of S.B. 511 would be necessary in order to authorize the transfer of funds, and if it did not pass, the legislature would be required to supplement the budget differently. Ms. King advised the bill was currently in the Senate Finance Committee; further, she indicated the budget could be closed regardless of the outcome of S.B. 511. If it did not pass, the department would have the budgetary authority to transfer the funds, however, would not have the statutory authority.

Mrs. Chowning stated she did not really agree that the pollution money should be used to support Lake Tahoe either, however, to reiterate the reality, if the funding did not come from the Motor Vehicle Pollution Control budget, it would be approximately $2.7 million in General Fund dollars.

To further clarify, Chairman Giunchigliani stated the subcommittee would recommend to the committee hearing S.B. 511 that it preferred a 2-year sunset stipulation, so that the reserves were not further depleted and could be rebuilt. Because the department was not using the funds for pollution control, even though the funds had been collected for that purpose, the Governor’s budget anticipated use of that reserve would allow the continuation of TRPA. Mr. Marvel noted if the Senate failed to amend the bill, it could be amended by the Assembly.

Chairman Giunchigliani stated the motion would also make the additional recommendation that decision unit E-375 included a sunset clause via S.B. 511, if passed. The subcommittee agreed with that addition.

Chairman Giunchigliani noted Senator O’Donnell wanted to vote in opposition to the motion, however, was out of the room.

*************

Ms. King advised the budget account was created by the 1997 Legislature to identify all costs associated with Project Genesis development and implementation. The account would be eliminated at the end of the 1999-2001 biennium. All one-time costs had been removed from the base budget, and six Information System (IS) Specialist positions were recommended for transfer to the Automation account effective July 1, 1999. She said there were 13 IS positions authorized for Project Genesis: six going to Automation on July 1, 1999, two would sunset in December 1999, two would sunset in June 2000, and three would sunset in June 2001. Ms. King advised the in-state and out-of-state travel for the positions in the budget were recommended for reduction in accordance with the staff recommendations.

Ms. King indicated decision unit E-175 recommended $200,000 and $210,000 in each year of the biennium respectively for the cost of salary upgrades to implement the revised organizational structure. Those costs were eliminated from the budget account because they were reflected in the individual budget accounts in the new organizational structure (Senate closing only); the decision unit would be totally eliminated in the Assembly closing. The E-900 decision units were the transfer of staff to the new organizational structure. Ms. King stated S.B. 279 would be heard in the Senate Finance Committee, and contained the additional one-time appropriation to complete Project Genesis for FY 2000–2001.

Chairman Giunchigliani inquired if the $8.6 million appropriation contained in the bill included only technology costs. Ms. King advised the appropriation included technology costs, training costs to bring the system online statewide, and also contract and consulting costs for both years of the biennium. It also included alternative technology such as implementation of registration renewal via the Internet.

Mrs. Chowning asked what training costs were not included in the $8.6 million appropriation. Ms. King noted the appropriation included training costs for changes in management, and implementation and application training required to bring the system online. Chairman Giunchigliani noted the subcommittee did not get an answer regarding the specifics. Ms. King stated all specifics would be presented when the bill was heard.

Chairman Giunchigliani stated the motion would be to close the budget as recommended by staff, including technical adjustments, and recognizing that the issue regarding reorganization would be segregated.

*************

Ms. King advised Automation was the account that maintained the Legacy system until Project Genesis was implemented statewide. As previously discussed, six positions would be transferred into the account. Ms. King noted the base budget was adjusted per budget modification number 39, to add back contract costs that were inadvertently left out of the budget. Also, miscellaneous revenue was adjusted to reflect a revised projection.

Ms. King reported decision unit E-126 recommended the additional ongoing Department of Information Technology (DoIT) facility charges required to implement Project Genesis, $2.4 million in FY 2000 and $2.8 million in FY 2001. Those costs were estimates, and would be finalized when the final DoIT cost allocation was completed. Telephone line costs increase was recommended in unit E-175. Due to the tentative nature of those costs, The Executive Budget recommended they be segregated into a separate category. Decision unit E-900 reflected the transfer of the six Project Genesis IS positions into the account. According to Ms. King, staff eliminated the uninterrupted power supply that was included in the Project Genesis funding in the current biennium.

