SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

Kamala Carmazzi, Assistant Chief, Division of Emergency Management, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety

Elizabeth Ashby, Grants & Projects Analyst, Emergency Response Commission, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety

John Drew, Chief, Investigation Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety

William Souza, Captain, Highway Patrol Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety

Julie Butler, Chief and Highway Safety Coordinator, Office of Traffic Safety, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety

Bruce Mackey, Safety Education Officer, Program for Education of Bicycle Riders, Office of Traffic Safety, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety

Deputy Chief Ken Kiphart, Chairman, North Las Vegas, Advisory Board on Motorcycle Safety, Office of Traffic Safety, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety

Bryron Slobe, State Fire Marshall, State Fire Marshal Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety

DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND PUBLIC SAFETY

PROPOSED DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

Director’s Office-Public Safety – Budget Page PS-1 (Volume 3)

Budget Account 201-4706

Richard Kirkland, Director, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS) noted his appreciation for the opportunity to present DMV&PS budgets, deferring individual budgets to the respective chiefs and administrators. Mr. Kirkland prefaced his opening remarks by stating the Governor directed him to prepare a flat budget. The Governor defined this as “the 2001 budget, and to simply multiply that accordingly.” Mr. Kirkland said it was made clear to him DMV&PS was not to ask for more than was in the last biennium budget. Mr. Kirkland was pleased to say DMV&PS did submit a flat budget under the Governor’s terms. One last point Mr. Kirkland emphasized was his agency had no small amount of problems throughout the state in putting the submitted information together because of the time element, and the new DMV&PS computer system.

Public Safety-Administrative Services – Budget Page PS-7 (Volume 3)

Budget Account 201-4714

Dennis Colling, Chief, Administrative Services Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, indicated there are cross-issues among all the agencies’ budgets. Three of those issues are the following: first, the Public Safety Technology Division (PSTD) and its allocation among the various public safety divisions; second, the direct cost allocation from those expenses contained within the Administrative Services Division, which are more properly a part of the various divisions throughout the agency; and third, the Letter of Intent regarding cost allocation coming from the 1999 Legislative session presented to the department and an appropriation to fund an outside entity to develop a cost allocation system for Administrative Services Division, the Director’s Office and for Internal Affairs. Mr. Colling introduced his handout entitled, “Public Safety Testimony,” (Exhibit C) to be elaborated by Carol English, Assistant Chief, Administrative Services Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety. Ms. English gave a brief description of the cost allocation for services of PSTD, which charges the benefiting divisions for the three areas of services provided. This allocation was approved by the 1999 Legislature. Ms. English indicated the methodology approved from the 1999 session had not been changed for this biennium’s budget.

Ms. English explained the three areas of service PSTD provides are the following: support for the internal network used by all the public safety divisions; support for the state law enforcement and criminal history networks; and programming for new applications to develop the divisions to enable them to do their jobs in a more effective and efficient manner. Further, she explained, the highlighted budgets were the ones being heard this day.

Continuing, Ms. English indicated the distribution of direct costs from the Administrative Services Division was a transfer of costs from that division for purposes of cleaning up the budget pursuant to the direction by the 1999 Legislature. She said the current budget proposes to finish this process and direct-charge the budgets benefiting directly from those charges. These were in the areas of utility costs, contract services for security and janitorial services, telephone service, operating lease payments, and credit card costs. Ms. English pointed out this would include a cost transfer of over $4 million from the Administrative Services budget each year, and the net amount left in that budget, would be placed into the cost allocation.

E-801 Revenue Allocation – Page DMV-11, 19, 26, 34, 42, 48, 52, 59, 66, 74 and 79

E-801 Administrative Cost Allocation – Page PS-3, 11, 26, 39, 47, 55, 62, 69,76, 83, 93, 104, 111, 120, 126, 133, 144, 150, 156, 162, and 169

Ms. English discussed the administrative cost allocation reflected as E-801 in all the budgets. This cost allocation was accomplished in response to the Letter of Intent issued by the 1999 Legislature and the contract authority of $45,000 placed in the budget of the Administration Services Division. She indicated the three administrative budgets of the department are included in budgets of the director’s office, internal affairs, and administrative services division.

Ms. English stated the handout (Exhibit C) illustrates the impact of the cost allocation to each funding source, thereby meeting the agency’s objectives for doing a cost allocation. The administrative cost allocation served its intended purpose by the following: relieving the State Highway Fund of almost 100 percent of the funding of the administrative budgets when divisions supported by other sources of funds clearly benefit from the administrative services provided by those budgets; and reflecting the true costs of the programs, including centralized administrative support.

On the other hand, Ms. English indicated, the cost allocation had a downside, which is that fee and grant supported budgets may have fewer resources to carry out their program’s mandates. Additionally, she said, this provided fewer grants to give out to local jurisdictions. Ms. English reflected these three sets of decision units had been included in The Executive Budget. Ms. English informed the subcommittee there was insufficient time at the end of the budget cycle to revise those decision units after the Governor’s revisions were placed in The Executive Budget. Although DMV&PS submitted revised budgets needed to balance the Governor’s recommendations, Ms. English said she does not know how the Governor intends to proceed.

Assemblyman Marvel asked Ms. English when she expected to hear back from the Governor’s office, to which Ms. English could not answer the question. Sherry Blackwell, Budget Analyst, Budget Division, Department of Administration responded by indicating John P. Comeaux, Director, Department of Administration, was meeting with the Governor this date, and she hoped to have some issues settled and information to legislative staff at some later time. When Mr. Marvel asked whether significant changes would be made relative to the figures before the joint subcommittee, Ms. Blackwell responded there would be significant changes in the area of cost allocations.

Chairman Jacobsen instructed Ms. Blackwell to make the information available to the joint subcommittee and staff as soon as it was received.

Public Safety, Drug Commission – Budget Page PS-36 (Volume 3)

Budget Account 101-4704

Gary White, Administrator, Office of Criminal Justice Assistance, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, spoke regarding the drug commission’s budgets. Mr. White referred to the “State of Nevada Master Plan 2001-2002,” (Exhibit D. Original is on file in the Research Library) and gave a brief overview of the drug commission’s mission statement. He indicated The Executive Budget for the drug commission was $139,889. Mr. White then asked whether the joint subcommittee had any questions of him.

Senator O’Donnell asked Mr. White whether he was making any headway into the drug activities in Nevada. Mr. White responded since his agency’s program officer had come on board in April of 2000, the commission meetings have increased from one to three over the previous nine months. Additionally, he said, the sub-commission meetings have increased from two to seventeen, the commission by laws have been completed, a website has been established, and the commission has developed eight indicators of substance abuse in Nevada and completed the State Master Plan (Exhibit D). The State Master Plan was used as a resource for the Office of Criminal Justice (OCJ) assistance in preparation for their Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse (BADA) grants.

Senator O’Donnell asked Mr. White whether he could quantify how many pounds of methamphetamines or kilos of cocaine were off the streets because Mr. White met and developed a Master Plan and conducted a couple of meetings. Mr. White replied he could not answer the question.

John R. Johansen, Program Officer, Office of Criminal Justice Assistance, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, gave an overview of the history of the Commission of Substance Abuse Education, Prevention, Enforcement and Treatment, which was formed in 1989, and comprised of thirteen members. The legislative mandates indicated three appointees would represent law enforcement, parole and probation, and the judicial system; three appointees would represent education; three appointees would be managers of programs accredited by the state to treat persons who abuse drugs and alcohol; and four appointees would represent the general public. At least three of the commission members must be representatives of northern Nevada, three representatives of rural Nevada, and three representatives of southern Nevada.

Mr. Johansen explained the 1999 Legislative Session added to the commission the responsibility for coordination of services related to both mental health and substance abuse. Two voting members, one employed by BADA and one employed by the Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services, were also added to the commission, bringing the total number of voting members to 15.

Mr. Johansen continued by stating the State Master Plan is an overview of the status of substance abuse within the state, and reflects recommendations as to policies and procedures the commission determined were important to address, particularly as they relate to prevention and education.

In response to Chairman Jacobsen’s request to explain why the commission had not held its quarterly meetings, Mr. Johansen replied that was true, and clarified the commission was going through reorganization. Since February 2000, he said, the commission was on target to hold four quarterly meetings according to the by laws, meeting requirements for this fiscal year (FY). The subcommittees had been extremely active, he added, in part because of the support Mr. Johansen’s office had been supplying. He explained staff had conducted research and completed necessary documentation, providing the information the commission was expected to discuss.

Mr. Johansen indicated he could not speak to anytime in the commission’s history before early 2000, or to the reason the commission had not met on a regular basis.

Mr. Kirkland interjected the commission had a great deal of turnover, with positions being difficult to fill. Under such circumstances, it was difficult to maintain continuity of any organization or commission the joint subcommittee was asking for. Mr. Kirkland indicated his pleasure in having Mr. Johansen on board, as he was dedicated to this particular assignment.

In reply to Chairman Jacobsen on whether there was a solution to the turnover rate, Mr. Kirkland indicated the Governor had recommended DMV&PS receive a benefit and pay package comparable to local governments and industry.

Mr. Kirkland pointed out the State Master Plan gave information on many of the drug and alcohol statistics regarding juveniles and adults, but he was surprised the report did not provide the number of drug seizures in the state. Mr. Kirkland delineated the real value and function of OCJ is to be a central gathering point for this kind of data and to provide information and answers regarding controlled substances and alcohol to other state agencies.

Senator Jacobsen suggested it might be prudent, knowing the difficulty in finding competent people to serve on the commission, to have a list prepared with recommendations. Additionally, members of the Legislature should submit prospective candidates. Mr. Kirkland pointed out the Governor’s Steering Committee to Conduct a Fundamental Review of State Government (fundamental review) had taken Senator Jacobsen’s previous suggestion.

Mr. Parks asked the speaker to address the issue regarding $50,000 per annum allocation from BADA funding, which may not continue. Ms. English responded the BADA grant had not been included because information came in after the budget cycle was closed. She indicated the budget would be revised to include BADA funding for “this year” for one position and operating costs. It was Ms. English’s understanding there were some problems, but the BADA grant would fund this vital position. Otherwise, she declared, her agency would find some other way to fund that position.

Mr. Parks followed up by asking Ms. English if she had any other alternatives for funding this position should BADA funding not materialize. Ms. English answered by indicating the only fund she was aware of for funding the position would be from the General Fund, unless the joint subcommittee or Legislative Council Bureau (LCB) staff found alternative suggestions.

Mrs. Chowning commented she found this testimony very distressing. She stated the Legislature in the past spent approximately $130,000 to $140,000 on the drug prevention program. People live in fear when drug operations, particularly methamphetamine labs, threaten their neighborhoods, given its combustible nature. Mrs. Chowning indicated she saw nothing in the budget telling her this program should be continued. Additionally, she pointed out, there were no performance indicators in place, albeit this was a high priority of the Governor’s in the last session of the Legislature. Mrs. Chowning questioned why there were currently no recommendations for proposed legislation from the Governor’s office. She emphasized, again, the joint subcommittee deserves better indicators of progress before it decides to commit further funding, especially since the joint subcommittee did not know where the $130,000 to $140,000 was spent.

Mr. Kirkland agreed with Mrs. Chowning, but said he did not know what else his agency could do, since many of the speakers representing his agency had only been with DMV&PS less than five months. Mr. Kirkland stated, “I can not tell you what happened in the past.” Expounding on this area, Mr. Kirkland opined the work had not been accomplished, but the only good point was the money had not been expended because there was no one working the position. However, Mr. Kirkland indicated, Mr. Johansen has done a good job in the short amount of time he has been assigned the position.

Continuing, Mr. Kirkland responded that, if asked, he would say this program was important and should remain functioning; however, if the turnover continued, then “No, this program should be discontinued.” Should the program be discontinued, Mr. Kirkland indicated, the state would not have a single point of contact for statewide data because that kind of information is kept at the local level. He said that until such time as his agency gets the issue of employee continuity and history resolved, he does not see this problem changing.

Mrs. Chowning replied she believes the performance indicators should be revised to make them realistic. She agreed a data bank for such information was extremely important, and should be accomplished. She said the performance indicators should be revised accordingly.

Mr. Parks requested DMV&PS, given the importance and substantial funding of BADA, work with the budget office to resolve alternative funding to cover the cost of the position if it is not to be funded through BADA. Ms. English indicated she had worked with the budget office and the matter was in the hands of the Governor.

Public Safety, Emergency Management Division – Budget Page PS-49 (Volume 3)

Budget Account 101-3673

Frank Siracusa, Chief, Division of Emergency Management, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, gave an overview of the organization and mission statement. Mr. Siracusa emphasized his agency ensures state and local governments are prepared to respond to, and recover from, the effects of an emergency or disaster. One manner in which that would be accomplished is by the production this fiscal year of a new state comprehensive emergency management plan developed in concert with all state agencies. Regarding local governments, he said the agency provided planning assistance, delivered training, facilitated exercises, and provided technical and financial assistance so local governments were equipped the best they could be to respond to, and recover from, any emergency or disaster.

Mr. Siracusa indicated his agency’s base budget represents FY 2000 actuals, less equipment purchases, and one-time appropriations, as well as savings by virtue of discontinued federal programs. The agency’s maintenance budget includes adjustments for inflation and payroll and fringe benefits.

E-250 Eliminate Duplicate Effort – Page PS-52

Mr. Siracusa explained E-250, consolidates Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) programs, creates a new category for management of a new emergency management performance grant program, and eliminates previous categories. He clarified this is a consolidation of several FEMA programs into one FEMA program. He said his agency attempted to carry over the federal usage to the state budget to consolidate those programs and simplify the process.

E-300 Maximize Internet & Technology – Page PS-53

E-710 Replacement Equipment – Page P-53

E-711 Replacement Equipment – Page PS-53

Mr. Siracusa indicated E-300 module increases a Communications Specialist Program Officer I from part-time to a full-time. Additionally, he said E-710 replaces computers, routers, file servers and printers, restoring equipment within the agency’s state emergency operations center and to state emergency management staff. Module E-711 was explained to be for replacement of one printer and should have been included in module E-710.

E-720 New Equipment – Page PS-54

Mr. Siracusa stated these enhancement requests five new computers as a result of Emergency Operations Center (EOC) expansion. As part of the state’s comprehensive emergency management plan, his agency had identified new support functions and roles for state agencies, he said.

E-721 New Equipment – Page PS-54

Mr. Siracusa pointed out this module is for purchase of new teleconferencing equipment, which would allow his agency to interface between the Governor’s office in southern and northern Nevada and the United States Department of Energy.

Mr. Siracusa stated for the record, “All these enhancement modules, with the exception of the communications person which is a 50-50 cost share, are 100 percent federally funded.”

E-800 PSTD Cost Allocation – Page PS-54

E-801 Administrative Cost Allocation – Page PS-55

Module E-800 was explained as being for PSTD and E-801 for administrative costs to support the Director’s Office. Mr. Siracusa elaborated the cost allocations associated with these, at least the federal share, would have an impact on local governments and on money his agency would allocate to local governments.

Mr. Parks noted the consolidation of categories in this budget makes it very difficult to assess. He asked the speaker to give the joint subcommittee a better understanding as to the relationship between the Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) consolidation to the method of reporting the various categories of his agency’s state expenditures in one combined form.

Kamala Carmazzi, Assistant Chief, Division of Emergency Management, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety responded to Mr. Parks’ inquiry:

Categories 2, 3, and 4 represented a fraction of what was formerly known as the State and Local Exercise Annex (SLE 50) program. The remaining portions of that program supported category 01, which was personnel costs, as well as categories 26 and 88. Additionally, within budget account 3674, the bulk of that grant was passed through funding to local governments in category 07. Category 13, was in large part, the representation of the SLE 100 program. Within that category were also travel expenses, operating expenses, and so forth. Category 15 was the mitigation assistance program, hazard mitigation program within that large program, and also within that category we had travel and operating expenses. Category 32 was the disaster preparedness improvement program and that also housed travel and operating expenses.

Ms. Carmazzi indicated her agency is asking to consolidate those four different programs, now recognized as one program and known as Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG). Currently, Ms. Carmazzi said, the agency is managing EMPG over twelve budget categories. She said she was asked to simplify that process in the efforts of time and economic efficiency.

Mr. Parks responded to Ms. Carmazzi by pointing out this consolidation is a problem for the joint subcommittee. He elaborated the agency’s budget appears thrown together and does not allow the subcommittee to see details of planning, training and exercise expenses versus expenses for hazardous mitigation. He stated this form of budget accounting is a radical deviation from the budget preparation and method utilized by other state agencies. Mr. Parks said he does not have a problem with simplifying the grant part of the budget, but the allocations within the agency’s budget still need to be broken out and allocated by the historical line items.

Ms. Carmazzi countered that, at the federal level, the creation of the new EMPG program was for purposes of allowing each state to address the issues most critical within the state, respecting priorities and mission. In large part, Ms. Carmazzi said, the agency did that through communications with local governments. One year there may be a large emphasis on mitigation, as there is currently. Another year may prove to be an emphasis on weapons of mass destruction, planning and training as to floods, earthquakes, and so forth, she added. By placing the agency’s budget within categories, Ms. Carmazzi explained, the states might not be addressing those issues at the request of local governments in a given year.

Mr. Kirkland interjected that if the concern of the joint subcommittee is being able to see the agency’s specific allotments, the agency could present a specific delineation of what the money was spent for pursuant to the grant requirements. Mr. Kirkland explained the issue of flexibility is vital to this agency since the budget is locked in for two years. This results in a fairly significant difficulty in being able to adjust quickly, particularly in emergency management issues.

Mr. Marvel asked why the additional General Fund money is requested, to which Ms. Carmazzi responded there are the following contributing factors resulting in this increase: the request for a full-time position from a part-time position; and more significantly, the Letter of Intent regarding cost allocation addressed in E-800 and E-801. She said that because of the nature of the cost allocations and the funding provided to support those cost allocations, the agency’s EMPT program required a 50 percent match. She added that if the money is not forthcoming from the General Fund, the agency will not be able to meet the obligation of the cost allocation.

When asked by Mr. Marvel whether Ms. Carmazzi agreed with the cost allocation, she replied this is at the request of the Legislature. Mr. Kirkland restated this is a direction from the Legislature, which might be revisited by the Legislature for determination as to whether the goal is worth the cost. He said the goal is that the Legislature wants each individual element of government to pay for its own demand on the services. However, he stated that may be in direct conflict with legislative intent, which in this case is to maximize the amount of grant money distributed to local governments. By establishing the allocation of costs, he explained, the agency is actually reducing the amount of money to local governments to meet legislative needs. Responding to the question directly, Mr. Kirkland stated his agency does not agree with that element, or to taking money out of the local governments just so the agency can apply costs that have a cap on them.

Mr. Marvel asked the Chairman whether it was possible for staff to look into this issue, as it was troublesome for him.

Mrs. Chowning had some questions on the performance indicators, which in some cases show a 400 percent difference. Also, regarding decision units E-710, E-720 and E-721, Mrs. Chowning asked the agency to provide staff an explanation as to why so many computers and teleconferencing equipment items are requested.

Mr. Siracusa clarified the performance indicators were increased for FY 2000 to the agency’s actuals for FY 2000. He explained that the new FEMA programs came into play after the agency had first projected those indicators. Several programs came into play: e.g., Project Impact, domestic terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, the flood, and the Presidential declaration in Las Vegas in the summer of 1999, which required the agency to do extensive visits to local governments to conduct necessary measures to ensure life, safety and order. Mr. Siracusa explained that, in the past, mitigation had not been a big issue, but currently it is a big factor the agency is aggressively pursuing. A new school safety program instituted this calendar year may bring changes to the agency’s budget. All of these factors require the agency to be flexible as matters change, he added.

Mr. Kirkland reiterated a previous point regarding the agency’s need for flexibility as natural disasters occur, which events cannot be predicted.

Chairman Jacobsen indicated the importance of communications in the event of a disaster and wondered whether there is sufficient activity to support full-time communications. Mr. Siracusa replied in the affirmative, explaining the agency had a broad network of amateur and volunteer communication operators statewide. He said this is the backbone of his agency’s communications ability. He indicated the agency tried to maintain several modes of communication, especially since doing so offers alternate sites of emergency operations centers via videoconferencing, and establishes the vital link with the Department of Energy. More importantly, he noted, videoconferencing would allow the agency to deliver economic training for local governments from the rural communities.

Senator Jacobsen voiced several reservations about the agency’s request for teleconferencing equipment, particularly since LCB had four rooms of such equipment that could accommodate other state government agencies. With the above indicated explanation from Mr. Siracusa, Chairman Jacobsen indicated his explanation provided justification for the agency’s request for videoconferencing equipment.

Senator Jacobsen noted a visit he made to DMV&PS, during which he noticed quite a few computers being utilized, and said he wondered why the agency needs so many computers and what happens to the used equipment. Mr. Siracusa responded these computers were all federally funded, and considering the change in technology and sophisticated software applications, the agency tries to keep up with those advances. As far as additional computers, the agency’s state comprehensive emergency management plan necessitated greater roles and responsibilities from other state and local governments, which enlarged the need for faster computers. Mr. Siracusa was pleased to report all of the agencies in state government had a response and recovery role, and developed their own contingency plans, compelling the need for additional computers. He said the used computers are needed for the operators to work, and therefore provide those centers and local governments with computers they could not otherwise afford.

Emergency Management Assistance Program-Budget Page PS-57 (Volume 3)

Budget Account 101-3674

Mr. Siracusa continued with budget account 101-3674 of the Emergency Assistance Program, which proposes the elimination of this budget account through adjustments to “zero out” the categories. He said this is a result of the creation of category 07 in budget account 101-3673. He explained the consolidation of the FEMA programs at the federal level, make it no longer prudent to maintain an entire budget account for the management of a single category.

Emergency Response Commission-Budget Page PS-172 (Volume 3)

Budget Account 101-4729

Elizabeth Ashby, Grants & Projects Analyst, Emergency Response Commission, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, explained the base budget represents FY 2000 actuals, less equipment purchases and federal programs depending on availability of funding.

E-800 PSTD Cost Allocation – Page PS–174

E-801 Administrative Cost Allocation – Page PS-175

Ms. Ashby indicated the maintenance adjustments to the budget were mainly due to inflation, payroll and fringe benefits, and the only change is in the enhancements E-800 and E-801. She said these enhancements were for the public safety technology cost allocation and the administrative cost allocation, providing support for the director’s office and Administrative Services Division.

Mr. Kirkland interjected that the Governor’s fundamental review recommended a bill draft request (BDR) to move the State Emergency Response Commission, which would be discussed later in this session.

Public Safety, Division of Investigations – Budget Page PS-98 (Volume 3)

Budget Account 101-3743

John Drew, Chief, Investigation Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety presented the budget account 101-3743 handout (Exhibit E). He said this represents the agency’s general fund budget. He stated it represents 45 percent of the agency’s statewide narcotics enforcement program and includes the task force in Mesquite and Elko and partially funds the task force in Ely. The remainder of the budget, he informed, is non-narcotic enforcement programs, which primarily represents the agency’s investigative assistance provided to other law enforcement agencies and district attorneys throughout the state. Mr. Drew offered Exhibit F, reflecting the division’s arrest history by calendar year.

Mr. Drew clarified the non-narcotic enforcement program is most important to the rural communities. As those rural communities have acquired resources and training for their officers, they have utilized the Nevada Investigation Division (NDI) services less often for crime scene follow up and more often for complex historical analysis investigations and investigations involving officer misconduct or conflicts of interests. Additionally, Mr. Drew stated, the agency’s investigators are called upon by the Department of Prisons to assist in their death investigations, as well as by other agencies to review their unsolved crimes for a fresh perspective in developing investigative leads.

Mr. Drew indicated the narcotic side of the budget also funds narcotics enforcement activities in southern Nevada, primarily Las Vegas, comprised of a multi-agency narcotics task force with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, and other agencies. He said this task force is primarily designed for tracking down major narcotics traffickers or large organizations responsible for introducing large amounts of controlled substances

into the state. He also stated it looks at clandestine lab problems currently experienced in Las Vegas and surrounding areas. The multi-agency taskforce worked with the Nevada State Board of Pharmacy, determining the worst of those individuals diverting pharmaceutical controlled substances onto the streets, he added. Mr. Drew proceeded to offer illustrations in this area.

E-275 Working Environment & Wage – Page PS-101

Mr. Drew discussed the enhancements, which complied with the FY 2001 “times two” requested by the Governor. Mr. Drew explained E-275 is a request for additional office space within the building currently occupied by NDI. Mr. Drew stated:

Should space become available because of the tri-net task force increasing in size with additional personnel from the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) in Storey County, along with a part-time analyst from the Nevada National Guard, this would allow NDI to make renovations and increase office space size, picking up added rental payments.

E-276 Working Environment & Wage – Page PS-101

Mr. Drew indicated E-276 would be used primarily to assist NDI in tracking both federal and state seizures and forfeitures. The proceeds of these seizures and forfeitures take time to realize, because their release is hampered by delay in the judicial process. He said NDI found if they can dedicate someone to this function full-time, the agency will stay on top of these matters and give the necessary prod to district attorneys or United States attorneys’ offices to speed matters up.

E-277 Working Environment & Wage – Page PS-102

Mr. Drew pointed out E-277 removes the auto theft program from the NDI budget. He said this program is one of those an agency with limited amount of resources, manpower, and general funds, needs to consider eliminating as it prioritizes necessities and dissolves certain programs. He explained NDI focused on its priority of narcotics enforcement and providing investigative assistance, particularly to rural Nevada and those agencies not having the expertise.

Mr. Parks questioned what would happen in the absence of the Vehicle Theft Unit (VIPER) program with regards to its impact on NDI and other law enforcement agencies. Mr. Drew responded the elimination of this program would mean greater local law enforcement agency involvement. In the North, it would mean a reversion back to a local issue. Mr. Kirkland interjected that, prior to making this decision, he spoke with several major law enforcement executives in the South and advised them of the pending decision, asking the same question Mr. Parks asked. He said the various law enforcement officials assured Mr. Kirkland the elimination of this program would not have a tremendous impact, an impact, yes. However, he added, each law enforcement agency’s abilities to handle these types of problems in their respective communities is well established, particularly in the South. Mr. Kirkland added NDI would continue to offer assistance, if necessary.

Secondly, Mr. Kirkland noted, when talking to NDI staff, it was discovered NDI is not meeting the real performance indicators in terms of statewide apprehensions. NDI statistics reflected local governments were doing a far better job of addressing local auto theft issues. He reiterated, in terms of major transportation of automobiles interstate/intrastate activity, the statistics do not reflect NDI is meeting those performance indicators.

Senator Neal noticed NDI’s performance indicators reflected arrests in the auto industry and commercial vehicle theft arrests. Senator Neal asked where those occurred.

Mr. Drew explained “auto industry,” means investigators primarily participated in criminal investigations within the automobile industry, e.g., dealership licensing. VIPER, or auto theft, is categorized in the NDI indicators as vehicle theft. Mr. Drew did not possess the exact figures on where the auto thefts occurred and offered to provide those at a later date.

Senator Neal asked Mr. Drew for verification NDI does have some function in the VIPER program, to which Mr. Drew replied in the affirmative. Since the program is requested to be eliminated, Mr. Drew indicated his anticipation local governments would do their best with the resources available.

Senator Neal inquired about NDI’s 2,414 assists to other agencies during FY 2000. Mr. Drew explained this included “special investigation/intelligence unit,” which is a clearinghouse for interstate and intrastate contacts requesting assistance in the form of background information on witnesses or suspects and other similar data. He noted this number may include the number of time NDI provided information and support to law enforcement units regarding automobile thefts.

Senator Neal said he was reminded of the issue of the VIPER program in the last legislative session, during which there was considerable discussion about crossing jurisdictional lines and who is capable of working these cases. Specifically, he recollected testimony that local police departments and county sheriff offices could not investigate auto thefts, but NDI as a state agency could investigate them. Mr. Drew indicated his belief the Federal Bureau of Investigation would continue their participation in the task force in southern Nevada in the area of auto theft. He said that process would alleviate the jurisdictional issues, especially interstate theft. However, Mr. Drew assured the joint subcommittee NDI would provide assistance to any auto theft unit requesting support. In response to Senator Neal’s inquiry, Mr. Drew stated, if NDI is not budgeted for money in this area, the assistance would become another investigation funded as a non-narcotic case. Mr. Kirkland repeated NDI is not effective in this area, and it is a question of where to better use NDI’s resources.

Chairman Jacobsen requested Mr. Drew provide the number of auto thefts, seizures, and forfeitures in Nevada, where they occurred, and their dispositions. Chairman Jacobsen acknowledged he received an inquiry from the Civil Air Patrol regarding the number of airplanes that have been attached. Mr. Drew replied his agency would be happy to provide the information to the joint subcommittee. He recollected it had been some time since NDI had seized an aircraft. He believed a Cessna 210 had been seized four years earlier when NDI was working with U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency in Texas. He added NDI received a portion of the proceeds of the aircraft’s sale.

Mrs. Chowning indicated Senator Neal covered many of her concerns, but the joint subcommittee had previously discussed auto theft as a problem in southern Nevada and elsewhere. She believed decision unit E-277, which may cut $350,000, would have an impact and requested information in this area. She also voiced concern this would translate into more Nevada constituents’ automobiles not being recovered.

Chairman Jacobsen agreed with Mrs. Chowning, remembering these issues were explored thoroughly last session. The Chairman instructed LCB staff to contact all seventeen counties and retrieve local feedback from law enforcement agencies as to this program’s impact should elimination occur from NDI’s budget.

Senator O’Donnell elected to “cut to the chase,” asking Mr. Drew whether he was going to lay off any employees should the VIPER program be eliminated. Mr. Kirkland responded in the negative, indicating, “These were grant positions and would be rolled into vacant positions.” Senator O’Donnell restated his point that eliminating this program and $350,000 would necessitate augmentation from other sources. Mr. Drew responded, “No, the four positions will roll them into existing vacancies. So, you would still have a net reduction of four sworn positions.” Senator O’Donnell stated that funding currently existed for these positions and there would be a commensurate reduction in vacancy savings by virtue of employee vacancies where allocations had already been made. Mr. Drew stated his agreement with Senator O’Donnell’s narration.

Mr. Marvel asked how much money NDI had in its forfeiture account, to which Mr. Drew answered $960,000 including both federal and state forfeitures. He said NDI recommended expending $427,000 of that money for vehicles and purchase of 36 replacement computers.

E-285 Working Environment & Wage – Page PS-102

Mr. Drew continued with E-285, specialized training. He said this represents the type of training not normally provided by either Police Officers Standards and Training (P.O.S.T.) or by any other training division. Mr. Drew clarified this is advanced training for investigators in the areas of homicides, death investigations, officer-involved shootings, blood-splatter analysis, interview, and interrogation.

E-288 Working Environment & Wage – Page PS-102

E-710 Replacement Equipment – Page PS-103

Mr. Drew indicated module E-288 tracks E-710, which proposes leasing of the division’s vehicles through the state’s motor pool, instead of purchasing them outright. Mr. Drew pointed out this is the program the State Gaming Control Board utilizes. He said the motor pool assured him they could provide the variety of vehicles needed for their undercover purposes, while allowing the division the ability to rotate them to maintain mileage and even out use of the fleet.

Mr. Parks followed up by asking whether the vehicles would be permanently assigned to NDI or “cycled in-cycled out.” Mr. Drew answered that vehicles would be permanently assigned to the division for the life of the vehicle. Once the vehicles reach senior mileage and age, they will be rotated back to the motor pool and replaced with newer vehicles.

Chairman Jacobsen commented, for the benefit of the joint subcommittee, the Chief of the State Motor Pool, Frank Revell, should be asked to comment regarding Mr. Drew’s proposal when he appears before them.

E-289 Working Environment & Wage – Page PS-103

Mr. Drew continued with module E-289, which reflects the cost of removal and re-installment of radios, not only in the motor pool vehicles, but also in those 20 vehicles to be purchased with forfeiture funds.

E-720 New Equipment – Page PS-103

Module E-720 was explained by Mr. Drew to be for the purchase of emergency equipment for these 46 vehicles. Additionally, Mr. Drew proposes to purchase specialized equipment, being digital body transmitters, video cameras, and other tools used in undercover operation.

E-901 Transfer Field Training From 3775 – Page PS-104

Mr. Drew indicated the two E-800 and E-981 modules had already been discussed by the Administrative Services Division, leaving module E-901, which is a transfer back from the training division budget and relates to money used by NDI for in-service training of new investigators. This was explained to be specialty training of four weeks, which NDI provides to all new investigators with law enforcement experience, but having no prior investigative experience.

Mr. Marvel asked Mr. Drew whether NDI’s space is adequate, to which Mr. Drew replied the Tri-net Task Force housed at the Stewart complex, building 107, over the last year has developed some cramped quarters. He said this has been the case since Storey County personnel, the Nevada National Guard (who assigned a part-time analyst), and the full-time presence by U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency joined the task force. He said NDI will work with Dennis Colling and other tenants in the building to shift personnel around so more space can be provided for that task force.

Chairman Jacobsen asked Mr. Drew whether he had any conversations with Richard P. Clark, Executive Director, P.O.S.T. in regards to training. Mr. Drew responded NDI does specialized training, working with the training division and P.O.S.T. and offers instruction to any requesting agency.

Mr. Marvel asked Mr. Drew what kind of employee turnover his division experienced, to which he replied the investigative staff turnover is 5 to 7 positions annually. Generally speaking, he added, many NDI employees have done their time in uniform and are happy doing investigations.

Senator Neal questioned Mr. Drew about the type of controls on the $50,000, which is used to pay drug informants, for information, among other matters. Mr. Drew replied NDI has policies and procedures in place as to what is required of investigators for them to draw from these funds, and it requires supervisory approval. Depending on the amount of money involved, he added, it could require deputy chief approval. Also, he said, each officer unit balances its bi-fund account on a monthly basis with the bank and NDI headquarters. Mr. Drew indicated this allocation, for the purposes of undercover narcotics purchases, is vitally necessary. Many times in the area of sales and trafficking of a controlled substance, the purpose is to show an individual’s or organization’s involvement in dealing for a profit. The best way to do that is to meet undercover and have those types of conversations recorded, as that is NDI’s best evidence for conviction.

Mr. Drew explained the success of forfeitures after the purchasing side is over. Afterward, he said, an arrest/search warrant is issued and seizures of money and/or property occurs. He explained this is not reflected in budget 101-3743, but in budget account 101-4703, the forfeiture account, which shows the revenue stream.

Public Safety, Training Division – Budget Page PS-129 (Volume 3)

Budget Account 101-3775

William Souza, Captain, Highway Patrol Division, Department of Motor Vehicle and Public Safety, spoke about the activities and responsibilities of the training division, mainly aimed at newly hired, Department of Motor Vehicle and Public Safety (DMV&PS) police officers, and other sworn officers from state agencies around the state. Additionally, he said, the training division provides continuing education and education of specialized training for tenured police officers, and maintains training records repository for all DMV&PS police officers.

Mr. Souza identified the training division’s accomplishments as the shortening of training sessions, allowing a greater number of additional training sessions for category I and category II officers. He explained category I peace officers are the urban police officers, sheriff's deputies, or state troopers who have a broad spectrum of peace officer duties including arrests, traffic citations, accident investigations, and criminal investigations. Category II peace officers were described as officials such as court bailiffs, parole and probation officers, Gaming Control Board agents, arson investigators, school police, armed government security guards, and others who have arrest powers and may or may not carry a weapon.

Continuing, Mr. Souza said that in December 2000 the division commenced “in lieu” training for officers who have been P.O.S.T. certified in another state or previously certified in Nevada. The shortened training for these individuals is two and one-half weeks, allowing them to return to work quicker, and is held simultaneously with other classes. Additionally, he said, as part of these current classes, there is a mentor program in which senior class officers help with the junior class, and this is working well.

Mr. Souza emphasized the second purpose of the training division is to provide continuing education to officers. Currently, he said, the division provides training to develop instructors, training for background investigators, and field training, which is heavily utilized by Nevada Highway Patrol Division (NHP) and Division of Parole and Probation officers. The newest training program provides instruction in front-wheel drive, emergency vehicle operation, he added.

Mr. Souza continued by explaining the third responsibility of the division, which is the records-keeping system relating to anything about training conducted by the division. He said these records keep track of all officers previously trained or certified and allows the division to follow up their future training needs and requirements.

Mr. Souza continued by indicating the performance indicators in The Executive Budget are not accurate and offered Exhibit G entitled “Public Safety, Training Division, Budget Account 101-3775.” This exhibit reflects revised performance indicators for the division. Specifically, Mr. Souza pointed out paragraph 4 of the exhibit reflecting the overall evaluation of basic academy training by students for FY 2001, FY 2002, and FY 2003.

E-225 Reward More Efficient Operation – Page PS-131

Mr. Souza commenced with E-225, which is a request from the NHP to provide for advanced management training for command officers. He said another section provides supervisory training in the sworn ranks of NHP.

E-226 Reward More Efficient Operation – Page PS-131

Mr. Souza explained E-226 is for In-State Travel funds for purposes of bringing instructors in from southern and eastern Nevada into Carson City for training. In the past, budgetary constraints precluded the division from calling these instructors.

E-710 Replacement Equipment – Page PS-132

Mr. Sousa continued with E-710, which is replacement of antiquated equipment for the training facility, e.g., television sets and video cassette recorders, marker boards, projectors, and the like, he said.

E-720 New Equipment – Page PS-132

Mr. Sousa asked for new items, including a heavily padded suit used during baton training, other equipment used for training purposes, and six computers incorrectly itemized in E-720. He added these computers would provide training division employees at the facility with computers. He explained that six of the eight employees are currently using computers given them by other state agencies. Mr. Souza indicated he would like to return that equipment to the contributing agency and provide the division with its own computers.

E-888 One Shot Appropriations – Page PS-133

Mr. Souza indicated there are some high-ticket items in this budget, including new carpet, chairs, dressers and other furnishings, as well as one facsimile machine for the academy facility and dormitory, which had never been replaced and was built in 1984-1985. Mr. Souza said it is his understanding P.O.S.T. will be vacating its part of the academy building and taking their chairs. The chairs requested would replace those taken by P.O.S.T. personnel. Mr. Souza commented, “It would be nice to have a place to set our students when they entered class.”

Mrs. de Braga asked Mr. Souza whether the carpet and furnishing should be placed under the one-shot appropriations or under the operating budget. Ms. English replied these items are necessary for refurbishing the dormitory, and as a result of talks with the budget office, this item is determined to be a one-shot appropriation. The items are only budgeted in the first year of the biennium and by July 1, 2001 those orders would be sent out, she noted.

Mr. Marvel said he noted most of the training division’s money is from the State Highway Fund. He asked whether that money trained all the statewide agencies police officers, or just NHP. Mr. Souza indicated it is his understanding the training division was established through the 1999 Legislature and funded 62 percent by highway funds and 38 percent by general funding. Specifically, Mr. Souza stated the division trained any and all DMV&PS police officers and other statewide officers from these funds. When asked by Mr. Marvel whether Mr. Souza could train those officers with that type of money, Ms. English replied the predominant number of cadets going through the academy were NHP cadets. She said what the division proposes with this budget request is to fund the training division with highway funds, recognizing they are predominant, and other cadets would pay on a registration basis just as if they are being trained in an academy in a local jurisdiction. Ms. English continued by explaining the training division has trained officers from the Division of Parole and Probation from funds from that agency. She indicated what is not built into the current budget is the authority to receive these kinds of revenue.

Mr. Kirkland reinforced Ms. English’s testimony by stating that each of these agencies, with the exception of NHP, trains at the training division, and are dedicated employees, paid for by their agency. In response to a question from Chairman Jacobsen, Mr. Souza replied that it takes a category I cadet 14 weeks to get through basic training at the academy and costs about $17,310, which includes salary, room, and board.

Mr. Marvel questioned how the community college training compares with P.O.S.T. training. Mr. Souza explained the basic curriculum is about the same. When asked whether the training division pays tuition to the community colleges for trainees, Mr. Kirkland replied in the negative, explaining DMV&PS has a deal with them. Mr. Kirkland, after discussing the matter with Ms. English, corrected his testimony by stating there is a $350 package fee, which was easily offset by the $2,500 DMV&PS provided for room, board, per diem and travel. Mr. Kirkland added he would provide documentation to the subcommittee in the near future reflecting “hard, dollar cost-savings to the state for expanding these training programs to the local community colleges.”

Public Safety, Highway Safety Plan & Administration – Budget Page PS-139 (Volume 3) Budget Account 101-4688

Julie Butler, Chief and Highway Safety Coordinator, Office of Traffic Safety, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, presented her overview of the Office of Traffic Safety (OTS). Ms. Butler explained the mission of OTS is to reduce the number and severity of motor vehicle crashes, injuries, and fatalities on Nevada’s roadways. To accomplish this mission, Ms. Butler indicated, OTS provides federal grant awards for overtime, equipment, and training to state and local traffic agencies to develop and implement programs focusing on impaired drivers, police traffic enforcement, safety belt and child passenger safety seat use, public education and information campaigns, traffic records data collection analysis and management, and emergency medical services. She said OTS is further charged with developing necessary applications for federal highway money and providing required demonstrations that federal money will be matched with state money.

Ms. Butler further explained such federal funds are appropriated by Congress at or near the beginning of each federal fiscal year and the appropriation is based 75 percent on population and 25 percent on highway mileage in each state. Additionally, she said, OTS receives funding under various federal highway safety incentive programs based on the state’s ability to meet specific eligibility requirements.

Ms. Butler pointed out the annual appropriation funds the operation of OTS, and the balance of funds is distributed to local law enforcement agencies and private nonprofit businesses through the office’s annual grant cycle. She said these agencies are awarded grants based on the merit of their proposals to mitigate safety problems in their jurisdiction.

Ms. Butler distributed a handout entitled, “New Performance Indicators-B/A 4688” (Exhibit H), and indicated it replaces performance indicators in The Executive Budget. Additionally, she said, the next handout is an organizational chart (Exhibit I), which includes information regarding OTS projects for FY 2001, expenditures for FY 2000 and the most recent OTS newsletter.

Continuing, Ms. Butler said, OTS plans to fund 59 projects and 17 mini-grants. The actual amounts to be awarded these agencies would vary based on Congress’ “tweaking” the amount of money distributed. Also, Ms. Butler indicated, the OTS appropriation came in at less than anticipated because of nationwide cuts. One of the factors impacting Nevada was the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) road mileage, which could not be counted in public road mileage.

Regarding the organizational chain of command, Ms. Butler indicated her immediate supervisor is Deputy Director David Kieckbusch, although as the Governor’s highway safety representative, Mr. Kirkland actually approves grant applications to the federal government. Ms. Butler indicated in the past year OTS had a 50 percent turnover in the 8 authorized positions, resulting in a shortfall of manpower to manage existing grants, respond to inquires, and apply for new funding opportunities. Currently, Ms. Butler indicated, she is recruiting 2 new Grants and Project Analyst II positions, and hopefully she would have these positions filled within the next month.

Ms. Butler pointed out OTS’s most recent accomplishments include hosting the annual Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) conference in the previous year in Las Vegas. She explained FARS to be a national database that uniformly tracks and gathers data regarding fatal motor vehicle accidents. She said each state has a minimum of one FARS analyst, and OTS’s analyst received an award at the September 2000 conference for excellence in reporting to FARS. Additionally, she

added, that analyst has been invited to serve on a national committee to examine ways to improve the FARS system.

Another success indicated by Ms. Butler, is Nevada recently qualified for an additional $780,800 under the Section 157 Incentive Grant Program because OTS’s 2000 seat belt usage rate of 78.5 percent exceeds the national average of 68 percent. She said this is particularly noteworthy because Nevada’s seat belt law is a secondary offense, meaning an officer could not stop a driver merely for failure to use a seat belt. OTS agreed with Nevada Department of Transportation to split these proceeds 50-50, she added.

Continuing, Ms. Butler added Nevada qualified for second year funding under the Section 157 Innovative Grant Program for programs to increase seat belt usage in the state. OTS received $288,130, which will be used toward OTS’s Joining Forces Program that encourages all law enforcement agencies to work together to enforce seat belt laws and apprehend drunk-while-driving offenders.

For FY 2002, Ms. Butler indicated the budget account reflects $882,205 and for FY 2003 the budget is $854,004. OTS submitted requests to revise the budget, which has not been approved. Ms. Butler said OTS’s performance indicators (Exhibit H) reflects they are “proposed” indicators, as she has not received approval from the Governor’s Office or the Legislature to adopt them. Ms. Butler indicated her preference is to delete the current performance indicators shown in The Executive Budget and use the new, proposed indicators, which tie directly into OTS’s highway safety plan and annual evaluation report, factors the federal government rates her office on.

E-275 Working Environment & Wage – Page PS-142

Ms. Butler said E-275, representing $47,458 for FY 2002, $57,450 for FY 2003, adds an additional Grants and Projects Analyst II position. She noted this would be 100 percent funded out of existing federal funds. The addition of this position would allow OTS staff to pursue new sources of funding in excess of the position’s cost. Over the past four fiscal years, the number of grants managed per Grants and Projects Analyst grew from 20 in FY 1997 to 36 in FY 2000. She pointed out the average over the same period was 29 grants per analyst. Because of significant increases in workload, she said, OTS attempted to assess sub-grantees’ satisfaction with the services OTS provided to them last May. The survey revealed 71 percent would like more help from OTS in developing innovative programs; 50 percent would like more direct contact with OTS; 53 percent would like greater instruction from OTS in grant writing; and 53 percent would like greater assistance from OTS in program implementation.

Ms. Butler stated she started with OTS in October 2000, and commenced analyzing where staff time is expended. On an annual basis, OTS staff spent over half of its time managing current programs, responding to telephone inquiries, doing on-site visits, and processing reports and financial claims, rather than being in the field teaching classes and being visible to the public. This was diametrically opposed to what survey respondents stated they wanted, which was greater direct assistance from OTS. Ms. Butler explained OTS is requesting the position to help the office research additional federal and private funding opportunities, develop and write applications, develop and implement new programs, and conduct assessments and grant writing throughout the state.

Mrs. Chowning noted 37 percent of federal 402 funding passed through to local governments, instead of the required 40 percent. She said with the new position the joint subcommittee would require indication as to how to make sure more money from federal 402 funding is passed through to local programs.

Ms. Butler responded OTS is required by federal law to distribute to local governments a minimum 40 percent of the funding received. In actuality, Ms. Butler indicated, this figure was much higher. For example, in FY 2001, OTS was looking at passing 62 percent of the funding received to local governments.

Senator O’Donnell asked about the status of the Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety Program (BSP), and the amount of finances for that program. The Senator remembered OTS had a great advertising program a few years ago, and the funding was cut back two years ago. He said there appears to be few, if any, advertisements or public service announcements regarding pedestrian safety. He said this is important as pedestrian fatalities in Clark County have risen. Senator O’Donnell said he believes there to be a direct correlation between the advertising and education in this area, or lack thereof, and the rising rate of pedestrian fatalities.

Ms. Butler replied OTS contracted last year with a public relations firm, Deen & Black, for $350,000. She said part of that money is being used for public service announcements specifically addressing pedestrian safety. Thus far, she pointed out, OTS has produced two public safety announcements. Ms. Butler informed the joint subcommittee she had written letters to media urging them to play those public service announcements. She said her understanding is the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations have changed such that media need not have a percentage of airtime taken up with public service announcements. She indicated that left OTS begging for playtime for these announcements.

Senator O’Donnell asked about the amount in budget account 101-4689, to which Ms. English replied there was error in that account. The reserve account at the end of the second year of the biennium shows a deficit in the Governor’s recommended budget. Ms. English interjected that to be one of the items to be discussed with the Governor. Ms. English explained:

The base budget from FY 2000 included some expenditure that was from a one-time transfer from the Department of Transportation. Those funds were moved over to the Bicycle and Pedestrian budget. The final expenditure of that amount was included in FY 2000, so there are no more of those funds to be expended in the future. So we really needed to reduce those grants that went out to local jurisdictions and take them out of the budget going forward, and that did not happen.

Senator O’Donnell instructed the problem of lack of funding “needed to be fixed.” Senator O’Donnell said he felt pedestrian traffic safety is very important to tourism, and believes there to be a direct correlation between the money expended in advertising and the number of lives saved in Clark County.

Ms. Butler responded by acknowledging that in the past, OTS was prohibited by federal funding guidelines for purchasing advertising. That restriction has been temporary lifted, and now OTS would be free to explore advertising further.

Chairman Jacobsen joined Senator O’Donnell, recollecting that during last session considerable discussion was held on the lives lost in Clark County from pedestrian fatalities.

E-350 Service At Level Closest to People – Page PS-142

Ms. Butler continued with E-350 requesting approval to continue the federally funded traffic records manager position and operating costs approved by the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) on February 2, 2000. She said OTS qualified for first and second year federal funding for highway safety data improvements to implement the recommendations for the traffic records system in the 1995 strategic plan. This grant was to build a comprehensive and centralized system for traffic records. Ms. Butler explained, currently several state agencies collect data on traffic records, but no one agency has the “full picture.” Additionally, she said, local jurisdictions collect data on traffic accident records, and the statistics associated with that, but there is no one source having all information related to traffic citations, accidents and arrests. This grant is an attempt by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to assist OTS with the project. OTS applied for the third and fourth years of funding and estimated that to be $150,000 annually. The reason this is an enhancement is that OTS was not guaranteed the agency would receive the funding. Ms. Butler stated unused funding would be balanced forward from year to year, and if federal funding is not approved, the position would sunset.

E-351 Service At Level Closet to People – Page PS-143

Ms. Butler explained E-351 is an enhancement requesting $4,000 in each year of the biennium to renew the contract for positions of child passenger safety seat technician instructors. She said Nevada law requires the use of an approved child restraint for all children under the age of five years and under 40 pounds when riding in passenger vehicles. Ms. Butler said statewide surveys indicate the use of such child passenger safety seats are used only 44 percent of the time. Furthermore, during recent courtesy child seat checkpoints in various communities statewide, only 3 percent of those seats were installed correctly. Training and education by OTS at the local level is imperative, she stated.

Mr. Parks questioned what the amount of $4,000 would purchase, to which Ms. Butler replied the money would re-establish the costs necessary to pay the certified child safety seat technician instructors to train the inspectors who, in turn, would go into the local communities. It is a train-the-trainer program, she added.

E-710 Replacement Equipment – Page PS-143

E-805 Major Reclassifications – Page PS-144

Ms. Butler explained E-710 is a request for $9,578 in FY 2002 and $7,864 in FY 2003 to replace four computers and two printers. In E-805, OTS presented a request for funds in the amount of $10,501 in FY 2002 and $9,647 in FY 2003 to upgrade a Program Assistant II (PA II) to a Program Assistant III (PA III), and to upgrade a Program Assistant III to a Program Assistant IV.

Currently, personnel are conducting desk audits of these positions to see if these positions warrant reclassification. The PA II has been taking on duties of the PA III, in order to free up her time to assist the grants and projects analyst staff administer, and the reclassification reflected increase of duties for both positions.

Chairman Jacobsen asked Ms. Butler where she believes OTS should be placed in the proposed reorganization, under the proposed Department of Motor Vehicles or the proposed Department of Public Safety. Ms. Butler replied that decision is for the Governor to decide.

Senator O’Donnell asked whether anyone was present from the Budget Division, and whether that person had any answers from the Governor as to where OTS belongs. Although a representative from the Budget Division was present, Mr. Kirkland answered the question, stating the fundamental review outlined the Governor’s bill draft requests on these issues and his recommendations. He said the short answer is OTS would stay with PS.

Senator Jacobsen’s last question of Ms. Butler was whether Nevada’s federal funds were in any jeopardy, to which she responded in the negative.

Public Safety, Bicycle Safety Program – Budget Page PS-147 (Volume 3)

Budget Account 201-4689

Julie Butler, Chief and Highway Safety Coordinator, Office of Traffic Safety, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, presented a quick overview of this program. She said the BSP and this budget account were established in 1991 to educate the public, especially elementary-aged school children, about the interaction between motor vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. She explained this budget account was funded through fees on new and renewed drivers’ licenses, and it provides grant funding to local governmental entities, including school districts, for carrying out the program for safety education.

Ms. Butler indicated, as Senator O’Donnell pointed out, there is a problem with pedestrian safety, as well as bicycle fatalities in Nevada. This program is an attempt to address that issue, she noted. Ms. Butler indicated there were errors in this budget, which would be corrected in the near future. She said the performance indicators reflected BSP had met, or exceeded, the performance indicators. BSP is not asking for any new programs for this biennium, but for enhancements. The first enhancement is to transfer $2,725 in FY 2002 and FY 2003 from reserve to provide for additional in-state travel to monitor grants and present bicycle and pedestrian safety classes. This would allow greater on-site monitoring. She said E-710 requests replacement equipment to replace the agency’s truck.

Mrs. Chowning inquired whether the outcome measures would be reflected in the proposed performance indicators, e.g., the number of bicycle deaths averted. If not, Mrs. Chowning requested Ms. Butler include those figures in the performance indicators. Also, Mrs. Chowning inquired whether BSP assisted low-income families receive bicycle helmets. Ms. Butler replied she is not sure how to measure the number of deaths averted. As to bicycle helmets, she said this is a component of the bicycle education program.

Bruce Mackey, Safety Education Officer, Program for Education of Bicycle Riders, Office of Traffic Safety, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, responded further to Mrs. Chowning’s inquiry, stating there was a significant number of bicycle helmets distributed through local agencies to school children, as well as to low-income families.

Mr. Beers observed this budget account has a negative balance forward in FY 2001 and FY 2002, which requires correction before the joint subcommittee can approve it. Ms. English replied her office would be correcting those erroneous figures.

Senator O’Donnell suggested advertising would be effective in areas of bus stops, where people are continuously changing buses and darting out into highway structures. Ms. Butler responded the program was doing just that, through a grant provided to University Medical Center for $10,378, in which a component is advertisement in bus stop shelters.

Public Safety, Motorcycle Safety Program – Budget Page PS-152 (Volume 3)

Budget Account 201-4691

Julie Butler, Chief and Highway Safety Coordinator, Office of Traffic Safety, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, presented a quick overview of this program, which educates motorcycle riders on how to ride safer. The performance indicators for the Motorcycle Safety Program have been met, or were exceeded, in all categories. Ms. Butler indicated that late yesterday it was discovered there are errors in this budget, which will be corrected and resubmitted to the subcommittee.

Senator Jacobsen asked whether the Motorcycle Safety Program has sufficient space, to which Deputy Chief Ken Kiphart, Chairman, North Las Vegas, Advisory Board on Motorcycle Safety, Office of Traffic Safety, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, responded space is a problem. He said training takes a great deal of real estate, and the program needs an area about 2 feet by 300 feet of unobstructed asphalt. Community colleges did provide classes and Mr. Kiphart indicated he tried working with state agencies to find parking lots and training areas.

Mrs. Chowning observed there to be a proposal to increase fees and remembered the Governor wanted no increase in fees. Mrs. Chowning requested Mr. Kiphart provide the joint subcommittee with justification for this increase and how much the increase would propose to generate.

Ms. English responded decision unit E-350 requires correction and serious reflection. She described there to be motorcycle safety demographics, which considered an increase in fees, as more motorcycles were being registered. However, Ms. English indicated there would be no fee increase.

Senator O’Donnell commented on user fees:

User fees were designed to protect the rest of the public. When a fee was produced on motorcycles, it was for the impact motorcycles have on the community. We do an impact fee on bicycles for the impact they have on the community. You essentially protect the rest of the community from having to subsidize the bicycles, and the motorcycles, and every other agency in this state that has a user based fee. Fees are not bad. It is better to have the person applying for the program to pay for the fee, then to take the rest of the community and make them subsidize those fees by not raising any. So, just a word of concern, fees are not a bad thing, but can be good thing in a protection mode for the public.

Mr. Kirkland closed this area by commenting there are significant funds in reserve in this budget account; however, he said he believed the issue of increasing user fees may need to be addressed in two years. Mr. Kirkland further complimented the state’s motorcycle training program as being one of the finest in the nation. The statistics were staggering in the effectiveness of the program.

Chairman Jacobsen instructed staff to schedule a time for hearing from motorcycle enthusiasts and the general public who might want to testify regarding the effectiveness of the Motorcycle Safety Program.

Public Safety, Fire Marshal – Budget Page PS-158 (Volume 3)

Budget Account 101-3816

Bryron Slobe, State Fire Marshall, State Fire Marshal Division (SFMD), Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, spoke on these budget accounts.

Mr. Slobe commenced with budget account 101-3816, and indicated SFMD had 6 inspectors who completed 679 rural inspections, 271 in Clark County, 89 in Washoe County, and 78 in Carson City. Regarding fire investigations, SFMD conducted 150 rural fire investigations statewide. SFMD generated $919,283, based upon a fee-based budget, which collects fees to help the office continue. Out of that $919,283, Clark County generated $557,946, Washoe County generated $144,824, and the other counties combined to make up the balance of $216,513.

Mr. Slobe brought to the joint subcommittee’s attention that there are approximately 29,000 buildings needing inspection in Nevada that fall under the SFMD’s jurisdiction. These buildings are licensed facilities, schools, university buildings, businesses, Nevada Department of Transportation buildings, and other state buildings. Approximately 2,000 of those buildings are in Clark County, another 1,000 are in Washoe County, and the balance is in rural Nevada. Mr. Slobe emphasized those inspections were difficult, if not impossible, to accomplish with only six inspectors. He indicated: “Six people can only do so much, and I believe the joint subcommittee should scrutinize the SFMD and their capabilities.”

Mr. Slobe indicated SFMD prioritized inspection of these premises, working on schools first, and then down the line, by request or complaint. Mr. Slobe stated when he commenced his employment with SFMD in 1984, the SFMD stayed out of Clark and Washoe County. Those counties had sufficient personnel to conduct inspections. At that time, SFMD’s emphasis was inspection of buildings for fire-line safety in the rural communities. Today, SFMD has changed its emphasis from inspection to revenue collection. He stated:

Yes, revenue assists in running the office, but the division is not protecting the people we are paid to protect out in the rural communities. I do not know what the solution is. More people. That would certainly help, but we do not have the budget to do that with more people. We have to collect more revenue. So, I am looking for a solution. I need some help.

Mr. Kirkland interjected Mr. Slobe had not had the opportunity to look at the Governor’s fundamental review. He said that review addresses the issue of whether SFMD should be conducting inspections in Clark and Washoe County.

Chairman Jacobsen recommended to Mr. Slobe that it would be useful for the joint subcommittee to have a chart indicating how many paying departments existed, where they are located, and how many volunteer departments there are and where they are located, for an overall picture. Chairman Jacobsen indicated his knowledge of the SFMD responsibility and necessity, especially to the rural areas. Possibly, he reflected, SFMD needs divestment of its responsibility to local governments capable of providing their own fire inspections.

Hazardous Materials Training Center – Budget Page PS-165 (Volume 3)

Budget Account 101-3834

Mr. Slobe continued with budget account 101-3834, indicating for FY 2000, the Hazardous Material Training Center (HMTC), has two deputies, with another being recently hired. In rural areas, HMTC conducted 452 hazardous materials (hazmat) permit inspections. In the urban areas, mainly in Clark County and Washoe County, HMTC conducted 1,632 inspections, for a total of 2,084 inspections.

Mr. Slobe indicated HMTC had 2,094 permitted facilities that forwarded payment for inspection to HMTC, which had not yet been inspected. Currently, HMTC had four inspectors, and was allowed five inspectors by past approval of the Legislature. However, he said, HMTC needs to watch the revenue coming in, which supports fire service training. HMTC brought in $500,000 last year, he said. Mr. Slobe said that last year HMTC trained 2085 firefighters, and 1,371 individuals received hazmat training. HMTC contracted 131 classes out and SFMD with five instructors who taught 146 classes, for a total of 3,456 firefighters and students in hazmat and firefighter training.

Mr. Kirkland’s closing remarks included his pledge to respond to the joint subcommittee’s requests within the next few days, with additional feedback as to the issues being resolved between the Budget Division and Governor’s office.

Senator Neal commented to Mr. Kirkland that he received complaints regarding profiling in southern Nevada. The Senator asked whether Mr. Kirkland wants those complaints to be forwarded directly to him. Mr. Kirkland replied in the affirmative, stating when he came to office, profiling was the first issue he addressed.

Chairman Jacobsen stated to Richard Clark, Executive Director of Peace Officers Standards & Training Commission (P.O.S.T.), that his commission’s budget account 101-3774, would be postponed to a later date. Senator Jacobsen prefaced his remarks to Mr. Clark by adding P.O.S.T. is now a stand-alone agency. Chairman Jacobsen advised that, at the time of the rescheduling hearing, Mr. Clark might do well to include and address training into his agency’s budget.

Chairman Jacobsen adjourned the hearing at 10:54 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Liz Root

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen, Chairman

DATE:

Assemblyman David R. Parks, Chairman

DATE: