MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Finance
Seventy-First Session
March 28, 2001
The Senate Committee on Financewas called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio at 7:37 a.m., on Wednesday, March 28, 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.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen
Senator William R. O’Donnell
Senator Joseph M. Neal Jr.
Senator Bernice Mathews
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Vice Chairman (Excused)
Senator Bob Coffin (Excused)
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Gary L. Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst
Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
ElizaBeth Root, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Dean Heller, Secretary of State
R. Warren Lutzow, Deputy Chief, Division of Parole and Probation, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety
Steve Robinson, State Forester Firewarden, Division of Forestry, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Peter Anderson, Deputy State Forester, Division of Forestry, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Edward M. Hoganson Jr., Administrator, Bureau of Weights and Measures, Measurement Standards Division, Department of Agriculture
Steven Grabski, Northern Supervisor/Metrologist, Bureau of Weights and Measures, Measurement Standards Division, Department of Agriculture
Keith Rheault, Ph.D., Deputy Superintendent of Instructional, Research and Evaluative Services, Department of Education
David Lawson Smith, Ph.D., Assistant Director, Finance and Accountability, Department of Education
Daniel G. Miles, Vice Chancellor, Finance & Administration, University and Community College System of Nevada
Becky T. Seibert, Deputy to the Executive Director of System Computing Services, University and Community College System of Nevada
SENATE BILL 251: Makes supplemental appropriation to Department of Education for shortfall in money budgeted for contractual obligations for Terra Nova Tests. (BDR S-1262)
Chairman Raggio:
Good morning, committee. We have an amendment to consider to Senate Bill (S.B.) 251. Senate Bill 251 was heard in this committee on March 14, 2001. It makes a supplemental appropriation to the Department of Education as presented by Douglas C. Thunder, Deputy Superintendent for Administrative and Fiscal Services, Department of Education (Exhibit C), in connection with the money needed for the contract for the Terra Nova tests. If you will recall, the testimony was that the amount in the bill could be reduced to $38,890. Amendment No. 110 (Exhibit D) outlines that change. I would accept a motion to amend and do pass, with Amendment No. 110, S.B. 251.
SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AS AMENDED S.B. 251 WITH AMENDMENT NO. 110.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAWSON AND SENATOR COFFIN WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
SENATE BILL 447: Makes appropriation to State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources for new and replacement equipment in Director’s office. (BDR S-1388)
Chairman Raggio:
Senate Bill 447 has not been heard. This bill proposes an appropriation to the State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources for equipment in the director’s office. Committee staff advises we have received a request from Don Hataway, Deputy Director, Budget Division, Department of Administration, that this bill can be withdrawn. I will accept a motion to indefinitely postpone S.B. 447.
SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 447
SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAWSON AND SENATOR COFFIN WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
SENATE BILL 464: Makes appropriation to Office of Secretary of State for various enabling technology projects and new and replacement equipment.
(BDR S-433)
Chairman Raggio:
At the request of the Secretary of State, we will first consider S.B. 464. We will now open the hearing on S.B. 464.
Dean Heller, Secretary of State (Prepared Speech is Exhibit E.)
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and committee. Thank you for accommodating my schedule. As you can see from the chart entitled, “Proposed Allocation of S.B. 464 - $1.4 Million Appropriation,” (Exhibit F) this appropriation is intended to fund a re-write of the state’s election laws and requires funding in the amount of $250,000. If there is a common thread among election officials across this country, whether they are federal, state, county or city officials, it is that every state needs to take another look at its election laws and how they are written. This state is no different. Because we did not have the major problems that occurred in Florida, New Mexico, California, Oregon and other states, we are absolved. However, we will truly find ourselves in a similar predicament if we do not take aggressive steps to make sure the method and specificity with which our laws are written avoid this situation in the future.
With respect to our state laws, we have numerous conflicting definitions, provisions, inconsistencies, and omission. This causes two problems. The first is that it creates confusion among candidates, election officials, and the general public. The second problem is that because of this confusion, we get numerous complaints. This results in clearly different interpretations, but we get ours in litigation during every election cycle. During the last election cycle, the Secretary of State’s office was sued a dozen times. We spent a tremendous amount of time in court instead of conducting the other duties of the office, especially in the Elections Division, where we could be more productive. So, that is the purpose of the $250,000 appropriation.
Chairman Raggio:
How will that be expended? If you are calling this a “rewrite,” who is going to do that?
Mr. Heller:
We anticipate using a third party. We will set up a committee that will include local election officials, city officials, and state officials, including the Attorney General’s office. We anticipate doing this similarly to the way the state wrote the corporate laws ten years ago, which was by formulating an outside consulting group issuing a request for proposals (RFP) and trying to bring in a third party. That third party would work with the various interests groups, which will determine what these changes ought to be. Once the changes have been formulated, they will be presented at the next legislative session.
Chairman Raggio:
What changes are you talking about?
Mr. Heller:
Let me give you an example. My Deputy Secretary, Elections Division, sat down with the Attorney General’s office and in about 30 minutes they came up with some general concerns and problems in our election laws. One is the handling of petitions, for which there are numerous inconsistencies. Also, petitions for recall of a statewide initiative go through signature verification, but petitions for city initiatives do not. There is no reason that should not be consistent. Whether it is petitions, language, organization, terminology, timeframes, early voting, absentee voting, election day voting, and even major and minor political parties, there are inconsistencies between those two groups. So, what we would like to do is, not produce legislation that changes the law, but clean up the statutory language that currently exists. Then, we would like to bring that before the next Legislature so it will be easier for the general public to understand.
Chairman Raggio:
The reason I am asking is that, over the past three of four sessions, we have spent an inordinate amount of legislative time in conjunction with your office constantly revamping our election laws. I am not aware there are any serious deficiencies in our present election laws. We did not stand out among the states as one that had any problems of note. Why do we have to spend $250,000 for this?
Mr. Heller:
I would argue, Senator, that is not due to the way our laws are written, but is due to the commitment and efforts of our election officials across this state who try to stay one step ahead of the way our laws are written. Again, we get numerous complaints throughout the election cycle on how to interpret different election laws. We were probably in court a dozen times.
Chairman Raggio:
You will never make the election laws perfect so that no one questions them.
Mr. Heller:
We understand that, but we do think we can go a long way toward cleaning up some of the problems and concerns regarding these laws.
Chairman Raggio:
Will you give us a laundry list of some of the problems that you have identified that need some revamping?
Mr. Heller:
Senator, I would be happy to give you a copy of this document, which is entitled “Election Laws Rewrite,” a brief outline of the Secretary of State’s concerns (Exhibit G.)
Chairman Raggio:
I say, respectfully, I do not believe you have made the case for $250,000 to revamp election laws. I think we need greater information specific as to why we are behind the curve - if that is what you want to call it – in the area of election laws. As I said, I know from having served, we have spent a great deal of time every session dotting “i”s and crossing “t”s changing previous submittals by your office. I think we need some convincing on this issue.
Mr. Heller:
Senator, I understand that what we are doing here is very preventative. I would hate to think something like what occurred in Florida, if it were to happen here in Nevada, would be the only compelling reason to go forward with a rewrite of our election laws. I am trying to avoid similar catastrophes.
Chairman Raggio:
Well tell me, where do we have the problem that Florida experienced? I am not being argumentative; I need for you to convince the committee that we need to spend one-quarter of a million dollars. Also, how or where did you come up with this amount for this project?
Mr. Heller:
We asked several consultants about what they would consider a ballpark figure. So, not having issued a RFP and not knowing an exact amount, we calculated this figure. Also, it is somewhat consistent with what the corporate rewrite cost ten years ago.
Chairman Raggio:
Is this an issue for which funding could better be determined by the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) of the Legislature? The IFC could accomplish working with your office and other election officials after needs are proven.
Mr. Heller:
Yes, to a degree, and that is what we have been doing for over a hundred years. I think we have done a lot of patchwork in this process. We could look at it that way, but I think it is going to take an incredible amount of time, page by page, in looking at our election laws to truly determine the status and health of our laws, as opposed to an IFC meeting four or five times. I think this way would be more intensive.
Chairman Raggio:
Give us that information and, if you can enlarge upon it, that would be helpful.
Mr. Heller:
The next appropriation issue is the marketing campaign issue, which includes publications, videos for Internet services and digital signature awareness. Nevada is not the only state in which a person may want to incorporate. We compete against 49 other states to get businesses into this state. We have been very successful due to our reputation and the services we provide. If we want to maintain a competitive edge, we are going to have to compete against strategies like Delaware’s. For example, if someone calls the Secretary of State’s office in Delaware and asks for information on how to incorporate, this is what you get from them along with videos and other publications. If you compare that with what Nevada currently disseminates (Exhibit H), this is what Nevada sends to you.
We believe it is imperative that, if we expect to compete against New York, Florida, Texas, Delaware, California, and some of these other states, we need to bolster our marketing process efforts in this state. So, we need $309,500 for fiscal year (FY) 2002 and $300,000 for FY 2003 to go forward. We have discussed this with the Governor’s office, and they also agree, that if we want to entice people to come to this state, we need to disclose the necessary information and participate in this project in order to get businesses. We want to attract business to incorporate, not only in this country, but also throughout the world. So, that is what that request is for, Senator.
Chairman Raggio:
You are requesting more than $300,000 each year of the biennium for a total of $600,000 for this purpose. Have you some itemization of how that will be expended?
Mr. Heller:
What we have based this on, Senator, is some of the promotional efforts other states are doing. For example, Delaware has a publication of a quarterly newsletter. They also engage an international marketing plan for the purpose of promoting Delaware corporate laws, chancellery court, and those services provided by their corporation services division. Also, they participate in various trade shows. Those activities would be similar to what we would participate in also. The number of requests we have received on an annual basis for more information was the basis for how we formulated some of these numbers.
Chairman Raggio:
The international trade shows are covered generally by the Division of Tourism, and the local tourism agencies. Can you not utilize these agencies for some of your intended purpose?
Mr. Heller:
Perhaps, and I am sure they do a great job. I do not know the answer to that question, Senator. Perhaps some of that could be accomplished.
Chairman Raggio:
Recognizing this committee’s limitation on funding this session, we are scrutinizing every request. The committee would agree that your effort is commendable in emulating states such as Delaware for purposes of attracting corporations to this state. I believe we need to do that as cost effectively as possible. We are looking at all requests for appropriations with an eye to appropriating what is absolutely essential. So, we would ask you to revisit this request. It appears that would be an E-300 decision unit request, which may be a continuing amount that would carry over into future biennia. Overall, an appropriation request of $1,397,122 as viewed in this request (Exhibit I) requires further itemization for justification.
Mr. Heller:
Yes.
Chairman Raggio:
These items need to be broken down and itemized, Mr. Secretary, the cost of the quarterly publication, preparing and disseminating a similar brochure, which is receptive and engaging. You need to submit an itemized statement because we need to minimize the fiscal impact of these sizeable expenditures.
Mr. Heller:
I will be happy to do that, Senator, keeping in mind your remarks about the Division of Tourism and Economic Development.
Chairman Raggio:
You might explore working with the Clark County and Washoe County groups, and the state tourism agencies that participate in these international trade shows, as well as those throughout the country. I believe that would be an excellent partnership for your office.
Mr. Heller:
I would agree with that. We have worked with the Division of Economic Development and Tourism in the past and this would be a positive discussion.
The next item is the Internet-based election projects in the amount of $200,000. We have in our appropriation request a proposal to conduct a pilot program for our overseas military personnel so they can vote via the Internet. I would argue they are the most disenfranchised voters in our country, especially after this last election cycle. We have requested an appropriation of $200,000, not only to start this pilot program and look at the options, but also to expand our current program that we have going on for election contribution and expense reports. So, those two programs fall under our Internet-based election projects.
Chairman Raggio:
How do you envision utilizing the $200,000?
Mr. Heller:
It has been very interesting. Since this proposal has come before the Legislature, we have received numerous visits from parties that are very interested in going forward on something like this. We have had a number of vendors talking to us. This process would allow us to send the appropriate information and codes. Our overseas military personnel would be able to participate within their bases using a chip or card that individualizes each voter. So, we see it as an opportunity. Currently, we do not have a large overseas military group. We are estimating there are 1,500, the bulk of which are from Douglas County.
Chairman Raggio:
How many actually voted in the last presidential election?
Mr. Heller:
I do not have an answer to that, Senator. We do not keep that information.
Chairman Raggio:
That figure should be easily ascertainable.
Mr. Heller:
I would think we could get you Douglas County’s figures on how many voted.
Chairman Raggio:
What is the current law? Are they able to vote by absentee ballot?
Mr. Heller:
Yes, generally, if they request an absentee ballot, which is sent overseas.
Chairman Raggio:
Under our law, when does the ballot have to be received and what is the cutoff date for counting the ballot for any election?
Mr. Heller:
It has to be received on or before election day.
Chairman Raggio:
As I recall, that is different from Florida. They had some later date past the election day.
Mr. Heller:
They had litigation that extended the time period for absentee ballots to be received. It was through litigation they were able to expand the time frame.
Chairman Raggio:
I am only one member of the committee, but I am concerned about opening the door for all voting on the Internet. I personally have reservations about voting by mail, but this goes a step further. I am alarmed about all of the things I hear that happens on the Internet, and I am wondering about the security issues if we were to open up that option.
Mr. Heller:
Internet voting is not a new concept.
Chairman Raggio:
What states allow Internet voting?
Mr. Heller:
When precincts have machines where a voter would go with a card and use the Internet to vote.
Chairman Raggio:
Where?
Mr. Heller:
In a voter’s precinct.
Chairman Raggio:
Here in Nevada we do that?
Mr. Heller:
No, not here in Nevada.
Chairman Raggio:
That is what I am asking, where do they vote via the Internet?
Mr. Heller:
In other states, Senator, that technology is available.
Chairman Raggio:
Could you please provide that information to us as to what states have Internet voting and what their procedures are for voting via the Internet. This would give us some information.
Mr. Heller:
I want to assure you, Senator, we are as concerned as you are about the security system used. This is why this is a pilot program. We may not find a vendor that meets our security standards. As we go forward on this, we will keep you appraised of what we are doing and trying to accomplish.
Chairman Raggio:
We will need a breakdown as to how you arrived at this $200,000 figure. I would like to know how that is going to be utilized.
Mr. Heller:
The final request is for office equipment. We have a schedule in our office to replace one-third of the equipment, basically personal computers, every year. So, we are constantly trying to upgrade. We need to make sure our systems continue to guarantee the consistent service of the Secretary of State’s office. We need to make sure the equipment that our staff has current technology. I have a copy of the specifics as to what these items are.
Chairman Raggio:
Has committee staff been provided that information?
Mr. Heller:
It was broken out in the agency requested budget.
Chairman Raggio:
Make sure you coordinate this with our staff.
Mr. Heller:
If you do not have it, just give us a call.
Chairman Raggio:
Are there any questions from the committee? Is there anyone else here to testify on S. B. 464?
Senator O’Donnell:
I see the expense side of the balance sheet, but I do not see the revenue side. Did you project any additional revenue by spending all this money?
Mr. Heller:
We are growing in this state, Senator, by 12 percent to 15 percent a year. We were able to convince the Governor that, if Nevada does a marketing effort, the state would see revenue increases. We had estimates of additional revenue that would occur through a good marketing effort like this, but I do not have them with me.
Senator O’Donnell:
I need to know what the differential would be. How much more revenue per year would you be putting into the General Fund if you had this particular program versus the General Fund revenue under normal circumstances.
Mr. Heller:
It is not an exact science, Senator, but we would be happy to provide projections on that issue. They have been provided to the Governor’s staff, but not to this committee.
Chairman Raggio:
Thank you very much. We appreciate your being here. We will close the hearing on S.B. 464 and open the hearing on S.B. 444.
SENATE BILL 444: Makes appropriation to Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety for security upgrades at various offices of Division of Parole and Probation. (BDR S-1380)
R. Warren Lutzow, Deputy Chief, Division of Parole and Probation, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety:
Good morning, Chairman. The division is asking for $33,847, to provide security to five offices (Exhibit J). We need break proof glass and security walls for our staff. The second issue is we want to install alarm systems in the rest of our buildings. Given the nature of our business, we have 11,800 offenders that come through our offices on a monthly basis. The first people they meet are our support staff. In five of our offices, the support staff is literally sitting across the desk from those individuals.
On the second issue, the division has a fair amount of state property, such as personal computers, as well as confidential records. We have suffered three break‑ins over the last four years and a number of our personal computers were stolen. Some other items were removed. The technology is available to us, and we are asking for alarm systems to be installed in these last offices. Again, we want to provide a modicum of security to our support staff, especially in our rural offices. In the rural offices, staff usually finds themselves alone because the officers are out on the road visiting other areas.
Chairman Raggio:
So, this covers how many offices?
Mr. Lutzow:
It would cover five of our locations: The Ely Office and the Las Vegas offices at 215 E. Bonanza Road, 628 Belrose, 2719 Donna, and 330 South Third Street.
Chairman Raggio:
All of those offices would be covered in this proposal?
Mr. Lutzow:
Yes, and we would upgrade the glass in the Elko office.
Chairman Raggio:
How will this protect you against the break-ins you are having? Why do you have break-ins, at all? What are they after?
Mr. Lutzow:
We did have break-ins in our Reno office and our administrative office in Carson City in which the perpetrators took personal computers and printers. Because of that, we installed alarm systems several year ago in some of our offices. In those offices where alarms were placed, there have been no problems since that time.
Chairman Raggio:
How long have you been in your position, Mr. Lutzow?
Mr. Lutzow:
As Chief, since January 3, 2001.
Chairman Raggio:
You find it an easy job?
Mr. Lutzow:
No, Sir.
Chairman Raggio:
What new policies, if any, are you implementing? As you know, we have had a number of concerns about the operation of the Division of Parole and Probation. What is the situation there now? How is your staff morale problem? We have tried to upgrade the personnel and we have some current proposals on that issue. Give us a report. This is your opportunity. You have no restraints.
Mr. Lutzow:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In addition to the 4 percent increase for all state employees, there is an additional 5 percent for the “sworn staff” of the division. The reality is that will not make us competitive with the federal agency or Clark County. I do not believe that is a secret to the members of this committee. However, it will bring us closer.
We want to provide a secure working environment for employees, professionalism and those types of issues. As far as policies are concerned, since the last Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) audit, we have implemented almost all of the 29 recommendations. There are a few that we were unable to implement because of fiscal constraints. I do believe the division is moving forward. Richard Kirkland, Director, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, has mandated a higher level of competency from staff, especially the administrative and management level staff.
Chairman Raggio:
How is your staff turnover?
Mr. Lutzow:
Turnover remains status quo. As of Friday, I had 36 “sworn positions” open. We have been averaging 37 to 38 positions.
Chairman Raggio:
Do you have applications?
Mr. Lutzow:
We continue to test monthly. The applications are increasing slightly; however, many of the applicants we are attracting are individuals we would not want to hire. We eliminate a number of those individuals during our background investigation.
Chairman Raggio:
What are your caseloads like?
Mr. Lutzow:
In most of the offices we are approaching the general 70:1 ratio, except in our Las Vegas office. Line supervision officers and general supervision officers average 114:1 ratio.
Chairman Raggio:
Are there any other questions from the committee? Is there anyone else here to testify on S.B. 444? If not, we will close the hearing on S.B. 444. At this time we will open the hearing on S.B. 449.
SENATE BILL 449: Makes appropriation to State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources for replacement equipment for Division of Forestry. (BDR S-1395)
Steve Robinson, State Forester Firewarden, Division of Forestry, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources:
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Senate Bill 449 will replenish our division’s equipment. During my sixty days on this job, I have observed the fleet around the state. We have a lot of aged vehicles; many of them are at “100,000 plus” mileage. Some of them are at “200,000 plus” miles. There is nothing necessarily wrong with that. We have been able to cannibalize and maintain our vehicles so we can keep them around for a long time. One thing that is missing, which I plan to work on over the next year, is a system for replacement of vehicles. It is a “catch-as-catch-can” basis. When a vehicle breaks down and we cannot fix it anymore, we replace it, but the division needs some kind of a system.
Chairman Raggio:
How do you propose to develop that?
Mr. Robinson:
We are going to look at the vehicle program statewide. The vehicles have been assigned to regions. We have three regions around this state. Currently, the regions have become islands unto themselves. We want to use whatever vehicles exist statewide to be placed wherever they are needed.
Chairman Raggio:
When do you propose to have a written policy on this?
Mr. Robinson:
I have set a goal for myself by the first of the calendar year.
Chairman Raggio:
What is a command vehicle? (Detailed in Exhibit K.)
Mr. Robinson:
Mr. Chairman, a command vehicle is a vehicle that is not a direct fire-suppression vehicle. It will not have water capability, but it will be a communications vehicle. Typically, the incident commander on a fire would arrive in that vehicle and take over command of the fire.
Chairman Raggio:
Those types of vehicle generally cost about $45,000.
Mr. Robinson:
Yes, Sir.
Chairman Raggio:
Is this a truck?
Mr. Robinson:
It would best be termed a sport utility vehicle (SUV). It is an American made vehicle. They are like the size of a Ford Expedition, with a lot of radio and communication equipment attached.
Chairman Raggio:
What is a crew vehicle?
Mr. Robinson:
A crew vehicle is like a bus, somewhat similar to those used in the honor camps. Typically, they will carry 12 inmates and a crew supervisor.
Chairman Raggio:
You are requesting these for Silver Springs, Indian Springs, and Humboldt Conservation Camps. Are these replacement vehicles or additional vehicles?
Mr. Robinson:
If I could, let me defer to Mr. Anderson.
Peter Anderson, Deputy State Forester, Division of Forestry, State Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources:
Yes, Senator, these are replacement vehicles for buses. Basically, our fleet is a combination of small school-bus-type vehicles and these crew vehicles, which have a cab chassis and a crew carrier attached to the back. These are replacement vehicles.
Chairman Raggio:
Mr. Anderson, are you sure you have worn out these buses.
Mr. Anderson:
They are definitely worn out, Senator.
Chairman Raggio:
Any other questions from the committee?
Senator Neal:
Do you know what will be the effect on Nevada of the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Chief, Dr. Michael P. Dombeck’s, leaving the forest service?
Mr. Robinson:
Senator, we receive a large amount of funding from the U.S. Forest Service. With the fires last year we had an even larger influx of funds that Congress passed through. Our dealings with the U.S. Forest Service are typically not at the political level, which is where Mike Dombeck “came from.” As you know, he was the first politically appointed Chief of the Forest Service. Jack Blackwell, the regional forester for the U.S. Forest Service Intermountain Region, and the supervisor, Jeff Bott, of the U.S. Forest Service, are those we typically work with. We have a good working relationship with them. So, I would see no impact on Nevada resulting from Mr. Dombeck’s leaving. On the larger issues, such as the environment, road closures, and that type of thing, certainly there will be a change.
Chairman Raggio:
There being no further information on this bill, I thank you for your appearance. If there is no one else here to testify on S.B. 449, we will close the hearing. At this time we will open the hearing on S.B. 450.
SENATE BILL 450: Makes appropriation to State Department of Agriculture for vehicles and new equipment. (BDR S-1399)
Edward M. Hoganson Jr., Administrator, Bureau of Weights and Measures, Measurement Standard Division, Department of Agriculture:
Our request is for replacement test vehicles and provers for the Weights and Measures Bureau (Bureau). The Bureau’s inspectors spend a considerable amount of their time testing meters that are used for dispensing petroleum products. Petroleum products include gasoline, diesel, propane and other materials. We are requesting to replace two of our testing vehicles that have chassis from 1976 and 1985. The testing and holding tanks are approximately 40 years old.
When I started with the department in 1983, these tanks were mounted on 1962 international pickup trucks. So, I know personally the heritage behind these trucks. We are concerned about the wells and the fatiguing of the materials. The measuring devices that are on these proving trucks are no longer certifiable by our Metrologist, and they need to be replaced. Two of the vehicles for petroleum testing are replacements and one is to accommodate the growth of service stations in Las Vegas.
Chairman Raggio:
Who is the state’s Metrologist?
Mr. Hoganson:
I have him here today. His name is Steven Grabski. Steve is the Northern supervisor for the Bureau and he is the state Metrologist.
Chairman Raggio:
Tell us what a state Metrologist is.
Steven Grabski, Northern Supervisor/Metrologist, Bureau of Weights and Measures, Measurement Standards Division, Department of Agriculture:
Senator, a state Metrologist sets the standard for the state for mass, volume and length. The standards I have in the laboratory are directly traceable to the National Standards, and I use those standards to calibrate provers, mass standards, weights, and so forth.
Chairman Raggio:
What is the NIST Handbook 105?
Mr. Grabski:
NIST is the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Handbook 105 is the design and specification criteria for provers, weights, lengths, and devices.
Chairman Raggio:
Your responsibility is to prove the standards for certifying this type of equipment. Mr. Hoganson is telling us this revered, old equipment is no longer certifiable. Is that the case?
Mr. Grabski:
That is correct, Senator. There is corrosion on the inside of some of these provers, which affect the drain characteristics. You end up having more residual inside the prover than should be, and it results in inconsistencies.
Chairman Raggio:
Does your office work independent of Mr. Hoganson?
Mr. Grabski:
No, Senator, I am directly supervised by Mr. Hoganson.
Chairman Raggio:
What will $202,440 provide? (Exhibit L is a “Priority List of Unfunded Requests.”)
Mr. Hoganson:
We are anticipating replacing two vehicles. In the handout entitled, “FY‑02 One Shot Request” (Exhibit M), please look at the picture section. The first picture shows an inspector who is testing a dispenser at a gasoline station measuring 5‑gallon drafts for accuracy. The second picture is a test vehicle, which has three one-hundred-gallon storage tanks so that we can do three different grades of fuel at the same time. On the back of the unit, you can see a large 30‑gallon prover, and that is so we can accommodate the high-speed pumps at truck stops. Those three are the vehicles involved.
On the second page you will see a trailer-mounted prover that is used for propane. The two provers hold 100-gallons to accommodate the delivery capacity of a truck and the smaller one is to accommodate products dispensed located at service stations. The second picture is a 100-gallon prover used for various petroleum products. We are asking for one 100-gallon prover and a large prover of 600‑gallon capacity to accommodate the refueling equipment at the airport. Airplanes are fueled at 500-600 gallons per minute and we have to accommodate a one-minute run, and have the device with the proper safety interlocks so we can tie into the fueling systems at the airports. The bottom picture is the 1977 International truck which has three provers built within its body. They are no longer certifiable and the truck itself is a high maintenance item.
Chairman Raggio:
How many vehicles will these funds acquire?
Mr. Hoganson:
This would acquire three vehicles and three provers.
Chairman Raggio:
Are these custom made?
Mr. Hoganson:
Yes, they are, Senator. We have them designed and built locally by a welding shop to our specifications. This gentleman has built similar units for us in the past, and they are quite serviceable and serve our purposes. The provers are standard from the Serafin Test Measure Company in Rancocas, New Jersey. They supply the provers that go on the test vehicle as well.
Chairman Raggio:
Senator Jacobson is our resident expert on this subject. Has there testimony been accurate, Senator?
Senator Jacobson:
Yes, I have dealt with them for 40 years. In many cases they were our salvation because they would determine whether our delivery truck meters were accurate. A lot of times we were cheating ourselves.
Senator O’Donnell:
Mr. Chairman, you may be aware of Clark County’s desire to take on a lot of these weights and measure sampling processes under a new metropolitan Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). I am wondering how this is going to affect this particular budget if, in fact, they are going to be duplicative in doing the same kind of testing the Bureau of Weights and Measures is doing.
Mr. Hoganson:
We are working closely with Clark County and Washoe County on testing methods.
Chairman Raggio:
Do they do their own testing?
Mr. Hoganson:
They do not. We do testing for them in our laboratories in Las Vegas and Reno. Clark County also sends some of their materials to private labs in California for other areas of testing. What we are proposing in this particular area is for the inspection of the devices.
Chairman Raggio:
Regardless of that, you are still going to need the equipment.
Mr. Hoganson:
We need the equipment because we are charged to test all commercial devices in the state. This is mostly for volume, metric, and dispensing of the meters, not necessarily for the quality of the fuel. We have our Bureau of Petroleum Technology, which analyzes the samples the Bureau inspectors take, as well Clark County and Washoe County. Then, we take appropriate action if we find substandard or contaminated fuels.
Senator O’Donnell:
As I understand it, there is a bill that allows the county commission to add a $3 fee on top of the smog inspection fee. That $3 was supposed to go to fund the metropolitan EPA down in Las Vegas. It was presented to me that they were going to be doing the weights and measures and gas station monitoring. I do not know whether this $3 fee is a ruse. If they are going to do this, fine. If we are going to pay for it at the state level and then they are going to raise the fee $3 in Las Vegas, I have a concern about that.
Mr. Hoganson:
Senator, I am not fully aware of their policies or intent. I have had no indication the counties are getting into the fuel-testing business, although they do have inspectors and do check for vapor recovery factors covered by their ordinances. Their inspectors take samples as well, but we usually process the samples for them. I do not believe there is a conflict right now regarding what our duties are going to be in the future. We do have a Fuel Standard Committee, which is chaired by our Senior Petroleum Chemist, and he is working with the Clark County Air Quality Forum and they are determining what is the best course of action for Clark County. We are participating in any way that we can to assist them to meet their goals. The Department of Agriculture along with the State Environmental Commission determines the alternative fuels and the standards for those fuels. We are very active in that area as well.
Senator O’Donnell:
I want to make sure that we are not duplicating services here. That is my only concern. I do not want the bureau testing and then have the counties come through the front door and test similar matters again. I think the bureau needs to coordinate with Clark County to find out exactly what their intent is and who is going to take what responsibility.
Chairman Raggio:
Paul Iverson, Director, State Department of Agriculture, is present in the audience. I would ask him to check on this matter.
There being no further questions, we will close the hearing on S.B. 450. Let us now proceed to S.B. 459.
SENATE BILL 459: Makes appropriation to Department of Education to update Nevada Report Card software and for development of new criterion‑referenced tests for pupils in grade 8. (BDR S-1425)
Keith Rheault, Ph.D., Deputy Superintendent of Instructional, Research and Evaluative Services, Department of Education:
Good morning. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Raggio:
Let us make a record on what the necessity is for your department’s $1,769,375. (Exhibit N is LCB staff’s information on S.B. 459.)
Dr. Rheault:
For the record, the $1,769,375 would really support three things. The Nevada Report Card software needs updating, and we have handed out an exhibit entitled, “Added School Accountability Elements” (Exhibit O). This handout lists some of the new elements that need to be added to the old software, which is five years old, and some of the changes that have been made, or would be made, to the software.
In FY 2002 the report card upgrade cost would be $121,800. The 8th grade test, or the new criterion-referenced test (CRT), would also be funded by appropriations. For the new 8th grade CRT, $603,844 was budgeted in FY 2000. That would support the development in getting the field test ready for the new 8th grade CRT, in reading, math and science. We would include constructive response items at that amount.
The third item, which was not clear in the bill, is $100,000 in FY 2002 to fund limited English proficiency (LEP) alternative assessments. We requested this in a bill draft through the department and the State Board of Education. It stems from an Office of Civil Rights (OCR) agreement we have been working on out of Seattle. They want us to ensure that LEP students have the same opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge through our system. We are requesting $100,000 in FY 2002 and $150,000 in FY 2003 to scour the country for alternative assessments states or local school districts are using to measure the knowledge of LEP students.
Chairman Raggio:
Did you say that was an agreement that you entered into?
Dr. Rheault:
We did not enter into an agreement specifically for the alternative assessment, but our agreement says that we must ensure, after they look at our current test scores for high school proficiency, the LEP students have had access to the curriculum and that it measures that acumen. The agreement is with a regional office for the OCR out of Washington, D.C.
Chairman Raggio:
Do you have something in writing regarding that agreement?
Dr. Rheault:
Yes, I will give you the agreement. It stemmed from a challenge by a student who took a test in Douglas County and claimed the high school proficiency exam was not measuring what he knew. This was from the old test. It is a case that goes back to 1995, when we were still using the old test. We have an agreement with them and it is nothing they are forcing us to do. This is a joint agreement and we are doing our best to demonstrate that our test is accurate, fair and reliable.
Chairman Raggio:
You are saying this includes $100,000 for FY 2002 and $150,000 in FY 2003. That is included in the $1.7 million.
Dr. Rheault:
Yes. I might add that these figures match exactly what is in The Executive Budget.
Chairman Raggio:
I am trying to follow your breakdown. The sheet you gave us pertaining to your requests indicates a total of $121,800, which includes some indirect costs. We have that, and then you have $250,000 for “access for limited English proficiency student.” That is $371,800. Where is the balance of the funds?
Dr. Rheault:
The rest of the money is strictly for the 8th grade CRT in the amount $1,306,225.
Chairman Raggio:
I want you to submit a detailed sheet for the whole amount that sets out how you arrived at this number and see whether adjustments are needed.
Dr. Rheault:
I will put this on a spreadsheet so that it is clear, as is the rationale. (Exhibit P is the exhibit Dr. Rheault submitted after the hearing.)
Chairman Raggio:
That would cover the biennium?
Dr. Rheault:
Yes. That would cover the biennium.
Chairman Raggio:
That would cover the CRT for all pupils in the 8th grade. I would be grateful if you would give that information to committee staff as soon as possible.
Dr. Rheault:
Yes, Sir.
Chairman Raggio:
Mr. Smith, did you have anything to add to this.
David Lawson Smith, Ph.D., Assistant Director, Finance and Accountability, Department of Education:
I would only add the information that I have already provided regarding the change in the Nevada Report Card software.
Chairman Raggio:
There being no questions from the committee, we will close the hearing on S.B. 459. We will open the hearing at this time on S.B. 461.
SENATE BILL 461: Makes appropriation to University and Community College System of Nevada for new and replacement equipment in computing center. (BDR S-1428)
Dan Miles, Vice Chancellor for Finance & Administration, University and Community College System of Nevada:
Senate Bill 461 is a one-shot appropriation for computer, technology equipment and software for the system computing services of the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN). This was included in the Governor’s recommended budget and, next to funds from any “hold harmless’ requirements within the formulas for UCCSN, it was the highest one-shot priority from the Board of Regents. We will be requesting amendments to the bill today.
Our amendments would reduce the amount requested and add some language.
Chairman Raggio:
We have a yellow handout entitled, “SCS One Shot budget Request Clarification” (Exhibit Q).
Becky T. Seibert, Deputy to the Executive Director of System Computing Services, University and Community College System of Nevada:
The system computing services for the UCCSN has two primary missions. It provides technology services for the entire university system, primarily in the area of administrative applications. That is the personnel payroll system, the student information system, and the financial system. It also provides a statewide educational network connecting all of the campuses to each other and to the Internet.
The budget and the planning process for system computing services are driven by three primary factors. First is plain and simple growth, more students, and more employees of the university system. Second are changes in how technology is used in education, such as in instruction, research, service and administrative applications. An example of those kinds of changes is the fact that instruction is now very dependent on technology. Students take courses with a web component. For example, at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, (UNLV) there are 12,000 students who have accounts on a web computer technology (CT) server, which means they are taking courses with a web component. There are 600 faculty and instructors who are trained to provide that kind of instruction.
Another instructional example of this kind of change is the interactive video network, which connects all the university campuses and rural school districts in Nevada. Over 300 hours a week are provided for over 125 courses a week. Another example of technology changes in the research area is that researchers at the University of Nevada, Reno, (UNR), UNLV and the Desert Research Institute absolutely must have access to the national high speed research network II in this day and age to qualify for grants and be part of research projects nationally. An example of a change that has occurred in the administrative services would be student registration via the web. Students used to walk in and stand in line. Then they got the chance to register over the telephone. Now, about 50 percent of them access registration for courses over the web. So, these are the kinds of technology changes that we must accommodate at our system computing services.
The final factor that drives our budget is changes from our vendors that provide us with our primary hardware and software. We are an organization of about 100 employees and we are absolutely dependent on the vendors who provide systems, such as the student information system, the human resources system, and the financial system, as well as the major hardware that the systems run on. When these vendors make a change in strategy, incorporate new technology for efficiency or for more functionality, and offer a new version or a new generation, it is essential that we stay up with them or we will end up with products that are not supported. We are not staffed to provide our own support without the vendors. Those are the three factors that are behind the kinds of requests that we have to bring to you every biennium.
In this particular budget, you have two items in front of you: a spreadsheet and a memorandum from Davan Weddle, Vice Chancellor for Technology. (Exhibit Q and Exhibit R.) From the spreadsheet in the upper right hand corner you will see the total amount for this one-time request for the biennium is $2,523,863. That falls into two primary categories and you will see below that is a breakdown of the two categories. The first being “applications and technical services” and “telecommunication services,” which is Nevada Net, our statewide network. The things that we need to accomplish under “applications and technical services” in the coming biennium are to accommodate the kind of growth I mentioned earlier, the sheer number of students and transactions. Our student information system has grown 80 percent in the number of processes that it has to transact in two years. So, you can see that is a system that is growing very quickly. The kind of things we add to accommodate that growth are disc drives and tape drives. Also, web-based registration requires much more processing capacity and capability than the old fashioned kind of punch card registration.
The second thing we are asking for in this area has to do with two of these vendor changes that I mentioned. International Business Machines (IBM) that provides us with two platforms, one in Reno and one in Las Vegas, is going to a new series in the next two biennia. They are moving to what they call z900 and z/OS technology. We must keep up with them, but we have a couple of biennia to accomplish that. In order to do that we must move one of our machines from “fourth generation hardware” to “fifth generation hardware.” On the other machine, we are on “third generation hardware,” and must move to “fifth generation hardware.” Our strategy for accomplishing that is to upgrade our biggest server, our most important, hardest-working server, and the student information server to the “fifth generation” in this biennium. That will require a hardware change and associated software increases. When you run on more capable hardware, the software vendors charge you more because you are on better equipment.
The bad news is the IBM hardware is about $270,000 more than we had anticipated when we originally submitted our budget to the Governor. The good news, however, is that the human resources system provided by the software company Integral Development Corporation has changed their strategy to be more simple. We will not require the kind of training and the additional software we thought we were going to need. So, we were able to reduce that request to nearly $317,000 less than what we had previously submitted to the Governor. Overall, we do have a savings between these two changes. Your committee staff has been gracious in working with us regarding these new developments that have both occurred since September 2000 when we submitted our budgets.
The third area in administrative computing is to upgrade something called “edify boxes,” which are telephone registration boxes. They reside on every campus. The web registration is still very important, and the most popular form. Telephone registration is still very important as well. We have to upgrade those again to stay up with the vendors, software and hardware, which is supported.
That is the general outline of this applications and technical services request.
Chairman Raggio:
You have succeeded in overwhelming the chair, and so, I will defer to Senator O’Donnell. There being no question or comment, is there anything else that you would like to present, Mr. Miles.
Mr. Miles:
Mr. Chairman I mentioned at the beginning that we would be requesting amendments. The first amendment would be to reduce the appropriation request to $2,523,863. The second would be that on line 3, it says for “new and replacement equipment.” But there is associated software involved, as well. We would like to expand that language to say, “new and replacement equipment and software.”
Chairman Raggio:
I believe the committee can do that without the necessity of a written amendment. Committee staff, can you accommodate that last amendment language.
There being no further testimony on S.B. 461, we will close the hearing on S.B. 461.
Chairman Raggio adjourned the hearing at 8:44 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
__________________________
ElizaBeth Root
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
____________________________
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
DATE:
____________________________