Senator O’Donnell inquired if Project Genesis team leaders had reviewed the budget closing. Ms. King advised the budget closing documents were reviewed by Elizabeth Enenbach, Data Processing Manager, DMV/PS, and Glen Larson, Project Genesis Information System Manager, and she had also received a memorandum from the department agreeing with the closings.

*************

Chairman Giunchigliani informed the subcommittee that Chairman Jacobsen would chair the remaining budget items. Chairman Jacobsen advised that, due to time constraints, the committee would move through the non-controversial budget items in an expeditious manner, however, if anyone in the audience indicated they wished to present testimony, the subcommittee would certainly accommodate them.

Brian Burke, Program Analyst, LCB, announced he would begin by discussing the decision items for the subcommittee’s review. The subcommittee had previously reviewed budget amendment number 44, which proposed to increase General Fund in the base by $200,000. It should be noted the department had withdrawn that amendment in lieu of A.B. 151, which appropriated $200,000 for the identical purpose.

Module M-201, Accounting Clerk: The Executive Budget currently recommended a new half-time Accounting Clerk for the Nevada Division of Forestry (NDF) in Elko. The budget narrative regarding the module erroneously referred to a 9.5 full-time employee, and it was actually a half-time position. Amendment number 11 from the Department of Administration proposed to modify the module by making the position full-time. The department was encouraged to review the potential for cost allocating the position; however, for the requested position, found that cost allocation would not work. The subcommittee might wish to review whether or not it wanted to approve the new Accounting Clerk Position for NDF in its Elko office, and if so, did the subcommittee wish to approve amendment number 11, which made the position full-time rather than part-time. That would add $11,106 in the first year of the biennium, and $11,038 in the second year.

Mr. Burke explained that module M-203 recommended funding for a new Accounting Technician II position in the director’s office, and amendment number 86 would seek an acceleration of the hire date from October 1, 1999 to July 1, 1999. The department indicated that position could be cost allocated, which would result in a General Fund reduction.

Chairman Giunchigliani questioned module E-810, which dealt with retirement leave for the director, stating it was not current budget practice. She felt the subcommittee wanted to ensure that if E-810 were deleted from the budget, the director would still receive his retirement leave, which apparently would occur even with deletion of that unit. Chairman Giunchigliani wanted that on record so it was clear and would ensure collection of the leave.

Chairman Jacobsen asked if Pete Morros, Director, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, had any comment for the record. Mr. Morros stated he felt Chairman Giunchigliani had sufficiently clarified the matter.

Mike Nolan, Principal Budget Analyst, Budget Division, noted it was not a common practice to include retirement money in a budget, but it was a very small budget and Mr. Morros had been with the department for quite a while. The pay out would be quite substantial, and he felt the department would approach the IFC for that funding, or at least a portion of it. Chairman Jacobsen stated he thought that was understood.

Continuing, Mr. Burke addressed module E-710, which recommended funding for various equipment items, including a telephone system for the office located on Nye Lane, file cabinets, calculators, chairs, dictating machine and a fax machine. Amendment number 45 proposed by the Budget Division would reduce the General Fund appropriation in the unit by $23,345 in the first year of the biennium. It should also be noted, advised Mr. Burke, that equipment in unit E-710 was inadvertently duplicated with the equipment in the Integrated Financial system one-shot request. There was also a technical adjustment in the unit to further reduce the costs for printer equipment pursuant to Purchasing Division estimates, which would make the General fund reduction total $24,022. The subcommittee would need to consider that amendment in the final budget closing.

In module E-720, Mr. Burke noted there were technical adjustments needed to reduce software and equipment prices, which was a common theme because of reductions in Purchasing Division price estimates. Amendment number 46 would increase the E-720 General Fund appropriation by $800 in FY 2001 to continue to fund T-1 line costs; those costs were funded in FY 2000, but inadvertently omitted from FY 2001.

Mr. Burke stated during the March 25 meeting of the subcommittee, the director requested that the unspent balance of appropriations made from S.B. 211 of the 1997 Legislature be approved to carry forward; that appropriation was for the preservation and protection of wild horses. Mr. Burke advised the balance to be brought forward was $49,677. If the subcommittee concurred with the department’s request, LCB Fiscal Analyst staff would need authority to work with the Legal Division to draft the necessary legislation to extend the reversion date.

*************

Mr. Burke stated there were technical adjustments in the account; computer hardware and software, and fax machine costs in module E-710 were reduced by $56,107 in the first year of the biennium and $70,419 in the second year, which was pursuant to revised Purchasing Division estimates. Mr. Burke advised he had worked with departmental staff regarding the reductions.

Mr. Burke commented in module E-900, longevity costs were reduced by $1,000 in the first year and $1,063 in the second year. Staff was requesting approval to make any cost allocation revisions in the account necessary due to committee closing action on other budgets within the Division of Environmental Protection. Module E-710 recommended that all budget accounts within the division be provided with information services support. E-710 also reflected replacement of software and hardware used on a division-wide basis, in order to better allocate costs with the services, and improve technical support. The recommendation included 25 percent replacement of existing computer hardware and software, and the cost as recommended in the budget would be $233,890 in the first year and $250,490 in the second year of the biennium. Mr. Burke stated as noted in technical adjustment number one, those costs were reduced by $56,107 in the first year and $70,419 in the second.

Module E-900 recommended the transfer from Budget Account 3187, of three information services positions from the Bureau of Waste Management and Federal Facilities, including one Management Analyst III position, and two Management Analyst II positions, since those positions provided technical services to the entire division. Further, explained Mr. Burke, if the budget was closed approving module E-900, it would be consistent with closings in Budget Account 3187 on the Senate side.

Chairman Jacobsen inquired if Allen Biaggi, Administrator of the division wanted to address the committee regarding possible federal issues the subcommittee had not been apprised of. Mr. Biaggi indicated he did not wish to make any comments at the present time.

*************

Mr. Burke noted in module E-710 computer hardware costs were reduced by $815 per year to reflect revised Purchasing Division cost estimates. The main issue in module M-200, industrial growth, was $89,000 for information services related to the development of an air quality data base, and Mr. Burke advised that new data base would permit multi-bureau information exchange. The Clean Air Act, module M-590, included $75,000 each year to evaluate the extent of, and sources of pollutants in the Jarbidge Wilderness Area.

Also, Mr. Burke advised, E-710 recommended funding to replace office equipment, air monitoring equipment, particulate samplers, et cetera. The Executive Budget recommended $19,347, and technical adjustment number one would reduce the amount to $18,432 in each year of the biennium. The main item in module E-720 was the request for a new van to set up a portable monitoring system.

Mr. Marvel inquired what the division’s plans were regarding the Jarbidge area. Mr. Biaggi explained the Regional Haze Amendments that were being proposed by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), outlined what national parks or national recreation areas were to be evaluated, and that was based upon the size of the area and the date of establishment. He stated based on that criteria, the Jarbidge Wilderness Area was the only area of Nevada that would be impacted. Mr. Marvel then asked if Nevada had been causative of negative action. Mr. Biaggi commented not at all, and in fact SJR 3 expressed the legislature’s concerns with the Regional Haze Amendment requirements. Chairman Jacobsen inquired if Nevada was in compliance with all other rules and regulations, also asking if there were any federal fines "coming our way." Mr. Biaggi indicated he was not aware of any fines, however, there were air quality concerns in Washoe and Clark Counties, and there were steps being taken to address those concerns.

*************

According to Mr. Burke, Mining Regulation and Reclamation was a new budget recommended for the upcoming biennium. Due to the increase in activity with the bureau’s mining regulatory responsibilities, the Governor recommended that all mining staff, 18 positions, and associated costs in the Water and Mining budget, account 3186, be transferred into the new account. Mr. Burke disclosed there were two technical adjustments in the account; the first would adjust the mining claim fee and dangerous mine fee revenues in modules E-900 and E-901 to match the revenue amounts from the transferring account (3186). Also, computer costs in module E-902 were revised to reflect the latest Purchasing Division estimates.

Further, Mr. Burke explained, the decision facing the subcommittee was whether it wanted to approve removal of mining regulatory activity from the Water and Mining budget (3186), and create an independent mining regulation and reclamation account. The E-900 modules reflected the transfer of base, M-200, and modules E-710, and E–720 from account 3186 to the new Mining Regulation and Reclamation account (3188). Staff requested approval to make any modifications to the transfer modules necessitated by subcommittee actions on account 3186.

Chairman Jacobsen inquired what advantages might be realized by creating the new Mining Regulation and Reclamation account. Mr. Burke replied he felt the advantage would be to separate two distinct activities; the mining activities were currently merged with water activities, and it would simply provide a more distinct accounting of the two programs.

Mr. Marvel asked how the accounts would be funded, and would that funding include fees from the industry or federal money. Electing to respond was Mr. Biaggi, who advised the mining program was funded exclusively through fees from the mining industry.

Chairman Giunchigliani asked Mr. Marvel if his motion would include separation of the mining regulatory activity from account 3186 and transfer it into the new account, and approval for staff to make modifications to the transfer modules. Mr. Marvel answered in the affirmative.

Before the subcommittee left the budget account, Mrs. Chowning inquired if there was a pending bill associated with the authority to increase the mining fees. The consensus was that there was no such pending legislation.

*************

Mr. Burke advised there were several technical adjustments in the account. Adjusted base revenues and expenditures were revised to correct inaccurate cost allocation amounts pursuant to the Budget Division’s amendment number 93. Module M-200 was adjusted to correct inaccurate fee revenues pursuant to amendment number 92, and in E-710, computer equipment costs were reduced by $5,695 in the first year of the biennium and $5,294 in the second year, pursuant to the Purchasing Division’s revised price estimates. Mr. Burke stated mining claim fee and dangerous mine fee revenues in modules E-900 and E-901 were adjusted to match revenue amounts in the base and M-200 modules, which was consistent with the closure of budget account 3188. Module E-902 was adjusted to reflect computer cost reductions to mining’s share of module E-710, equipment purchases.

As far as major decision items, Mr. Burke reported water permit revenues were budgeted at approximately $1.5 million in each year of the 1999-2001 biennium. That was a 44 percent increase over FY 1998 fees of $1.037 million, and he pointed out the subcommittee should note that, if approved as recommended, the agency had indicated water permit fee increases were anticipated to provide the additional revenue. The main issue in Module M-200 was additional funding of approximately $1 million in the operating category, primarily for contracts to complete water sampling, ground water programs and water quality planning efforts. Mr. Burke explained in E-710, The Executive Budget recommended replacing five telephone sets in each year of the biennium, one pick-up truck with over 90,000 miles, 16 computers, and four printers. Consistent with its other accounts, the division was attempting to replace approximately 25 percent of its computer hardware in each account. As previously noted, the costs were reduced by $10,989 over the biennium to reflect the revised Purchasing Division estimates.

Under new equipment, Mr. Burke noted the budget recommended adding a Global Positioning System and several other pieces of equipment, such as a digital camera, flow meters, and special equipment to assist with water sampling responsibilities at treatment plants. The cost would be $458,818 over the biennium. Mr. Burke stated funding for a new vehicle was also recommended. The E-900 modules contained the transfer of mining’s share of the base and the position transfers to the new Mining Regulation and Reclamation account (3188).

Mrs. Chowning stated other subcommittees had asked the Budget Division to comment on the proposed increases in fees, and would there be the same requirement that the division essentially needed agreement from the regulated community before increasing fees. In other words, she stated, there had to be a consensus from industry before the subcommittee could close the budget including the fee increase. Mr. Biaggi commented he had discussed that issue with the Budget Division, and the fees in the mining program were defined statutorily as the responsibility of the State Environmental Commission. The fee increase was contained in The Executive Budget, therefore, it was not subject to an automatic veto by the Governor. The division could proceed forward with the increase, with the understanding that if it was not approved by the commission, the division would need to review other means of meeting the budget by cuts in spending, or vacancy savings.

Chairman Jacobsen inquired who sat on the State Environmental Commission and asked about its activities. Mr. Biaggi explained the commission consisted of 11 members, and was set up statutorily to include:

• The State Engineer;
• The State Forester;
• The head of the Department of Agriculture;
• The head of Minerals Division;
• A member from the building industry;
• A member from the community who represented environmental interests; and,
• A member from the university.

Mr. Biaggi stated the commission met approximately once per quarter, and more frequently in smaller panels to hear contested cases; it was a very active group and very knowledgeable.

*************

Mr. Burke informed the subcommittee that amendment number 73 submitted by the Budget Division would reduce General Fund appropriations and fringe benefit payments in module M-300 by $3,219 in the first year of the biennium, and $5,364 in the second year. That reduction was needed because the required amount was inadvertently doubled in The Executive Budget. Amendment number 74 would reduce the base General Fund appropriations and fringe benefit payments by $225 in FY 2001 to correct an erroneous entry.

Mr. Burke stated module M-200 recommended additional funding for travel and registration costs associated with the International Erosion Control Association conference, computer and word processing training, e-mail access, technical materials, and mailing label costs. Module E-400 was a continuation of the grant program. According to Mr. Burke, A.B. 148 of the 1995 session, and A.B. 137 of the 1997 session provided grants to conservation districts with an appropriation of $135,000 in each year of the biennium. Module E-400 proposed to continue that funding in account 4151. The division reported in the past that conservation districts generated approximately $10 locally for each dollar of General Fund provided.

Chairman Jacobsen stated the past administration had wanted to eliminate the conservation districts, and he wondered it they were back "up to speed." Pamela Wilcox, Administrator, Division of Conservation Districts replied the support of the subcommittee and the legislature for the program was very much appreciated, and the program was doing very well. Chairman Jacobsen asked if all the districts were operational; Ms. Wilcox replied in the affirmative and also explained that the grant money had been extremely beneficial. She noted the districts had actually gone out and leveraged the grant money into substantial additional funds.

*************

Mr. Burke explained that in module E-710, hardware and software costs were reduced by $596 to reflect revised Purchasing Division price estimates. Module M-200 recommended a General Fund appropriation for a .4 Land Agent II position and a 7 month seasonal Forester position. The division currently had a .6 Land Agent, and the addition of the .4 would make it a full-time position. That position worked on land coverage mitigation programs at Lake Tahoe, and was funded by mitigation fees. Making it a full-time position would allow the division to expand the responsibilities to include working on other types of land transactions.

Mr. Burke stated that in module M-202, The Executive Budget recommended additions to operating costs to include an increase in rental space, and $15,000 in each year of the biennium for a contract to input data into the division’s new Geographic Information System (GIS). S.B. 201 of the 1997 session included $210,000 for the development of an integrated database and GIS for State Lands. To date, indicated Mr. Burke, $182,465 had been committed, and the contractor working on the project stated that the development of report modules should wait until all of the database modules were accepted, which would not occur prior to June 30, 1999. The agency was asking for an extension of the balance of the funding to allow it to work on report modules into the new biennium. If the subcommittee chose to approve the date extension of that reversion, legislation would be required, and the subcommittee could direct fiscal staff to work with the Legal Division to complete the necessary legislation.

According to Mr. Burke, also included in M-202 was $16,183 in each year of the biennium for land management needs, which included appraisals, surveys, fencing, signage, weed and trash abatement, and erosion control. When combined with the base amount of $3,817, it would give the agency a total of $20,000 per year for that purpose. S.B. 508 would provide a $20,000 appropriation for a similar purpose and the agency indicated that the land management category in the account could be eliminated if the bill was ultimately approved. So, if the subcommittee chose to approve the base and M-202 module as recommended, fiscal staff requested approval to make subsequent revenue and expenditure adjustments if S.B. 508 ultimately passed.

Continuing, Mr. Burke noted module E-410 recommended an environmental improvement program-related position of Environmental Scientist III, which would be funded from interest on the sale of Tahoe Bonds. There had been a requested amendment, number 35, which would accelerate the hire date of the position from October 1, 1999 to July 1, 1999. The division indicated the new position was needed immediately to initiate stream restoration projects. If approved, Mr. Burke noted it would cost an additional $15,714 in Tahoe Bond money. The questions were whether the subcommittee wanted to approve the new Environmental Scientist III position, and did the subcommittee wish to approve amendment number 35, which would accelerate the hire date.

Chairman Giunchigliani requested clarification regarding E-410, the new Environmental Scientist III position. Ms. Wilcox disclosed the position would be working on the Tahoe Bond Act, which consisted of $20 million for stream restoration and erosion control projects, primarily in the stream restoration area, and would be funded from interest on the $20 million bond.

Chairman Giunchigliani continued her motion as follows:

*************

Mr. Burke commented that pursuant to Budget Division amendment number 19, General Fund appropriations were reduced by $126,343 in the first year of the biennium and $132,016 in the second year, and there were corresponding increases in local government reimbursement revenues. That was the local government funding from the Carson Walker River Conservancy and Truckee River Conservancy, and those funding sources were omitted from the budget.

Vehicle costs and General Fund appropriations in Module E-710 were reduced by $10,380 to correct vehicle price estimates, and Mr. Burke noted printer costs in that module were reduced by $606 pursuant to revised Purchasing Division estimates. Mr. Burke noted that software costs in module E-720 were reduced by $1,575 in FY 2001, again to reflect Purchasing division price estimates. Module E-710, replacement equipment, recommended $158,249 in FY 2000 for various items for replacement equipment. Four vehicles with over 100,000 miles would be replaced, along with one camper shell to provide protection for equipment used in the field. Mr. Burke stated the module also recommended funding for nine replacement computers and printers, one digitizer, and one plotter. As noted, the General Fund would be reduced by $10,986 to correct that module.

Mr. Burke stated module E-720 recommended an enhancement of $94,795 in FY 2000 to fund computer hardware and software and new storage equipment. The division was converting to a Windows NT Network and recommended the replacement of the nine-year-old "dumb" terminals. Mr. Burke noted in technical adjustment number three, the General Fund reduction was $1,575, not $5,265 as previously stated.

Chairman Jacobsen asked Michael Turnipseed, State Engineer, Water Resources Division to address the subcommittee about the accessibility of maps. Mr. Turnipseed stated he could produce maps of varying sizes. Chairman Jacobsen said over the years, he had been interested in securing a map of each county, and could not seem to generate one. Mr. Turnipseed advised he thought the division could do that, but it would depend on what was included on the maps, such as mine locations, dams, et cetera. Chairman Jacobsen stated he would like an indication of public land versus private land. Mr. Turnipseed was unsure if the division could produce such a map, but thought perhaps the public land status map could be scanned and overlaid with a county map for the desired outcome.

Ms. Wilcox informed Chairman Jacobsen she would see if the Division of State Lands could produce a map such as he requested, as it currently did have the land status map in its GIS system, however, she was not certain it could be printed county-by-county.

*************

Mr. Burke advised the subcommittee the first technical adjustment was in module E-710, computer hardware costs, with a reduction of $387 in FY 2000 to reflect Purchasing Division price estimates. Mr. Burke went on to explain there were several decision items for the subcommittee’s review:

• Adjusted Base: Pursuant to NRS 365.535, boat fuel tax revenues were distributed to the Wildlife Boating account and State Parks account. The Executive Budget reflected an unequal distribution to those two accounts. Additionally, there had been revised Taxation Department revenue projections, and Amendment number 95 received from the Budget Division increased the boat fuel tax revenues from $1.4 million to $1.5 million in each year of the biennium, an additional $94,568; General Fund appropriations were correspondingly decreased.

• Module M-207, Additional Seasonal Salaries and other Operating Expenses: The module recommended approximately $40,000 in each year of the biennium for additional seasonal salaries. The Budget Division recommended two adjustments to the module; Amendment number 38 proposed a reduction to the General Fund appropriation in each year of the biennium because of an error in compiling operating costs. If approved, the amendment would reduce the General Fund appropriation by $2,500 in the first year and $2,150 in the second year of the biennium. Amendment number 70 would add General Fund appropriations and reduce user fee revenues by $5,000 in each year of the biennium, due to a miscalculation in revenue splits.

• E-410, new Park Ranger position: That position would coordinate the State Parks Environmental Improvement Program (EIP) project functions and work closely with other state and federal agencies. As currently recommended in The Executive Budget, the position and associated costs would be supported by a transfer of air pollution control funds and park user fees. The subcommittee had several decisions to make in regard to the position: (1) Did the subcommittee wish to approve the new Park Ranger program to support the EIP program. (2) If yes, did the subcommittee wish to permit the use of air pollution control funds to support the cost. (3) If approved as recommended in The Executive Budget, what action should Fiscal Analysis Division staff take if S.B. 511 was subsequently not approved. During previous hearings, the subcommittee discussed the fact that funding had not been built into the base budgets of the effected accounts, and if the Budget Division wished to continue the initiatives (if approved by the legislature) in the future biennium, the subcommittee wanted those reflected as enhancement decision items. The question was whether or not the subcommittee wished to have a letter of intent prepared to formalize that understanding.

• E-710, replacement equipment: The module recommended General Fund appropriation of $325,671 for various items of replacement equipment. The bulk of the funding, $276,282 would support replacement of nine vehicles which had accumulated anywhere from 80,000 to 189,000 miles each. Also included were a front-end loader for snow removal, along with tools, 8 computers, 12 software upgrades, laser and ink jet printers. The Budget Division proposed two amendments to the module. Amendment number 37b would reduce General Fund appropriation to $3,500 in FY 2000. Amendment number 71 would reduce General Fund appropriation by $375 to correct an error in information services costs in The Executive Budget.

• E-720, new equipment: The module funded new equipment and there was $121,513 to assist the division in managing, protecting, and maintaining existing state parks. The unit included grinders, air compressors, lawn mowers, drills, and a whole array of such equipment, and also included one new vehicle, along with heavy equipment training.

• E-730, park maintenance projects: A General Fund appropriation was recommended in The Executive Budget of $346,715 to provide field staff with the materials and labor needed to complete the highest priority items identified for building and grounds maintenance throughout the park system. The module funded items such as replacement doors and locks, painting and staining, fixture replacement, structure and roof repairs, plumbing repairs, et cetera. The Budget Division proposed amendment number 72, which would reduce General Fund appropriation by $16, in order to correct an allocation miscalculation.

Of importance to the subcommittee, Mr. Burke advised because The Executive Budget was influenced by availability of General Fund revenue in the first year of the upcoming biennium, all parks maintenance funding was placed in FY 2000. The Budget Division had asked for the Appropriations Bill to include language that would allow State Parks to use the money in either year of the biennium. So, he explained, the decisions would be whether the subcommittee wished to approve the maintenance funding, and make it available for both years of the biennium.

Mr. Burke stated there were two items of special consideration:

1. Park improvements: Capital improvement one-shots had not been recommended in The Executive Budget. The department requested authority to carry forward the General Fund appropriation from previous park improvement one-shots. If the subcommittee chose to do so, it could direct LCB Fiscal Division staff to work with the Legal Division to draft the necessary legislation to extend the reversion date of previous appropriations.
2. Park funding: During the March 25 hearing of the subcommittee, there was considerable discussion regarding park funding sources and unfunded capital improvements. The subcommittee would recall that the administrator mentioned a $30 million backlog of maintenance projects. At the urging of the subcommittee, Mr. Burke prepared a draft "Memo" which he felt captured some of the statements from the subcommittee to the full Assembly Committee on Ways and Means, and Senate Committee on Finance. That draft would urge consideration of the use of room tax revenue and additional General Fund revenue. Again, the "Memo" was a draft format, and if the committee had changes, Mr. Burke stated he would be happy to incorporate them into the finished memorandum.

Ms. Giunchigliani stated she would like to propose a motion:

• APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT NUMBER 95 REGARDING COLLECTION OF THE BOAT FUEL TAXES AND DECREASE OF GENERAL FUND.

• APPROVAL OF DECISION UNIT E-410 USING THE AIR CONTROL POLLUTION FUNDS, WITH A LETTER OF INTENT TO MAKE SURE THAT FUNDING REMAINS SEGREGATED AND NOT ROLLED OVER INTO BASE NEXT BIENNIUM.

• APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT 37b, REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT.

• APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT 38, REDUCTION TO THE GENERAL FUND.

• APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT 70, WHICH WOULD COMMENSURATELY ADD GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,000.

• APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT NUMBER 71, REDUCTION OF GENERAL FUND BY $375 TO CORRECT AN ERROR.

• APPROVAL OF UNIT E-720, NEW EQUIPMENT, E-730, PARK MAINTENANCE PROJECTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $346,715 TO BE USED OVER THE BIENNIUM.

• ALLOW STATE PARKS TO CARRY FORWARD THE $1 MILLION PLUS.

• PREPARATION OF A LETTER AND/OR MEMORANDUM TO THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE AND SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE SEEKING EXPANDED FUNDING RESOURCES FOR STATE PARKS.

Mrs. Chowning addressed the Park Ranger position, stating members should understand that once funding from air pollution control funds ceased, the position would be due to sunset, or it would require General Fund support. The same condition would result if S.B. 511 were not approved. Her question was whether that needed to be included in the motion, but noted the motion did include approval of the position.

Ms. Giunchigliani stated she would amend the motion, indicating if S.B. 511 were not approved, the position would be funded from the General Fund, if that met with subcommittee approval.

Chairman Jacobsen stated that would be considered as part of the motion. He then asked for further questions, realizing the motion was somewhat comprehensive, and asked Mr. Burke what was the status of S.B. 511. Mr. Burke responded he thought the bill was under consideration by the Senate Finance Committee.

Senator O’Donnell stated the subcommittee might want to entertain closure of the budget and putting the position on the "add back" list. If the money were there, then the subcommittee could add it back via the General Fund, but noted those figures would not be known until release of the Economic Forum results.

Ms. Giunchigliani advised she thought the position was very much needed and if S.B. 511 did not move forward, then the recommendation in the motion was it be funded from the General Fund. Senator O’Donnell indicated he would concur.

************

Mr. Burke explained there were several technical adjustments in the Water Planning account. In module E-710, computer hardware costs were reduced by $780 in FY 2000 to reflect revised Purchasing Division estimates. In module E-720, software costs were reduced by $977 in FY 2001, again to reflect revised Purchasing Division estimates. Mr. Burke stated he spoke with the Water Planning administrator, and a progress report had been prepared, however the Natural Resource Plan itself had not been fully formulated.

Near the end of the 1997 session, Mr. Burke noted a three-person floodplain management team was added to the account at the direction of the subcommittee. The Assembly Ways and Means Committee approved the addition of the unit with the understanding that the unit would sunset in 4 years, at the end of FY 2001, or sooner if federal funding was no longer available. Mr. Burke explained the federal funding had continued at approximately the FY 1999 work program level, or approximately $58,000 per year.

The Executive Budget recommended funding to support additional printing and other operating costs associated with publishing and distributing the State Natural Resource Plan and the Flood Assistance Plan. There were also increased expenditures for publication of the Nevada Water Facts, the State Water Plan, and Nevada Water Map. Mr. Burke reported those amounts were $65263 in the first year of the biennium and $62,263 in the second year.

According to Mr. Burke, the other item of note was module E-904 which recommended transfer of a half-time Program Assistant from Budget Account 4155, the Water Planning Capital Improvement Budget to the Water Planning main account (4161). The subcommittee should note that the half-time position transfer in that module would move a fee-funded position to a General Fund account. The division indicated that move was needed due to the increasing accounting and financial tracking workload of the position, and slightly decreased demands on grant program accounting.

*************

Senator Jacobsen asked Mr. Morros if he wished to make any final comments regarding the budget closings within the Department of Conservation and Natural resources. Mr. Morros declined, stating he felt the closings went very well. Senator O’Donnell commented it would be the last time Mr. Morros would appear at the legislature because of his anticipated retirement, and thanked him for the outstanding job he had done for the State of Nevada for the last 36 years. Chairman Jacobsen echoed those sentiments.

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

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Carol Thomsen,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Chris Giunchigliani, Chairman

DATE:

_____________________________________________

Senator Lawrence Jacobsen, Chairman

DATE:_______________________________________