SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE

ON PUBLIC SAFETY/NATURAL RESOURCES/TRANSPORTATION

OF THE

SENATE committee on Finance

AND THE

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

Seventy-First Session

March 29, 2001

The Joint Subcommittee on Public Safety/Natural Resources/Transportation of the Senate Committee on Finance and the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means was called to order by Chairman Lawrence E. Jacobsen at 8:05 a.m., on Thursday, March 29, 2001, in Room 2134 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

SENATE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen, Chairman

Senator William R. O’Donnell

Senator Joseph M. Neal Jr.

ASSEMBLY MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. David R. Parks, Chairman

Mr. Bob Beers

Mrs. Vonne S. Chowning

Mrs. Marcia de Braga

Mr. John W. Marvel

Mr. Richard D. Perkins

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Gary L. Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst

Brian M. Burke, Senior Program Analyst

Jim Rodriguez, Program Analyst

Mark Krmpotic, Program Analyst

Bob Williston, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Juan Palma, Executive Director, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

Pam Drum-Dupre, Environmental Information Coordinator, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

Gordon Barrett, Chief of Long-Range Planning, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

R. Michael Turnipseed, P.E., Director, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources

Richard P. Clark, Executive Director, Peace Officers’ Standards and Training Commission

Mike Nolan, Principal Budget Analyst, Budget Division, Department of Administration

STATE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency – Budget Page CNR-162 (Volume 3)

Budget Account 101-4204

Juan Palma, Executive Director, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), said he has a concern for the value added to Lake Tahoe by the activities of his agency. One of the values added, he pointed out, is that the agency is emerging into the realm of environmental improvement programs (EIP). He stated that, in order to really protect and enhance the waters of Lake Tahoe, the TRPA needs to play a role in the implementation of EIP projects that are good for Lake Tahoe.

Mr. Palma said many EIP projects have been achieved over the last year. He said one such project the TRPA is very proud of is the storm water project in the casino area because there was so much collaboration involved. He explained that all the water that collects in that area is now channeled through an underground filter and further distributed to the golf course and several ponds before it percolates into the water table and runs into Lake Tahoe. That project, he pointed out, cost $10 million and involved the state, casinos, TRPA, and many others.

Mr. Palma said that to achieve these kinds of implementations the TRPA needs help from the Legislature. He said institutional capacity needs to be built within the TRPA to have the right kinds of skill sets to deal with those kinds of projects. He added that the organizations that do business in Lake Tahoe also need to have the skill sets. These, he explained, are the kinds of skills that implement these kinds of projects on the landscape itself.

The second thing Mr. Palma mentioned is that the TRPA needs to continue to facilitate the partnerships that have been building in Lake Tahoe for a number of years. These partnerships, he explained, need to be at all levels. He added that there is also the challenge of recruiting and retaining qualified personnel at TRPA. He pointed out that they are not as competitive as they could be regarding salaries and added that it is also very expensive to live at Lake Tahoe. This, he said, is the reason for the challenge in recruiting qualified personnel.

Mr. Palma stated that the TRPA must be more business like when it does business. This would include using the Internet to be able to access the TRPA permit process, he added.

Lastly, Mr. Palma said the TRPA needs to be ready for the next 20-year regional plan. He stated that the last 20‑year plan is almost up. He pointed out that they now have the chance to set the stage for the next 20 years. He said that means they have all the players around the table so they can transition from the last 20 years into the next 20 years with a good balance of the economy and the environment.

Mr. Palma said the TRPA is asking for a few things this year. He said they are asking for 1 Senior Finance Analyst. He noted that the TRPA has grown from having a dozen contracts and grants to now having 60 grants and contracts. He stated that they need to get a handle on the grants, contracts, and finances. He said they need to have “clean financial records” to make decisions and move along. He pointed out that a Senior Finance Analyst would help them do that.

Mr. Palma said the second thing they are asking for is 1 Senior Planner and 1 Planning Technician. He explained that permit requests are not slowing down, even though the economy is slowing down at the national level. These permit requests are for homes, buildings, and other kinds of projects. He stated that the TRPA does not foresee that process slowing down in the near future. He pointed out that, although they have authorized the counties and cities to the greatest degree possible to issue certain permits, there are still others who go to TRPA. He stated that the processes for handling both the building permits and the EIP projects need to be speeded up.

Mr. Palma said the TRPA is asking for 1 Associate Planner to get a handle on some of the forest health issues at Lake Tahoe. He said they need to continue to work to have forest health projects and to reduce the risk of fire hazards in the Lake Tahoe Basin. That, he said, will require that they take a more active leadership role in how that is accomplished. He noted that they currently have only one individual to work on that, and they believe they need two to be able to go out and help property owners, the U.S. Forest Service, and others who are working hard to implement forest projects.

Mr. Palma said these four positions would help the TRPA move forward into the next decade.

Mr. Palma added that the TRPA is also asking for salary comparability adjustment. He pointed out that they used a private company to do a study of their salaries, and he said they are comfortable that this will bring them more into the level of competition with the outside marketplace as they try to recruit individuals to work for TRPA.

Mr. Palma said that even with this full funding request, the TRPA will start getting behind in salaries compared to the state of Nevada. The reason, he explained, is that the TRPA is not considered a state agency either in California or in Nevada. He pointed out that when California gets a cost of living adjustment (COLA) the TRPA does not. This, he explained, means that they get behind year after year.

Mr. Palma stated that their threshold studies are designed to get the agency ready for the next 20-year regional plan. He expressed concern that, although there is a lot of scientific data available on Lake Tahoe, TRPA needs to be clear on the kind of questions that will be asked for the next 20 years. That, he pointed out, will be very critical. He explained that they have established 9 thresholds, and they expect to be examined on their progress toward each one.

Mr. Palma said that in the second year of the biennium the agency is asking for $131,000 for 3 additional positions in the engineering fields. He said they feel they need to get ready with more engineering skills, and are asking for that in the second year of the biennium. Some contracts, he pointed out, will be involved in that as well.

Mr. Palma said there has been some discussion about the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS) funds and how much is coming from the General Fund and how much is coming from DMV&PS. He explained that he cannot answer that question, though others present could.

Mr. Palma stated that the TRPA is working hard to find a process to address its fines and forfeitures. He explained that in the past the agency has used much of that money for salaries within the organization. He mentioned concern has been expressed regarding the need to avoid that conflict of interests. He said the agency will outline a plan on how they will use the fines and forfeitures in the future.

Senator Jacobsen pointed out that it is somewhat difficult for the committee, since it puts a lot of emphasis on performance indicators, to get the “feel of the picture.” He indicated that he did not originally support the TRPA, but over the years has come to realize the agency is needed. He suggested that the TRPA begin to develop performance indicators, or, if nothing else, a scrap book the committee can review to see the projects. He noted the committee does not have the opportunity to go there and see for themselves.

Senator Jacobsen said the questions he hears most often are about lake clarity. Mr. Palma said that is very important. He related that the scientists have said the clarity has declined 2 feet in this year.

Mr. Palma said that a legitimate question is, “If we invest all this money in Lake Tahoe, why don’t we see the improvements of the water clarity going up?” He explained that if Lake Tahoe were to be emptied it would take 800 years to fill it back up again. This, he said, means that what we do today takes a long time to take effect. He said that to some degree “we have to rely on faith” that what is being done is the right thing to do. The benefits, he explained, will be realized in the next generation.

Senator Jacobsen noted that much has been accomplished over the years to take the effluent and the garbage out of the basin. He said he used to take a drink from the lake when he wanted, but that cannot be done any more. He agreed that the challenge today is to plan.

Assemblyman Marvel asked what the three greatest pollutants of the lake are. Mr. Palma said there are several, but erosion is one. The second, he noted, is air pollution. Some of that pollution, he explained, comes from within the basin, but some comes over the hill from the Sacramento area. He explained that the prevailing westerly winds prevent Reno pollution from going to the lake area.

Mr. Palma said the third source of pollution is vehicles. He said the agency is working hard to address the vehicle transportation issues in the Lake Tahoe basin.

Mr. Marvel asked how the Sacramento problem may be mitigated. Mr. Palma said some problems are being worked on in the Sacramento valley. He pointed out that, in that respect, there are things over which the agency will have influence and others over which it will have no influence.

Mr. Marvel asked whether the California Legislature is doing anything in this respect. Mr. Palma said that he is not aware they are, but he stated some individuals are making the California Legislature aware that pollution from the Sacramento Valley is a problem for Lake Tahoe.

Senator Jacobsen asked which of the three problems is the greatest priority. He said it would help the committee to decide what its priorities are. He noted that the committee should have gotten a report from the interim committee to see what its activity has been over the last 2 years. He said that he found, serving as chairman of that committee, that a purpose was served. He also asked what the public acceptance of the agency appears to be on the Nevada side. He noted that years ago there seemed to be a lot of controversy.

Mr. Palma mentioned, as an example, a recent meeting of the Incline Village-Crystal Bay Chamber of Commerce. He said he had taken his staff and had good conversation with all the business people of the area. He described it as a very warm reception that he received. He said they had gone to the Incline Village Board of Realtors as well, and so far he has not detected any animosity. He indicated that they are working closely together on the questions and issues that need to be resolved.

Senator Jacobsen indicated that he has toured the schools and is in frequent contact with the fire service in the area, and he claimed not to detect the animosity there used to be.

Mr. Marvel asked whether Nevada has begun to receive the financial benefits of the federal commitment. Mr. Palma replied that last year some of that money was received. He added that this year there is a federal advisory committee made up of 20 area citizens that are advising the federal partnership. He also added that there are a variety of other agencies that work together. He noted that the TRPA has identified various projects with estimated costs in the range of $40 million this year, and the community has come to the consensus that they are the projects that are needed. He said that, with the new administration in place, the agency is sending various letters and various delegations to Washington, D.C.; and Mr. Palma expressed satisfaction that Lake Tahoe is in a “win-win” situation.

Mr. Marvel asked what is being done that is proactive in mitigating pollution. Mr. Palma indicated that the U.S. Forest Service covers 72 percent of the Lake Tahoe basin and a lot of forest health projects have been going on and will continue to go on. He pointed out that the great challenge is to prevent the erosion into the lake that would occur in the event of a catastrophic fire.

Mr. Marvel asked whether the controlled fires have been a benefit, or added to the pollution. Mr. Palma said there has been dialogue about the smoke in the air. He stated that in his opinion smoke and fires have been part of the ecosystem for eons, and if fire is to be reintroduced to the forests it must be done slowly. He explained that the smoke that would be created if the forests were not thinned would be much greater than the smoke from the controlled burns. He stated that he does not want to lose the ability to perform prescribed burning on the forest.

Mr. Marvel asked whether they are getting any objections relative to the forest thinning. Mr. Palma said he does not think they receive objections, but confirmed that there is dialog going on as to what size tree should be cut. He stated that there is now dialogue going on about what kinds of trees should be cut for safety, such as those leaning toward power lines and houses.

Mr. Marvel asked whether these trees are of any economic value. Mr. Palma said some people do use the trees for timber. He pointed out that there are a number of tree companies at Lake Tahoe. He explained that what they do is save the cut trees, and when they have a big enough load they take them to the Sacramento valley to sell.

Senator O’Donnell asked whether Mr. Palma could be more specific on the qualifications of the engineer position. Mr. Palma noted that the TRPA has asked for 3 engineers in the second half of the biennium. He said they are looking for engineers that understand how projects are put together on the ground. He pointed out that there is a difference between planning them on paper and actually constructing them on the ground. He said it would be even better if they were registered professional engineers. He reiterated that his dilemma in searching for those skills is that the beginning salary is about $45,000 and he cannot even recruit engineers out of college with that. He stated that his preference is to hire someone who is already seasoned in the business.

Senator O’Donnell said there appears to be a frustration level among people who are trying to get buildings or facilities built on their properties and they report they cannot get by the staff of the TRPA because there seems to be some kind of unresponsiveness regarding which rule to use and which body to use for the rulemaking. He indicated that he has received several calls from people in that area who want to get an engineer that can break the log jam so they can either get on with their property development or sell it to the forest service. He stated that he would be highly interested in doing whatever it takes to get that engineer on staff so “the phone calls” could stop.

Mr. Palma said that the TRPA has definitely asked for that in the second part of the biennium. Senator O’Donnell asked whether it could be done in the first part of the biennium. Mr. Palma said that is possible, and there are vacancies at present that need to be filled. He reiterated that without help on the salaries he cannot do that. Senator O’Donnell commented that he “will be there to help”.

Assemblyman Beers pointed out that he does not “do the faith-based science thing,” and asked whether Mr. Palma could return before the budget is closed with the last 10 years of clarity at a location. He said that could be the performance indicator, one location initially, but eventually at 3 or 4 different locations. That, he said, is where the bulk of the money is going and where the bulk of the results are expected to be seen.

Pam Drum-Dupre, Environmental Information Coordinator, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, said that could be done. She pointed out that there are more than 30 years of water clarity data that can be provided for the committee. She explained that the watershed assessment that was completed a year ago because of the presidential forum does tell us that it is going to take 20 to 30 years to see any reaction in Lake Tahoe to positive restoration actions in the watershed. She pointed out that it is a huge body of water and is very slow to react to positive changes in the watershed. The data, she said, will show that there is a continued trend toward loss of clarity at an average annual loss of 12 to 13 inches. She claimed that, according to the science community, because of the nature of the lake, it is slow to respond.

Ms. Drum-Dupre pointed out that the agency is working on ways of modeling the impacts that the activities in the watershed will have on water clarity. She added that they are now refining their monitoring activities in the subwatersheds of the basin so some improvements may be detected that will lead to the anticipation of similar occurrences in the larger body of Lake Tahoe.

Gordon Barrett, Chief of Long-Range Planning, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, said there seems to be some confusion on the performance indicators. He pointed out that TRPA has 9 thresholds, or subject areas, such as water quality, scenic, and recreational categories. He said they measure those things in 34 parameters every 5 years and prepare a report. Such a report, he pointed out, is presently being prepared for their performance on clarity.

Mr. Barrett said that it was indicated in what was submitted to the Legislature that there are 13 performance indicators. He said they include such things as watercraft to project review, and targets for turning over projects.

Assemblyman Parks indicated that he had not received that information. He reiterated that it would be helpful to have that information.

Mr. Palma said he would make sure the committee gets a copy of all the data and information that the TRPA has available.

Senator Jacobsen asked, which of the 3 aspects, air, land, or water, is the most crucial at the moment.

Mr. Palma suggested it would be “land,” and keeping the dirt out of Lake Tahoe. He indicated that may change in the years to come as EIP projects are implemented and the agency can move to air quality.

Senator Jacobsen asked whether Mr. Palma sees traffic as a major concern. Mr. Palma said traffic continues to be a problem, and that is currently being addressed with the various transportation agencies and systems. He pointed out that after this meeting he is going to a meeting where the final touches are being put on the Coordinated Transit System (CTS). In that system, he explained, all the buses from all the casinos and ski resorts will be coordinated with the local buses using satellites to move them around the city. He explained that a company in Arizona is developing the software to integrate all the components of the system. He said there will be computer chips in the buses, and there will be 30 kiosks across the city where clients can enter the information they need and buses will come and get them. The client will know within 10 seconds when the bus will arrive at the kiosk to pick him or her up.

Mr. Palma said that currently there are about a million bus-trips by clients annually. That number, he said, is projected to go to 2.4 million in five years. He said that will address the issue of passenger cars. He stated that the main base of the CTS will be next to the gondola, and the building is expected to be constructed in the summer of 2001. That building will house the computer systems that guide the buses through the southern and northern areas of the city.

Mr. Beers said the issue of retaining soil sounds like a water quality issue that is exceptionally well addressed by clarity statistics. He noted that another good performance indicator would be the number of bus trips taken in the basin starting at the base line of a million to see how the money spent on that project is making a difference.

Senator Jacobsen noted that salary seems to be one of the major issues as far as employees of the TRPA are concerned. He asked whether the Governor had put forth any suggestions as far as TRPA is concerned, considering that it is bi-state agency.

Mike Nolan, Principal Budget Analyst, Budget Division, Department of Administration, pointed out that the Governor supported the salary comparability study. He stated that during the preparation of the budget in the fall of 2000 he had about a dozen phone conversations with his counterpart in the California state budget office. On the point of comparability, he said the California office backed out of the insurance adjustment. He said Nevada was willing to fund that, and California backed out. In an attempt to be “lock and step” with California and minimize the inconvenience to the agency which has occurred over past discrepancies of funding efforts, Nevada also did not fund that.

Mr. Nolan added that a 4 percent salary adjustment was proposed for TRPA. In consulting with California, he explained, he was told that California does not “do COLAs” because raises are negotiated through unions and such raises are not known until September. Based on that the COLA was eliminated from the request because, he explained, in the past it has been met with some indifference, and last year there was a reversion of $23,000 from an increase that was provided by Nevada in 1998 but was not matched by California.

Senator Jacobsen asked whether there is ongoing dialog with the Legislature in California. Mr. Nolan reiterated that he had many conversations with the budget analyst in California that was handling the TRPA but who has now changed jobs. He stated that he has not had the opportunity of making the new analyst’s acquaintance or talking to him yet. He said he did make a trip to Sacramento in May 2000 to meet with the Legislative Analysts Office (LAO), the budget office, and the Department of Conservation, the umbrella under which the TRPA operates. He recalled that the problem of salary comparability was discussed. He said that all agreed to make salaries compatible, but he has had trouble scheduling meetings with them.

Senator Neal stated that he was involved in renegotiating the TRPA compact. He said he understands by what he hears that the California side is treating the employees of the TRPA as state employees rather than as part of a compact. He pointed out that a compact generates its own standards in terms of people who serve in that interest. He pointed out that money is given from the two states to pay the salaries and do the necessary job. He said it seems to him that there should not be the restrictions of classified employees in California.

Ms. Drum-Dupre said she spent a lot of time visiting with persons on the California side as well and stated that it is not a matter of intent with the staff and the Legislature in California, but rather a matter of process. She agreed with Mr. Nolan that when the Governor sends his budget to the Legislature in California it does not include a COLA for state employees. She said those are negotiated once the final revenue projections are available. The intent, she explained, is to have agreement with the various bargaining units in California by the close of the fiscal year on June 30, but that often does not happen, she said.

Senator Neal asked whether this meant the state of California does not have a budgetary category such as Nevada has for TRPA. Ms. Drum-Dupre said they do. She pointed out that the TRPA is considered a local assistance agency in California, which is a separate category.

Senator Neal repeated that the TRPA is a compact and there are rules governing compacts. Ms. Drum-Dupre said this question has been asked of the Department of Resources and the Department of Finance in California because TRPA employees are not members of any of the collective bargaining units in California. She said the California government is very reluctant to “front-end-load” a salary adjustment for TRPA employees, fearing that it would set a precedent for other local assistance units and public entities throughout California.

Senator Neal stated that the salary increase should not be based on whether the state employees would get a raise, but should be based on what the two states agree is needed for the operation of the compact.

Ms. Drum-Dupre agreed that TRPA employees on the Nevada side have always been subject to whatever COLA is suggested for other Nevada state employees, but the TRPA would be happy to facilitate any discussion between the two states either at the staff level or at the legislative level to determine whether there is language that can be agreed upon to address this issue.

Senator Jacobsen asked whether there is some salary comparability between the Nevada TRPA and the California TRPA.

Mr. Barrett pointed out that TRPA employees do not get paychecks from the state of Nevada. He said Nevada pays about 25 percent of the TRPA budget and California pays about 50 percent. He said the rest comes from fees. The funds, he explained, come together in a pool and then an increase is provided to the staff. The checks are written by the TRPA. He stated the agreement is that the TRPA looks at Nevada salaries and California salaries, which are generally higher than Nevada’s, and based on a one-third/two-thirds breakdown the TRPA gets in the middle ground between the two, based on the split.

From that point, Mr. Barrett explained, the TRPA works on the annual COLAs. He stated that the problem has been that the state of California may agree to 3 percent one year because of funding problems and Nevada may agree to 5 percent. He pointed out that “we always get the lowest” because of the one‑third/two-thirds match. Occasionally, he said, one state will say “no” and the money will have to be given back, as Mr. Nolan had pointed out.

Mr. Barrett stated that some sort of language or agreement is needed to deal with this issue. He noted that it is an important issue in both states. He said he believes there are people with the ability to accomplish that, but it is not being done.

Senator Jacobsen asked whether there are workforce fluctuations at different times of the year. Mr. Palma said the workforce is quite stable compared to the U.S. Forest Service. He pointed out that there are a few individuals who work only for the summer, but they are very few.

Senator Jacobsen recalled that there was an audit problem in the agency about a year ago, and asked whether that had been resolved. He explained that California wanted to audit the TRPA and wanted to use some of the TRPA funds but Nevada chose not to be a party to that. He recalled that in the end Nevada did have some input.

Mr. Palma stated that he had read the audit in question and said he feels there is no problem today. He noted that the agency had its financial audit a month ago and it was one of the cleanest audits the agency has had in a long time in terms of the financial records. He expressed his pride in the fact that efforts are being made to have clean financial audits.

Senator Jacobsen asked whether the six positions requested of the Legislature in the last session had been filled. Mr. Barrett replied that they had been filled.

Ms. Drum-Dupre noted that the same process is going on in California and TRPA staff has appeared before the Senate budget subcommittee on the California side. She explained that on the Assembly side in California they have a consent calendar for budget items and the TRPA was on that calendar and did not even go to the hearing. She stated that the two-thirds match for this budget proposal is indeed moving through the California Legislature.

Mr. Parks drew attention to a request for replacement equipment in the base budget. He noted that would normally go into an enhancement decision unit. He said he was referring to some replacement equipment and software upgrades. He indicated those items would be deleted from the base budget and moved to an enhancement decision unit.

Mr. Parks also noted that the agency had requested four new positions for the first year of the biennium. He asked whether they could be prioritized in the event that full funding is not available for all those positions. He indicated the committee may need to know that, given the present financial situation.

Mr. Parks indicated there is a relatively high turnover rate, and asked whether these are individuals who have left for reasons of salary alone, or is it for better opportunities for job advancement.

Mr. Palma said there are a number of reasons that people leave the agency. He said he conducts exit interviews with employees who leave, so he feels he has a good sense of why they leave. He said most leave for personal reasons, but come to TRPA from college and then move on to another agency or organization. He said he is unaware of the percentage of employees that fall into that category.

Mr. Barrett noted that 11.4 positions had been requested and the state of California had asked to have them prioritized. He said the agency has attempted to do that and this committee would be welcome to use that information as well.

BUDGET CLOSINGS – DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES & PUBLIC SAFETY

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

Budget Account 201-4689

Mark Krmpotic, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, discussed the Public Safety, Bicycle Safety Program, Budget Account 201-4689, for closing. He discussed the overview of the budget as presented on page 2 of Closing List Number 1 (Exhibit C), and the accompanying technical adjustments. Decision items for this budget are listed in Exhibit C on pages 2 and 3.

Regarding the negative reserve indicated in Decision Item 1 on page 2, Assemblywoman Chowning said The Executive Budget puts the committee in a tough position, noting that in order to establish a positive amount in the reserve the committee must cut funding from programs that provide helmets to keep children safe while they are riding bicycles. She asked whether it could be explained what this means in terms of what will be taken away from the people.

Mr. Krmpotic said adjustments recommended by the Budget Division for the Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety Program Category include a reduction in state printing costs of $13,547 each year, resulting in a remaining amount for printing in this category of $5,000. He noted the budget amendment addresses contract services that would be reduced by $4,592 for a remaining amount of $5,000 each year. He said advertising and public relations expenses are proposed to be reduced by $9,145, resulting in a remaining amount of $5,500 each year. Instructional supplies, he added, are recommended to be increased from $230 to $1,000. The remainder of expenditures in the category includes grants to local governments. He indicated that reductions of various amounts are proposed for the individual counties. The overall reduction in grants to local governments, he said, is $17,432 each year, but the amendment from the Budget Division also includes aid grants to non-profit organizations of $10,000 each year.

Senator Jacobsen asked whether the committee could see a chart showing the allocations to counties. Mr. Krmpotic said the budget currently includes an allocation to Eureka County of $4,017, to Lyon County of $27,811, and to Nye County of $12,604. He said those allocations vary from year to year.

Mrs. Chowning said that gives a better picture. She stated there are several non-profit organizations that raise funds for bicycle helmets and give bicycle helmets to families who have requested them because they do not have the money to buy them. She noted that the non-profit organizations are picking up some of the loss. She said the cutbacks in contract services and advertising take away from the safety efforts, but accepted that there is no choice because there must be a positive reserve.

Mr. Beers asked whether this issue was created by overspending in the previous biennium. Mr. Krmpotic said that in the 1995 Legislative Session this program received an infusion from the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) of about $137,000 that was intended to provide grants to local governments. He explained that over the course of several years that infusion has been spent through grants to local governments, and the reserve has been reduced by the grants. He said the department is now trying to continue some level of effort in grants over the biennium.

Mrs. Chowning asked why the NDOT is not continuing to give the same amount. She recalled that in the 1995 session there was a bill in the Assembly to require bicyclists to wear helmets that did not pass. But, she stated, it was highly encouraged that there would be funding to help non-profit organizations provide education to encourage families to purchase helmets for their children. She asked whether the dwindling of funds has occurred because the attention is no longer on this issue.

Mr. Krmpotic added that prior to the 1995 Legislature this program received 35 percent of an add-on to the drivers license fee of 50 cents, and NDOT received 65 percent of that fee. He stated that NDOT’s portion is for engineering and the incorporation of bicycle lanes into highway plans. He pointed out that in 1995 the Legislature changed the funding allocation to 65 percent for the bicycle safety programs and 35 percent for NDOT. At that time, he said, it was determined that NDOT was not spending the amounts they had received, and that was the reason for the shift from NDOT to the DMV&PS.

ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET 201-4689 WITH ADJUSTMENTS RECOMMENDED BY THE STAFF.

ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Beers asked whether the staff recommendation includes the budget division proposal. Mr. Krmpotic said the staff recommendation includes the technical adjustments. He said the budget division proposal would be decided by the subcommittee.

Mr. Beers asked whether the committee is entertaining that proposal now. Mr. Krmpotic said the committee is entertaining the decision item to include the budget amendment from the budget division. In order to maintain a positive reserve balance by the end of the second year some sort of an amendment would have to be incorporated to reduce expenditures.

Mr. Beers asked for clarification whether this motion includes the staff recommendations as well as the budget office’s recommended adjustments. Mr. Krmpotic said he believes the amendment would include the technical adjustments plus the amendment from the Budget Division. Mr. Beers reiterated that the committee is now voting on the budget office amendment as well.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR O’DONNELL AND ASSEMBLYMEN PERKINS AND DE BRAGA WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

* * * * *

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

Budget Account 201-4691

Mr. Krmpotic addressed the Public Safety, Motorcycle Safety Program, Budget Account 201-4691. He reviewed the overview and technical adjustments presented on page 4 in Exhibit C, and Decision Items on page 5 of Exhibit C.

Senator Jacobsen suggested the Decision Units be taken one at a time.

ASSEMBLYMAN BEERS MOVED THAT DECISION UNITS IN BUDGET 201‑4691 BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY.

ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR O’DONNELL AND ASSEMBLYMEN DE BRAGA AND PERKINS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

* * * * *

Mrs. Chowning stated that there is conflicting information. She asked whether there has been a 12 percent increase in the beginner motorcycle safety program and an 18 percent increase in the experienced rider course. Mr. Krmpotic said that is correct. Mrs. Chowning described the training program as excellent.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING MOVED TO ACCEPT DECISION UNIT E‑350 OF BUDGET 201-4691 WITH ADJUSTMENTS RECOMMENDED BY THE STAFF.

ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR O’DONNELL AND ASSEMBLYMEN DE BRAGA AND PERKINS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

* * * * *

Mrs. Chowning asked why, when there is increased funding because of increased demand for courses, the budget office is asking to eliminate the funding for instructors in the rural areas. Mr. Krmpotic said he believes the budget office amendment is based on a request by the agency. Mrs. Chowning stated that if this is approved, then the committee is making the assumption that the agency has made that request. Mr. Krmpotic said that is so.

Mrs. Chowning stated that, in her estimation, if the agency comes back to the committee and says that they did not request it, the committee will need to change its vote.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING MOVED TO ACCEPT DECISION UNIT E‑352 OF BUDGET 201-4691 WITH ADJUSTMENTS RECOMMENDED BY THE STAFF.

ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMEN DE BRAGA AND PERKINS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

* * * * *

ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS MOVED TO ACCEPT DECISION UNITS E‑710 AND E‑805 OF BUDGET 201-4691 WITH ADJUSTMENTS RECOMMENDED BY THE STAFF.

SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMEN DE BRAGA AND PERKINS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

* * * * *

SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO ACCEPT DECISION UNITS E‑800, E‑801, AND E‑988 OF BUDGET 201-4691 WITH TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS RECOMMENDED BY THE STAFF.

ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMEN DE BRAGA AND PERKINS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

* * * * *

BUDGET CLOSING – PEACE OFFICERS STANDARDS AND TRAINING

Peace Officers Standards & Training Commission – Budget Page POST-1 (Volume 3) – Budget Account 101-3774

Mr. Krmpotic introduced the Peace Officers Standards & Training Commission, Budget Account 101‑3774, for closing. He reviewed the overview on page 6 of Exhibit C.

Senator Jacobsen suggested the committee be provided an update on the Police Corps Program. He pointed out that program came to Nevada from federal funds and expressed concern that the committee does not fully understand what that program comprises.

Richard P. Clark, Executive Director, Peace Officers’ Standards and Training (P.O.S.T.) Commission, explained that the Police Corps Program is a federally funded program, which is separate from all other P.O.S.T. operations and responsibilities. He said the Governor assigned P.O.S.T. the responsibility of being the lead agency for this program. He stated there is a little more than $1 million that comes each year to fund that program. He described it as a basic training program for college students who graduate with a degree in any field and who commit to spend 4 years in law enforcement. Those students, he explained, get $30,000 reimbursed for their tuition and the Nevada agencies that choose to sponsor these cadets receive $10,000 each year for the 4 years these people are assigned to the agencies.

Senator Jacobsen asked whether the responsibility was simply assigned to the state to carry out the program. Mr. Clark replied that the program was offered to the state of Nevada and was originally handled by the DMV&PS in its grants unit. The program floundered for a couple of years, he explained, because it requires a live-in academy situation and an agency that is set up to oversee a basic training operation, so it was transferred to POST by the Governor’s office for that reason.

Senator Jacobsen asked whether Mr. Clark had any assurance of continued funding. Mr. Clark replied that, though there is never a guarantee of continued funding, the program has very strong bi-partisan support in both houses of Congress and is now located in about 30 states. Senator Jacobsen asked whether Nevada would pick up the pieces if it should fail. Mr. Clark responded absolutely not. He stated that if the funding goes away the program will go away and there will be no requests for it to be continued.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET 101‑3774 WITH ADJUSTMENTS RECOMMENDED BY THE STAFF.

ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR O’DONNELL AND ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

* * * * *

BUDGET CLOSING – COLORADO RIVER COMMISSION

Colorado River Commission – Budget Page CRC-1 (Volume 3)

Budget Account 296-4490

Jim Rodriguez, Program Analyst, addressed the Colorado River Commission, Budget Account 296-4490, for closing. He reviewed the overview and technical adjustments on page 7 of Exhibit C.

ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET 296‑4490 WITH ADJUSTMENTS RECOMMENDED BY THE STAFF.

ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR O’DONNELL AND ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

* * * * *

E-375 Environmental Policies & Program – Page CRC-4

Mr. Rodriguez reviewed decision unit E-375 pages 7 and 8 of Exhibit C. He pointed out that E‑375 is an ongoing decision module for the agency.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING MOVED TO APPROVE DECISION MODULE E‑375 AS RECOMMENDED.

ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.

Senator Neal asked whether this would expend the money the Colorado River Commission accumulates. Senator Jacobsen said that is his understanding.

Mr. Rodriguez said that funding is provided by the Southern Nevada Water Authority. He explained that in the event a research study is required it would be funded in this manner.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

* * * * *

Mr. Rodriguez also asked the committee to consider decision module E-376, as outlined on pages 7 and 8 of Exhibit C.

ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS MOVED TO APPROVE DECISION MODULE E‑376 WITH THE ADJUSTMENTS RECOMMENDED BY THE STAFF.

SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Rodriguez pointed out this recommended adjustment would reduce the out-of-state travel amount in E-376 to $21,543 in each year of the biennium, which makes the total out-of-state travel, including the base, $75,000 each year.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

* * * * *

Mr. Rodriguez requested that the committee also consider decision module E‑377 as outlined on page 8 of Exhibit C.

Mrs. Chowning asked where the money in this decision unit would come from. Mr. Rodriguez replied that this is sponsored by the Southern Nevada Water Authority.

ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS MOVED TO APPROVE DECISION MODULE E‑377 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

* * * * *

Mr. Rodriguez directed the committee’s attention to the informational items described on page 8 of Exhibit C. He pointed out there are the following three bills being considered that will significantly change the budget process for the agency.

SENATE BILL 138: Exempts Colorado River Commission from State Budget Act. (BDR 31-344)

SENATE BILL 211: Expands authority of Colorado River Commission to provide electric services to political subdivisions. (BDR 58-633)

SENATE BILL 531: Revises provisions governing employees of Colorado River Commission. (BDR 48-354)

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:35 am.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Bob Williston

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen, Chairman

DATE:

David R. Parks, Chairman

DATE: