MINUTES OF THE
BUDGET SubcOMMITTEE
of the LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION
Seventy-second Session
January 21, 2003
The Budget Subcommittee of the Legislative Commission was called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio, at 8:30 a.m., on Tuesday, January 21, 2003, in Room 4100 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 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Vice Chairman
Senator Dean A. Rhoads
Senator Barbara K. Cegavske
Senator Sandra J. Tiffany
Senator Bob Coffin
Senator Bernice Mathews
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman
Ms. Christina R. Giunchigliani, Vice Chairwoman
Mrs. Vonne Stout Chowning
Mr. Richard D. Perkins
Mr. David E. Goldwater
Mr. David R. Parks
Ms. Sheila Leslie
Ms. Kathryn A. McClain
Mr. John W. Marvel
Mr. Lynn C. Hettrick
Mrs. Dawn Gibbons
Mr. Bob Beers
Mr. Walter Andonov
Mr. Joshua B. Griffin
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Gary L. Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst
Mark W. Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst
Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Steven J. Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Michael Archer, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
John P. Comeaux, Director, Department of Administration
Daniel K. O’Brien, Manager, State Public Works Board, Department of Administration
David Sanger, Wildlife Staff Specialist, Division of Wildlife, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Gustavo Nunez, Deputy Manager, Professional Services, State Public Works Board, Department of Administration
Scott K. Sisco, Interim Director, Department of Cultural Affairs
Robin V. Reedy, Deputy of Debt management, Office of the State Treasurer
Evan R. Dale, Deputy Manager, Administration and Finance, State Public Works Board, Department of Administration
Deborah A. Agosti, Chief Justice, Nevada Supreme Court
Ron Titus, Court Administrator and Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, Office of Court Administrator
Judy Holt, Manager, Budget and Finance, Office of Court Administrator
THE EXECUTIVE BUDGET—OVERVIEW
Senator Raggio:
It seems like we just left the last session. I say that for the people who are always suggesting we have annual sessions. It seems like we come together as often as needed. This morning we are scheduled to hear the Executive Budget overview and the proposed Capital Improvement Projects. At the end of the agenda we will hear the judicial branch budget overview.
John P. Comeaux, Director, Department Of Administration:
I will read my prepared text (Exhibit C), pages 1-4.
Let me go through the Statement of Projected Unappropriated General Fund Balance — Fiscal Year (FY) 2003 – 2005 on page INTRO-2, in Volume 1 of the Executive Budget. The General Fund unappropriated balance on July 1, 2002, was $90,412,495. We have a slight disagreement with the fiscal division over that amount. There are two small items we have not agreed upon, which total less than $9000. We will inform you if an adjustment to that balance is necessary.
The estimated revenue for FY 2002, gauged by the Economic Forum on December 1, was $1,813,496,507. The routine revenue adjustment is an addition of $862,517, and is associated with the Department of Personnel repayment. The Executive Budget In Brief (Exhibit D. Original is on file in the Research Library.), on page 51, shows the Integrated Financial System (IFS) payment for the Department of Personnel is being increased beginning this fiscal year as a result of a recalculation of the repayment schedule. That will add nearly $1 million in the current year, and each fiscal year of the next biennium.
The next item on the Statement of Projected Unappropriated General Fund Balance, Needs-driven Revenue Enhancements, is $83,937,244. This revenue would be produced by the early implementation of tax increases that the Governor is recommending. The schedule in the Executive Budget In Brief on page 20 shows $29.7 million of the $83.9 million is due to early implementation of an increase in the cigarette tax. The Executive Budget In Brief, page 45, briefly describes these revenue enhancements. The Governor recommends that, effective April 1, 2003, the cigarette tax be increased from the existing 35 cents a pack, to $1.05 a pack. Of the existing 35 cents, 10 cents is now distributed to local governments. The 70 cents-a-pack increase would all go into the General Fund. If implemented on April 1, 2003, it would generate $29.7 million dollars by the end of the current fiscal year.
A liquor tax increase is estimated to generate about $4.2 million, if the recommended 89 percent increase is approved. That 89 percent is designed to offset the effects of inflation over time.
The next item is the business license tax, estimated to produce $42.7 million in additional revenue. The recommendation is for that tax to be increased from $25 a quarter, per employee, to $75 a quarter, per employee, effective April 1, 2003. The tax base will be expanded to include all “for-profit” private sector business establishments. That means the existing “first employee” exemption would be eliminated.
The next item is the increase in the secretary of state fees. The description is in the Executive Budget In Brief, page 46. It is recommended that all secretary of state fees be increased by 50 percent, effective April 1, 2003. That would produce about $6.8 million for FY 2003. Also described on page 46, are restricted slot fees. If implemented on April 1, 2003, at the 33 per cent increase recommended, it would produce about $600,000 for this fiscal year.
The other items in the appropriations section of the General Fund Balance Statement for FY 2003 have to do with reversions and other adjustments. We estimate that normal reversions for this fiscal year will be $39,370,000. There is an adjustment to the General Fund balance for an additional refinancing that the treasurer completed last fall. This produced a savings of $2,240,000. The cuts the Governor made in one-time appropriations, which were available for this fiscal year, amount to $28,101,841. The net of the 3 percent budget cuts the Governor made will total $33,150,440. That is presented as a net amount because we are going to have to release some of that back to the agencies, principally to Medicaid. Altogether, the funds available for the fiscal year will be $2,001,158,549. The ongoing appropriations for this fiscal year are $1,969,730,496.
The amount recommended to restore fund balances is $13,992,456. The Executive Budget describes the routine restoration of the Interim Finance Contingency Fund, the Statutory Contingency Fund, the Stale Claims Account Fund, and the Board of Examiners Emergency Fund. The Governor recommends making a $50 million appropriation directly to the Fund to Stabilize the Operation of State Government. That would be contingent on the additional revenues being approved and no other emergencies taking place that would affect our expenditures.
The Supplemental Appropriations to FY 2003 page Intro-18, in Volume One of the Executive Budget, shows a $71,750,340 appropriation to the Distributive School Account (DSA). This appropriation is required principally due to the anticipated decrease in the local school support tax, which the school districts will collect over this biennium. Another $7,313,621 would go to Medicaid. The total appropriation for FY 2003 is $2,073,241,449.
We have accounted for the required $2 million transfer to the Disaster Relief Fund. I am not sure the entire transfer would be available, though, if the next item is approved by this Legislature. That is the transfer of the $100 million from the Fund to Stabilize the Operation of State Government to the State General Fund. If that transfer is made early enough, the entire $2 million transfer to the Disaster Relief Fund may not be available. The cost of the 18th Special Session was $160,000. We estimate that the cost of the FY 2003 legislative session, over and above what is available in the legislative fund, will be $11 million. That would result in an ending fund balance of $105,169,595 on June 30, 2003. This represents about 5.2 percent of appropriations. We are required to present an Executive Budget that provides an ending fund balance of not less than 5 percent. This is slightly more than that, or about $101,000,000.
The Economic Forum’s estimate of existing revenues, for the first year of the next biennium, is $1,896,022,994. The routine revenue adjustments described in the Executive Budget In Brief, page 20, are in addition to the increase in the Department of Personnel repayment to the IFS.
The Executive Budget In Brief, page 51, describes four routine adjustments to these revenues that must be made. The first is related to the Division of Financial Institutions within the Department of Business and Industry. The Executive Budget proposes that the division go on a self-funded basis beginning in FY 2004. The revenues collected on a reimbursement basis are currently deposited directly to the General Fund. This proposal would have those revenues collected on a prospective basis from the financial institutions, and those revenues would go directly into the financial institution division’s budget. Thus, an adjustment downward in the revenues estimated by the Economic Forum is necessary in the amount of $1.8 million in each year of the biennium.
The Executive Budget proposes the Real Estate Division increase licensing fees by $20 for original licenses, and $10 for renewals, beginning in FY 2004. This will generate approximately $150,000 in the first year of the biennium, and $136,000 in the second year.
The next item is a downward adjustment from the payback of about $335,000 to the Higher Education Tuition Trust in FY 2003. This budget recommends that payback amount be decreased by $335,000 per year for the next 2 years. That would reduce the revenue estimated by the Economic Forum by $335,000 a year.
The last item is related to cost recovery that is connected with The Statewide Cost Allocation Plan. That adjustment will result in total additional reimbursements from the non-General Fund budgets of about $3.1 million in each year of the upcoming biennium. That is due to including a recapture of construction costs for the Sawyer Office Building, as well as the recapture of the cost for developing the new IFS. This accounts for the approximately $2 million in revenue adjustments that show up in each year of the next biennium.
The Executive Budget In Brief,page 46-47, describes the new taxes. Increase of the cigarette tax would produce $120.9 million in FY 2004, and $122.8 million in FY 2005. The increase in the liquor tax would produce $17.3 million in FY 2004, and $17.7 million in FY 2005. The increase in the business license tax would produce an estimated $176.1 million in FY 2004, and $190.7 million in FY 2005. The recommended increase in the secretary of state fees would produce $28 million in FY 2004, and $28.9 million in FY 2005. The increase in restricted slot machine licenses would produce $2.3 million in the first year, and $2.4 million in the second year.
The Executive Budget In Brief, page 46, describes a proposed increase in the business license fee. The proposal is to change the current one-time fee of $25 to an annual fee of $100 for each business beginning in FY 2004. That would produce $9.1 million in the first year of the biennium, and $10.3 million in the second year.
The next item is the proposed amusement tax, Executive Budget In Brief, page 47. An admissions and amusement tax of 7.3 percent will be applied to admissions and amusements except casino entertainment tax, boxing and wrestling fees where currently imposed, and participatory activities. It is estimated if the tax were put into effect on July 1, 2004, it would produce $82.5 million in FY 2004, and $85.8 million in FY 2005.
On page 47 in the Executive Budget In Brief is a proposed increase in property tax, which would increase the tax by 15 cents per $100 of assessed value. This additional revenue would go into the General Fund. Currently the State does not participate in the property tax rate except to the extent of our debt rate, which coincidentally is 15 cents. We would collect this revenue in the second year of the biennium, and it would produce $99.5 million in that year.
The Executive Budget In Brief, page 20, shows revenue enhancements totaling $436.2 million. The Executive Budget shows $423,655,851. The difference is about $12.5 million in the first year, and about $20 million in the second year. We netted out the amount we think the Department of Taxation will require for information technology and staff to implement these tax changes.
We estimate reversions in FY 2004 will amount to $46,964,000. This is approximately 2 percent of the ongoing appropriations, which, for the first year of the biennium, is our historic average level. That would provide a total revenue of $2,368,000,000 for FY 2004. The recommended ongoing appropriation for FY 2004 totals $2,348,194,839, an increase of approximately 16.5 percent over the current fiscal year.
We provide for the required transfer to the Disaster Relief Fund of $2 million, producing an ending fund balance on July 1, 2004, of $123,654,916. That is about 5.3 percent of ongoing appropriations. The minimum General Fund lending balance required would be about $117 million.
The Economic Forum’s estimate of existing revenue is $1,992,982,730 for FY 2005. The routine revenue adjustments total $2,035,540. The revenue enhancements for FY 2005 would produce a net total of $538,055,652, with estimated reversions of $55,384,000, which represents about 2.25 percent of appropriations, which is close to our historic average. The total ongoing appropriations for FY 2005 are recommended at $2,461,514,031.
The Governor recommends a direct appropriation in the second year of the biennium to the Fund to Stabilize the Operation of State Government in the amount of $50 million. That would return the Fund to Stabilize the Operation of State Government to its existing level of about $136 million by the end of the next biennium. We estimate the cost of the 2005 legislative session will be about $13 million, resulting in an ending General Fund balance of $185,598,000 on July 1, 2005. That is approximately a 7.5 percent of ongoing appropriations. The 5 percent minimum lending fund balance required would be just under $124 million.
The anticipated revenue from new sources that we know the least about is the amusement and admissions tax. It is recommended that we plan for an ending fund balance larger than the minimum required due to that uncertainty.
In the Executive Budget In Brief, page 50, the top chart indicates the percentage of General Fund revenues that are currently provided by sales and gaming taxes. This amounts to about 71.2 percent of all revenue. If the Governor’s proposals were approved, that percent would drop to 56.8 percent all revenue. The Executive Budget In Brief,page 48, gives a graphic presentation of revenue sources.
Senator Raggio:
Would you clarify what types of events this 7.3 percent tax would affect?
Mr. Comeaux:
It would be levied against amusements and admissions except those that are currently covered by our existing casino entertainment tax and our taxes on boxing and wrestling, since those are already taxed. It would also exempt participatory-type activities.
Assemblywoman Leslie:
Would participatory activities be things like golf?
Mr. Comeaux:
Yes. This would include golf, bowling, and activities like that.
Assemblywoman Leslie:
I believe that will be a cause of alarm if we are taxing people on their video rentals, but not taxing golfers.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Could you give me the percentages of what we currently tax the casinos for amusements and admissions?
Mr. Comeaux:
I believe its either equivalent to the sales tax rate or is 7.3 percent.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Please find this out for me. I am curious to see whether there is an equity issue there.
Mr. Comeaux:
I will.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Was there a rationale for exempting the participatory sports?
Mr. Comeaux:
I think the rationale was that we did not want to discourage the participatory type activities.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Would we define a family watching a video at home as participatory?
Mr. Comeaux:
Apparently the task force did not.
Assemblyman Arberry:
The Governor wants to increase the cigarette tax at a time when there is a big move to get people to quit smoking. The revenue from cigarette tax is going down. You are looking to increase it on the backs of the die-hard smokers. If you force the die-hard smokers out, where would this end up if the cigarette taxes keep going down?
Mr. Comeaux:
Consumption in Nevada has decreased, but our population growth has increased. As a result of this increase, I do not think a serious decline in the tax revenue will occur soon. I suppose the revenue will eventually decline, and I think that is part of the idea.
Assemblyman Arberry:
Was it really keeping up with the population and inflation?
Mr. Comeaux:
Our revenues have increased slightly or remained flat for quite some time.
Mr. Comeaux:
The chart in the Executive Budget In Brief on page 27 provides a summary, by function, of the General Fund appropriations recommended in the Executive Budget. The columns for FY 2004 and FY2005 show the ongoing appropriations from the General Fund. The Executive Budget provides for General Fund appropriations of $2.35 billion in FY 2004, and about $2.46 billion in FY 2005, an increase of just over $1 billion, or about 28 percent, for the biennium. Nearly all of the General Fund appropriation represents spending necessary to continue State programs under existing conditions and for maintenance purposes, such as caseload growth and new mandates. Approximately 54 percent of the total General Fund spending is targeted for education.
The Executive Budget In Brief, page 29, displays a pie-chart that shows where the appropriations would go by function. For the upcoming biennium, $1.69 billion out of the total education appropriation of $2.64 billion is budgeted for the General Fund support to the DSA. That is, in part, to fund K‑12 enrollment increases of about 26,000 students over the biennium. The State’s medical obligations total $645.8 million out of the $1.36 billion in human services spending over the biennium. Human services accounts for 28.4 percent of the General Fund appropriations. Another $92.5 million is for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. That is about a $40 million increase over the General Funds that are provided to support that program for the current biennium. Over $450 million in General Fund spending, or about 9.4 percent of the total, is earmarked for public safety purposes. All other functions of government will account for approximately 7.4 percent of the General Fund spending. That totals $355 million for everything other than education, public safety, and human resources.
The Executive Budget In Brief, page 33, indicates that most departments are keeping position growth to a minimum or are not adding any. The Department of Corrections is eliminating over 100 positions in FY 2004. The Department of Public Safety is eliminating 38 positions. There is a net increase in the Executive Budget of 301 new full time equivalent (FTE) positions in FY 2004, and an additional 128 positions in FY 2005. Those increases are almost exclusively caseload driven. For example, the net increase in the Department of Human Resources positions is 170 in FY 2002, and 113 in FY 2005. Those are mostly in the Welfare Division and are absolutely caseload related.
The Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) is requesting 206 positions, with funding from non‑General Fund sources, in FY 2004. The majority of those positions are designed to keep the waiting time at the DMV facilities at under an hour.
The Department of Transportation (NDOT) is requesting an additional 42 new positions; most are related to highway maintenance. Exclusive of these three departments, the State payroll is being reduced by 116 positions in FY 2004. In FY 2005, there will be a net of 15 new positions outside the Nevada Department of Human Resources. A good way to look at the number of positions in state government is to measure them relative to the population. The chart in the Executive Budget In Brief, page 7, shows that State employment in Nevada has declined from 8 percent in 1995 to 6.5 percent by the end of FY 2005. Since our caseloads in many areas are growing much faster than the population as a whole, this decrease is even more significant.
There is an anticipated increase in the retirement rate for regular members of Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) from 18.75 percent to 20.25 percent. The rate for the police and fire employees is expected to stay unchanged at 28.5 percent. The Executive Budget recommends the monthly subsidy to Public Employees Benefit Program (PEBP) be increased from the current level of $466 an employee, a month, to $496 an employee, a month, in FY 2004, a 6.4 percent increase. For FY 2005, an additional 12.6 percent increase is recommended, raising the monthly contribution to $558 an employee, a month. Similar percentage increases in the State’s subsidy are recommended for retirees as well.
This budget also includes the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) recommendation that will total $242 million and be financed from a variety of sources, particularly State funding of $172.5 million. That would principally come from general obligation bonds, with a recommendation that the Legislature approve a debt service rate for the coming biennium of 16 cents per $100 of assessed value. That would be a one-cent increase over the existing debt rate.
Assemblyman Marvel:
It is really going to have quite a negative impact on numerous local governments unless we raise the cap on the $3.64 per $100 of assessed property value. Was that considered?
Mr. Comeaux:
It was. The Governor is considering a bill in connection with this that would increase the cap.
I will read pages 5 through 7 of my prepared text (Exhibit C), which includes the costs for fighting the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, the Judicial Retirement System, and Department of Administration cost oversight and coordination positions. This will also cover funding for education initiatives and health programs.
Senator Raggio:
How many “at-risk” schools does this contemplate, and what is the total cost, over the biennium, of the full-time kindergarten for that number of schools?
Mr. Comeaux:
There are 416 schools. It is supposed to represent about 30 percent of the total. Over the biennium it would cost $24 million.
Senator Raggio:
It says here that $4 million and $2.4 million, respectively, are for portable buildings for kindergarten. There will be no cost in the first year of the biennium for full-day kindergarten instruction. It is $17.6 million in the second year. This is at variance with what you have said. They are providing half-day kindergarten now. Why would the State now pay for these classrooms?
Mr. Comeaux:
The kindergartens are currently on split days. The proposal is to lease portables to give the school districts time to construct the necessary classrooms. Since this would affect so many schools at once, it would be reasonable to provide the necessary classrooms.
Senator Raggio:
Will this not change the shared responsibility that went along with our present tax structure where the school districts provided facilities and the State‑guaranteed pupil support?
Mr. Comeaux:
It is not inconsistent from the assistance the State provided several years ago to the Lincoln and White Pine county school districts when they were unable to provide their own facilities. This is the same limited funding up front.
Senator Raggio:
This is a tremendous cost if the State is going to have to provide facilities for that program in addition to the $17.6 million to provide teachers for full-day kindergarten in 416 schools.
Assemblyman Hettrick:
I disagree with Mr. Comeaux about the State providing money for school buildings. We did that because the program was in place, and the school districts could not fund anything due to tax problems in those small counties. This is creating a program and adding the buildings. I think we are asking for future problems if we create any new programs that include providing buildings.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
This is part of an unfunded mandate, because our programs will drive those facility needs. Four years ago we considered portables that the State would lease to use with program mandates. If we create programs then we ought to give them an opportunity to get up to speed. There is always a need for portables.
Senator Raggio:
How do we justify a cost-of-living increase of 2 percent for education and no cost-of-living increase for other State workers?
Mr. Comeaux:
The 2001 Legislature set up a trigger mechanism for pay increases for school district employees for this interim based on the ending fund balance on June 30, 2002. Because of our economic situation, that trigger did not go off. If our fund balance had attained the highest level provided for in the trigger, the school district employees would have received a 2 percent pay increase effective July 1, 2002. They would have a 1 percent increase at another level. They did not receive the increase. The understanding was that the 2 percent increase would be built into the base beginning July 1, 2004.
Senator Raggio:
How does the budget coordinate the anticipated growth in the university and community college system and the anticipated loss in the estate tax funding?
Mr. Comeaux:
The budget does not anticipate the loss of the estate tax funding. We have included $67 million in additional funding in the university’s budget due to original forecast enrollment over the biennium. In addition, about $80 million in the Executive Budget would take the funding formulas from the present 79 percent level to 86 percent.
Senator Raggio:
How is the estate tax utilized in the proposed budget?
Mr. Comeaux:
The Executive Budget anticipates using about $90 million in estate tax revenues to provide funding for the 86 percent formula.
Senator Raggio:
Is this across the biennium, and at the end of the biennium will there be anything remaining of the estate tax fund?
Mr. Comeaux:
Yes, it is over the biennium. If this $90 million is used, there would be $13 million left at the end of the biennium and the prospect for additional collections would be reduced.
Senator Raggio:
What about the half of the estate taxes that go to Grades K-12? How is that built into this budget?
Mr. Comeaux:
We have included the maximum funding we estimate will be available from the estate tax, leaving a small reserve for the end of the biennium.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS – OVERVIEW
Senator Raggio:
Please give me the status of the Southern Nevada Veteran’s Home.
Daniel K. O’Brien, Manager, Public Works Board, Department of Administration:
The home is complete. We are still finishing up the landscaping.
Senator Raggio:
Is there adequate funding for the balance of the landscaping?
Mr. O'Brien:
Yes.
Senator Raggio:
What is the status of the Lied Library?
Mr. O'Brien:
The Lied Library is complete and operational. There have been a few things related to construction that will be part of the litigation.
Mr. O'Brien:
I will now read from the text of Nevada State Public Works 2003-2005 Budget Presentation To the 2003 Legislature (Exhibit E. Original is on file in the Research Library.) on page 6, Legal Update. This addresses the status of litigation involving the Lied Library and the Southern Nevada Veterans Home.
Assemblyman Marvel:
Is there an administrator for the Southern Nevada Veterans Home yet?
Mr. O'Brien:
Yes. That is my understanding from Mr. Fulkerson.
Assemblyman Marvel:
Mr. Fulkerson told me yesterday that they did not have an administrator, because they could not afford one.
Mr. O'Brien:
We will find out and get back to you on that.
Senator Raggio:
As you know, the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) cannot allocate from the Contingency Fund during the session. If you need additional money for your litigation costs, it would have to be a supplemental appropriation. We would need to know the amount.
Mr. O'Brien:
Let me read from the introductory letter in the exhibit.
Senator Raggio:
There have been some comments over the years that were critical of the State Public Works Board (SPWB). What do you see as the situation today?
Mr. O'Brien:
Chairman Sean Carnahan is the only SPWB member who is left from the past biennium and the project problems we experienced. We now have a good cross-section of the construction industry represented on the SPWB.
Senator Raggio:
How active has the board been?
Mr. O'Brien:
The SPWB meets on a monthly basis. We realize the need for more oversight of construction projects. The Qualifications of Bidders regulations process is working.
Assemblyman Arberry:
Is it fair to ask us to allocate funding for new projects, when the old projects are not done? What if we decided to hold up all new project requests, until you finished all the earlier projects and then allocated the money?
Senator Raggio:
We would be punishing ourselves with that kind of requirement, because some of these projects require funding from sources other than the State. The agencies involved need to raise the other funding before we can allocate the State funding.
Mr. O'Brien:
I disagree that we are not getting all of our projects completed. Those projects before the IFC have either funding or contractor problems. We provide good service, but we can improve. We have to examine what causes some of these problems. That is the reason for the customer satisfaction survey.
Senator Raggio:
Do we have a policy that State funds are not utilized until the other funding is in place?
Mr. O'Brien:
That is my understanding, but I have not seen it in writing.
Senator Raggio:
It is in the CIP bill. What is an example of an “additional requirement” under the Qualification Of Bidders process for major subcontractors?
Mr. O'Brien:
Currently the legislation refers only to bidders. If we have a major project, the bidder is the prime contractor, who must qualify. The major subcontractors do not have to qualify.
Senator Raggio:
Do you envision a list that they must be on, and does that take into consideration records of poor past performance?
Mr. O'Brien:
Yes. Read with me the text in the exhibit on pages 3 and 4, regarding legislative changes the SPWB is requesting.
With regard to Bill Draft Request (BDR) 540, there are a number of communities that want to adopt the International Plumbing Code, but I have had to deny them because of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 444.430.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST (BDR) 540: Revise statutes to allow for the adoption of a code other than the Uniform Plumbing Code
Senator Raggio:
Is the International Plumbing Code less stringent?
Mr. O'Brien:
The International Plumbing Code brings together all the different code bodies throughout the U.S. into one code. We are evaluating it. The currently used Uniform Plumbing Code is unique because it is the only code that prohibits local governments from adding to it
Look at the summary list of CIP requests under tab 4. The Governor’s highest priority project is C01, a 150-bed psychiatric hospital in Las Vegas. The cost would be $32,238,633. A recent SPWB feasibility study provided site and floor plans based on the Dini-Townsend Inpatient Facility in Reno. This project can now move very quickly.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Why is it necessary to acquire land for this project? Is there space at the mental health institute?
Mr. O'Brien:
No. That property came from the Federal School Land Trust, and it is not really free and clear. We have to pay for it.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
So all of that area is a land grant?
Mr. O'Brien:
It is not a full land grant, but the area we are looking at is School Trust Fund land.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Has there been any other discussion about a better location?
Mr. O'Brien:
We have only looked within the mental health institute campus.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Are there any properties on the mental health institute campus where you would not have to pay the trust account?
Mr. O'Brien:
No.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Is that due to the size of the proposed facility?
Mr. O'Brien:
Yes.
Senator Raggio:
This is a 150-bed facility. Can another 40 beds be added later?
Mr. O'Brien:
Yes. It has a modular design, and more modules can be added.
Another high priority item on the CIP Summary List of Funding Requests is project number C02, the Truckee Meadows Community College (TMCC) Campus Fire Flow Pump Upgrade Station. This will cost $879,193. It is necessary to meet the Truckee Meadows Water Authority’s requirement to upgrade that entire pump station with emergency power backup. We have an interim agreement with them if the project does not get approved.
Next is project number C06, the State Emergency Operations Center (SEOC). The cost is $7,071,365. The current facility is antiquated. We intend to sell it after the SEOC relocates.
The next item is project number C07, Remodel Building 17, Phase II, at the Stewart Complex. This will provide 20,000 square feet for State offices currently in leased space.
Senator Raggio:
What agencies will use that space?
Mr. O'Brien:
The Department of Corrections would use it.
Mr. O'Brien:
The next items, project number C21, the Health Science Building – West Charleston; and project number C23, the Science Engineering and Technology Complex, are high on the university’s list of priorities.
Project numbers C50 and C51 are both for the construction of office buildings in the Capitol Mall area. NRS 353.510 authorizes the State to use an installment payment plan, under the Lease Purchase provision, to finance the design and construction of these buildings.
Senator Raggio:
Where would these buildings be located?
Mr. O'Brien:
They would be located southeast of the Capitol Complex.
Senator Raggio:
Would there be two 120,000 square foot buildings?
Mr. O'Brien:
There would be two buildings, one for the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and one for the Department of Human Resources.
Senator Raggio:
A private company would build them, and then we would lease them with an option or requirement to purchase, is that correct?
Mr. O'Brien:
Yes. It would be an option to purchase. The Legislature would not be obligated and can get out of the purchase agreement at any time.
Senator Raggio:
Is that a very practical approach?
Mr. O'Brien:
Yes, since the State cannot fund the full construction of every building that it needs.
Senator Raggio:
If the State does not exercise the option, the person still owns the building on State land. Will the person funding this require a lease that guarantees their cost?
Mr. O'Brien:
There will be a non-appropriation clause. If funds are not appropriated for the operating budget to pay the lease, the State can get out of the contract. There would be a provision for them to lease the land, with a 30-year limitation on that lease.
Senator Raggio:
Is that being utilized anywhere else at this time?
Mr. O'Brien:
Not by the State of Nevada. However, Washoe County has utilized it.
Next is a project number C09, a 23,000 square foot building for the DMV in North Las Vegas.
Senator Raggio:
Is this paid for through highway funding?
Mr. O'Brien:
Yes.
Senator Raggio:
We are presently leasing the building. The lease expires in 2005. Will this new facility be available before the expiration of that lease?
Mr. O'Brien:
Yes. That was our goal.
Project number C10 is the addition and renovation of the Computer Facility in Carson City. Next item, project number C11, is renovation of mountaintop microwave communication sites. This would provide for more vandal-proof facilities. Project number C12, Hatchery Refurbishment, Phase II, is a continuation of FY 2001 project number C27. C12 is a request for authorization to spend the remaining $14.5 million. This is funded entirely by revenues raised by the Division of Wildlife.
Senator Raggio:
Will this increase the cost of trout stamps?
Mr. O'Brien:
No.
Senator Raggio:
Is there some federal money available?
Mr. O'Brien:
No.
Senator Raggio:
Why does it say “federal aid” in the Nevada State Public Works Board 2003-2005 Recommended Capital Improvement Program, project number C12, first paragraph?
David Sanger, Wildlife Staff Specialist, Division of Wildlife, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources:
There are federal funds available through a federal grant entitled The Hatchery Refurbishment Project.
Senator Raggio:
Why does the CIP Funding Summary not show any federal money involved? Please find out about that.
Assemblywoman Leslie:
Regarding project number C15, the proposed DMV office in South Reno, do you have a site in mind, and is it north of the Mount Rose highway?
Gustavo Nunez, Deputy Manager, Professional Services, State Public Works Board, Department of Administration:
The preferred area would be a site in the vicinity of the freeway, Zolezzi Lane, and Del Monte. It will definitely be located north of the Mount Rose Highway.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
Back to project number C9, a proposed DMV office in North Las Vegas. Is it the intention to build on land we do not own?
Mr. Nunez:
The land is from a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land withdrawal. A portion is being reserved for governmental functions. The current North Las Vegas Office will be vacated.
Assemblyman Perkins:
Regarding project number C06, the proposed SEOC, have there been any efforts to see whether this can be built with federal funds, such as funds set aside for anti-terrorism efforts?
Mr. O'Brien:
So far nothing has been made available to us. Because there are no guarantees that federal funds will be available, the Governor is asking the State to fund this facility.
Assemblyman Perkins:
If federal funds do become available, would you have any opposition to freeing these funds up for other projects?
Mr. O'Brien:
I would have no objection.
I will now discuss the maintenance projects under tab 4, of the budget presentation book, pages 3 through 8. Project number M01 is a high priority. Tiles are falling off the Sawyer Office Building. It needs to be repaired immediately. We are doing an ongoing study and may require additional funds in the future. There may be design and construction errors. We might seek litigation against the contractors if we cannot get reimbursement.
Senator Raggio:
Because we do not have General Fund money available, we have recently begun funding our maintenance projects through bonding. This has dramatically increased the cost of maintenance projects. Which of these projects listed on the Summary List of Funding Requests has the highest priority?
Project numbers M01 through M53 are considered to be of the highest priority.
Senator Raggio:
Looking at project number M41, the parking lot expansion near the attorney general’s office, why is it necessary to demolish the old firehouse?
Mr. O'Brien:
We want to clean up the site.
Senator Raggio:
We are facing a biennium where funding is extremely limited. We might be asking the public to accept an increase in taxes, and it will be more costly to pay for these projects by bonding. I would like you to submit a list of items you consider to be absolutely essential.
Mr. O'Brien:
We will.
Assemblywoman Gibbons:
Why does project number M18 have a higher priority than M70 when both are improvements to prison exercise facilities?
Mr. O'Brien:
The Department of Corrections made these recommendations and gave them that priority. I will get back to you with specifics.
Senator Raggio:
Again, I would like a list of the absolutely essential maintenance projects and the reasons they are essential.
Mr. O'Brien:
Project number M17, replacement of windows and showers for the Northern Nevada Correctional Center (NNCC), was approved in the 2001 session, but we reverted that money back.
Project number M20 is for groundwater protection. We are being required to do this by the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP).
Project number M37 is the repair of the condensate return system at the Indian Springs facility. There are leaks in the lines that run the boilers.
Senator Raggio:
I am surprised it is not given a higher priority.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
Regarding project number M34, why are water softeners for the Lovelock Correctional Center considered more important than the gym facilities in project number M37?
Mr. O'Brien:
I will get back to you on that.
The planning projects are in the 2003 Capital Improvement Program Summary List of Funding Requests, page 9. Project number P01 has to do with sloping floors in the Kinkead Building. This planning project would provide for a study to see whether anything can be done structurally to correct this, and to improve the building’s seismic strength.
The Military Readiness Center, project number P05, has $806,000 in federal funding. In order to get those funds the State would have to provide funding in the amount of $447,000.
Project number P05.5 is a feasibility study to see whether there is a need for a Northern Nevada Veterans home. There is federal funding available.
Senator Raggio:
What about project number P05.6, the Great Basin College in Elko?
Mr. O’Brien:
The funds are necessary to do the schematic design for that facility.
Senator Raggio:
Has there been any initial design on that project?
Mr. O’Brien:
No.
Assemblyman Hettrick:
With regard to the Military Readiness Center, project number P05, are we obligating ourselves to construct it?
Mr. Nunez:
No, we are not obligated. It would be anticipated that if we were going to go through this effort and expense, we would proceed with the future funding.
Assemblyman Hettrick:
What is the estimated cost of the whole project?
Mr. O’Brien:
It is $12 million. This includes 75 percent funding from the federal government.
Assemblyman Hettrick:
I think we are obligating ourselves now because we would not want to later throw away the $1.25 million we paid for the planning. We need to look at what we are obligating ourselves to in the future, before approving planning funds. What is the need for the Military Readiness Center?
Mr. O'Brien:
I would like to defer my response until the military testifies later.
The statewide projects are in the 2003 Capital Improvement Program Summary List of Funding Requests on page 9. These are the ongoing programs that we do each biennium. Project number S03 is the Statewide Fire and Life Safety Program, which takes care of sprinkler and alarms systems throughout the State. The cost is $3,520,787.
Project number S04 is the Statewide Advance Planning Program. The cost is $303,750 and includes Phase II of the Capitol Complex master plan; and the master plan for the Stewart facility.
The Statewide Paving Program, project number S05 is needed to maintain our parking lots.
Project number S06, is the Statewide Asbestos, Lead, Mold, Indoor Air Quality project.
Project number S07 is for the Statewide Underground Storage Tank Removal.
Senator Raggio:
Where do we have significant mold and asbestos problems now remaining?
Mr. O’Brien:
The asbestos problem has been substantially reduced. The mold, however, is an issue that is continuously increasing. There are no real standards for treating it.
Senator Raggio:
What is the source of the $500,000 “Other Funding” for S06?
Mr. O’Brien:
It comes from the Department of Administration, Risk Management Division.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
Why do we need additional funds when we already have an underground storage tank removal fund in place that is replenished by the gas tax?
Mr. O’Brien:
I think there is an issue about who can be reimbursed from that fund. I will look into that.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
We may need to make a change as to which projects can be reimbursed from that fund.
Senator Raggio:
I will have the staff give us an analysis of whether or not those funds are available. We need a list of which planning project items are absolutely essential.
Scott K. Sisco, Interim Director, Department of Cultural Affairs:
Please direct your attention to
the project request sheets (Exhibit
F),
page 16. This is a picture of the back of the Nevada State Museum; the
handicapped entrance is a freight elevator that does not work properly.
The top page shows the need for the Nevada State Museum’s heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) system replacement. Last biennium the cost would have been $165,000, now it will cost $333,918.
The next page is titled Facility Condition Analysis Repairs. Last biennium this would have cost $370,000. This biennium it will cost $653,475.
Now turn to the page titled Removal of Asbestos Floor Tile. This cost $499,429 in the last biennium, this biennium it will cost $502,882. My point is, whatever interest we are paying on the bonds cannot compare with the drastic increases in the cost of these projects and the occasional lawsuits.
Senator Raggio:
We have asked for a list of what is essential, and if these are on that list, that will be fine.
Mr. O'Brien:
The two University Campus Improvement projects are Higher Education Capital Construction (HECC), and Special Higher Education Capital Construction (SHECC) funds. HECC is for campus improvements distributed by the university system to the campus. They provide a list of those projects to the State Public Works Board, and we do an audit to make sure they are for maintenance and not new construction. The SHECC funds are used for maintenance and minor construction. Both total $15 million.
Let me read page 1 of the Debt Capacity Report Biennium 2004-2005
(Exhibit G. Original is on file in the Research Library). This shows the cash flow projections for the Governor’s capital improvement recommendation.
Robin V. Reedy, Deputy of debt management, Office of the State Treasurer:
Our affordability at a 16-cent level is within our capacity report, and we can accomplish these goals. We are far within the constitutional debt limit.
Senator Raggio:
One cent will generate about $5.7 million dollars. That will service how much in bonds?
Ms. Reedy:
Over time, it will produce about $60 million.
Senator Raggio:
I thought it was higher than that.
Ms. Reedy:
It is approximately $60 million. It can be lower if you extend principle payments and pay interest for only the first few years.
Senator Raggio:
The Governor has recommended a 1-cent increase in the share that the State has historically utilized for debt service. Are you saying this will only accommodate another $60 million in construction?
Ms. Reedy:
As the assessed values grow, you end up with more money. If $6 million were guaranteed each of the next 20 years, at an estimated interest rate of 6 percent, it would pay a $60 million bond.
Gary L. Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau:
Over the biennium, the total amount being proposed for bonding for all CIP purposes is $132 million.
Senator Raggio:
Is the 15 cents we are now utilizing for the existing debt service, plus the additional 1-cent, going to be sufficient to service the existing debt as well as that $132 million?
Ms. Reedy:
Yes. We would be within 16 cents, and within our debt capacity of the 2 percent limit of assessed value.
Senator Raggio:
Even though we are below the 2 percent constitutional limit, is there not a limit that affects our credit rating?
Ms. Reedy:
They look at several comparisons to determine our credit rating, but our constitutional debt limit is very conservative. Keeping within that, we would be fine with the rating agencies, as well as with running our capacity models based on the taxes we collect.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
What is the status of the Department of Administration State Motor Pool?
Mr. O’Brien:
If you will refer to page 5, under tab 2, of the budget presentation, that project is on hold.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Is there a proposal to privatize the State Motor Pool?
Mr. O’Brien:
Yes.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Is the $54,000 being requested to demolish the building?
Mr. O’Brien:
The $54,000 balance is to take care of obligations we have on the existing leases.
Mr. Comeaux:
We are currently evaluating a number of proposals to privatize the State Motor Pool. As a first step, we hope to privatize the daily operation in Las Vegas, which would eliminate the need for another motor pool site in the vicinity of the airport.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Have we looked at relocating people who should be working in southern Nevada, so they will not need to travel and rent cars?
Mr. Comeaux:
We have not looked at whether people travel enough to warrant moving them to Las Vegas. I will get back to you on that.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
If the majority of the job should be in southern Nevada, I think it is time we stopped flying people back and forth.
Mr. O’Brien:
Returning to page 5, under tab 2, you will see the High Desert State Prison at Indian Springs is having the housing unit removed from the scope of the project. This is due to the projected reduction in the prison population and should allow $34.9 million to be cut from that project.
Page 6, the Clear Creek Improvements and Maintenance is on hold because the Governor is currently working on a possible lease for the project.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
Regarding privatizing the State Motor Pool, I would like to know what the total projected savings will be when we include the cost of jobs and structures, as well as the cost of not purchasing the vehicles that are going to be rented.
Senator Raggio:
Let us now move on to your operating budget.
Evan R. Dale, Deputy Manager, Administration and Finance, State Public Works Board, Department of Administration:
Please refer to page 7, under tab 3 in the budget presentation book.
Assemblyman Arberry:
Our understanding was that the facility Condition Analysis personnel would audit 300 buildings each year. I understand that they haven’t audited more than 98 a year. What is the problem?
Mr. Nunez:
We have 3 full-time employees. When the current Facility Condition Analysis group was formed there were approximately 200 buildings that had already been investigated. We expect to reach 678 by the end of June 2002. There are 2338 buildings owned by the State, of which 1200 to 1400 are significant buildings. We are close to completing audits on them. The other buildings are smaller and can be inspected more quickly. Once that is done, it will alleviate some of the deficient numbers.
Assemblyman Arberry:
What will you do with the Facility Condition Analysis reports, and when do you think you will begin achieving inspections at a rate of 300 buildings per year?
Mr. Nunez:
Let me answer that by reading page 9.
Assemblyman Arberry:
Do you feel what you have done, and what you are proposing to do, is saving us money?
Mr. O’Brien:
Yes. The Facilities Condition Analysis group has identified many needs. Our reports benefit the agencies by telling them what their problems are and identifies things they can do in the future to save the State money.
Assemblyman Arberry:
Can we see some type of performance indicators to show exactly how this is saving the State money?
Mr. O’Brien:
We will provide them.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Do you inspect all schools, or just the university buildings?
Mr. O’Brien:
In the 17 school districts we do the structural, mechanical, and electrical plan check only. This is for all new construction, additions, and modifications. We do not do the final inspections. In the university system we do both. If the university system funds them, we delegate some of that responsibility to the system, which has staff who can do project management.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
How many project managers do you have in-house?
Mr. O’Brien:
Fifteen.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Do you do design-build?
Mr. O’Brien:
Yes. We coordinate the design-build process. We do some design work as well.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Please provide us with the number of people you have assigned to each specific area and where we might be able to privatize some portion of the public works operation.
Senator Raggio:
Is the transfer out of those three positions the reason that the estimated expenditures are less?
Mr. Dale:
It would be two positions out and one position in, a net decrease of one position.
Mr. O’Brien:
Those two positions are working on all of the projects. That is why we feel they should be in budget account (B/A) 1562. The other is an administrative position, and should be in B/A 1560. This move takes one position out of the General Fund that should not be there.
Senator Mathews:
Under B/A 1562, I notice you want to eliminate one building inspector. How many building inspectors do you have now?
Mr. Dale:
We have 17 inspectors.
Senator Mathews:
An inspector is a cost-efficient person. Why do you want to get rid of one?
Mr. O’Brien:
We anticipate fewer construction projects in the next biennium, so we need fewer inspectors.
Senator Mathews:
Since you cannot hire now, why bother to eliminate the position?
Mr. O'Brien:
That is true.
Senator Raggio:
Is the $70,000 you anticipate receiving from the Division of Buildings and Grounds for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance?
Mr. Dale:
Yes. That is $35,000 each year of the biennium.
Assemblyman Hettrick:
Would the revenue for in-house architecture work relieve General Fund costs for your budget?
Mr. Dale:
This budget is funded by the same sources as the CIP program. In lieu of spending that money on outside architects, we will be spending it on in-house architects.
Assemblyman Hettrick:
What is that revenue going to fund?
Mr. O'Brien:
It will go into B/A 1562. Instead of paying it to an outside architect, it would be paid back to the agency.
Assemblyman Hettrick:
Your architect is on the payroll and is already getting paid.
Mr. O'Brien:
They are getting paid from B/A 1562.
Assemblyman Hettrick:
If they are already being paid, why are we paying them again? Where is the extra money going to go?
Mr. O'Brien:
We are not paying them again.
Assemblyman Hettrick:
Then it is going into B/A 1562 for what purpose?
Mr. O'Brien:
It will be used to offset the operation of that account.
Assemblyman Hettrick:
I do not understand what it is we are offsetting, when we already have enough money to fund the account.
Senator Raggio:
Will the $100,000 you will get for architectural fees be part of the revenue to support this budget?
Mr. O'Brien:
That is correct. In calculating the total fees to fund B/A 1562, we included some architecture fees.
Senator Mathews:
Can you access the International Building Code (IBC) on-line? Can you buy just the pages you require?
Mr. O'Brien:
It is not provided on-line. We are moving from the Uniform Building Code (UBC), to IBC.
Senator Raggio:
How is B/A 1562 funded?
Mr. O’Brien:
From the CIP construction projects.
JUDICIAL BRANCH BUDGET – OVERVIEW
Deborah A. Agosti, Chief Justice, Nevada Supreme Court:
I will read from my prepared text (Exhibit H.). This will provide a brief overview of the court’s past accomplishments and future needs. Mr. Ron Titus will discuss the particular budget items in greater detail.
Senator Raggio:
The precedent value of court opinions is important. Why has the number of written opinions decreased?
Chief Justice Agosti:
It is by design. Not every ruling has precedent value. We have established guidelines that a case must pass in order to be published. We are trying to build a cohesive body of case law for the State. If a case does not answer a question of important public policy, does not resolve conflict in past case decisional law, or construe an important statute in a way that has not been done before, it will not get published.
Ron Titus, Court Administrator and Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, Office of Court Administrator:
My prepared text (Exhibit I.), which I will now read, discusses the research we have completed with law enforcement, and the courts, to determine why administrative assessments are below projections
Senator Raggio:
Will the 60 percent described in BDR 14-613 be earmarked for the Supreme Court?
BILL DRAFT REQUEST (BDR) 14-613: Provide for additional administrative assessment fee to provide additional funding for the Administrative Office of the Courts to cover costs of additional responsibilities.
Mr. Titus:
It all would go to the Administrative Office of the Court (AOC), and the Governor will be add another $4.80 to the Police Officers’ Standards and Training Committee (P.O.S.T.), and the criminal history repository.
Another request, BDR 2-614, calls for an additional $20 civil filing fee. The local court retains $5 of that and the remaining $15 would be distributed to the AOC for technological purposes.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST (BDR) 2-614: Impose a civil filing fee to fund technology for Nevada courts.
Mr. Titus:
We have a contract to rent space for the Regional Justice Center from Clark County. As prospective tenants, we are not told all the issues surrounding the delays. Currently they are not doing any work on our floor. The contractor has given the county a completion date of August 2003. We anticipate moving into our completed space in the spring of 2004.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Do other states finance their courts through assessments of fees?
Mr. Titus:
I am unaware of any other state that funds the judiciary entirely by assessments.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
What is the status of the Clark County recommendation of shifting the court responsibility to the State?
Chief Justice Agosti:
That bill draft was withdrawn. But as long as the State does not control the budgets of the local courts, the Supreme Court can not assist in creating uniformity among those courts.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
You will never have uniformity among all the courts until it becomes a State function. I think its time to review our courts’ procedures.
Chief Justice Agosti:
The heart of the issue is public trust and confidence. We need to provide to the public the idea that there is continuity and uniformity in court practices. We are many years away from a unified court system if we choose to go in that direction. We have to understand the strengths and the weaknesses of these lower courts better before we can start talking about making changes.
Assemblyman Goldwater:
Since you are not moving into the Regional Justice Center until spring of 2004, is that money now in your base?
Judy Holt, Manager, Budget and Finance, Office of Court Administrator:
It is not in base. It will be requested again under the same decision unit number of M-205. We have resubmitted the lease on the Regional Justice Center, and plan on moving into the facility in July 2003. Nothing will be spent until that time.
Senator Raggio:
Hearing no further questions by the members this committee is adjourned at 3:29 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Michael Archer,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
DATE:
Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman
DATE: ___ _________________________________