MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Ways and Means

 

Seventy-First Session

April 25, 2001

 

 

The Committee on Ways and Meanswas called to order at 7:38 a.m. on Wednesday, April 25, 2001.  Chairman Morse Arberry Jr. presided in Room 3137 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Guest List.  All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mr.                     Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman

Ms.                     Chris Giunchigliani, Vice Chairwoman

Mr.                     Bob Beers

Mrs.                     Barbara Cegavske

Mrs.                     Vonne Chowning

Mrs.                     Marcia de Braga

Mr.                     Joseph Dini, Jr.

Mr.                     David Goldwater

Mr.                     Lynn Hettrick

Ms.                     Sheila Leslie

Mr.                     John Marvel

Mr.                     David Parks

Mr.                     Richard D. Perkins

Ms.                     Sandra Tiffany

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

None

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst

Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst

Lu Chen, Education Research Statistician

Russell Guindon, Deputy Fiscal Analyst

Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst

Mike Chapman, Program Analyst

Mark Krmpotic, Program Analyst

Carla Watson, Program Analyst

Andrea Carothers, Committee Secretary

Kathryn Fosnaugh, Committee Secretary

 

 

Assembly Bill 199:  Revises provisions governing certain accounts, licenses and             stamps administered by division of wildlife of state department of             conservation and natural resources. (BDR 45-529)

 

In support of A.B. 199, Steve Bremer, Chief, Administrative Services, Division of Wildlife, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, said the bill proposed changes to two chapters in the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS); Chapter 501 dealt with the Division of Wildlife administration and accounts and Chapter 502 dealt with licenses, tags, and permits.  The purposes of A.B. 199 were as follows: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Bremer pointed out parts of A.B. 199 for the committee as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Bremer said in December 2000, the Division of Wildlife started on a project to develop a new automated licensing system that would enhance customer service.  The new automated system would expand accessibility for the purchase of licenses and boat registrations through the Internet and by phone.  In order to accommodate Internet and phone sales and provide better customer service, Mr. Bremer urged the committee to consider A.B. 199.

 

Chairman Arberry asked what had determined the change of fees from $5 to $10 instead of $6 or $7. 

 

Patty Wagner, Program Officer, Administrative Services, Division of Wildlife, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, said the intent was to make two copies of a license and do away with the duplicate license altogether.  Currently it was costing in excess of $6 to issue a license and the bill would provide the ability to charge more if necessary. 

 

Mrs. de Braga said the testimony heard in committee had indicated the division felt the $10 fee would help get the hatchery refurbishment program underway;  $10 was the amount the proponents of the bill had stated that the Wildlife Commission would ask for.  Originally the bill had said the commission could establish the fee in an amount not to exceed $10 but the commission had stated it would need the $10 for the foreseeable future, so that the committee felt it would be necessary to set the amount rather than leave it open-ended.  The committee had questioned whether the Governor would support the fee increase and had been told that he did, as did the majority of local commissions.

 

Chairman Arberry asked for clarification in regard to purchasing a trout stamp on-line.  Mr. Bremer said the intent was when the new automated system was up customers would be able to get a license via telephone or by the Internet. The Internet would be the "electronic bridge" and would allow a customer to sign on, get a fishing license, a trout stamp, and literally print a receipt that would list all the privileges as well as the customer's name and address.  Mr. Bremer said the division was currently in the process of developing the Request for Proposal (RFP) through a series of joint application design sessions, facilitated by Best Consulting, along with the division's staff. 

 

Chairman Arberry said there was federal law that prohibited issuing a fishing license if a person had not paid his/her child support.  Chairman Arberry asked how the division would track that information if the person applied for a license on-line.  Ms. Wagner answered that the division would be meeting the latter part of the week with the Division of Welfare and would ask for an interface so the accounts would be flagged and would prevent the issuance of a license to individuals who had not paid their child support. 

 

Ms. Tiffany said most states were already issuing licenses on-line.  She asked if the software the division would use was modeled after another state, or had they used software already used by another state.  Ms. Tiffany also asked what the division would do in regard to card charges, would it be added as an addition or would the costs be absorbed, and how would it impact the division's budget.  Ms. Wagner said as far as the software was concerned, a significant amount of research had been completed over the past years with different states and part of the process delay had been due to waiting to see what happened with the other states.  Nevada would be able to learn from the other states' mistakes.  The RFP that was to go out would give the parameters that were needed and then ask for a solution, whether a prepackaged solution, a modified solution, or a whole new design, whatever would provide the best service for customers at a minimal cost to the agency.  Ms. Tiffany asked if the Department of Information Technology (DoIT) had been a part of the process, and Mr. Bremer answered yes, significantly.  He added the division had been "extremely lucky" because it had interfaced with the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV/PS) and learned what the DMV/PS had gone through with the GENESIS program, and also with DMV/PS's input about what they had done with credit cards, etc.  In regard to the credit card fee absorption, Mr. Bremer said it would depend on what the legislators decided.  He explained currently, by statute, it was not allowed to charge a user fee to use the Internet.  Ms. Tiffany asked when it was expected for the system to come on-line and Mr. Bremer replied not until the beginning of the next legislative session. 

 

Chairman Arberry asked Mr. Bremer if he had said the division was using the Best Consulting Company, and Mr. Bremer answered yes, they had a Master Services Agreement through DoIT.  He explained that Suzanne March was the team leader on the project and had been the instrumental outside consultant on the Application Hunt System that had worked well for the division for the last ten years.  Chairman Arberry asked if this was the same company that had been sued by the Department of Taxation and had settled out of court.  Several members of the committee replied that it was the same company.  Chairman Arberry said it was not the policy to bring this up in committee but said he did not want to "open another can of worms."  Mrs. de Braga said none of the testimony had been presented in her committee.  Chairman Arberry said it might be necessary to discuss the issue with the Attorney General's office because it might not be legal to sign a contract with the company due to the fact that a lawsuit had been settled out of court.  Chairman Arberry said someone should look into the issue.  Mr. Bremer advised that a contract had been signed already and had been approved through the process.  Chairman Arberry said someone should find out if it was okay to sign the contract.  Mr. Beers said Best Consulting was the same company that did the quality assurance work for GENESIS. 

 

Terry Savage, Director, Department of Information Technology, said the situation at the current time was Best Consulting Company was still on the Master Services Agreement list as a possible contractor and he did not know if there was a prohibition against doing business with them due to the lawsuit -put out an RFP and the department would get a list of vendors and the list did not change until the next cycle of bidding for approved vendors.  He said there was no real process for adding or removing vendors in the middle of the cycle.  What the department had chosen to do, rather than go through the process at the current time, they had extended the existing contracts for an additional year so that the process could be revised.  Mr. Savage reiterated that he did not believe there were any legal reasons that would complicate using Best Consulting Company.  Chairman Arberry said the committee needed to know because he did not want to hear later that the state was in a lawsuit because the company did not provide what was needed, and that more money was needed, which is what had happened with the same company previously.  Chairman Arberry added that he was not biased against the company but they had a track record with the state where they did not meet expectations, and he was not sure how they even got the bid.  Chairman Arberry asked if the contract had gone out for bid, and Mr. Savage answered yes.  Chairman Arberry asked if Best Consulting were the "best low bidders" and Mr. Savage said he was not personally involved in the bidding process so he was not sure if they were the low bidders or not, but they were the selected bidder.  Chairman Arberry asked if Mr. Savage would discuss the issue with the Attorney General's office and advise the committee of the response in writing.  Mr. Savage agreed.  Mr. Savage said the current consultants from Best Consultants appeared to be doing an excellent job.  Their technical performance was clearly up to par.  Ms. Tiffany advised the committee that there had been extenuating circumstances in the previous problems with Best Consulting and the situation had not been entirely Best Consulting's fault.  Best Consulting settled because they wanted to do business with the state.  Ms. Tiffany asked if there had been any problems with Best Consulting during the DMV project.  Mr. Savage answered the situation was before his time with the department and so he could not answer the question.  He added he did not know of any problems.  Ms. Tiffany said she did not want the committee to think that just because of one issue Best Consulting was a bad vendor.  Mr. Bremer clarified when the work program was submitted during the previous fiscal year, it had been clear that Best Consulting would be the contractor and would be paid $250,000 to do the RFP work.  He added that the company had done an excellent job. 

 

David Sanger, Staff Fisheries Production Biologist, Division of Wildlife, said the Hatchery Refurbishment Project 2000 was his pet project.  He said hatcheries all have three basic elements: 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Sanger said he had a slide presentation and asked the committee to associate the three elements as he went through the presentation.  He referred to a booklet (Exhibit C) that looked at problems and where the hatchery project was going.

 

Mr. Sanger began his PowerPoint slide presentation.  As an overview he explained his purpose was to describe the hatchery needs within the Division of Wildlife and to establish a course of action, as well as describe the history and talk about the resources and production capabilities of the hatcheries.  He said the problems were multifaceted including safety problems, modernization needs,

and how to keep the facility running.  The cure was through funding and a basic construction plan. 

 

Mr. Sanger said hatchery and fishery production began in 1885 when Commissioner W. M. Parker had approached the legislature for a $2,000 allotment to build a third-of-an-acre pond to raise fish.  The $2,000 also included Commissioner Parker's salary for the year.  The most recent hatchery, Mason Valley Hatchery, built in 1990, was currently on-line and producing fish.  In 1999, statewide, almost 2.1 million fish had been stocked.  There was an increase in the demand and use of Nevada's fisheries. 

 

Mr. Sanger said there were 137,000 licensed anglers in 1980 and that amount had increased to 174,000 by 1999.  The plan on average was to raise two million fish a year.  The fish caught had increased steadily since 1980 to 1999.  Fish caught averaged two to three fish a day. 

 

Mr. Sanger showed a slide that reflected the drought period of 1987 through 1992.  He said many people wondered why if two million fish were stocked, how had it been possible for people to catch five million fish.  He explained the reason had been due to good conditions, including water conditions, catch and release fishing, and good field science. 

 

Mr. Sanger said at the beginning of the development of the program he had met with Gene Weller, previously the chief of the Division of Wildlife, now currently the Deputy Administrator, Division of Wildlife, and it was determined the first step in the process had been to develop an inventory and assessment of need for each of the facilities.  After the inventory, they had looked at the funding mechanism to do the project, which would include the bond and trout stamp requested in A.B. 199.  Mr. Sanger said they planned to develop a construction sequence that would have limited production impact.  The goal was to keep planting fish, while they were constructing the facilities, as there was not the luxury of having enough hatcheries so one could be shut down during the rebuilding.  Mr. Sanger said the project should be implemented in 2002. 

 

Mr. Sanger showed slides that reflected how eggs were stripped from the female, and how they were fertilized.  Mr. Sanger advised the committee that all the hatcheries had homes for employees, office areas, workshops, concrete raceways, stocking trucks, and a good water supply.  Hatcheries basically take fish at an egg stage, raise the fish to a plantable size, and then stock them out.  Mr. Sanger said the division had one rearing station, Spring Creek Rearing Station, which only had raceways and would take fish in at finger-length size and develop them to subcatchable or catchable size before they were planted.

 

Mr. Sanger explained the Lake Mead facility had been built in 1972, had a good water supply from the lake, and 500,000 fish were stocked each year.  The unique feature about the Lake Mead Hatchery was it had 2000 visitors per month.  Problems experienced at the hatchery included an aeration tower that was old, rusty, and leaking. The aeration capability of the structure had diminished, and was of the 1950's vintage, aerating water by running the water over a platform like a stream, a system that had not been efficient for trout production.  A better mechanism was needed to denitrify the water and saturate the water with oxygen for fish on a flow-through system.  The piping, structures, and valves were rusting and falling apart.   Five homes were needed at the facility, and there were already two homes and a trailer.  The five homes were needed to accommodate the five employees for standby status during electrical outages and power interruptions.  The ponds were not covered or protected with screen, so approximately $40,000 worth of fish were lost due to bird predation each year.  The birds would also go into the raceway area and nest in the roof structure and peck at the structure and defecate all over the floor, making the surroundings very hazardous.  Mr. Sanger continued and said most concrete on curbs and gutters along a street had a nice finish to them, and that was how the raceways at the hatcheries started out, but over a period of time and with erosion, the raceways were in the process of spalling.  The workshop area at the Lake Mead Hatchery was small for the type of work completed, and would need to be expanded.  With approximately 2,000 visitors a year, the visitor center needed more than just a bare room with benches and placards on the wall; $300,000 worth of asphalt repairs were needed and the entrance area needed landscaping with the possibility of a feeding pond in the front for interpretive purposes.  School groups and buses could visit and see the site in a more effective way by viewing the feeding pond.

 

Mr. Sanger continued his presentation with a discussion of Gallagher Hatchery, located on the Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge in Elko County, and built in 1940.  There were five employees working there and living on the premises.  There was a good spring water supply at the hatchery, and it had produced over 600,000 trout in 1999.  One of the special features of the facility was it had a covering and fencing around it.  This hatchery was the "mom and dad" facility where the division spawned its own fish.  Some of the problems that had been experienced were due to the age of the facility, for example, the structure had degraded to a point where a section the "size of a microwave" had fallen through the roof onto the raceway.  The raceway itself was uneven, with a multitude of cracks just from being used.  The structure and an adjacent raceway had been decommissioned for the present time.  Although the water supply had been good, the way the water was taken care of was not up to par.  The structure was an old boat dock that covered the spring for the water supply.  It was hard to maintain, and it needed to be replaced.  It took two men to lift the screens to provide maintenance to the ponds.  Concrete was in the process of spalling, where rebar was showing beneath the structure that holds the walkway.  Mr. Sanger said the siding had been repainted many times, but was wearing out.  Trucks could not even be parked in the garage because it was built for earlier model vehicles and the warehouse facilities were needed to store the large equipment.  At the current time the large equipment was left outside and subject to the elements.  Blizzard conditions were good conditions for the fish, but a barrier was needed on the west wall. 

 

Mr. Sanger said the Mason Valley Hatchery was the newest facility, built in 1990, and was the biggest producer, with 750,000 trout a year.  It had a good water supply and the best shop and support facilities.  Problems faced at the facility included the computer monitoring system, which was ten years old and needed to be replaced and an electrical switch panel that worked about 25 percent of the time.   Mr. Sanger showed a picture of an employee who was protected by a rubber mat and had a broom handle wrapped in duct tape and was attempting to switch the electrical switch during a power outage.  He showed another picture of the grading in the nursery area.  Mr. Sanger explained trucks needed to be moved into the nursery area, be loaded with fish, and then moved out to the raceway, but the structures were incapable of holding the heavy trucks.  What had been done was to take metal or steel sheeting to support the structure, and the area that needed to be revamped, to make it a safer environment.  Problems in regard to the water area was water would wash out or spill out over an apron area leaving a shadow of sand, and the concern was the substrate beneath the concrete would sink to a point where it would lose the support of the apron, and cause the towers to collapse.  Mr. Sanger said there was not a backup to the backup monitor so the hatchery employees had developed their own backup system with an outdoor speaker, a battery and game warden radio, but during testing the system did not work.  The gutter system was gone which caused damaging effects so the hatchery employees had developed their own tarp gutter.  The visitor display at Mason Valley Hatchery was small and inadequate and needed more modern displays. 

 

Mr. Sanger said the Spring Creek Rearing Station was old but had a good water supply.  He said the system there was simple and had the smallest producer with just over 100,000 fish.  The department engineer had recommended the facility be completely removed and replaced.  The dam was eroding at the bottom of a spillway.  The hatchery manager had recruited a volunteer backhoe driver who brought in riprap and gravel and an assortment of materials to help support the structure.  Mr. Sanger presented a slide picture of the dam, which showed exposed rebar and advanced spalling.  The hatchery employees had attempted to bolster the structure with plywood and 2x4 structures.  He said crews had repeatedly repaired cracks with tar and concrete patches but the facilities continued to leak.  The concrete raceway had water pooling outside the raceway, but the water was supposed to be on the inside only.  Safety considerations included shifting of the ground and the issue of replacing the structures in a safer substrate.  The settling pond needed to be replaced.  The buildings had been built in the 1940s and would need to be replaced.  The metal workshop area had no insulation, no heat other than a wood stove, and also needed to be replaced.  

 

Mr. Sanger advised the committee most of the trout caught in Nevada's streams and lakes had their origins as a production fish in one of its facilities.  The cure for all the problems was in funding.  First an inventory would be made and then the follow-up with the funding process and eventually a construction plan that was complicated due to having four facilities and the need to keep production going during the construction.  The cost of the construction had been estimated at $16.1 million, but after discussion with the Division of Public Works, it was determined the cost would be approximately $20.9 million over a seven-year period.  Mr. Sanger referred to Exhibit C and advised the committee there was a sequenced plan of construction projects.  He showed a slide that indicated the costs for each facility.  The construction would begin in 2002 and end in 2008. 

 

Mr. Sanger concluded his presentation by advising the committee that in November 2000, an employee had been "crowding" fish and leaned against a structure, which fell over, causing injury to the employee and he had to be on worker's compensation for two weeks.  Mr. Sanger said Spring Creek Rearing Station, in January 2001, had large cracks in ponds 11 and 12 and the division had not been able to thin the fish or move them to that particular raceway. 

 

Chairman Arberry said he was concerned that a lot of agencies had been asking to keep the interest on the money that was earned to their accounts.  He advised the committee that this should be something to think about when processing the bill at issue and other bills and to decide if it would be allowed or not. 

 

Being no further discussion, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 199.

 

********

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assembly Bill 234:  Makes supplemental appropriations to the Department of        Motor Vehicles and Public Safety for shortfalls in the Division of Parole             and Probation and Central Services, Management Services and Field             Services. (BDR S-1258)

 

Tom Tatro, Fiscal Manager, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV/PS), said A.B. 234 was a supplemental appropriation to enable the DMV branch budgets to close the current fiscal year.  The bill was originally drafted as a result of the February 2, 2000, Interim Finance Committee (IFC) during which it was approved to hire 57 additional positions.  At that time the department had agreed to make every effort to fund the positions internally, but the supplemental appropriation might be necessary.  Mr. Tatro said the bill was presented on March 5, 2001, and the department had been asked to go back and confirm that every source within the department had been identified that was available so that as much money as was possible was being transferred to help cover the costs.  That had been done and at the IFC meeting on Monday April 23, 2001, it had been approved to transfer $375,000 from the Nevada Highway Patrol, and $102,000 from the Motor Carrier budget, and the department was preparing a work program to transfer $85,000 from the GENESIS operating budget in the personnel category.  Those were the resources the department had been able to identify where funds could be transferred. 

 

Mr. Tatro referred the committee to Exhibit D, which was a breakdown of the supplemental appropriations needed by the department.  The breakdown was as follows: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Being no further testimony, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 234. 

 

********

 

Assembly Bill 611:  Removes limitation on amount of money in state highway             fund that may be used to pay costs of administration. (BDR 35-1322)

 

Virginia (Ginny) Lewis, Deputy Director, Motor Vehicles, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, said passage of A.B. 611 would eliminate the 22 percent funding cap currently in place for most of the DMV budgets.  She explained the Highway Fund authorization for DMV budgets could not exceed 22 percent of the revenues collected and distributed to the Highway Fund.  The funding cap had been in effect since the 1950s and represented an arbitrary limitation in light of the fact that the demand for the DMV services had significantly increased over the past decade.  In addition, Ms. Lewis stated, with or without the funding limitation, the DMV budgets received the same level of scrutiny as every other budget in the Executive Branch.  There had been various revenues collected by the DMV and distributed to the Highway Fund, which had been factored into the budgeting cap.  The revenue sources included registrations, driver's licenses, and motor carrier special fuel taxes.  Revenue generated through the sale of motor vehicle registrations in excess of $50,000 were reverted to the Highway Fund.  The revenue collected through the insurance verification program, in excess of $500,000, was reverted to the Highway Fund.  Ms. Lewis said 22 percent of the total of revenues represented what the DMV was entitled to under the provisions of current law. 

 

Ms. Lewis advised the committee in FY2002 it was projected that the DMV would distribute approximately $208,190,000 to the Highway Fund and the department was only entitled to $45,801,000.  She said the DMV's Highway Fund need was approximately $46,463,000.  Ms. Lewis said the budgeting process over the last three bienniums had always brought the 22 percent issue into discussion because the need of Highway Funds had typically pushed against the 22 percent cap but had always managed to be brought below the limit through expenditure reductions.  She referred the committee to two handouts, the first, Exhibit E, was a ten-year recap of the revenue distribution as provided in the biennial tax and fee book.  The second, Exhibit F, represented the DMV's calculations of where the department stood with the 22 percent and the Governor's recommended budget with any approved amendments that had been submitted to the Legislative Counsel Bureau. 

 

Chairman Arberry asked Ms. Lewis for clarification of when the cap had last changed.  Ms. Lewis reiterated that it was her understanding the 22 percent cap had been put in place in the 1950s.  Chairman Arberry asked if the proposed bill eliminated the cap, and Ms. Lewis said yes.  Chairman Arberry said there must have been a reason the cap had been placed, and asked what the downfall would be if the cap was removed or not. 

 

Richard Kirkland, Director, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, explained the situation was very complicated.  He said the most important element of the issue was of the $208 million the DMV collected and distributed; the DMV collected $84 million of the funds from registration fees, drivers' licenses, occupational licenses, etc.  The department had only asked for $81 million and actually only spent about $78 million because of reversions.  Mr. Kirkland said the department collected, from the fees that had been established in law, more money than was spent.  He said he was not sure how it all worked, but he thought the most important issues were that the department had spent significantly less than was raised and provided into the fund, and the committee was the check and balance to determine how much the DMV spent. 

 

Chairman Arberry said his concern was why the cap had been there for so long, and asked if the cap was lifted, what kind of problems would the committee be opening.  He said although the committee had checks and balances, the DMV was a very large agency and sometimes it wasn't possible to do the checks and balances.  He said there had been a reason for the cap to be placed and he wondered why, after all the years, the department wanted it removed.   Mr. Kirkland said the problem was created during the current year because of the cost of doing business and the growth of the state had caused the DMV to run against the cap.  He explained the budget, as submitted to the committee, was about $1.2 million more than the cap provided.  He said the Senate had asked what was going to be done about the $1.2 million that the 22 percent did not provide, and the response from the DMV was they would close one of the offices.  He said there would either be the money to pay the employees and provide services or not, and the Senate had said that maybe, at the current point, since the cap would not allow the department to keep up with growth, maybe the cap would need to be removed.  Mr. Kirkland said the fact was the department gave more than was expended, so even though the cap was in place, the department gave $6 million or $7 million more than was actually spent, just from registration fees and licenses.  Chairman Arberry asked how the department got pushed up against the cap and Mr. Kirkland replied because the cap stayed the same and the cost of living and growth in the state had increased.  He reminded the committee that the previous year the department had to increase the amount of employees to 48 in order to meet the one-hour time element that had been established, and the pressure was to have a 30-minute limitation instead of one hour.  He said the current year there had been a 300,000 transaction increase in the first three months.   Chairman Arberry asked if in any discussions it had been suggested instead of eliminating the cap, increasing the cap to 25 or 30 percent.  Mr. Kirkland said the department's position was if that worked it would be fine.  He reiterated the suggestion to eliminate the cap had come out of the Senate. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani said that she did not understand why, if the fees went up as well as the costs, the cap would be impacted.  Ms. Lewis asked if Ms. Giunchigliani was referring to the revenue increases, since the department had not had a fee increase.   Ms. Giunchigliani said the department had some revenue increases, and Ms. Lewis agreed, and said the increases had been due to the growth of the state because revenues increased with the growth.  Ms. Lewis said in all her years with the fiscal part of the DMV the 22 percent cap had been an issue every year during the process of developing the budget.  During the current budget cycle the department determined that it was not going to try to cut the budget to get within the 22 percent before they submitted to the Governor's Office.  Ms. Lewis said historically the department had tried to make the cuts to get below the 22 percent and in discussions with the Budget Office and the Governor, the decision was finally made to just submit the budgets and request a BDR to address the 22 percent issue. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked how the committee had any safekeeping if the cap was gone to control the DMV's costs.  She said she thought the purpose of the cap was to make sure the department "lived within their means."  Mr. Kirkland said the answer was through the budget process the committee reviewed the budgets each biennium.  He said the committee looked at and approved or disapproved how the money would be spent.  He stated when the budget needs were added up, it came to $84 million but the requested budget was $81 million.  He said the committee would approve the $81 million, or not approve it, and then would look at the reversions which were approximately $5 million of the $81 million and would take the amount down to $77 million.  He told the committee that as they reviewed the budget they would see the department was producing $6 million to $8 million more than what was spent in addition to the $120 million to $130 million received from other sources per year.  Ms. Giunchigliani said she appreciated Mr. Kirkland's answer, but said the same thing was currently done, with the 22 percent cap.  Mr. Kirkland responded with the exception that the law did not give any latitude, as in the current case, which would mean they would have to cut the requested $1.2 million less than the $81 million which would result in the need to cut employees from the payroll.  That would result in significantly fewer employees to provide services during a time service needs had increased from 60,000 to 70,000 transactions more each month than one year ago.   Ms. Giunchigliani said the cap also forced people to be more efficient as far as where their dollars were, and felt that might have been one reason the cap had been placed.  She said she had a problem lifting the cap. 

 

Mr. Marvel asked what funds were included in the projected Highway Fund revenues of $200 plus million and was it federal funds.  Ms. Lewis said the $200 plus million that had been projected to distribute to the Highway Fund represented licensing fees, drivers' license fees, registration fees, title fees, special plate fees, etc.  Mr. Marvel asked if all the funds were generated internally, with no federal funding, and Ms. Lewis said yes.  Mr. Marvel asked if the department had been in discussion with the Department of Transportation (DOT) over lifting the cap.  Ms. Lewis replied no, but they had been in meetings where the DOT had been aware of the demand for services, which had placed the DMV in a very tight position.  She explained the motor vehicle budgets were also funded with other revenue streams such as commissions for the collection of privilege tax, which was about $12 million and the 22 percent cap was strictly limited to the Highway Fund need. 

 

Speaking in opposition to A.B. 611, John Madole, Executive Director, Nevada Chapter, The Associated General Contractors of America, Inc., said he had some concerns about the bill, some of which the committee had already addressed.  He stated the association complimented the DMV for what it had accomplished.  Mr. Madole said Mr. Kirkland had brought a sense of service and customer satisfaction he was pleased to see and when he had indicated the association had concerns, Mr. Kirkland took the time to review Mr. Madole's information and answered his questions.  Mr. Madole said, however, the 22 percent cap imposed fiscal discipline.  He referred to two charts he provided to the committee (Exhibit G and Exhibit H), which were acquired during his research. The first chart (Exhibit G) was a DMV/PS revenue and expenditure comparison for a ten-year period.  He said in 1990, listed under the column titled Motor Vehicle Fees and Taxes, the chart showed that the department collected $92 million and about $63 million went to the Highway Fund.  In the year 2000 the figure rose to the collection of $192 million with only $108 million going to the Highway Fund. Mr. Madole said the figures showed that more money was being spent, and the 22 percent cap would force efficiencies, for example, the department had recently initiated Internet access for renewal of registrations, which was commendable, and would be more efficient for collecting fees, and would help to keep costs down. 

 

Mr. Madole said the second chart (Exhibit H) was a Highway Fund Revenue chart that used a bar graph with information similar to the comparison chart.  He said the chart reflected the money going into the Highway Fund, and other money that was spent by the DMV, and the part that showed other money was growing disproportionately with the amount contributed to the Highway Fund.  He said he realized the DMV would have to "tighten its belt" but there was a reason the 22 percent cap had been placed and he would like to see it stay.

 

Kevin Weiske, Owner, Moody Weiske Contractors, and a member of the Associated General Contractors (AGC), spoke in opposition to A.B. 611.  He said he was a representative of the AGC, but was also speaking as a taxpayer.  Mr. Weiske said, as a businessman he was pleased with the efficiency that was now taking place within the DMV, as it helped his and other businesses that might register in excess of 300 to 400 different vehicles a year so much faster.  Mr. Weiske said, however, his experience as a businessman had shown that when employees were sent out to buy goods and services with a blank check he would end up with twice as much as needed, and he had no control unless he put a cap on how much the employee could spend.  Mr. Weiske said he believed that the DMV needed additional funds, but a reasonable cap should be set to control spending.  If a cap was not placed it would not be fair to the taxpayers of Nevada. 

 

In response, Mr. Kirkland said it seemed the situation was being mischaracterized.  He explained he had worked in government service for 36 years and had never worked in a government agency that had more controls on what was spent than the DMV.  To suggest the department was asking for a blank check with no controls was a gross mischaracterization of what was being requested.  Mr. Kirkland stated that it did not matter to the DMV what the cap was, they were confident in the number of employees needed to keep the one-hour time element for the over two million people residing in Nevada.  He said costs could be reduced if the time element was lengthened to two hours or three hours, etc.   Mr. Kirkland said he wanted the committee to understand that if the funds requested were not received the delivery of services would be impacted severely. 

 

Being no further testimony, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 611. 

 

********

 

Chairman Arberry asked Mr. Stevens to have staff supply information to the committee that compared the growth in revenues that the DMV collected to the costs included in the DMV budget. 

 

 

 Assembly Bill 291:  Imposes additional fee for processing application for game             tag for support of programs to control predators and protect wildlife             habitat. (BDR 45-160)

 

 

In introduction of A.B. 291, Assemblyman Jerry D. Claborn, Assembly District 19, said the bill was one the hunters of Nevada had been waiting for, a predators management program that was designed to bring nature back to a proper balance.  Mr. Claborn explained Nevada was so overpopulated with predators that game animal numbers were declining rapidly.  He said the predator population needed to be brought under control to encourage the wildlife population to grow back to where it had been in the 1970s and 1980s.  The bill was a start and with the program in place the state would see results in a few short years.  Mr. Claborn said he was requesting an additional $3 to add to the big game application, which should generate approximately $290,000 per year, and should be enough to start an effective program.  He informed the committee in October 2000 the Nevada Division of Wildlife hired Research Polling Inc., to do a survey to ask about predator management and 64 percent of the hunters said they would be willing to pay an additional $5 fee on their applications to fund an effective predator management program.  A portion of the survey was distributed to the committee for review (Exhibit I).  In summary, Mr. Claborn said he was asking for a $3 fee to add to the hunter's application fees in order to put a program together for the purpose of managing predators.

 

Chairman Arberry asked how the amount of $3 had been determined.  Mr. Claborn answered he had been trying to generate enough money to start a program.   To start a program it was necessary to have enough money to hire people, buy vehicles, and set up the program.  He said the program was not a one-year program, rather the program would continue until the predator problem was under control, and once nature was back in balance the Division of Wildlife would be able to determine any further needs.  Mr. Claborn said the predator problem was currently out of control. 

 

Assemblyman John Carpenter, Assembly District 33, said he believed there was a need for predator control in Nevada.  He explained livestock numbers were down, especially sheep numbers.  He said when the sheep numbers had been up there was a head tax on sheep that funded predator control but with the number of sheep dropping less tax money was available for that function.  Mr. Carpenter said hunters and people working out on the range saw that the predators were having a devastating effect on wildlife.  He said the bill would help the situation tremendously.  Mr. Carpenter commented the desire was not to eliminate predators because they were a "part of the scene" but when there were too many they played havoc on the wildlife.  He said in the 1960s when the predator program was operating at the most efficient there had been more game in the state.   

 

Ms. Leslie said she understood that hunters thought there was a predator problem, but asked if there was scientific evidence to show there was a problem.  She also asked if the concern was about coyotes and mountain lions or were other predators included.  Mr. Carpenter responded he did not think there was any question that there was less wildlife at the current time than had been in the past.  He said the predators that were mostly working on the deer population were coyotes and mountain lions.  Other predators, for example, ravens, were working on the bird population.  Mr. Carpenter said scientific studies had been completed that showed if there was a nest of sage hens ravens would come in and destroy the nest and eggs and coyotes would also do the same thing.  It was very devastating to the bird population.  Another predator that had caused problems was the red fox.  Explaining the history of the red fox, Mr. Carpenter said they had been introduced into islands in Alaska and the foxes devastated the bird population, especially the geese.  The geese were put on the endangered species list and the only way Alaska was able to get the geese back on the islands was to eliminate the red fox completely.  Mr. Carpenter said he had not seen many red foxes in Nevada until the last few years.  He said on his ranch in Ruby Valley, after the hay was cut, sage hens would move into the meadows at that time to get the short, tender grass.  Mr. Carpenter told the committee last year there had been a dozen sage hens at that time, and a red fox was seen in the area for the first time.  After a few days Mr. Carpenter had gone back and all that remained were some feathers.  The red fox were worse predators than coyotes.  If the red fox population got out of control there would be a tough situation in regard to the sage grouse.  He said the Division of Wildlife wanted to put the sage grouse on the endangered species list, and similar to what had happened with the spotted owl, it could shut down ranching and hunting.  Mr. Carpenter reiterated that it was very important to control the predators so that the wildlife had a chance to survive and the citizens of Nevada could enjoy them. 

 

Mrs. Chowning asked if there was any opposition within the Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining Committee to the $3 fee.  Mr. Claborn answered $3 should be sufficient to start the program.  Mrs. Chowning asked if any of the hunters opposed the fee, and Mr. Claborn said 67 percent said they would pay up to $5 and 34 percent said they did not want to raise fees at all.  He said the hunters knew if nothing was done, there would be nothing left to hunt.  He said the population of mule-tailed deer had dropped from 250,000 to less than 100,000 since 1984.  He said what would happen was the sale of hunting tags would decrease and that would impose a fiscal problem to the state of Nevada.

 

Stephanie Licht, Nevada Woolgrower's Association, speaking in favor of A.B. 291, said she had spoken to the president of the Nevada Woolgrower's Association, Hank Vogler IV, who lived in the Ely area and had approximately 2,000 sheep.  Mr. Vogler told her that when taking sheep to lambing there would be many coyotes in the area.  Mr. Vogler explained that he would use Great Pyrenees dogs, herders, scare tactics, and every tool available to try and control his losses to the predators.  He said he had been told at night the herders could hear the coyotes coming into the area and howling, but when the deer started fawning and the antelope started kidding the predators would not be around the ranch, because it was easier for the coyote to go out and attack the fawns and kids than to come in and fight for the sheep.  His opinion was, with the predator control, the antelope population had increased around his range because the antelope would come closer to his range knowing there was some protection there.  Mr. Vogler said in the years he had been there, his range was the only place where there had been an increase in antelope tags and his belief was that was due, in part, to predator control. 

 

Mr. Goldwater asked how predator control was done.  Robert Beach, State Director, Wildlife Services Program, United States Department of Agriculture, and the Administrator, Division of Resource Protection, State Department of Agriculture, and a certified wildlife biologist, said he had done predator control for the Wildlife Services for approximately 26 years.  He said predator control was based on each individual project.  He said the proposal the Division of Wildlife had chosen was to determine a need and the need would be science based.  Mr. Goldwater asked what was the actual activity for the predator control.  Mr. Beach said what was done was based on the species, for example, if they were working antelope, aerial hunting would be used and the area would be surveyed to see what was happening to the antelope during their vulnerable period.  Mr. Goldwater asked if they would shoot the coyotes from the airplane.  Mr. Beach said in the first seven days of an antelope's life, predators killed approximately 90 percent.  He said with deer it was possible to use aerial hunting but since deer tended to fawn in areas that weren’t as assessable to the aircraft, there would be some trapping, some call-in shooting, and snaring. 

 

Mrs. Cegavske asked what was done with the animals after they were shot.  Mr. Beach answered it would differ depending on the predator; a mountain lion's skin and carcass would be brought back to the division and the division would auction them off, a coyote would be left in the area to be eaten by eagles and other predatory birds.  He said in the "old" days, they would take the pelts off the coyotes but the fur market was now gone so it would cost more to take the fur off than what could be gained by selling the pelts.

 

Ms. Leslie asked if there was independent evidence, aside from the hunters, that mountain lions and coyotes were out of control, and if so, how much.  Mr. Beach answered, across the west there had been a lot of studies where radio collars had been put on fawns and monitored how long the fawns would last.  There were a number of studies that showed close to 90 percent of the fawns were disappearing.  At the Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge a study was done yearly and the studies had shown the predators killed a large majority of the fawns in the first two weeks of the fawns' lives.  Mr. Beach explained there was ample evidence to show that in areas where the fawn population was too low to produce a viable amount of animals the cause was predators.  He said it had not been determined where the predator control referred to in A.B. 291 would take place, and the Wildlife Division would make the decision by going out and counting the number of fawns that were being produced.  If the number of fawns that was being produced was not enough to produce a deer herd, they would fall back on the evidence, which previously showed if the fawns were not there, it was due to predators.  He reiterated that the information was science-based.  The game department would determine the need and then another agency would go in and resolve the problem and monitor the situation by counting the fawns to see that the fawn population was starting to rise. 

 

Ms. Leslie asked if anyone counted the mountain lions.  Mr. Beach said it was extremely difficult to count mountain lions as they were very secretive.  He said monitoring was usually done by surveying what damage had been done and when the damage ceased, the department would cease the control methods.  Mr. Beach explained coyotes were not as secretive as mountain lions and the division would put out scent posts and then watch for the number of tracks that appeared each day.  That would give an idea of how many coyotes were in the area.  When the damage was at an acceptable level, they would know how many tracks they could see for acceptable damage.  It was very hard at any given time to tell how many predators were out there as it varied from area to area.

 

Mr. Carpenter expounded it was estimated that a mountain lion would eat a deer a week.  Mountain lions caused a great amount of damage.  He said guides that took hunters out on guided hunts were able to track and observe the damage the mountain lions did to the deer and ranchers were also able to advise of the damage done.  Mr. Carpenter said there was no question that the mountain lion population did a great deal of damage on the deer herds.   

 

Mrs. Cegavske asked if there had ever been a program designed to relocate the mountain lions, possibly to other states such as Minnesota where there had been an overpopulation of deer.  Mr. Beach replied the federal government had a national research center in Fort Collins that mainly funded predator control programs and, due to societal pressures, most of the control was aimed at nonlethal methods such as reproductive control but with the mountain lion and coyote population, because of their actions, interactions, and secretive natures, the animals circumvented the nonlethal techniques.  Relocation was not something the division supported for predators because if another spot was a good environment for the predator, the same species would already be located there.  Mr. Beach explained a large, male mountain lion would not accept any other males in his territory and the pressure the male mountain lion put on a new male had been part of the cause of the mountain lions moving out into new areas.  When the mountain lions showed up in Reno it was most likely because they had been kicked off the mountain by animals that already had the territory.  Mr. Beach advised the committee that at the current time state regulations did not allow coyotes to be relocated because of the potential for the spread of disease.

 

Gene Weller, Deputy Administrator, Division of Wildlife, said the division supported the bill and had worked closely with Mr. Claborn and his sponsors to develop the bill, as well as with the Natural Resources Committee to get the bill in a form that the division could use effectively.  He said the division had also worked very closely with the Department of Agriculture.  Mr. Weller said the division had realized there was a need for science-based, goal-oriented predator management in the state of Nevada but not indiscriminate killing of predators.  He explained the program would illuminate the predator piece of the puzzle in the wildlife area.  The predators were just part of the puzzle, however, there were a number of other factors that affected the wildlife population, the most significant being the weather.  He said the intent was to use the proceeds from the $3 fee to develop an extensive program with several elements.  The elements would include control of the predators, research to determine needs for predator control, and an education element where the division would be educating the public on the role of predators.  Mr. Weller said he thought the program would be very effective.  He reiterated that sportsmen tended to support the bill and were willing to pay the $3 fee through an additional charge on their application.  In conclusion, Mr. Weller said the bill would supplement the current, existing predator program at approximately $140,000 a year adding

nearly $300,000 to the program.  He said the division had developed a fiscal note for the bill and had it available for the staff to review. 

 

Mr. Hettrick commented he had been hunting in the Ruby Mountains for 45 years, and the population of deer had become incredibly reduced.  Mr. Hettrick said he started hunting in that area when he was 12 and at that time, anyone could buy a license and then hunt because there had been an abundance of deer.  Over the years receiving a license had gone to a drawing system because there were not enough deer, and currently there was a drawing system with points because there were even fewer deer.  Mr. Hettrick said somehow the state needed to strike a balance.  He expounded no one was trying to eliminate all the predators, but what was needed was to have a balance, and currently there was no control of the predators, just on the deer population and antelope.  Mr. Hettrick said he thought the bill was a reasonable step and reminded the committee that the sportsmen of the state paid for the control and management of wildlife through their tags and license fees.  He opined it was a good bill, based on science, and felt it should be passed. 

 

Tina Nappe, resident of District 24, said she was speaking in opposition to A.B. 291.  She said she had sent a letter on April 22, 2001, to the Natural Resources Committee and the Ways and Means Committee.  She stated the Division of Wildlife was an important agency for all the residents of Nevada, not just the sportsmen, and the wildlife belonged to all the residents.  Ms. Nappe stated any fees paid that came through the committee became public funds, and she questioned the use of the funds.  As a member of the Stakeholders Group, she had received a questionnaire approximately a year-and-a-half ago, and was not asked if she supported increased predator control.  She felt she should have been asked as a member of the public that owned the wildlife of the state.  Ms. Nappe stressed only one group of people were asked if they wanted predator control and that group was hunters.  Ms. Nappe informed the committee she had been involved in wildlife issues for a long time and had served as a member of the State Board of Wildlife Commissioners for 15 years and understood the fiscal needs of the agency and appreciated what the sportsmen provided through the state agency and through a number of private, nonprofit organizations where the hunters were tremendous fund-raisers and supporters for wildlife.  However, the situation was an endless pit because there would never be enough money to make a dent in the amount of predators.  Ms. Nappe explained the predators would rebound.  The attempt to increase predator management would distract the division from many real problems facing the wildlife of the state, including climate, fire, weeds, subdivisions, grazing, and mining.  She said choosing just one aspect of a potential impact on wildlife was difficult to study scientifically. 

 

Ms. Nappe said earlier in the meeting the committee had heard testimony that Hart Mountain in Oregon had predator control, but that was not correct.  She explained people in that area had fought against predator control in the refuge and last year Hart Mountain had the largest population of antelope born in the area than it had had in many years.  She said if predator control had been used the increased population may have been attributed to the control, but in all probability the reason for the increase would have been habitat improvement.  A former member of the Division of Wildlife staff, the big game manager, made a report several years ago that said in his 38 years of experience working for the Division of Wildlife he did not believe that predator control had a significant impact on antelope.  Ms. Nappe said earlier testimony before the Natural Resources Committee made mention of the impact on sage grouse by ravens and coyotes.  It was probably true that those predators impacted the sage grouse, but that was only one aspect of what should be reviewed.  The bill provided no criteria for either developing a proposal for predator control or for analyzing the results.  She did not believe, in spite of her respect for the Division of Wildlife, the division was in a position to be objective in analyzing how the funds would be spent because it was not a scientific agency, and had not involved the general public.  She said if the general public had been involved the bill would not be before the committee in the present form.  Ms. Nappe asked for the committee to push for outside experts, require the division to develop a process that was meaningful, not just to the sportsmen, but all the citizens of Nevada, and the outcome be looked at more closely and also other criteria that affected any wildlife population such as habitat, climate, off highway vehicle activity, fires. 

 

In conclusion, Ms. Nappe said it did not matter how much money was put into the program, if other criteria was not looked into, the deer herds would not rebound.  The reason the Reno area had diminishing herds was because the deer had lost their habitat and all the predator control in the world would not make a difference.  She said the bill at a minimum was not inclusive in terms of the public that should be represented, it was not designed or written so that she, as a member of the public, would be satisfied with anything that was being done through the bill.  She said as people learned about the bill there was great concern that the Division of Wildlife, which was supposed to represent everyone in the state, was now really representing a very small group of people. 

Ms. Nappe said she appreciated the fact that the sportsmen were willing to pay more fees to have the bill in place, but felt the legislation was divisive the way it was written and would like to have the bill strengthened before it was passed out of committee. 

 

Mr. Hettrick said he appreciated Ms. Nappe's comments.  He explained he had gone to the Ruby Mountains over a 45-year period and had seen some of the things Ms. Nappe had talked about, including the range changes, the weather impact, and fire impact, but over the last 45 years there had been a continuing decline in the numbers of animals and the continuing increase in the numbers of predators.  He said the state had the fluctuations that should be taken into account, and what was heard was there should be a scientific study and the elimination of the predators should stop when a reasonable level was achieved.  It wasn't just to go out and destroy the predators, rather the attempt was to achieve a balance.  Mr. Hettrick stated wildlife control had been going on a lot longer than the 45 years he had been hunting, and there continued to be a constant decline.  He agreed the wildlife belonged to everyone in the state, but the fact was the sportsmen paid for the programs to control and foster wildlife, and the goal was to gain more wildlife, not less.   The bill was pro-wildlife, not anti-wildlife and he thought it was a reasonable program that was asking to do something with study and with science. 

 

Ms. Nappe said she appreciated Mr. Hettrick's comments and as a lifelong resident of Nevada she agreed that a lot of the wildlife was gone from areas she had previously enjoyed in Washoe County due to people replacing the wildlife.  She added she had consulted with a worldwide expert on antelope and he was opposed to predator programs on antelope grounds because it deflected from the true causes of antelope decline.   She said the bill was not bad, just misguided. 

 

Being no further testimony, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 291. 

 

********

 

Assembly Bill 367:  Creates information technology commission. (BDR 19-48)

 

Assemblywoman Sandra Tiffany, Assembly District 21, said the bill had already been heard by the Government Affairs Committee.  The reason it had been referred to the Ways and Means Committee was because the bill asked for four legislators to be on the commission who would receive a salary comparable to what would be received if the legislators were on a regular interim committee.  

 

Ms. Tiffany said there had always been a technology committee but the committee had not had much depth and she did not think the committee had met in the last four years.  The committee had not been taken seriously and had no impact.  Ms. Tiffany added, all the years she had sat on the money committee a concern that she always had was the systems that were funded continued to have problems.  The authority of the commission was to be able to review the Executive Branch's computer projects so that there was some consistency and longevity over the interim and if there was a problem the division could be called in and asked where the program had gone awry.  The chairman of the commission would be the Governor.  Even though it would be an advisory committee, it had "a lot of teeth" in it and that was what had been missing.  Ms. Tiffany explained the commission would have the ability to come back with legislation and that kind of focus had not been available before.  The bill would give oversight on technology projects, the Governor was a member so that there was someone on the Executive Branch represented and could take action if necessary, and there would be four legislators so there would be legislative oversight.  Ms. Tiffany said she had also asked for at least two of the legislators to be from the money committees so there would be consistency in regard to funding. 

 

Terry Savage, Director, Department of Information Technology (DoIT), said the department strongly supported the bill.  He referred the committee to the bill and said Section 5, page 3, number 1D said "Monitor using agencies for compliance with statewide strategies, policies, and standards, including, without limitation, the business goals of the state."  Mr. Savage said the state had a great proliferation of systems, some of which were incompatible, including some of the communication systems, a wide variety of operating systems, programming languages, and database applications. The incompatibilities caused additional maintenance costs, additional support costs, and additional training costs.  By having a coordinating commission the department would be able to start focusing agencies toward agreed-upon standards that would drastically reduce the cost of operating the state Information Technology (IT) system. 

 

Chairman Arberry said his concern was that this would be another bottleneck to slow things down, and asked who would be blamed when something was not right.  Ms. Tiffany answered nothing done in technology was a bottleneck and there were too many bottlenecks that prohibited some agencies to get on the Internet or using creative ideas.  She saw the commission as the exact opposite, rather it was the opportunity for the private sector, the Executive Branch, and some legislators to have oversight on some projects and could make suggestions that would make the system more cost-effective.  The commission was advisory only.  Ms. Tiffany reminded the committee the Governor sat on the commission as chairman and if he was concerned about a direction the commission was taking, he could go back to the Executive Branch and make decisions.  She stated the Governor had never asked to sit on a commission, as far as she knew, but that was how important he thought the cost and impact of the projects were to the public.   Ms. Tiffany did not see the commission as an obstacle, rather something that would enable technology to progress faster and more efficiently.

 

Chairman Arberry said he thought it was a great concept.  He wondered how it would work taking laypersons who were not knowledgeable versus taking paid professionals to make the right decisions in regard to technology.  Ms. Tiffany said there were not any laypersons on the commission, and Chairman Arberry said what he meant when he said "layperson" he meant the Governor, and legislators who were not up-to-speed to what was going on in technology.  He said the Ways and Means Committee was blessed to have Mr. Beers, and his knowledge of technology, but without him there would be a void.  Ms. Tiffany said of the 13 members of the commission the four from the private sector would have IT background.  The four people from the Executive Branch would be from the technology part of their department so all the 13 members, except for the Governor and a couple of the legislators, would have background in technology. 

 

Mrs. Cegavske said she was a huge supporter of the bill.  She asked Ms. Tiffany to look at the state of Iowa, with 99 counties and had done something similar, bringing people in.  Mrs. Cegavske said the concept was a good idea and she felt the bill should be supported.  She thought the state should "bite the bullet" and get technology from the universities down through the schools and "just do it." 

 

Mr. Beers said he would like to commend the creator of the bill and give it his strongest endorsement.  He said there was a Public Works Board that oversaw the proposed Capital projects and the commission would similarly oversee the IT projects.  Mr. Beers stated there had not been many real strong successes to point to in the state implementation of IT and he thought this would help. 

 

Mr. Dini asked how the commission differed from the Information Technology Advisory Board that was being repealed.  Ms. Tiffany said the composition was different, the size was different, the types of people who would serve would be different, paying the legislators would be different, and also the scope of what would be allowed to be asked from the Executive Branch would be different.  The other commission had just been looking at what new technology was available and the direction technology would be going and had not met in four years.  The new commission was hands-on, was working, and had the ability to ask the Executive Branch to come in and review their projects with the committee so they could receive current updates. 

 

Mr. Dini said another concern was the concept of mixing the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch together into a committee.  He said in previous times, there had been problems doing that and the courts had thrown out decisions that had been made.  Ms. Tiffany said that was why the commission was an advisory committee. 

 

Being no further testimony, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B 367. 

 

********

 

Assembly Bill 474:  Revises provisions concerning enforcement of registration of        motor vehicle by new resident of this state. (BDR 43-1201)

 

Assemblyman Dennis Nolan, Assembly District 13, said A.B. 474 was designed to generate lost revenue currently not being collected.  Mr. Nolan said the bill was a "fair-share pay bill."  He explained Nevada was one of the fastest growing states in the last ten years and it was possible, with the problems California had been having, there might be an exodus from that state that would increase Nevada's population even further, putting a strain on the infrastructure.  Fees that were charged for the registration of vehicles were shared between the operations of the Department of Motor Vehicles and the construction of the roads and highways, and the privilege taxes went back to the counties.  When the fees were not paid, it exacted a toll on the state's revenue.  Mr. Nolan introduced Adam Cegavske, his intern, and said Mr. Cegavske had prepared some numbers and figures as part of his intern project and would share them with the committee.  Mr. Nolan said it was evident that many hundreds of vehicle owners were avoiding registering their vehicles.  Every day within our own communities, driveways, businesses, and parking lots, where there was not an expectation of seeing tourists, license plates were in evidence that belonged to people who were living and working in Nevada's communities and had failed to register their vehicles.  At a time when tax dollars were stretched so far, Mr. Nolan felt it was necessary to start collecting the lost revenue.  Currently there was no concerted effort to do so and when the agencies were approached to determine how much revenue was being lost, the numbers were staggering.   A.B. 474 would help recover some of the unpaid debts by establishing a toll free number and a marketing program to go along that would encourage people to call in license plates and information when they knew someone had not registered their vehicle over a period of time. 

 

Adam Cegavske said Nevada had one of the highest costs in the western states register vehicles.  Many people had moved to Nevada and had no incentive to register their cars, instead they continued to register their cars in the state they had moved from because it was less expensive.  The average cost to register a vehicle in Nevada for one year was $166.10.  He said when he registered his truck the previous year, it had cost him approximately $350.  Mr. Cegavske referred the committee to a handout (Exhibit J) and said the packet reflected the costs to register vehicles in neighboring states.  The least expensive state was Oregon, which had a flat fee of $30 for two years for any passenger vehicle.  There were over 1.6 million registered cars in Nevada and almost 600,000 new vehicles were registered in 2000; in 2001 there had already been a little over 100,000.  Mr. Cegavske said in 1996 approximately 10.5 percent of all traffic citations related to either expired or no registration.  Most individuals were caught under a secondary offense of speeding, etc., as there had been no concentrated effort by the DMV or Nevada Highway Patrol to target offenders.  If 5 percent of unregistered vehicles were registered it would bring approximately $14 million new revenue to the state.  Until recently there had been no funding to help recuperate the lost funds and when funds were so short, if even 2.5 percent of the unregistered vehicles were registered it would bring approximately $7 million to the state.  The bill's purpose was to help cut down the number of unregistered and expired car registrations.  If set in place properly, the bill would more than pay for any appropriated funds that were used to initiate the program.  Mr. Cegavske referred to the last page of his handout (Exhibit J), which had a breakdown of the appropriations that would fund the bill. 

 

Mr. Nolan explained the fundamentals of A.B. 474 did three things:

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Nolan said the Governor's concern regarding the bill was if there was a profit he would be happy, but he did not want to lose revenue.  Mr. Nolan reiterated that if just 2.5 percent of the lost revenue was recovered it would amount to approximately $7 million. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani said she liked the concept and wondered if companies that required an employee to drive a company vehicle or their personal vehicle could require an up-to-date vehicle registration.  Mr. Nolan responded he had been on the Assembly Transportation Committee for several years and every session that issue had come up.  His best recollection was the reason a program like that had not been implemented was it was felt it would be very difficult to enforce and smaller companies might not be aware of the law, or would be afraid to impose the law on their employees because it would chase employees away.  Mr. Nolan informed the committee there was a bill that had been introduced by Assemblywoman McClain that would have people who came in to pick up their driver's license also sign an affidavit that indicated whether or not they had a vehicle.  He said the way people avoided this issue was they simply put "no" on the affidavit, denying ownership of a vehicle. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani said she understood the problems, and said her understanding of A.B. 474 was that it would allow people to call in and report they had seen a certain vehicle that did not appear to be registered and ask the Highway Patrol to check it out.  Mr. Nolan said that was correct.  Ms. Giunchigliani said she felt it would be simpler, when interviewing someone for a job, as part of the application the employee-to-be would have to show a driver's license and proof of a vehicle registration.  She said it would not make the employer a watch dog, but at least everyone would be treated equally for the purposes of being employed in the state. 

 

Mr. Nolan said when in Las Vegas, during his workout process each day, he had seen several people working out at the gym with out-of-state license plates, and they had been working out there and living in Nevada for years and had not paid their Nevada registration. 

 

Being no further testimony, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 474.

 

********

 

Assembly Bill 612:  Creates revolving loan account in state general fund to             provide assistance to certain rural health programs. (BDR 31-1421)

 

Yvonne Sylva, M.P.A., Administrator, Health Division, Department of Human Resources, in introduction of A.B. 612 said the bill would create a $1 million revolving loan fund to provide money to rural health programs.  The bill would also provide authority to the director of the Department of Human Resources to promulgate a process and criteria for funding rural health programs in a fair and equitable manner.  She explained rural and frontier Nevada continued to experience great needs in the health care arena in the form of access and maintaining and updating facilities and equipment.  Funding for A.B. 612 was included in The Executive Budget.  The department had established a stakeholders group that would work toward the establishment of a framework that would be used to implement the bill.   

 

Robin Keith, President, Nevada Rural Hospital Project, said the Nevada Rural Hospital Project (NRHP) was a consortium of all Nevada's small and rural public and not-for-profit hospitals.  She said the bill did not provide funding to the NRHP.  Ms. Keith explained she was present at the hearing because her agency knew how to implement the program and had knowledge of how the concept would work and that it was a lasting resource, not a one-time fix.  Ms. Keith said small and rural providers often had difficulty funding their capital needs.  The fact that they were frequently on marginal financial ground made access to commercial capital difficult.  She advised the committee in 1991 the NRHP addressed the issue for its members by establishing a revolving loan pool that enabled member facilities to borrow money from the pool to finance their small equipment needs.  A.B. 612 would establish a similar fund for all sorts of rural providers, for example, physicians setting up practices, young dentists who needed equipment, emergency medical vehicles, etc.  The pool would create specific tangible benefits and would help to recruit and retain practitioners in rural settings. 

 

The NRHP's pool was funded with a low cost ten-year loan of $500,000 from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and with an appropriation from the Nevada State Legislature in the amount of $400,000.  Since the inception, the project had made 15 loans to member facilities to fund a variety of equipment, for example, a sterilizer, a small building to house a CT scanner, radiology equipment, digitizers to enhance the quality of radiology images sent over the teleradiology network, and a blood gas analyzer.   Ms. Keith said the NRHP had been a careful steward of the funds, and as hospital loans were repaid the money would be returned to the pool and lent again.  The money had been used over and over for the benefit of rural Nevadans.  Use of the funds had been governed by a very thorough set of policies and procedures and was administered by a committee appointed by the NRHP board.  In the past ten years the NRHP had not experienced a default.  The administration of the fund was not a small matter and the NRHP had spent a great deal of time and effort in the development of the policies and procedures that governed the pool and helped to ensure the resource was not wasted.  Ms. Keith said the NRHP would be happy to provide to the state any information they had to aid in the development of the pool that would be created through A.B. 612. 

 

Ms. Keith said one of the limitations of the NRHP's pool was the small size.  The average loan was $81,000 and because the pool started with $900,000 and was accessible to 11 facilities it had never been large enough to fund major needs.  In addition, the repayment of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation loan in the amount currently of $740,000, one-half million in principal and $240,000 in interest, would be due in the fall of the current year.  The money had been set aside to pay the debt, and when it was repaid, the value of the NRHP's fund would be reduced to $600,000 from the present $1.34 million, which was a significant reduction.  The appropriation in A.B. 612 had nothing to do with the NRHP's pool except that it would provide an opportunity to leverage the benefit that would be generated out of the bill with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.  The people who set up the original NRHP fund were still active in the state, and it was set up through the Interim Finance Committee with the help of Mr. Dini, Senator Raggio, and Senator Rawson.  In addition, Peter Goodwin, the then vice-president of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, was currently in the same position and recalled visiting Nevada and the legislators and setting the resource up. 

 

Ms. Keith said she had discussed with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation the possibility of their forgiving the loan, and was refused a year ago because forgiveness of a loan was outside the policies of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.  However, she said she had recently spoken to Mr. Goodwin about the issue and had suggested that if the state was interested in pursuing the model by setting up the pool as described in A.B 612, maybe the foundation would review the issue again and consider forgiving the NRHP's loan and keeping the resources in Nevada to help with rural health care.  The foundation had said it would consider forgiving the loan, but had not committed to do so. 

 

Ms. Keith noted one component of another bill, S.B. 403, also sought to provide a rural provider loan pool, and advised the committee that one or other of the proposals might be funded, but not both.  In conclusion Ms. Keith said the bill sought to establish a permanent revolving resource for rural health care providers.  She emphasized the permanent ongoing benefit of such a resource in contrast to the usual one-time expenditures that would solve short-term problems.  The NRHP through its own pool had proved the concept would work and had developed the necessary policies and procedures and would share them as a model.  In addition to the many benefits the bill could bring to an array of rural health care providers through A.B. 612, the state had the opportunity to convince the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to forgive NRHP's debt to them and effectively turn the $1 million appropriation in A.B. 612 into a $1.74 million benefit for Nevada. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani, for clarification, asked if the bill included a $1 million appropriation and Ms. Keith said that was correct.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked if it was felt the bill was worthwhile, but there were not enough funds to give $1 million, what would be an acceptable dollar amount.  Ms. Keith answered the bill was not a proposal put forward by the NRHP so she did not feel qualified to answer Ms. Giunchigliani's question, but the NRHP's perspective, with regard to leveraging whatever the decision was, with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation she thought if the funding was less than $1 million, they would still look at the issue of forgiving the loan, or a portion of the loan.

 

Ms. Sylva said the funds were put in The Executive Budget at the request of the Governor as he felt the $1 million was necessary to augment and update equipment and facilities and fund other activities in rural health care for Nevada. Ms. Giunchigliani said the committee would have to address the issue with the Governor's Office. 

 

In support of A.B. 612, Carolyn Ford, Assistant Dean, University of Nevada School of Medicine, and Director, Nevada State Office of Rural Health, said as a point of history, many rural health facilities, hospitals, clinics, and some part of the state lab had used the Hill-Burton facility money in the past to either construct, renovate, or modernize their facilities.  That provided working capital and was in terms of a loan with payback not in a monetary form but in service back to the community.  The program was ended and nothing had taken its place and now the facilities were facing many aging issues where they needed to be replaced or modernized and address new technology that needed to be coming into their facilities.  The issue was complicated with the fact that county and district facilities were held by standards by the Department of Taxation and other kinds of bonding issues that significantly limited their ability to access capital.  Another issue was liquid collateral was problematic to come by, in terms of pledging the facility or parts of the facility against a loan.  Ms. Ford emphasized the program was looking at private and public facilities as well as practitioners for access to capital.  The people in those categories, practicing in rural areas, did not have institutional backing and were "hamstrung" much like rural hospitals in how they generated revenue.  Ms. Ford explained rural Nevada did not have venture capitalists or developers going there to develop medical and dental facilities to lease out, so if someone was going to start a practice in rural Nevada they would have to go out and find the money to build the facility and equip it on their own. 

 

Ms. Ford said one issue that would be before the committee during the current session was dental access.  She said Nevada State Office of Rural Health would like to look at A.B. 612 as trying to craft language or a set aside to look at the incentives for dentists to locate in rural areas.  She said when practitioners were brought to rural areas, in terms of economic development, it caused a "multiplier effect" and her office had been part of an analysis of the impact of rural health care in those communities and how payroll was turned back into the community and how other jobs were generated, based on the number of practitioners and facilities that were in the community.  Any kind of program that actually addressed the physical infrastructure that attracted people to come into a community would have a domino effect, and would have other people come into the community which would in turn provide employment opportunities and turn the money back into working capital at the local level. 

 

Ms. Ford said S.B. 403 was the Frontier and Rural Health Care Improvement Act and one of the pieces of the bill would create a capital loan pool and addressed the issues that were currently being discussed.  There was not an expectation for both bills to be funded, but she hoped one of them would be.  The Nevada State Office of Rural Health would like to work with the Health Division and the Department of Human Resources on the administration of the fund.  Ms. Ford said she thought it would be a daunting task to actually gather how much need was out there when the pool opened.  Beyond just a finite number of facilities to include the practitioners, etc., the need would have to be determined so that a projection could be made to determine a fund balance as well as what would be out on loan and what the repayment schedules would be.  Ms. Ford said they would like to see the fund set up so that there would be prudent operating policies but also be flexible, knowing and understanding what was happening with the revenue picture.  She said she would like to look at something that would be flexible in terms of payback, with an understanding of local conditions and the fact that rural industry operated a little differently than urban industry. 

 

Mr. Goldwater said the bill provided for regulations for the division to adopt regarding procedures for applying for loans, and he understood the division would follow prudent credit standards and would not give money away in a capricious manner and asked if that was Ms. Ford's understanding.  Ms. Ford answered yes.  Mr. Goldwater said there were "niche" banks that focused on the market at issue and asked if the state would be competing with them, and taking away their better customers or would the loans be the kind that those banks were not making anyway.  Ms. Ford said her assumption was no, the only access to working capital that she was aware of was a program by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which had been operating since 1968 and had appropriated $8.6 billion and less than 1 percent of the fund had gone to rural areas.  One of the reasons for that was rural facilities did not have the operating margins that met the qualifications for big programs like the HUD program and they would have to leverage their whole facility to get the money.  There was currently an effort to recraft some flexibility with ratings and other things the facilities could apply. 

 

Mr. Goldwater said he thought the bill was a great concept, but his worry was that the next session the people involved would be back asking for loan forgiveness, as they were doing with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.  He wanted to make sure that it was understood that the money was not to be given away and that there were good, prudent loan standards and credit standards, and they had every single assurance the next move would not be to ask for loan forgiveness.  Ms. Ford said she understood, and said if Mr. Goldwater would review the history of the NRHP regarding their management over the fund that was set up by the legislature he would see the prudent practice.  Mr. Goldwater said he was comfortable, but just wanted it on the record. 

 

In support of A.B. 612, Roger Volker, Great Basin Primary Care Association, representing Nevada's federally qualified health centers, including community health centers and tribal clinics, said one of the issues that had been before the committee during the current session was the need for greater access to dental care in all of Nevada but particularly in the rural areas of the state.  He said the good news was there seemed to be some progress in terms of reducing the barriers that would allow dentists to come and practice in the underserved areas.  However, that was only part of the solution.  The cost for one of the association's clinics to set up a dental office in a rural location would be approximately $500,000.  Resources from the fund created by A.B. 612 could contribute, or create a match, toward that cost.  He added it was the association's hope that the department would secure the lowest possible interest rates so that when an ambulance broke down in a small town in rural Nevada, and a new one had to be leased, if the fund was available, the rural provider could purchase the equipment at a good rate, and whatever money had been saved in the process would go back to the community in services.

 

Mr. Dini said when he heard the Governor was considering the program, he had written a letter to the Governor and said he felt that one of the greatest things that could be done for rural health care was to provide a revolving fund because as payments were made back into the fund, more money would be available to loan back out.  This would mean a lot to a hospital in a small town like Battle Mountain or Yerington that needed equipment that was not affordable with normal financing and to borrow from a fund like this and pay as they went along would come in handy and enable them to keep their equipment updated.  He said that one of the biggest problems for the small hospitals was their equipment became outdated and nobody wanted to practice there because the hospital did not have the proper equipment.  He said this was a little thing that could be done to improve the quality of health care in the rural areas.

 

Being no further testimony, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 612. 

 

********

 

Assembly Bill 662:  Revises provisions relating to authorization for expenditure             of money in Heil trust fund for wild horses. (BDR 45-1516)

 

Michael Turnipseed, P.E., Director, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, said he did not know the number of wild horses that were on Nevada lands that were in excess of the capacity the lands were capable of holding, for two reasons. 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Turnipseed said the United States Congress had appropriated $36 million for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to set the appropriate management levels and gather down to the level set, so there would be a huge amount of horses that would come off the public lands resulting in a benefit to wildlife, water sources, etc.  The BLM would be funding, in connection with the wild horse program, the foundation, so every dollar that the state put up through the Heil Trust the BLM would match. 

 

Mr. Turnipseed said the bill did not have a dollar impact but it removed half-a-dozen words.  Prior to A.B. 662 the Heil Trust legislation said the fund could not be spent down below  $900,000 "unless money was needed for an emergency and expenditures approved by the legislature."  The budget had expenditures of $400,000 over two-and-a-half years to match the BLM money to set up the foundation that would assist in the adoption program.   With the passage of A.B. 662 it would not only remove the language but also the budget to be able to spend below the $900,000 limit. 

 

Mr. Marvel said it would be good to be able to spend down under $900,000.  He said, along with the program now available that was being conducted through the prison system involving the adoption of the horses, anything that could be done to get the balance of nature back again would make the horses more adoptable and would give the department more tools to work with in removing the horses.   

 

Being no further testimony, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 662.  

 

********

 

 

Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst, said A.B. 556, which revised certain provisions governing authority of the state board of examiners and requirements for certain agreements for interlocal cooperation between public agencies (BDR 31-565), was passed out of committee on April 16, 2001, as an amend and do pass.  He informed the committee that the Legal Division had indicated the amendment was not appropriate, in that the amendment would change the word "clerk" of the Board of Examiners to the "secretary" of the Board of Examiners.  The word "clerk" was the correct term statutorily and should have been passed as a do pass. 

 

ASSEMBLYMAN DINI MADE A MOTION TO RESCIND THE PREVIOUS MOTION TO DO PASS AND AMEND A.B. 556. 

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN DINI MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS A.B. 556. 

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 

 

********

 

BUDGET CLOSINGS

 

 

ELECTED OFFICIALS, SECRETARY OF STATE

BUDGET PAGE ELECTED-81

 

Carla Watson, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, introduced Budget Account 101-1050 and said the adjusted base for the account included funding for 111 positions.  The General Fund supported 72 positions and the Special Services Fund supported 39 of the positions.

 

Ms. Watson reminded the committee any balance exceeding $2 million at the end of the fiscal year would revert to the General Fund. 

 

Ms. Watson said S.B. 46 proposed the increase of the maximum fee the Secretary of State may charge for providing special services from $100 to $500.  When the agency had come before the committee previously, the committee had asked the agency to provide estimates on what the increased revenues would be and Ms. Watson had broken down the estimates and said a conservative figure indicated the increase would be $1.5 million and optimistically they could go as high as $9.1 million.  If 5 percent of the regular expedites chose to pay the higher fee there would be an increase of $1.5 million and if 30 percent paid the higher fee it would go to $9.1 million. 

 

In regard to decision unit M-200, Ms. Watson stated it had been a concern of the committee as to whether or not the fund would remain solvent if the nine positions that were being requested were approved and the answer was yes, it would remain solvent but the reversion to the General Fund would be impacted.  The cost of the nine positions out of the Special Services Fund would be $467,504 in FY2002 and $549,383 in FY2003. 

 

Ms. Watson said staff had made two technical adjustments to the account.  The first was in decision unit M-200 where the General Fund was reduced by $3,656 each year due to applying insurance rates established in The Executive Budget.  The second adjustment was the elimination of decision unit E-806 at the request of the agency.  The decision unit had recommended unclassifying an existing ASO III position, and the elimination of this decision unit reduced the General Fund by $3,195 in FY2002 and $5,991 in FY2003. 

 

Ms. Watson said decision unit M-200 included funding of $362,940 from the Special Services Fund to cover contract maintenance for new recording software.  The IFC on December 12, 2000, approved the transfer of $2.4 million for the Special Services Fund for the purchase of recording software and required the agency to come back to the legislature for an estimate on the maintenance, and it was included in the budget under M-100.  Also included under M-200 was the funding of 18 FTE new positions, 15 in FY2002 and 3 in FY2003.  The recommendation was for the funding to be evenly allocated from the General Fund and a transfer from the Special Services Fund. 

 

Ms. Watson continued explaining the recommendations approved by the Legislative Commission Subcommittee to encourage corporations and other business entities to organize and conduct business in the state.  Bulletin number 01-8 supported the continuing efforts of the office of the Secretary of State to improve technology and to provide state-of-the-art mechanisms for clients to conduct their business within the office.  Recommendation number 15 in the bulletin included support of funding required for additional staffing to continue the efforts.  She said, during budget hearings before the Senate Finance Committee and the Ways and Means Committee, the agency had indicated two additional Program Assistant II positions were being requested for the Elections Division that were not included in The Executive Budget.  Ms. Watson said she had asked the agency to prioritize the 20 new positions requested and she had listed the positions in the order that had been given to her by the agency and also identified the funding source.  The nine General Fund positions would cost $300,220 in FY2002 and $525,498 in FY2003, including operating expenses.  The nine positions included one Information Systems Specialist III, one Chief Securities Enforcement, one Compliance Audit Investigator II, one Compliance Audit Investigator III, one Criminal Investigator III, two Program Assistant IIs, and two Program Assistant IIIs. 

 

Mr. Goldwater said he had consistently opposed concepts like S.B. 46.   He said it was not only bad public policy to say if an agency had more money the legislature would do things faster for them, and then say to the common people that things could be done faster, but just for the wealthier people who were willing to pay more.  He said it was even worse to budget with that thought, and he would not necessarily support budgeting the increased fees.  He did not know what the committee was going to do in regard to the positions, but there was a need for more positions.  Mr. Goldwater disclosed that he was licensed by the Securities Division. 

 

Ms. Tiffany asked why the two extra staff that were being requested for the Elections Division had not been included in the Governor's budget.  Ms. Watson said she was not sure.  She added, the positions might have been originally added to the budget and then were cut.  She said it was her belief that the budget had started out with a request for over 30 new positions.  Ms. Tiffany asked if Ms. Watson knew the justification of asking for the two extra positions, and Ms. Watson said the justification given by the agency was staffing was short in that area, only two to three individuals were placed in the area at the current time, and when people were ill or on vacation backup was needed. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked for clarification of the senate bills in discussion, and Ms. Watson answered S.B. 46 increased the expedite service from $100 to $500 and S.B. 464 was a supplemental one-shot appropriation.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked if there were some election bills and Ms. Watson answered those items were included in the one-shot bill and it was her understanding that the amount requested was $250,000 that would be designated for elections.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked if some of the unfunded positions were intended for the elections division.  Ms. Watson said no, there were no positions included in S.B 464.  She explained the $250,000 was designated for election law rewrite.  Ms. Giunchigliani said she would be reviewing that issue as there was also a democracy fund and other things that had caused some concern.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked for clarification of why the two positions that were being requested for the Elections Division were needed.  Ms. Tiffany said the two people were for coverage in case of illness and vacations. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked what amount the reversion to the General Fund would be by adding the nine General Fund positions.  Ms. Watson said approximately $1 million for the biennium. 

 

Mr. Beers said he was confused about the M-200 contract maintenance for the new software.  He said it was odd there would be maintenance on brand-new software, as generally the first year of maintenance would be included in the purchase price.  Ms. Watson replied information provided had not included a cost breakdown but was requested for maintenance for the application software according to 300 hours of help desk incidents, Filenet, Windows 2000 server operating system, and included a 180-day warranty.  Mr. Beers said he understood the help desk time, but that would not be considered maintenance and if that was what the majority of the cost was, it should be approved.  Ms. Watson said she would confirm the information with the agency and advise the committee of the response. 

 

Ms. Tiffany asked if the Secretary of State's office had come back with a 10 percent cut recommendations as requested by the committee.  Mr. Stevens answered they had prioritized their position request, but there was not a 10 percent cut per agency.  Ms. Tiffany said she thought the committee had requested the 10 percent cut recommendations from each agency and Chairman Arberry said they had. 

 

The budget was held. 

 

********

 

Chairman Arberry called a recess at 10:44 a.m.

 

Chairman Arberry reconvened the meeting at 2:57 p.m.

 

 

ELECTED OFFICIALS, TREASURE, HIGHER ED TUITION ADMIN

BUDGET PAGE-ELECTED 93

 

Lu Chen, Education Research Statistician, Fiscal Analyst Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, explained there were technical adjustments for Budget Account 101-1081, which included changes in decision unit B-000 that would bring the contract service fee from $421,341 to $370,000 to accommodate the current price and changes in decision unit E-710.

 

Mr. Stevens said the adjustments were to bring the agency's contract services into line with what they would be currently paying and also some adjustments for computer equipment.  

 

ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

            BUDGET CLOSED.

 

(Assemblyman Beers, Assemblyman Dini, Assemblyman Perkins, Assemblywoman Giunchigliani, and Assemblywoman Chowning were not present for the vote.)

 

********

 

ELECTED OFFICIALS, MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIP ADMIN

BUDGET PAGE ELECTED-97

 

Ms. Chen explained there were several adjustments to Budget Account 261-1088.  In the base budget it was recommended the removal of $16,345 for each fiscal year of the coming biennium.  The recommendation was based on the actual expenditure for computer servers purchased in FY2000.  The expenditure qualified as a one-time cost and should be removed from the base per budget guidelines.  Under decision unit E-275 a technical adjustment was made for a change in computer prices.  In decision unit E-325 there was a $74,000 funding that was recommended by the Governor to establish baseline data for the Millennium Scholarship, and staff recommended the $74,000 should be funded from the Tobacco Settlement funds.  Decision unit E-710 was adjusted for a change in computer equipment. 

 

ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

            BUDGET CLOSED.

                       

(Assemblyman Beers, Assemblyman Dini, Assemblyman Perkins, Assemblywoman Giunchigliani, and Assemblywoman Chowning were not present for the vote,)

 

********

 

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRY, LOW INCOME HOUSING TRUST FUND – BUDGET PAGE B&I-99

 

Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst, explained the only recommended changes to Budget Account 101-3838 were technical adjustments to update computer prices.  He noted that S.B. 552, which madevarious changes relating to assistance to finance housing (BDR 25-1448), as originally introduced would have had some dramatic effects upon the Housing Division and the Low Income Housing Trust Fund, as well as some on the weatherization program.  The bill was modified to a great extent and if passed the agency could do a work program to update the budget based upon any changes in the legislation. 

 

Mr. Marvel asked for further information concerning S.B. 552.  Mr. Guernsey said the bill would change the status of the Housing Division to a quasi-state agency.  It would have placed the employees in unclassified status, and would have exempted the agency from personnel, purchasing, etc.  Mr. Guernsey said the bill had been modified in the Committee of Government Affairs.

 

Lon DeWeese, Chief Financial Officer, Housing Division, Department of Business and Industry, explained the bill was originally drafted based on a review by the Fundamental Review Committee with the recommendation that the Housing Division be privatized.  At the time the bill was drafted the Governor felt full privatization was premature and the Housing Division agreed, feeling some transition would be necessary.  When the bill was drafted there were 44 provisions in it and it was difficult for the Committee on Government Affairs to accept all 44 provisions so what remained were 4 provisions.  Mr. DeWeese explained there was very little fiscal impact and that was related to the elimination of the purchase function. 

 

ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

            BUDGET CLOSED.

 

(Assemblyman Beers, Assemblyman Dini, Assemblyman Perkins, Assemblywoman Giunchigliani, and Assemblywoman Chowning were not present for the vote.)

 

********

 

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRY, WEATHERIZATION

BUDGET PAGE B&I-103

 

Mr. Guernsey said it was recommended Budget Account 101-4865 be changed to reflect updated computer prices.  He said the agency had forwarded to staff a Notice of Grant award, which was good news for the account, and allowed the agency to increase activity.  The federal grant would increase from $448,900 to $656,559.  It was recommended the budget be augmented for each year of the biennium by $113,000 to reflect the increased grant.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

            BUDGET CLOSED.

 

(Assemblyman Beers, Assemblyman Dini, Assemblyman Perkins, and Assemblywoman Giunchigliani were not present for the vote.)

 

********

 

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRY, FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS - AUDIT

BUDGET PAGE B&I-115

 

Ms. Watson said Budget Account 101-3882 funded one unclassified position, a certified public accountant (CPA).  The CPA reviewed annual financial information supplied by existing licensees and applicants for new licenses.  The account was a fee-based account, not a General Fund account.  An assessment was levied upon each license to cover the costs. 

 

Under technical adjustments Ms. Watson said base adjustments were adjusted by $7,665 each year to return assessments to the base year amount with corresponding adjustments to reserve and balance forward.  Balance Forward and Reserve were adjusted by $277 each year for the Business and Industry statewide allocation. 

 

Ms. Watson advised the committee that staff eliminated decision unit M-301 because the Governor's recommended cost-of-living increase was for classified positions and the position in Budget Account 101-3882 was an unclassified position.  She said staff created decision unit E-710 because funding for computer equipment had been placed in the Investigation's account inappropriately, so staff moved funding to the Audit account. 

 

Ms. Watson said the price of requested computer equipment was adjusted to the amount of $1,515.  The computer equipment would replace equipment purchased in 1991.

 

Ms. Watson asked if the committee wished to approve funding for computer equipment for the CPA.  Mr. Goldwater asked if the funding was approved, would the funds be transferable if A.B. 324, which would revise various provisions regarding regulation of mortgage brokers, mortgage agents, and mortgage companies, passed and went to a commission.  Ms. Watson said according to the fiscal note for A.B. 324, the impact on Budget Account 101-3882 would result in an increased assessment levied against licensees in the amount of $206 in FY2002 and $222 in FY2003.  She said she was not sure the position would be eliminated, so the computer equipment would still be necessary. 

 

ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF INCLUDING THE COMPUTER EQUIPMENT.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

            BUDGET CLOSED.

 

 

(Assemblyman Beers, Assemblyman Perkins, and Assemblywoman Giunchigliani were not present for the vote.) 

 

Chairman Arberry disclosed that he did business with the financial institutions but closing the budget would not affect him in any way.

 

********

 

DEPARTMENT OF PRISONS, SOUTHERN NEVADA CORRECTIONAL CENTER

BUDGET PAGE PRISONS-29

 

Ms. Watson said due to the closure of the institution in September 2000, there were only two employees left, an Electrician II and a Heat Plant Specialist III.  As a side note, Ms. Watson informed the committee there was a Capital Improvement Project to facilitate reopening the institution in the amount of $3.8 million. 

 

Ms. Watson advised the committee technical adjustments under Budget Account 101-3715 included the reduction of the base General Fund appropriation in the amount of $12,827 per year for a canceled telephone maintenance contract.  Adjustments were also made to equipment and vehicle repair funding.  Base fund appropriations were reduced by $6,580 for adjustments to maintenance contracts and maintenance of buildings and grounds schedules that the department provided to staff.  And last, staff reduced base General Fund by $32,436 in FY2002 and $41,011 in FY2003 due to the latest projections provided by the department, which appeared the agency was over-funded for propane and fuel.  Ms. Watson thought what had happened was in the base year inmates had been housed at the institution, and in the work program year when they were housed funding had been provided for two months out of the year, making it difficult to predict what the need for propane and fuel would be. 

 

Ms. Watson continued and said decision unit M-100 was a reiteration of the adjustment made in base and E-900, at the request of the agency's staff, established a separate category for maintenance contracts to help the agency manage spending in that area. 

 

Mrs. de Braga asked if everyone was using the same percentage increase for all budgets to provide for the increased price of fuel.  Ms. Watson answered yes, and added there was 16 percent per year provided for electricity and 15 percent per year provided for natural gas.  There was no increase provided for propane or fuel oil. 

 

ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

 

            MRS. CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

            BUDGET CLOSED.

 

(Assemblyman Perkins and Assemblywoman Giunchigliani were not present for the vote.)

 

********

 

 

ELECTED OFFICIALS, WASHINGTON OFFICE

BUDGET PAGE ELECTED-7

 

Michael J. Chapman, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, said Budget Account 101-1011 was a flat budget with no recommended increases in funding and no technical adjustments. 

 

ASSEMBLYMAN DINI MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR.

 

            ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED WITH ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER OPPOSING.

 

             BUDGET CLOSED.

 

(Assemblyman Perkins and Assemblywoman Giunchigliani were not present for the vote.)

 

********

 

ELECTED OFFICIALS, UNCLAIMED PROPERTY

BUDGET PAGE ELECTED-102

 

Mr. Stevens said the first question for Budget Account 101-3815 was whether the committee wanted to approve the transfer of the office from the Department of Business and Industry to the Treasurer's Office.  That issue had been in the process for a while and in the Seventieth Session of the Legislature the transfer had not passed.  The department entered into an interlocal agreement to provide assistance to the Fiscal Analysis Division and had been working closely with the Treasurer. 

 

Mr. Stevens explained staff was asking to adjust state-owned building rent and if the transfer to the Treasurer's Office was approved the rent adjustments would be made later in the process.  He said in decision unit E-710 equipment had been requested, but not specifically identified.  The equipment had recently been replaced and from staff's perspective replacement of the equipment was unnecessary and recommended that $600 be allotted each year of the biennium for replacement equipment in case something broke down. 

 

Mr. Stevens said under decision unit E-800, if the program was transferred, a cost allocation adjustment would need to be made.  He said under decision unit E-806 there was an unclassified salary issue, and adjustments would be made at a later time in regard to that issue, along with all budget accounts.  The Treasurer had indicated that if the transfer took place, the salary for the position should match the other deputies in the Treasurer's office, which would require an additional increase. 

 

Mr. Stevens stated if the transfer to the Treasurer's Office was approved, there had been no moving costs built into the budget to move the Unclaimed Property Division into the Sawyer Office Building.  That would cost approximately $11,435 and there was a one-shot bill in Ways and Means, A.B. 522, which paid for the moves and remodeling in the Sawyer Office Building and it could be handled in the budget or as a one-shot appropriation. 

 

Mr. Stevens said there was a Senate bill and an Assembly bill out that would change the unclaimed property law.  Both bills would decrease the amount of time required before a power company or a bank held someone's property before it could be transferred to unclaimed property.  Each bill had a different set of time frames; S.B 489 would generate about $3.4 million and would be a one-time windfall and A.B. 77 would generate approximately $10 million in FY2002. 

 

Mr. Stevens said there were some items that staff could not recommend one way or the other, including whether the function was transferred to the Treasurer's Office or not.  In other areas, equipment had been reduced and staff did not know if the committee wanted to finance the transfer at all, and if they did approve the transfer, whether they would want to put the expense into the operating budget or add it to the one-shot appropriation. 

 

Chairman Arberry asked if the transfer had been approved or if the transfer would need to be in bill form.  Mr. Stevens said there was a bill, S.B. 489, which had been approved by Senate Committee on Government Affairs previously, and was most likely currently in the Assembly.  Chairman Arberry asked if research had indicated that it was best for Unclaimed Property to be transferred to the Treasurer's Office.  Mr. Stevens answered it was a policy decision that the committee would need to make.  He said the office could be in either location.  Mr. Stevens said the Treasurer felt that he could provide more guidance to the department due to the wide variety of tasks that were the department's responsibility.  The Treasurer's Office had been working closely during the interim, through an interlocal agreement, to assist the operation.  Mr. Stevens advised the committee that before the transfer was approved they should make a decision as to whether or not they wanted to approve S.B. 489, because there were cost allocations within the Department of Business and Industry that would have to be calculated if there was not a transfer, and if transferred to the Treasurer's Office, it would be necessary to make sure the cost allocation was calculated correctly.  There were some decisions to be made by staff, based on the decisions the committee made.  He said it would be helpful if, before the committee voted on the budget, they made a decision as to whether the transfer should take place or not, so the budget could be set up correctly.  Chairman Arberry said closing should be held until the committee knew the outcome of S.B. 489 because if they closed the budget it would appear the committee agreed with the bill.  Mr. Stevens said the committee would have to act on many budgets before numerous pieces of legislation had been received.  He said the budget could be held, but he did not feel that there would be resolution on S.B. 489 before the budget had to be closed. 

 

Mr. Dini said he had followed the issue and the Unclaimed Property Division was doing well in the Treasurer's Office.  He said it had been a "weak sister" in the Business and Industry offices. 

 

ASSEMBLYMAN DINI MADE A MOTION TO SUPPORT TRANSFERRING THE UNCLAIMED PROPERTY OFFICE TO THE TREASURER'S OFFICE PERMANENTLY.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Mrs. Chowning said it would cost the state more money with the transfer.  She asked, overall, how much would it cost in salary and other costs.  Mr. Dini and Mr. Marvel said the division would make more money in the Treasurer's Office.  Mr. Dini said estimates showed they would collect more money through the Treasurer's Office procedures.  Mrs. Chowning said currently the salary would cost more and Mr. Dini said it would not be much more considering the amount of money they could collect with the Treasurer running the office. 

 

Mr. Stevens referred the committee to Russell Guindon, Deputy Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analyst Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau.  Mr. Guindon said the Senate Finance Committee had closed the Unclaimed Property budget earlier in the week with the staff request that they close it allowing staff to make the necessary adjustments depending on whether S.B. 489 was approved or not. 

 

Mr. Guindon advised the committee, in regard to moving costs, the Senate had made a recommendation to include the moving costs in the agency's budget, but in a separate expense category. 

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.   

 

            (Assemblyman Perkins was not present for the vote.)

 

In review of the budget, Mr. Stevens reiterated decision unit E-710 was reduced to replacement office equipment and advised the committee the moving costs could be handled out of the one-shot appropriations or the operating budget, and if Senate Finance had already placed it in the operating budget, it was his recommendation for the committee to do the same. 

 

ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

                       

            ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

            BUDGET CLOSED.

 

            (Assemblyman Perkins was not present for the vote.)

 

********

 

ELECTED OFFICIALS, MUNICIPAL BOND BANK REVENUE – BUDGET PAGE ELECTED-111 and

ELECTED OFFICIALS, MUNICIPAL BOND BANK DEBT SERVICE – BUDGET PAGE ELECTED-112

 

Mr. Stevens said Budget Accounts 745-1086 and 395-1087 were in the Treasurer's Office.  He said there were no recommended budget adjustments for these accounts. 

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE BOTHBUDGETS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR.

 

            ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 

 

            BUDGETS CLOSED.

 

(Assemblyman Perkins and Assemblywoman Tiffany were not present for the vote.)

 

********

 

 

 

 

 

BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY, TAXICAB AUTHORITY

BUDGET PAGE B & I –161

 

Mr. Chapman introduced Budget Account 245-4130 and said S.B. 119 had been introduced and would require the Taxicab Authority to adopt a program for taxicab transportation of elderly and handicapped persons, including establishing a telephone number to request transportation and assignment of transportation requests to certificate holders.  He said at the current time it did not appear there would be a fiscal impact, but staff requested authority to make any necessary technical adjustments if S.B. 119 was approved, and if there was a fiscal impact. 

 

Mr. Chapman said under technical adjustments, the first recommendation was to adjust trip charge revenues by $82,182 in each year of the biennium to reflect revenue that was earned in FY2000 but was incorrectly recorded to FY2001.  Under M-200 there were nominal adjustments to correct employee insurance costs and reduce computer costs for eight new positions.  Decision unit E-710 made the standard computer price reductions. 

 

Mr. Chapman said when the budget was presented to the committee on March 12, 2001, there had been quite a bit of discussion regarding trip charge revenues correlating the revenue projections to the actual number of trips where the agency had projected an increase in the number of taxi trips but there was no corresponding increase in the number of trips revenue.   He said staff had included an adjustment to adjust the revenues to the projected number of taxi trips, and would increase revenues $136,801 in FY2002 and $286,801 in FY2003, improving the reserve for this budget account to $423,502 at the end of the biennium. 

 

Mr. Chapman said decision unit M-200 recommended eight new classified positions, a senior investigator, three field investigators per shift, two vehicle inspectors, and two program assistants.  The agency had testified during the budget hearing that they did not have a daytime supervisor on weekends and had a shift differential where there was no supervisor on staff between the hours of 4:30 and 7:00 p.m. three days a week.  The three field investigators were due to an increase in the number of taxicabs accidents, which was an 88 percent increase during the last four years and an increase of 86 percent in complaints during the same time, resulting from the increased number of trips and additional vehicle medallions issued over the past four years.  The agency indicated the two vehicle inspectors were needed to address an increase of 34 percent for the number of vehicle medallions that were issued over the past two years.  The existing inspectors had been unable to keep up with the quarterly inspection of taxicabs and the performance indicators correlated that information.  

 

Mr. Chapman stated during the budget hearing the administrator had acknowledged they would be agreeable to eliminating two airport control officers, which would save $152,695 during the upcoming biennium. 

 

Mr. Chapman said decision unit E-451 recommended continuing the senior ride program, which was administered by the Division of Aging Services.  He informed the committee during the previous session there had been concern about the reserve level in the account and during the interim the agency had come forward with work program modifications in each year of the interim to increase the ride level up to 20,000 rides per year and E-451 would maintain the ride level. 

 

Mr. Chapman continued and said decision unit E-710 recommended the replacement of 20 computers, the agency's telephone system in Las Vegas, and four vehicles. 

 

Mr. Chapman explained decision unit E-806 recommended an unclassified salary adjustment for the administrator.  Currently the administrator was paid approximately 4 percent less than one of his subordinates, the chief compliance investigator, and the adjustment would bring him up at least to the same level. 

 

ASSEMBLYMAN DINI MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND WITH THE REMOVAL OF TWO AIRPORT CONTROLLER OFFICER POSITIONS THAT HAD NOT BEEN FILLED, AND CONTINUE THE PRESENT LEVEL OF 20,000 RIDES FOR THE SENIOR RIDE PROGRAM, AND LEAVE THE SALARY ADJUSTMENT FOR THE ADMINISTRATOR IN THE UNCLASSIFIED SALARY BILL. 

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

            BUDGET CLOSED.

 

(Assemblyman Perkins and Assemblywoman Tiffany were not present for the vote.)

 

********

 

BUSINESS & INDUSTRY, TRANSPORTATION SERVICES AUTHORITY

BUDGET PAGE B & I - 168

 

Mr. Chapman said Budget Account 226-3922 had no General Fund dollars.  It was funded mainly from the Highway Fund and staff had not made any recommended technical adjustments.  The budget was presented as a flat budget with no maintenance or decision units other than the increases in the Attorney General's cost allocation and the allocation to the Business and Industry director's office. 

 

Mr. Chapman pointed out S.B. 270 would modify the agency's operations by assessing a fee under every vehicle that they "certificate" and impose a driver permitting process fee which would be an initial fee of $50 and an annual renewal of $25.  He said there was a fiscal note attached to the bill which would increase revenues approximately $474,000 in FY2002 and $440,000 in FY 2003.  The expenditures were essentially the same so there would be no impact on the Highway Fund. 

 

Mr. Chapman said staff requested authority to make modifications if S.B. 270 was passed. 

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR WITH AUTHORITY FOR STAFF TO MAKE THE NECESSARY CHANGES IF S.B. 270 PASSED. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani noted that even though the bill would use Highway Funds if the bill to uncap the Highway Fund was passed, there might not be money for some budgets. 

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN DINI SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 

 

            BUDGET CLOSED.

 

            (Assemblyman Perkins was not present for the vote.)

 

********

 

BUSINESS & INDUSTRY, TRANSPORTATION SERVICES AUTHORITY ADMIN FINES – BUDGET PAGE B & I – 173

 

Mr. Chapman said Budget Account 226-3923 went along with the Transportation Services Authority budget.  He said this budget assessed and collected administrative fines against regulated entities.  The fines were deposited into this account and used for enforcement activities and expenses associated with the enforcement activities.  Fund expenditures were not to be spent on general administration for the agency.  

 

Mr. Chapman said staff was not recommending any technical adjustments to the account.  Mr. Chapman pointed out the adjusted base budget included $25,000 per year in overtime expenditures, which was significantly more than the $15,000 expended during FY2000.  He said overtime had not been typically approved in this account, but the agency had gone to the Interim Finance Committee during the interim to request funds to pay overtime out of the account.  The overtime was essentially generated during periods of peak conventions and major events.  Mr. Chapman advised the committee it was a policy decision whether or not to approve continued overtime funding in the account. 

 

Chairman Arberry asked which way the Senate Finance Committee had closed the budget, and Mr. Chapman answered the Senate Finance Committee had closed the budget with approval of the $25,000 for overtime. 

 

ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS IT WAS CLOSED BY SENATE FINANCE, WITH THE APPROVAL OF $25,000 FOR OVERTIME.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN DINI SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

            BUDGET CLOSED.

 

            (Assemblyman Perkins was not present for the vote.)

 

********

 

PUBLIC SAFETY, JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANTS

BUDGET PAGE PS-41

 

Mark Krmpotic, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, said Budget Account 101-4708 was primarily a pass-through account that recorded the flow of grant funds from the United States Department of Justice, which included Violent Offender Incarceration Truth in Sentencing (VOI/TIS) grant funds, Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) grants and Edward Byrne Memorial Grant funding. 

 

Mr. Krmpotic said staff was recommending adjustments to the RSAT grant level based on estimates provided by the agency, which would bring the overall grant authority level to approximately $600,000 each year.  Staff also recommended decreases to the VOI/TIS grant each year based on agency estimates.  Mr. Krmpotic pointed out information recently obtained through Federal Funds Information for States indicated the President had recommended the elimination of the VOI/TIS grant for the upcoming federal fiscal year.  He said VOI/TIS funds had been used over the last three biennia to fund prison construction projects, and currently the prison construction project for phase 3 of High Desert Prison did not reflect any VOI/TIS funding.  Mr. Krmpotic advised the committee staff would be meeting with the agency to determine a funding level based on what was currently in the budget, and what would be awarded during the current session that could be applied toward the project. 

 

ASSEMBLYMAN DINI MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

 

            ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION WAS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

            BUDGET CLOSED.

 

            (Assemblyman Perkins was not present for the vote.)

 

********

 

PUBLIC SAFETY, WARM SPRINGS CORRECTIONAL CENTER

BUDGET PAGE – PRISONS –33

 

Ms. Watson said Budget Account 101-3716 would be impacted by the newest inmate population projections.  She explained an error was found after the projections that had been used to construct The Executive Budget had been released.  The error resulted in a shortfall of 177 inmates that were not funded in the budget.  Subsequently, the latest projections had been received from George Washington University on March 20, 2001, and based on those projections there were an additional 155 inmates that were not funded in The Executive Budget.  Estimates made by the department indicated a total shortfall of approximately $648,902. 

 

Ms. Watson stated she had identified savings in the account of $21,490 in FY2002 and $15,552 in FY2003. 

 

Ms. Watson explained that under technical adjustments, staff reduced base funding by $13,402 each year due to recalculating a four-year average for the bakery.  Another reduction to the General Fund netted $725 each year by eliminating one-time expenditures.  A net of $1,245 to cover current maintenance contract costs and adjust for inmate-driven adjustments increased the base. 

 

Ms. Watson said staff had removed $525 for blood spill kits out of base because the department was proposing to fund the kits in the Institution accounts as opposed to the Medical Division account.  She said item number two was affected by the projections that had been previously discussed.  She expounded this particular account would have a savings, which was one of the few accounts in which a savings would be seen.  The net effect on the latest projections of M-200 resulted in a surplus of $12,848 for this account and savings to the General Fund were $10,144 in FY2002 and $2,704 in FY2003.  Ms. Watson added there were nominal reductions in room and board. 

 

Ms. Watson continued and said, at the request of the agency, she had established category 09 and segregated the maintenance contracts.

 

Ms. Watson said decision unit E-277 recommended two positions for the account, one Plumber II and one Electrician II.  She reminded the committee that the budget subcommittee had recommended disallowing approval of any maintenance funding until the department provided a preventative maintenance plan.  The plan was provided on March 23, 2001, but the plan was a shell that basically provided guidance to the individual institutions.  The institutions would take the shell and formulate it to their individual needs.  That plan, which would not be completed until August 2001, should identify the need for additional maintenance personnel. 

 

Ms. Watson said staff had recommended the approval of the two positions because there were only two positions currently in maintenance, a Repair Specialist II and an Air Conditioning Refrigeration Specialist I.  When compared to the volume of work they had in comparison with the work of other institutional staff, it seemed reasonable that they would need additional staff. 

 

ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE TWO ADDITIONAL POSITIONS.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

            (Assemblyman Perkins was not present for the vote.)

 

Ms. Watson said E-710 recommended funding for $13,438 in FY2002 and $2,964 in FY2003 for equipment replacement.  Staff had adjusted the amount for a commercial dryer from $2,749 to $2,266 based on current pricing.  She said the cost of the commercial washer as recommended in the Governor's budget was increased from $4,289 to $6,143 because the department had indicated it was necessary to have a 50-pound washer.  Also requested were nine portable radios and five protective vests.  There had been an issue with the vests regarding the fact that the department had applied for a grant from the Justice Department for bulletproof vests and the grant would provide up to half the cost if approved, but unfortunately, the department would not find out if the grant was approved until after the session.  Staff recommended the committee issue a Letter of Intent that if the department received half of the funding the remaining funds would be put into reserve for reversion. 

 

Ms. Watson said the department, in all likelihood, would receive 550 type two protective vests and 50 ceramic vests from the Defense Department in Ohio. There had been a question as to whether or not the vests were the same type of vests listed in the budget.  The prison had indicated the vests were, in fact, bulletproof vests and the vests in the budget were knife-proof vests, which were needed more, so the vests they would receive from Ohio would not cause duplication. 

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING MOVED FOR APPROVAL FOR THE EQUIPMENT WITH A LETTER OF INTENT THAT IF THE DEPARTMENT RECEIVED GRANT FUNDING, THE REMAINING FUNDS WOULD BE PUT INTO RESERVE FOR REVERSION. 

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

            (Assemblyman Perkins was not present for the vote.)

 

Ms. Watson said funding for blood spill kits for custody areas had traditionally been provided by the Medical Division Budget Account 101-3706 with General Funds.  The department proposed moving the funding to the individual institution accounts.  The net effect on the General Fund would be zero and appeared to be a reasonable policy.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE. 

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

            BUDGET CLOSED.

 

            (Assemblyman Perkins was not present for the vote.)

 

********

 

Being no further testimony, Chairman Arberry adjourned the hearing at 3:51 p.m.

 

 

                                                                                    RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Kathryn Fosnaugh

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman

 

 

DATE: