MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

Assembly Committee on Ways and Means

AND THE

Senate Committee on Finance

JOINT Subcommittee on Public Safety/Natural

Resources/Transportation

 

Seventy-Second Session

March 20, 2003

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance, Joint Subcommittee on Public Safety, Natural Resources, and Transportation, was called to order at 8:11 a.m., on Thursday, March 20, 2003.  Chairman David R. Parks presided in Room 2134 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Guest List.  All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

 

Assembly COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mr. David Parks, Chairman

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani

Mr. Josh Griffin

Ms. Sheila Leslie

Mr. John Marvel

 

 

Senate COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Chairman

Senator Bob Coffin

Senator Sandra Tiffany

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

Speaker Richard Perkins, excused

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

None

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst

Gary Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst

Mark Krmpotic, Senior Program Analyst

Joyce Garrett, Program Analyst

Brian Burke, Senior Program Analyst

Jim Rodriguez, Program Analyst

Catherine Caldwell, Committee Secretary

Susan Cherpeski, Committee Secretary

Chairman Parks called the Joint Subcommittee on Public Safety, Natural Resources, and Transportation to order at 8:11 a.m. and stated that the order of the agenda had been changed to accommodate the Colorado River Commission.  Chairman Parks opened the hearing on Budget Account 4713.

 

PUBLIC SAFETY, HIGHWAY PATROL (201-4713)

BUDGET PAGE: PS-55 – VOLUME III

 

Colonel David S. Hosmer, Nevada Highway Patrol, introduced himself.

 

Chairman Parks noted that they had covered budget reductions and equipment requests at the Nevada Highway Patrol’s last hearing and opened the hearings with decision unit E-805 that requested position reclassifications.  He noted that in November the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) had reclassified two trooper positions to information specialists.

 

Col. Hosmer testified that the two positions had been filled and they were working on the Information Records System (IRIS), as designated under Budget Account 4713.

 

Chairman Parks asked Col. Hosmer to discuss the IRIS projected completion date.

 

Col. Hosmer said the IRIS project would take two years to complete.  The system had several reporting mechanisms and would be connected to the statewide computer-aided dispatch system.  He said he would provide an updated report to the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) staff.

 

Chairman Parks said that would be appreciated and asked for questions from the Subcommittee.  There were no questions.  Chairman Parks closed the discussion on E-805 and opened the discussion on the Dyed Fuels Program in decision unit E-225.  He asked for an overview of the Division’s progress on that project.

 

Col. Hosmer testified that there had been contention regarding the Nevada Highway Patrol performance levels with dyed fuel inspections.  He said when he took command the effectiveness of the state’s Dyed Fuel Program was unclear.  Col. Hosmer directed troopers to perform cursory dyed fuel inspections on commercial vehicles as a first step to correct the situation.  He said if an officer had reasonable suspicion, a sample was taken and forwarded for testing, and if warranted, a citation issued later.  He said that the procedure was an initial step toward assessing the problem and improving performance in that area.

 

Senator Rhoads asked if there had been notable violations in the mining and ranching industries.

 

Col. Hosmer responded that they had found very few violations statewide and attributed that to the fact that they did not inspect every vehicle.

 

Senator Rhoads said that the ranching industry bought non-dyed fuel even for use on ranches rather than risk a violation.

 

Col. Hosmer said that the use of dyed fuel by the large commercial trucking industry was a serious financial problem.  He said avoiding fuel taxes gave them a significant financial advantage over those who ran legal fuel and the practice created a serious loss of revenue to the state.

Chairman Parks asked Col. Hosmer to discuss the Department of Public Safety’s strategy for enforcing the Dyed Fuel Program.  He recapitulated Col. Hosmer’s testimony that troopers should perform cursory inspections.  He asked Col. Hosmer to discuss the role of the high sulfur analyzers and how they fit into the strategy.  He assumed that all the analysis equipment would be at a headquarters location.

 

Col. Hosmer responded that not every trooper in the field would have access to the high sulfur analyzers.  He said the strategy was to question the driver regarding the type of fuel used, request to inspect the fuel, and if dyed fuel was suspected or discovered collect a sample and issue a citation.  Additionally, the driver would be questioned about his or others’ use of dyed fuel.  That information would be logged and transferred to the Department of Motor Vehicles for audit.  Col. Hosmer said there were several pros to the strategy:

• All vehicles were inspected with less chance of evasion.
• The inspections were better tracked.
• There was little inconvenience to the drivers because the stop did not take long.
• Compliance would increase because the industry would know there were increased inspections and that would lead to voluntary compliance.
• The process would give DMV a better assessment of dyed fuel use activity.

 

Col. Hosmer said the cons were:

 

• The same companies would violate the regulations more than once becoming a public relations issue with the companies.
• Inadequate staff to conduct inspections made identifying vehicles in violation difficult.
• The strategy was uneven in its effect, even though the numbers of inspections would rise significantly.  In 2002 the Nevada Highway Patrol inspected 2,220 vehicles and found 24 violations or roughly 1 percent.  From January to February 2003 they had inspected and tested 1,824 vehicles and found 5 violations.  He said at that rate they would surpass the previous year’s testing by the end of March 2003.

 

Chairman Parks moved to decision unit E-276 that requested a new budget analyst position.  He said it appeared that two budget analyst positions were funded in the Administrative Services Division budget.  He asked Col. Hosmer to discuss the need for a third budget analyst position.

 

Col. Hosmer testified that the Nevada Highway Patrol had numerous budget accounts in its subsections.  Historically the Nevada Highway Patrol used sworn personnel to assist in building and monitoring the budgets, and that was not efficient use of staff.  He said they needed trained budget analysts rather than trained police officers to handle budgetary matters.  The request for a new budget analyst position would remove sworn personnel from performing functions for which they were not trained.

 

Chairman Parks asked Col. Hosmer to discuss decision unit E-278 that requested $1 million for furniture, equipment, and telecommunications wiring for their new Las Vegas facility.  He asked for an update on the project.

 

Col. Hosmer asked Captain Perry, Project Manager for the Las Vegas project, to testify on its status.

 

Captain Chris Perry, Nevada Highway Patrol, Southern Command, introduced himself.  He testified that the one-shot budget request was for furniture, data telecommunications wiring, and workstations.  The budget was developed with information from the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) in cooperation with the Freeway and Arterial System of Transportation (FAST).

 

Chairman Parks asked Captain Perry if the project would be completed by June 2004.

 

Captain Perry said meeting the completion date would be very close.  He said the completion date for the construction phase was 12 months from the start date.  He said if there were no problems toward the end of June they would be on schedule and should be able to use the funds.

 

Chairman Parks said the concern was that if the budget request was approved the funds be appropriately spent.

 

Chairman Parks moved to decision unit E-229, and asked for discussion on the request for increased operating expenses to repair and maintain a high band radio system.

 

Col. Hosmer said they were conducting a complete analysis and audit of the system.  If the request were approved, they would present the IFC a detailed report of their needs analysis before disbursing the funds.

 

Chairman Parks asked if the recommended level of funding was reasonable and if some portion of the request should be funded from sources other than the Highway Trust Fund.

 

Colonel Hosmer said they had prepared responses to several questions for Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) staff regarding the dispatch center and cost allocations.  He said the final report would contain all the necessary information before funds were disbursed.

 

Chairman Parks asked for questions or comments.

 

Col. Hosmer said in reference to decision unit E-278 and the infrastructure for the Capital Improvement Project building (99-H1), the time line was very close.  He requested that his staff work with LCB staff to develop language that would accommodate unexpected delays.

 

Chairman Parks noted that the $55,000 recommended for furniture could be processed without difficulty.  He asked Col. Hosmer to discuss how the $88,200 requested for the data and telecommunications wiring portion of the fund request would fit into the construction schedule.

 

Col. Hosmer said the problems were similar to furniture, in that if they purchased the furniture before it could be installed, there would be storage problems.  Chairman Parks said sometimes contractors were eager to store the goods in their own facility for a few months pending installation.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked why the data and wiring were not accomplished concurrent with construction.

 

Captain Perry said that as the building went up the cable was pulled through and laid into the walls.  He said that the infrastructure would be installed prior to the end of the year.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked for further clarification of the process.

 

Captain Perry said the initial Capital Improvement Project (CIP) called for $88,000 for data cabling but the architect said that was not enough funding.  He said $88,000 would bring the cabling from the street to the demarcation point in the building.  They then needed to develop a plan to bring the wiring from the demarcation point to the workstations.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the architect did not automatically include the data lines in the building designs.

 

Captain Perry said that information was included in the mechanical engineering plans but the cost of running the data lines to the workstations far exceeded what had been budgeted in the CIP.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked who projected the $88,000.  Mark Malloy, Nevada Highway Patrol, said the State Board of Public Works had projected the $88,000.

 

Chairman Parks said, with no further questions, they would close Budget Account 4713.

 

Daryl Capurro, Managing Director, Nevada Motor Transport Association, Inc., introduced himself.  He said the Association was concerned about the current dyed fuel enforcement structure within the Nevada Highway Patrol.  He said that commercial enforcement was not as efficient or intense as it should be and that since 1999 it had been under both centralized and decentralized commands, and had been assigned eight commercial enforcement commanders or coordinators.  He said there was lack of continuity and of 58 authorized budgeted positions, commercial enforcement had 16.  He said that posed concerns for safety and dyed fuel enforcement.

 

Mr. Capurro said a dyed fuel enforcement bill was passed several sessions ago that was the model for many states that checked for dyed fuel.  He noted that during the first six months of FY2003 the DPS cited 2 heavy commercial vehicles and 26 lightweight non-commercial vehicles for dyed fuel violations.  He said enforcement in Nevada was at too low a threshold to effectively eliminate the use of dyed fuel on highways.

 

Mr. Capurro added that there was a problem detecting dyed fuel.  At one time the DPS identified 40 million gallons of unaccounted for diesel fuel.  He said unidentified fuel could very well be used on highways as dyed fuel and could represent $8 to $10 million lost to the state.  Mr. Capurro said he appreciated that the DPS was short staffed and noted that they had not had a training academy in two to three years.  He said it was a problem to have individuals who were not adequately trained enforcing the law.

 

Mr. Capurro went on to testify that the courts required detection to be accomplished with appropriate machines.  Those machines could conduct a test within 30 seconds, and levels could be detected at parts per million of red dyed fuel.  Mr. Capurro added that a violation could not be cited even if the fuel was cherry red, and fuel that was not cherry red could be dyed.  He said a trained eye could not detect dyed fuel at a level of 25 percent.  Only proper machines could detect the dye and the Highway Patrol had five or six machines.  He said inspecting 12,000 trucks by peeking into the fuel tanks would not address the problem.  He added that the courts would not uphold a citation using vial samples sent away for testing because the law required testing to be conducted in front of the violator.

 

Mr. Capurro said their concerns were very deep with regard to the dyed fuel inspection and enforcement issues.  He said the Nevada Motor Transport Association had approached the Assembly Transportation Committee and a bill draft request was about to be introduced to remove dyed fuel enforcement from the Highway Patrol to the Compliance and Enforcement Division of the Department of Motor Vehicles.  He said the Compliance and Enforcement Division administered most matters regarding commercial vehicles, the motor carrier section, the international fuel tax agreement, the international registration plan, auditing, and regulatory efforts.  Mr. Capurro said it should send up a red flag if the trucking industry was dissatisfied with the level of service in commercial enforcement.

 

Mr. Capurro turned to the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP), a federal program for commercial enforcement.  He said that the Highway Patrol should have $1.2 million in FY2003 to conduct their dyed fuel inspections in accordance with federal regulations.  He said the Highway Patrol had not qualified for funds in FY2003, but was still responsible for performing its enforcement activities.  Mr. Capurro asked for questions.

 

Senator Rhoads asked Mr. Capurro if there was any material that could be added to dyed fuel to reverse its color to normal.

 

Mr. Capurro said he had heard that such a process had been developed in Canada.  He said the conventional methods to reverse the dyed fuel color did not affect the machine’s ability to detect the presence of red dye in fuel.  He added that virtually all the dyed fuel enforcement had been on the Interstate routes.  He said several states surrounding Nevada already conducted dyed fuel inspections but that few were conducted on the primary and secondary highway systems where they believed the greater problem lay.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked Mr. Capurro to discuss whether or not the checks were random.

 

Mr. Capurro said there were 24 sites in the state that conducted intermittent safety inspections in locations such as Boomtown, Mustang, and Jean.  The stations were opened periodically for random vehicle checks.  He said the inspections were conducted under PrePass, a computerized inspection program that indicated whether or not a vehicle could be passed based on current tax payments.  He said the issues of illegal dyed fuel use would not be resolved by inspecting every vehicle on the Interstate.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the states that conducted inspections issued some form of verification that the vehicle had passed a dyed fuel inspection.

 

Mr. Capurro said no such verification was issued.  He said vehicles on the Interstate highways could be checked several times on a cross-country trip.  He said more enforcement was needed on the alternate roads.  The word spread quickly when there was no enforcement on the primary and secondary roads and those roads became likely places to find dyed fuel traffic.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked for a discussion about the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP).

 

Chairman Parks thanked Mr. Capurro.

 

Col. Hosmer noted that there had been some very recent developments in the MCSAP program of which Mr. Capurro may not have been aware.  He continued to say that there had been a problem between the Highway Patrol and the federal government over what the Highway Patrol Maintenance of Effort requirement would be in order that the MCSAP grant continue.  In a conference call on March 12, 2003, three of the Highway Patrol majors, the MCSAP coordinators, and the state programs division coordinator and MCSAP Washington D.C. contact, were assured that Nevada would not lose MCSAP funding.  He said the Maintenance of Effort formula had been incorrectly calculated.  After several teleconference meetings the formula was recalculated and the original $900,000 projected for match was reduced to less than $300,000.  The federal office informed the Highway Patrol that if they used the $1.2 million and recalculated their Maintenance of Effort formula they would be sure to receive the match.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani thanked Col. Hosmer for the clarification and noted the information was probably more recent than Mr. Capurro’s.  She asked if the budget could therefore be reduced by $600,000.

 

Col. Hosmer said the MCSAP grant Budget Account 4721 was a soft match separate from Budget Account 4713.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if there was $900,000 in it.

 

Col. Hosmer said $900,000 was the figure recommended that Nevada provide to the federal government.  The federal government said $1.2 million but the soft match was $300,000.  Chairman Parks asked Col. Hosmer if he was confident they would receive the $1.2 million.  Col. Hosmer said he was confident.

 

Chairman Parks proceeded to Budget Account 4703, the Public Safety Forfeitures, Law Enforcement.

 

PUBLIC SAFETY, FORFEITURES – FORFEITURES – LAW ENFORCEMENT

BUDGET PAGE: PS-74 – VOLUME III

 

Dave Kieckbusch, Deputy Director, Department of Public Safety, introduced himself and David Ellison, Administrative Services Officer, and Beverley Bergstrom, Management Analyst, Investigation Division, to explain the forfeitures process.  He noted that the forfeitures sources for the Department were from the Highway Patrol and the Division of Investigation.  He said it was a combined fund and was managed that way.

 

David Ellison, Administrative Services Officer, Department of Public Safety, introduced himself and presented Budget Account 4703, the Department of Public Safety forfeitures, on page 74, Volume III of The Executive Budget.  He said that Budget Account 4703 collected and disbursed forfeited funds to support non-routine law enforcement activities such as training and the purchase of technology and equipment.  He stated that decision unit E-250 eliminated the authority for the Byrne Grant match for the Narcotics Division, Budget Account 3744.  He noted that page 3 of the Department of Public Safety Forfeitures handout (Exhibit C) gave some background information about collections and disbursements.  Mr. Ellison said it was important to note the volatile and unpredictable rate of collections for forfeiture funds.  Page 4 of Exhibit C showed expenditures by year for FY1999 through FY2002 and page 5 showed the combined expenditures for the four years.  He noted that the Byrne Grant match was 46 percent of the total disbursements in that four-year period for the Narcotics Division, Budget Account 3744.  Technology and equipment for the Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP) and Nevada Division of Investigations (NDI) was about 43 percent of the total disbursement.  Mr. Ellison concluded his presentation and asked for questions.

 

Chairman Parks referred to the chart on page 4 of Exhibit C.  He asked Mr. Ellison to discuss the green column that represented equipment expenditures for FY2002.  He asked if those expenses were mostly for vehicles and asked Mr. Ellison for an estimate of equipment expenses.

 

Mr. Ellison noted that there were two major categories of expenditure for FY2002: $188,000 was provided for officer safety equipment for the Highway Patrol, and $355,000 in forfeitures was provided to purchase 20 vehicles for the Nevada Division of Investigation.

 

Assemblyman Marvel said that Legislative Counsel Bureau staff had noted there was about $1.8 million in the forfeiture reserve.  Mr. Ellison said that number was correct.

 

Mr. Marvel asked Mr. Ellison to discuss how those funds would be expended.  He said that there was a serious drug transport problem along the Interstate 80 corridor.  He was concerned that NDI would evidently be removed from the rural areas and suggested that the forfeiture funds be used to maintain the current Narcotics Task Force program.

 

Mr. Kieckbusch responded that the decision did not lie with the Department of Public Safety.  He said the forfeiture funds were available for match to maintain NDI efforts throughout the state if that decision was made.  He said the Department planned to use any balances to support the Information Records Information System (IRIS) project to develop technology.

 

Mr. Marvel asked what it cost to maintain NDI offices in Winnemucca and Elko.

 

Mr. Kieckbusch deferred to Beverley Bergstrom.

 

Beverley Bergstrom, Investigation Division, introduced herself.  She testified that it cost about $1.7 million for each year of the biennium to support Elko, Ely, Winnemucca, Fallon, and the Tri-net.  She said that funding had been eliminated.

 

Mr. Marvel again asked how the forfeiture funds would be used if not to support NDI operations.

 

Mr. Kieckbusch responded that if the forfeiture funds were not used to match the Byrne Grant, a decision that was not theirs, they anticipated using the funds for the IRIS project as explained by Col. Hosmer.  He said the IRIS project would eventually benefit the entire Department of Public Safety.

 

Mr. Marvel reiterated that there was a tremendous drug problem on the I-80 corridor and traffic came from all the other states.  He said the papers regularly reported a drug bust.  He said the Narcotics Task Force had a very important job in that area.  Mr. Kieckbusch agreed with Mr. Marvel.  Mr. Marvel said it would be a shame to lose the Narcotics Task Force.

 

Chairman Parks asked for further questions on Exhibit C.  With no further questions, he turned to Budget Account 4703 and said that the major issue was the elimination of the Narcotics Task Force.  He asked Mr. Kieckbusch to confirm that forfeiture funds would be sufficient to match the Byrne Grant to fund the Narcotics Task Force operations over the next biennium.

 

Mr. Kieckbusch noted that the projected number from the federal government for the Byrne Grant funding over the biennium was reduced by 33 percent.  Based on existing resources, if they maintained the Narcotics Task Force program they had sufficient forfeiture funds to match the Byrne Grant for the coming biennium.

 

Ms. Bergstrom confirmed that the Department of Public Safety (DPS) had the 25 percent matching portion for both years of the biennium.

 

Chairman Parks asked Mr. Kieckbusch to explain how they would utilize the Byrne Grant funds if their program changed during the biennium.

 

Mr. Kieckbusch said the NDI administration would work with local agencies to determine the application of the grants.  He said, understanding that they would not want to drain the account, they had a serious need throughout the department to support the development of the IRIS to give all the divisions readily available management information.

 

Chairman Parks asked how much was presently in the forfeiture account.  Mr. Kieckbusch said he believed $1.8 million.

 

Chairman Parks asked if there were questions from the Subcommittee.

 

Chairman Parks closed Budget Account 4703 and opened Budget Account 3775, Public Safety Training Division.

 

PUBLIC SAFETY

TRAINING DIVISION (101-3775)

BUDGET PAGE: PS-104 – VOLUME III

 

Mr. Kieckbusch introduced Lieutenant Jacqueline Sandage, Acting Commander of the Training Division.

 

Mr. Kieckbusch said the training academy discussion had been introduced for hearing on two separate occasions when they had heard internal investigations testimony.  He said the caseload and workload issues were also related to training.  He said that the Department’s high rate of unacceptable behavior and job performance had some roots in the quality of the training programs.  The Division’s training programs did not train individuals to a useful level of expertise, experience, and knowledge.  The training programs were not geared to the specific mission and statutory mandate as described in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) specific to the Highway Patrol.  He said that Lt. Sandage would talk about the redevelopment of the training program.  As they had noted in earlier testimony, well-trained personnel and high performance levels depended on the recruitment, hiring, and background check process, to ensure the right people were identified and hired.  He noted that weaknesses in those areas also contributed to performance problems.

 

Mr. Kieckbusch said that Lt. Sandage would explain their efforts to reconstruct the training programs.  He noted that their last small training effort in-lieu-of the training academy was not as productive as they would have liked and resulted in the majority of the supervising staff transferring out of the Division.  He said of the 10 or 11 troopers that went through that training academy they lost one who showed up for work on the last day under the influence of alcohol.

 

Lt. Jacqueline Sandage introduced herself.  She said the Training Division’s mission was to provide career development training to all DPS law enforcement employees and included basic, advanced, in-service, supervisory, and civilian staff training.  They were currently restructuring and developing new programs that were verifiable scenario-based trainings.  She said the scenarios would parallel classroom training.

 

Lt. Sandage said the academy time frames would vary depending on curriculum development and rate of hire.  The Division’s current efforts were focusing on supervisory training and the division hoped to have a three-week training academy module for newly promoted first line supervisors by June 2, 2003.  She said future efforts would focus more on commercial enforcement in the curriculum development.

 

Chairman Parks asked Mr. Kieckbusch to elaborate on the problems within the Training Division and proposed solutions.  He noted they had not had a recruit academy in a year and a half.  He asked if they had a time line when they proposed to do a recruit academy.

 

Mr. Kieckbusch said their initial funding was used to develop materials and video presentations for job fairs that presented the DPS and specifically the Highway Patrol in a deserving light.  Mr. Kieckbusch noted that Ingrid Wetzel, Chief of Personnel, came from the private sector and brought a new perspective to the recruitment process.  Mr. Kieckbusch commented to her that, based on conditions at the city and county levels, he did not believe the DPS could compete for the high quality employees they needed.  Ms. Wetzel’s response was not that the department could not compete, but that they had not competed.  Mr. Kieckbusch said they now had a quality presentation for colleges, job fairs, and military personnel that described what the department had to offer new recruits.  He said with that in place, they planned to begin recruitment that summer, and to have their first recruit academy in September and October of 2003.  They also planned to hold two recruit academies a year to maintain their authorized staffing levels.

 

Chairman Parks asked how many individuals would be trained in each of the recruit academies.

 

Mr. Kieckbusch said there were many factors that controlled the process.  He said the maximum number of recruits for a training academy was 30.  It was important that the recruitment and screening process accurately evaluated eligible applicants.  He cited as an example a cursory examination of some applicant background files that were compared to rejection criteria used to evaluate employment acceptability.  From the background scan of 40 files the examiners said that if the rejection criteria had been properly applied, 22 of the 40 applicants would not have been hired.

 

Chairman Parks asked Mr. Kieckbusch to explain the “in-lieu-of” training.  He said the Subcommittee was concerned that Highway Trust Fund dollars had been used inappropriately to fund training programs.

 

Mr. Kieckbusch used an example to illustrate when they conducted in-lieu academies.  An officer who had been hired from an out-of-state jurisdiction might have a Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) certificate from that jurisdiction.  If Nevada’s POST Commission approved the out-of-state POST certificate, in-lieu training would require an 80-hour assimilation training class to migrate the new hire’s certificate to a Nevada POST certificate.  Subsequently the individual would be placed into a job-specific academy pertaining to the specific division for which he or she was hired.  He said he did not have an answer to Chairman Parks’ question regarding the inappropriate use of Highway Trust Funds for training programs.  He said they would investigate and get the information back to the Subcommittee.

 

Chairman Parks said they were concerned about the restrictions on the use of Highway Funds.

 

Chairman Parks noted that the request in decision unit E-275 was for $51,000 for each year of the biennium to provide meals for each cadet at the academy.  He asked for comment on the factors that determined the funding.  He said some of the numbers did not appear appropriate.

 

Lt. Sandage said the figure was projected on the assumption that the Department of Public Safety would achieve a high level of recruitment in all of the divisions and would therefore resume a full academy schedule by FY2004.  She said that would necessitate paying the state per diem of $27 per day to the cafeteria for meals.

 

Chairman Parks asked for a discussion of decision unit E-710.  He noted there was a change in the Division’s equipment priorities from the last biennium to this biennium.  He also noted that in the last biennium funding had been approved for replacement equipment that appeared to be similar to the equipment that was requested in the current biennium.

 

Lt. Sandage said staff had been directed to evaluate the replacement costs for software and hardware to update the computers for in-service training.  The request in decision unit E-710 covered computer equipment to replace 20 of the out-dated computers that the academy acquired in 1994.

 

Chairman Parks asked Lt. Sandage to discuss the budget request of $16,781 for personal computers, laptops, and software, as well as for the purchase of VCRs, televisions, and an LCD projector.  He asked if those items had been acquired in the current biennium.

 

Lt. Sandage did not know and said she would get back to them.

 

Chairman Parks turned to decision unit E-720.  He said it appeared that funding for equipment that was requested in the last biennium was being requested again in this budget and asked Lt. Sandage to check on that as well.

 

Chairman Parks asked for questions.  Since there were none, he closed Budget Account 3775 and congratulated Lt. Sandage on her new position and wished her luck.

 

Chairman Parks opened Budget Account 3816, Fire Marshal Budget.

 

PUBLIC SAFETY, FIRE MARSHAL

BUDGET PAGE: PS-132 – VOLUME III

 

Assemblyman Griffin disclosed that because the state Fire Marshal was his father-in-law he would be abstaining from voting on Budget Account 3816.

 

Mr. Kieckbusch introduced Doyle G. Sutton, State Fire Marshal.  Mr. Kieckbusch noted that Mr. Sutton had held the position of State Fire Marshal for two years.  He commended Mr. Sutton on the impressive changes he had made in the system and the enormous difference he was making.

 

Doyle G. Sutton, State Fire Marshal, introduced himself and Dave Bowman, Assistant State Fire Marshal.  Mr. Sutton said he had spent the better part of a year doing a search for the Assistant State Fire Marshal position and Mr. Bowman had been with the unit about three months.  Mr. Sutton introduced Susan Haas, Finance Manager, an employee of two years, and Patrick Bowers, Account Manager, also an employee of two years.  He said that the budget development and presentation was their first as a team.  Mr. Sutton noted that there were fire marshals in the audience from Henderson, the Clark County region, Washoe County, Elko, and Spring Creek, who had come to testify.

 

Chairman Parks asked Mr. Sutton to be aware that the Subcommittee was under time constraints.

 

Mr. Sutton began his presentation with some statistics about deaths and injuries attributed to fires.  He said the United States Fire Administration found that the United States had one of the highest fire death rates in the industrial world.  In 1998 the United States’ fire death rate was 14.9 deaths per million of the population.  Between 1994 and 1998 an average of 4,400 Americans lost their lives and another 25,100 were injured annually as a result of fire.  About 100 firefighters were killed each year in duty-related incidents.  Every year fire killed more Americans than all natural disasters combined and fire was the third leading cause of accidental death in the home.  About two million fires were reported each year while many went unreported and added to injuries and property loss.  The National Fire Protection Association reports showed that in 1999 Nevada experienced 15 fire deaths which represented 8.3 deaths per million, ranking Nevada as 41^st in the nation.  In 1990 Nevada was ranked 33 with 16 fire deaths.  In 1980 Nevada led the nation in fire deaths per million with 111 deaths or 138.8 deaths per million.  Property loss due to fires was estimated at $8.6 billion annually.

 

Mr. Sutton began his budget and PowerPoint presentation, “State Of Nevada Department of Public Safety, Office of the State Fire Marshal” (Exhibit D).  Slide 2 presented the mission statement.  Mr. Sutton testified that the mission of the Office of the State Fire Marshal was to minimize the loss of life and property from fire and hazardous material and reduce exposure and injury to the general public and to emergency responders.  The division was established in 1966.

 

Mr. Sutton said that a secondary function of the Fire Marshal’s Office was through their primary mission, to maintain economic stability by protecting business and industry.  He said it was estimated that his office served approximately 2,500 full-time firefighters and more than 2,500 volunteer firefighters throughout the state.  Volunteer firefighters protected approximately 85 to 90 percent of Nevada’s geographic area.

 

In slides 3 and 4, Mr. Sutton testified that the Fire Marshal’s Office revenues were 100 percent fee-based and were generated from Hazardous Materials Certifications, licensing permits, and plan reviews.  Licensing fees were authorized by Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS).  The plans section generated fees by conducting plan reviews of state-owned buildings and non-state owned buildings occupied by state agencies.  The cost per review depended on construction costs and was calculated from a fee schedule per Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 477.750.  He said it was significant that under the current budget the plan section generated approximately 66 percent of the revenues in Budget Account 3816.  Prior to the economic downturn building and construction projects generated licensing and plan revenues sufficient to fund the Fire Marshal’s Office.  He said there had been a significant downturn in revenues in the current economic climate.

 

Mr. Sutton discussed other funding sources for the Fire Marshal’s Office.  He said some grant funding was available through the United States Fire Administration and the National Fire Academy for specific services, and there were grants for anti-terrorism and the state Emergency Response Commission.  Other revenues came from such sources as the sale of certificates for fire training and training manuals.

 

Mr. Sutton said that revenues were generated by the Beatty Dump Fund through fees paid by facilities that managed hazardous waste as set forth in NRS 459.512.  Those revenues were used to train emergency personnel in the safe shipment of hazardous materials.  The facility paid a fee of $4.50 per ton on the volume received for disposable hazardous waste and that was disbursed to the Fire Marshal to train emergency personnel.

 

Mr. Sutton noted that the Beatty Dump activity was dwindling and might close.  In FY2000, the revenue to the Beatty Dump Fund was $343,000; $325,000 in FY2001; $211,000 in FY2002; and to date in FY2003 the revenue was $93,000, illustrating the decline in revenue.  He said they had put some programs in place to offset the loss of revenue and to continue support of the volunteer fire department training.  Mr. Sutton said that hazardous waste permits were issued at $150 each.

 

Slide 5 outlined the State Fire Marshal’s Office Organization.  Mr. Sutton said the Office of the Fire Marshal consisted of five sections: Administrative, Operations, National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS), Licensing Plans, and Training.  Mr. Sutton said the Fire Marshal’s Office had 32 authorized positions, 29 of which were filled.

 

Mr. Sutton turned to slides 6 and 7 that reviewed the Office’s revenue trends.  He noted that licensing revenues from sprinkler and fire extinguisher companies and fireworks remained relatively consistent.  A one-time hazardous materials fee was collected for an initial inspection, and an annual renewal fee was collected thereafter.  Renewal fees were reasonably steady and the initial certification fee was directly related to the number of inspections that inspectors could conduct.

 

Mr. Sutton testified that overall performance indicators showed a significant decrease in revenue fees and a depletion of reserve funds.  Mr. Sutton said that plan review revenues were significantly reduced because of the decline in new construction.  He noted that in FY2000 plan fees generated approximately $919,000 in revenue; $860,000 in FY2001; and $736,000 in FY2002.  He said that 66 percent of the fee-based revenue for the Fire Marshal’s Office was generated from the plans review section and the decrease required the use of reserve funds.  He noted that continued reliance on the reserve fund would deplete it in the near future.

 

In slides 8 through 11 Mr. Sutton discussed the state reviews of the State Fire Marshal’s Office.  He said that the State Fire Marshal’s Office had been under review since the completion of the original Tonopah Report in 1979.  In December of 2001, Richard Kirkland, Director of the Department of Public Safety, directed the State Board of Fire Services to function as the committee to review the State Fire Marshal’s Division.  Marybel Batjer, cochair of the Governor’s Fundamental Review Steering Committee, authorized the committee to make recommendations for state actions relevant to the State Fire Marshal’s Office.  The State Board of Fire Services involved several different areas of Nevada’s fire service and other affected entities to develop the recommendations.

 

Mr. Sutton said he had been hired at the time the committee was formed and attended all of the hearings.  He said he traveled throughout the state eliciting input from the Reno area, southern Nevada, and the large and small counties.  Most of the Blue Ribbon Committee recommendations came from the Fundamental Review Steering Committee meetings.

 

Committee members represented municipal, small, and volunteer fire departments, forestry, architects, fire protection engineers, and the State Fire Marshal’s Office.  Mr. Sutton said several reports had been completed since 1979 and the reports stated two findings, 1) the Fire Marshal’s Office could not fulfill its mission due to severe understaffing, and 2) stabilized funding should be found for the Office.

 

Mr. Sutton noted that such catastrophes as the MGM and Hilton fires spurred the reviews and subsequent reports.  He said that despite the tragedies that prompted the fire services’ reviews the outcome was favorable.  Sprinkler requirements and other fire codes were developed and instituted, and were considered world-class examples of modern fire protection.  Nevada was recognized as a leader in some fire prevention codes and requirements.  In a summarization of the committee report, Mr. Sutton noted that virtually every jurisdiction in Nevada received some type of mandated service from the Fire Marshal’s Office.  The committee reported on many other issues.  It recognized that the state had no effective administrative structure to support the delivery of mandated services.  Mr. Sutton said the most important mandate they faced was to generate enough revenue to meet their pay dates.

 

In slide 12 Mr. Sutton presented the objectives and mandates of the State Fire Marshal’s Office.  He said they included hazardous materials permits as written under NRS 477.045, the licensing permit under NRS 477.033, fire and life safety inspections and plan review under NRS 477.035, and training.

 

Mr. Sutton went to slides 13 through 17 that covered hazardous materials.  Mr. Sutton said his office was working to determine the number of businesses in Nevada.  In a telephone survey conducted in February 2003, four entities were asked how many licensed businesses were on record in Nevada.  The four entities they surveyed and the results were as follows, as shown on slide 14, page 5 of Exhibit D:

The Nevada Department of Taxation with 122,000 Nevada businesses.

• The U.S. Census Bureau, with 79,000 Nevada businesses.
• The Cities and Counties with 90,000 businesses in Nevada.
• GoLead.com with 86,285 businesses in Nevada.

 

Mr. Sutton said that the four entities extrapolated information using varying criteria that gave uneven results.  As an example, he cited that the Department of Taxation included businesses that paid sales tax but were not for-profit; the United States Census Bureau included businesses that paid federal income tax; some Nevada counties did not require business licenses and others required that only fictitious names be registered.  He noted that meant that businesses with no fictitious names were excluded from some records.  Mr. Sutton noted that some data was not reliable.  The Elko County Clerk’s Office advised that there were 5,175 businesses in Elko but was unsure how many were currently in business.  He said those factors created major challenges in assessing how many state businesses actually required a hazardous material permit.

 

Assemblyman Marvel asked if the Fire Marshal’s Office worked with the Nevada Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as that agency should have information on hazardous materials.  He noted the EPA was absent from the list.

 

Mr. Sutton confirmed that they did work with the EPA.  He said the EPA had one of the better databases.  He said they had brought that database into their system and filtered it for information for their inspection programs.

 

Mr. Marvel noted that one of the audit reports indicated that there was little dialogue between the two agencies.  He said the EPA was an important resource.

 

Mr. Sutton said that since he had taken office there was considerable dialogue with the EPA.  He noted the EPA was an important information resource.  He said they shared their database and provided assistance when appropriate.

 

Mr. Sutton turned to slide 15, page 5 of Exhibit D, and said their best estimate of how many facilities needed hazardous material permits was between 25,000 and 30,000 statewide.  He said they arrived at that figure through several routes.  They used the Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation (DETR) list, the Environmental Protection Agency’s lists, an Elko survey of business permits in the county, and they surveyed other agencies.  He noted that some data was hard copy, hand searchable, and incomplete, and some agency information was unhelpful because the entities used post office boxes, or corporate offices that were out of state.  Mr. Sutton said that from those sources they determined that about 40 percent of the total number of business entities required HAZMAT permits.  Mr. Sutton said that the HAZMAT permit process included an inspection for the initial permit and for each annual renewal permit.  He said that the state needed to inspect more often, especially in the high-risk areas.

 

Mr. Sutton turned to slide 17, page 6 of Exhibit D, and said that currently they had four hazardous materials deputies and an estimated 30,000 facilities requiring permits.  On average, each of the four HAZMAT deputies could complete one inspection per four hours including travel, interview, inspection, report writing, and data input.  That resulted in about 375 inspections per year per deputy.  He said if the Fire Marshal’s Office could enlist the services of fire departments in the larger jurisdictions to conduct hazardous material inspections on their behalf, either through a change in statute or local agreements, that would leave a remaining estimated 5,000 new facilities to inspect in the other Nevada regions. 

 

Mr. Sutton noted that the Tonopah and the Blue Ribbon Committee reports recommended that the Fire Marshal should divide the state into regions and then assign inspectors to those regions.  Slide 18, page 6 of Exhibit D, showed the five State Fire Marshal’s regional offices.  He said the regions included Carson City, Reno, Elko, Pahrump, and the northern Las Vegas area, and each regional office had a point-of-contact deputy.

 

Mr. Sutton said they were conducting a customer needs assessment to determine the number of facilities, firefighters, and types of equipment for each of the five regions.  He said the results of the survey would be used in daily operations and in their state mutual aid plan.  Mr. Sutton said, based on their estimated number of facilities, if they continued to delegate responsibility for facilities inspections to qualified and interested local jurisdictions and used enhanced technology, they would most likely be able to achieve their mandate for hazardous materials permit inspections.

 

Mr. Sutton turned to slide 19, page 7 of Exhibit D.  He said that enhanced technology would provide inspectors with the hardware and software capabilities to access existing databases and identify facilities that required inspections and permits.  He said inspectors needed the capability to conduct inspections and enter data directly from the field, rather than having to prepare handwritten inspection reports and reentering the information into the Nevada Chemical Facilities Database (NCFB).  He noted that it was important that the information gathered by the larger agencies’ inspections could be accessed through a shared database.

 

 Mr. Sutton said he had met with the larger and smaller departments to discuss entering into interlocal agreements.  He said the Attorney General was drawing up an interlocal agreement that they were negotiating with Carson City to share resources and permit fees.  He said the agreement was under review by his staff and then would be sent to Carson City for their review and comments.  He said it was a test case that might become a state program.

 

Mr. Sutton turned to slides 20 through 22 and said fire and life safety inspections were required under NRS 477.035, which mandated that the Fire Marshal’s Office annually inspect all state-owned and occupied buildings.  He said the primary goal of the interlocal agreement concept was to eliminate redundant and duplicate inspections.  By delegating authority through interlocal agreements the Fire Marshal’s Office could concentrate on the smaller counties where the Office’s resources were needed.  Mr. Sutton said there were currently six deputy fire marshals available to conduct approximately 3,996 mandated inspections for state-owned and occupied buildings, day care facilities, health care facilities, and schools.  Mr. Sutton noted that the number of annual inspections remained relatively consistent.  There was a significant spike in numbers of inspections in 2000 when they had a full complement of deputies.  During that year no deputies were in POST training, and there were no large investigations underway.  He said that POST training could remove an individual from the office for approximately four months and complicated investigations could divert staff resources for more than nine months.  Under those circumstances they conducted inspections as best possible given available resources.

 

The United States Fire Administration statistics identified arson as the third leading cause of residential fires and fire deaths, and for commercial property.  Arson was the major cause of death, injury, and dollar loss.  He noted that the number of investigations shown in the chart on slide 22, page 8 of Exhibit D, did not include burn injury reports, an unfunded mandate they had been unable to fulfill.  Burn injury reports equaled about 88 in 2001 and 54 in 2002.

 

Mr. Sutton turned to slides 23 and 24 of the slide presentation, page 8 of Exhibit D.  He said the Office’s mandate for training was in NRS 477.039.  They conducted training in areas such as fire fighting, safety and health, building construction, instant management, hazardous materials, terrorism preparedness, rescue leadership, and instructor training.  He said classes ranged from 4 hours to more than 120 hours.

 

Mr. Sutton said they had requested an additional hazardous materials inspector, and three deputy state fire marshals.

 

Mr. Sutton said that Assembly Bill 26, the “helping hand bill,” addressed the fact that the Nevada fire service needs were diverse.  The state had large municipal fire departments with adequate resources to accomplish their tasks and small volunteer departments with inadequate equipment to accomplish the same tasks.  As an example Mr. Sutton noted a report on a smaller county volunteer department that required two and a half hours travel to reach.  The department had an old 1947 fire truck.  The water tank leaked, the pump hardly worked, and it was parked in an old barn.  Mr. Sutton said that was the fire protection equipment for that community.  He said A.B. 26 was designed to correct such problems by transferring donated, refurbished, and equipped excess equipment to the volunteer departments.

 

Mr. Sutton said in decision unit E-500 they requested a supply technician whose primary responsibility would be to rehabilitate, equip, and deliver the donated equipment to the volunteer agencies, and then train the volunteers.  The position would also be responsible for creating and maintaining a database of previously owned and redistributed equipment.  He said their needs assessment survey would identify what departments needed and would make it possible to deliver that equipment to the rural fire departments as soon as the equipment became available.  The supply technician would travel the state to evaluate needs, gather the fire equipment excesses, and coordinate the exchange to provide Nevadans the highest level of fire protection services.

 

Continuing his discussion of training, Mr. Sutton testified that he had recently attended a conference in New York where Nevada was selected as one of 19 states to develop a Youth Firesetter Program.  He said the Fire Marshal’s Office was conducting training workshops in that area.  He said the Fire Marshal’s Office would meet a 1966 mandate for fire protection and fire education that had not been realized.  He said that fire prevention education programs were an integral part of fire safety and prevention.  Therefore, decision unit E-500 requested an additional training officer who would work with a variety of fire prevention initiatives including the Youth Firesetter Program, arson prevention, and public education.

 

Mr. Sutton continued his discussion of enhancements, slides 25 through 29, pages 9 and 10, Exhibit D.  He said that decision unit E-500 also requested three additional training officers.  He said that in 1999 the Fire Marshal’s Office had five training officers and one training superintendent.  When he came into office there were two training officers and one training superintendent.  He said they had hired one new training officer and now had three training officers and one training superintendent for the entire state.  Mr. Sutton testified that they were requesting three additional training officers to develop and administer training programs for the firefighters programs, to train instructors, and to establish regional hazardous materials training facilities.  He said training positions had not kept pace with the state’s increased growth and needs.

 

Mr. Sutton said the Fire Marshal’s Office was committed to participate in the National Fire Service resources as demonstrated by participation in the Youth Firesetters pilot program.  They had also assigned staff to serve on the National Fire Protection Association Technical Committee for the development of standards for fire protection and fire service educators.  The Fire Marshal’s Office was committed to staff professional development and to staying abreast of its mandates for state fire service training.  The decision unit E-500 enhancement request served to accomplish that goal.

 

Mr. Sutton said that in order to take advantage of fire service grants they were requesting a full-time grants project analyst writer.  He said they had formed a committee to share resources and to search out grants and had developed a grants policy.  He said they needed a person to oversee the grants process.  He said there was $750 million remaining in the Fire Investment and Response Enhancement (FIRE) Act Grant that year.  His office encouraged local fire departments to become actively involved in applying for those grants by partnering with the Region-9 Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) FIRE Act Grant coordinator.  He said they had conducted five workshops in the last year, one of which was televised throughout the state and on the Internet.  They had learned that Nevada was the 35^th state in size and the 49^th in the number of grants actually received.  He said his goal was to increase that to a respectable number.

 

Assemblyman Marvel asked if the Fire Marshal’s Office had anyone on staff that could write grants for rural fire departments.

 

Mr. Sutton said they had no full-time staff person.  He said they had an individual who had given some guidance but they needed a full-time staff person with expertise in grant writing.  He added that his office could not write grants for the rural fire departments since most grants would not allow the state to pass through the funds.

 

Mr. Marvel noted that several rural areas did not have individuals with grant writing capabilities.

 

Mr. Sutton agreed with Mr. Marvel.  He added that volunteer fire department staff did not have time to commit to grant writing, the discipline of the fire service, and the demands of their private businesses.

 

Mr. Sutton said their request for the grants and project analyst position would need to be a grade 35 to manage and maintain a number of complex grants administered by the Fire Marshal’s Office.  He said that decision unit E-500 also anticipated organizational growth so that administrative support would grow proportionally.

 

Mr. Sutton said The Executive Budget proposed that the Fire Marshal’s Office be funded from the General Fund.  In decision unit E-504 their proposal also requested the creation of a special fund category in the budget of $300,000 in fee revenues to provide sub-granting funds to the rural communities.  He explained the Office’s overall plan was to provide support to the smaller counties.  The Fire Marshal’s Office would provide surplus equipment through A.B. 26, a supply technician to refurbish the surplus equipment and train staff in its use, a grants writer to attract additional funds, and assuming loss of some funds from the Beatty Dump, the decision unit E-504 special fund would combine all to provide a platform of support to the smaller counties and volunteer departments.

 

Mr. Sutton concluded his presentation by saying that recommendations as set forth in The Executive Budget would be implemented over the next two years and would result in 54 positions in the State Fire Marshal’s Office.  He said with those recommendations in place, the task of the State Fire Marshal’s Division to minimize the loss of life and property from fire and hazardous materials and reduce exposure and injury to the general public and to emergency responders could be accomplished.  He appreciated the Subcommittee’s consideration for the Fire Marshal’s Office and for the citizens of the state of Nevada.

 

Mr. Sutton closed his presentation and asked for questions.

 

Chairman Parks noted that because the Subcommittee had to be on the Floor at 10:30 a.m. time would not permit the Subcommittee to hear the Department of Corrections’ budget.  He said they would reschedule the hearing for March 25.  He apologized for the postponement.

 

Chairman Parks noted that the Fire Marshal’s proposed budget had several major changes and requested a large number of increases.  He said some of the Subcommittee’s major concerns dealt with the addition of the General Fund into the budget to support the operation.  He said they had a good overview of the Blue Ribbon Committee and the number of facilities to be inspected.  He said another major consideration had to do with revenues generated from inspections.  Chairman Parks asked Mr. Sutton to comment further with regard to the interlocal agreements that would utilize local governments and significantly reduce the Fire Marshal’s statutory mandates.  He asked if they had dealt with a number of local governments and developed some performance measures for the functions delegated through the interlocal agreements.

 

Mr. Sutton said in the last year they had met with most of the departments about interlocal agreements and added that there were many types of interlocal agreements.  Individual agencies were given the option to request some of the tasks and functions performed by the Fire Marshal’s Office.  Mr. Sutton said that through the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) they had the authority to determine and evaluate if there were qualified individuals to perform the delegated tasks after which they could enter into an interlocal agreement.  He said his office and all the departments in southern Nevada had formed a task force to examine the mandates to the Fire Marshal’s Office and the areas they were willing to be responsible for through interlocal agreements.  The Attorney General was reviewing a specific interlocal agreement for health care facilities.  He said the larger fire departments already had interlocal agreements that the Fire Marshal’s Office continued to support and renegotiate as needed.  He said if an agency wanted a task and was capable of accomplishing it, and they had documented that the agency could accomplish the task the Fire Marshal’s Office could delegate the authority.  The Fire Marshal’s Office needed to perform periodic audits to verify that the paperwork was processed correctly and that the work was accomplished.

 

Chairman Parks asked how many interlocal agreements were currently in effect.

Mr. Sutton said there were 12 with the larger cities and counties in southern Nevada, and about 8 with the smaller counties in Nevada.

 

Chairman Parks asked if interlocal agreements applied to state buildings and schools that were located in those communities.

 

Mr. Sutton said the agreements varied and some did apply to state buildings and schools in the covered communities.

 

Chairman Parks asked if they had analyzed the fee structures and workload activities.  He said the Subcommittee was interested in how the staffing ratios were determined and if the fees they charged were appropriate for the services performed.

 

Mr. Sutton said that they had not analyzed their staffing ratios or fee levels.

 

Chairman Parks pursued the question of fees.  He asked what kinds of provisions for fee collection were in place under the interlocal agreements.

 

Mr. Sutton said that fee collection differed with each agreement.  He said some agencies performed the work and collected the fees, and some agencies performed the work and let the Fire Marshal’s Office keep the fees.  He said with tightening budgets and increased staffing needs to serve more customers, agencies performing the work would want to receive payment for it.  He said they would either have to adjust the fees or return them to the performing agencies, thus reducing the revenues to the Fire Marshal’s Office.

 

Chairman Parks asked how the agency identified the number of facilities that would need hazardous materials inspection.  He noted that some facilities would need major inspections and some less, and some might need no inspection at all.

 

Mr. Sutton said that they took the base figure of 25,000 and tried to determine where that number came from.  They accessed various state agencies’ databases.  It was helpful that some of the databases had zip codes that gave a definition of the type of business.  They were able to rule out realtors and doctors’ offices and were able to prioritize and concentrate on those that were considered a high hazard.  He said each March they sent out 30-day hazardous materials permit notices and for those who did not respond they followed up with a 15-day notice.  If there was still no response the office sent a HAZMAT agent to the facility to see if the customer did not understand what a hazardous material was or needed help filling out the forms.  For those who needed help, they assisted in filling out the form.  Often they found that no hazardous permit was needed.

 

Chairman Parks noted that Mr. Sutton had testified that in the life and safety area they currently had 6 deputies and did roughly 4,000 inspections per year.  He said that would come to about 666 inspections per year per deputy.

 

Mr. Sutton said that was correct.  He said new construction required more than one inspection.  He said during the construction phase it was not unusual to inspect nine, ten, or a dozen times.

 

Chairman Parks noted that there was also paperwork required along with the physical inspection.

 

Mr. Sutton responded with the example of Pahrump, one of the fastest growing communities in the state, which had one deputy who did HAZMAT, fire and life safety, and arson investigations.  The deputy also had to testify frequently in court.  He said Elko had the same situation.  He said those situations illustrated the importance of administrative support to those offices to assist with documentation and paperwork.

 

Chairman Parks asked for comment on the factors that were driving their need for new training officers.

 

Mr. Sutton said that the Fire Marshal’s Office had historically placed a low priority on training.  He said training should have higher priority than that of generating fees.  He said they had moved people out of training into some support functions to help with the fee process.  They had found that when they started marketing training and training needs, the surveys and needs assessments showed that requests for training rose dramatically.  He said the surveys showed that discussions of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism training were not high priorities in the volunteer departments.  They were interested in basic fire fighting, survival, entry-level firefighter (ELFF), and firefighter I, firefighter II training.  He said volunteer departments experienced high turnover and retention problems so the Fire Marshal’s Office needed to provide the basic classes.

 

Chairman Parks asked if they had chronicled a significant inspections backlog, how they determined the inspections they needed to conduct, and how they determined the training that went to the top of the list.

 

Mr. Sutton said they used such factors as high hazard, high life loss, schools, institutions, and prisons, to prioritize their inspections.

 

Chairman Parks said that since the Governor recommended support for the Fire Marshal’s Office from the General Fund, he asked if they believed there was a need to consolidate the Fire Marshal and the HAZMAT training budgets.

 

Mr. Sutton said he believed it was necessary in order to streamline the process and make HAZMAT a single budgetary line item.  The operations and budgets would be more efficient and easier for staff to maintain.

 

Chairman Parks moved to decision unit E-504 that requested the creation of a special trust fund.  He asked Mr. Sutton to discuss the need for the fund.

 

Mr. Sutton said he had discussed the special trust fund earlier.  He said they would apportion some of the fees from the licensing section and make them available for grants to volunteer departments.  He said they were trying to be proactive to counteract the loss of funding from the Beatty Dump and other funding streams.  The special trust fund would help support training to the volunteer departments.  He said their surveys showed that there were volunteer departments that had not seen the Fire Marshal’s Office in four or five years.  He said that was not acceptable.  He added that Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) staff requested a breakdown on training and training needs.  He said they would have a final draft ready by Monday, and would have the Superintendent of Training available if the Subcommittee had any specific questions.

 

Chairman Parks said there were no more questions.  He commented on the challenges for the Fire Marshal’s Office to catch up.  He asked for further questions from members of the Subcommittee.  There were no further questions and Chairman Parks closed the hearing on the budget.

 

Chairman Parks asked for brief public comment.

 

Robert Fash, Deputy Fire Marshal, Las Vegas Fire and Rescue, Fire Prevention Division, introduced himself and said he had been asked to represent his division to express support for the State Fire Marshal’s Office and that it be supported by the General Fund.  Historically the Office’s support had come from fee-based permits revenues.  Mr. Fash said the State Fire Marshal had worked with his department to formulate their current interlocal agreement, and also on expanding its scope to allow them to provide additional customer services within their jurisdiction.  Mr. Fash said, as a result of the interlocal agreement, fee revenues to the Fire Marshal’s Office would be greatly reduced.  He said the Office’s funding needed to come from the General Fund or some other type of tax-based funding.  He said that his organization supported the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Committee.  Mr. Fash said he was also there on behalf of Ken Riddle, president of the Southern Nevada Fire Chiefs’ Association, that expressed its support for the Fire Marshal’s Office and the funding that was needed to support its activities.

 

Alan Kightlinger, City of Elko Fire Chief, introduced himself and said he had been in the state fire service for 32 years.  He said he wanted to recognize the people in the audience who were there in support of the Fire Marshal’s Office.  He also wanted to recognize the grand patriarch of the fire service in Nevada, “Senator” Jacobsen, with nearly 60 years of service to the fire service.

 

PUBLIC SAFETY

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TRAINING CENTER (101-4703)

BUDGET PAGE: PS-146 – VOLUME III

 

Chairman Parks asked Mr. Sutton to come back to the table and discuss Budget Account 3834, the Hazardous Material Training Center budget.  He said the Governor recommended a merger of the Hazardous Material Training with the Fire Marshal’s budget account.  One of the Subcommittee’s concerns had to do with the hazardous material permitting revenues.  He said LCB staff could deal with the technical aspects of the recommendation.  He asked Mr. Sutton if there were any specific comments he would like to make.

 

Mr. Sutton said the proposed merge would streamline the process.  He said the Fire Marshal’s Office was undergoing a major administrative and functional reorganization that brought the training section into the rest of the sections.  He said they were continuing to conduct some cross training with the HAZMAT and fire and life deputies.  They wanted to eliminate the redundancy of sending one inspector to do a fire and life safety inspection and another to do a HAZMAT inspection.  He said it was important that those people multitask, regardless if they were a training officer, a HAZMAT, or fire and life inspector, and could respond to training or inspection needs.

 

Chairman Parks thanked Mr. Sutton for presenting the budget.  He closed Budget Account 3834 and opened Budget Account 4490, the Colorado River Commission.

PUBLIC SAFETY

COLORADO RIVER COMMISSION (269-4490)

BUDGET PAGE: CRC-1 – VOLUME III

 

George Caan, Executive Director of the Colorado River Commission (CRC), introduced himself and thanked the Subcommittee for taking the CRC budget presentation out of order.  He began with an overview of the Colorado River Commission.  He said they were a state agency charged with protecting the water, electrical, and environmental resources that Nevada had been granted by the Colorado River Commission.  A seven-member board governed the CRC.  The Governor appointed four of the members, including the chairman, Richard Bunker, and three were elected officials that were appointed by the board of directors of the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA).  He said the board was a mix of both state and local government officials.

 

The CRC was charged with protecting Nevada’s allocation of water and worked to restore environmental resources in the lower Colorado River.  He said they constructed facilities and delivered power from the electrical marketplace for the new treatment and transmission facilities constructed by the Southern Nevada Water Authority.  They also managed lands in Laughlin that had been granted to the Sierra CRC by the federal government.

 

Mr. Caan said that the last two years had been a challenge for the CRC.  He noted some of their accomplishments.  They continued to deliver 450 megawatts of low cost hydroelectricity to CRC’s utility and retail customers.  They worked closely with the SNWA to finalize and execute an agreement with the Arizona Water Banking Authority to store unused Arizona water apportionment for future use in southern Nevada.  The CRC, with the Nevada Power Company, completed a 230 KV 36-mile transmission facility known as the River Mountains Transmission Project to serve the needs of the SNWA and the Las Vegas valley.  He said they completed the basic step down yard that was a major substation project to serve their industrial customers located in Henderson.  They started a renewable energy program and were in the process of developing a feasibility study to evaluate using some of the pumps and piping systems of the SNWA to generate electricity as a renewable resource.

 

Mr. Caan testified that over the next two years the CRC would begin to implement a project to begin the Endangered Species Recovery Program in the lower Colorado River.  They planned to begin serving some of the water purveyors of the Southern Nevada Water Authority.  He said that Senate Bill 211 in the 71^st Legislative Session authorized the Sierra CRC to serve the member agencies of the SNWA and they expected to begin serving them that fall.  The CRC would continue to work with the other seven basin states to resolve interstate issues related to continued water acquisition and delivery.  He said they would participate in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and Public Utility Commission hearings to deal with issues that related to serving their industrial and retail customers.  And finally, the CRC would work with SNWA to meet their future energy needs and resource facilities.

 

Mr. Caan said that was a broad overview of the CRC activities.  He said he would turn the presentation over to Doug Beatty, Chief Financial Officer, who would review some of the budget details and then they would be happy to entertain questions from the Subcommittee.

 

Doug Beatty, Administrative Services Officer, Colorado River Commission, introduced himself.  He said the CRC was a self-funded entity, funded through three sources, a water administrative charge, a power administrative charge on power sold to their hydropower customers, and through a charge for the power delivery project that the Southern Nevada Water Authority paid for the facilities that the CRC constructed for them and for the power that they bought for them.

 

Mr. Beatty said the CRC had five funds under its control, three of which were on the agenda.  He said they had three special revenue budget account funds.  Budget Account 4490 acted as a general fund and housed all of their personnel and administrative costs including the offices of the CRC.  He said they had one office in the Grant Sawyer Building in Las Vegas, and some substations that served the SNWA, and housed field employees.

 

Mr. Beatty said that in addition to Budget Account 4490 they had Budget Accounts 4496 and 4497, the Fort Mojave Fund and the Research and Development Fund, that were not on today’s agenda.  He said those were small funds that dealt with land and multispecies issues.  He said the CRC had two enterprise funds.  Budget Account 4501 was a power delivery project fund that serviced power needs of the SNWA.  Budget Account 4502 was their power marketing fund that serviced the hydropower and all of the other electric customers of the CRC.

 

Senator Tiffany asked with regard to the power delivery account for the SNWA if that power delivery system included the wastewater and water systems that were added in the 2002-2003 biennium.

 

Mr. Caan said that the CRC had not begun to serve any of the member agencies of the SNWA.  The only service they currently provided was to the new facilities of the Water Authority.  They had not begun service to any of the purveyor members.  He said they expected to begin service that fall.  They were working on transmission and distribution issues to bring power from outside to serve the loads in the Las Vegas valley.

 

Senator Tiffany asked if the CRC had purchased the power for that extra delivery.

 

Mr. Caan said they would not procure any power supplies until they had an agreement with each of the member agencies.  He said they had an agreement with the Water Authority that allowed them to procure energy supplies, but they would not procure any energy supplies for any member until they had a signed agreement with them.

 

Senator Tiffany asked if the CRC would buy long-term or on-the-spot market and how their purchasing profile would appear.  Mr. Caan said that would depend on the member agency preference.  Senator Tiffany asked if the member agencies had a choice.

 

Mr. Caan said the member agencies had an option.  He said typically they attempted to diversify the procurement as long-term, short-term, or spot, depending on the market.  Given the market volatility there were some members that preferred to buy short-term.  The agencies had the option of buying five years, three years, one year, or spot market.  The option hinged on the risk tolerance of the organization involved in the procurement, and was a decision that would be reached jointly between the organization and the CRC.

 

Senator Tiffany said that S.B. 211 had language regarding purchasing renewable resources and asked if the CRC was subject to that law.

 

Mr. Caan said the law exempted municipals and cooperatives such as the Water Authority.  He said the CRC was committed to attempting to meet the requirements of the law.  They had begun a project with the Water Authority to evaluate the use of the existing rate of flow control.  The water that was currently delivered and running through the pipes was a source of energy similar to hydropower.  They were considering putting turbines in some of the areas to evaluate the economic feasibility to generate energy from what would be considered a renewable resource.

 

Senator Tiffany reaffirmed that the CRC was currently exempt from renewable energy laws.  Mr. Caan said they were exempt from the portfolio standard that was adopted.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked Mr. Caan why they were exempt.

 

Mr. Caan said he did not know why they were exempt.  He said that public entities and cooperatives were typically exempted from strict renewable portfolio standards.  Mr. Caan said the CRC was committed as a public agency and as an organization that dealt with the largest available renewable resource, the federal hydropower.  He said they had established with the Water Authority a position within the Colorado River Commission that dealt strictly with what we call clean energy or renewable energy.  He said the CRC was committed to procuring those energy supplies.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani said that two of the eight positions that the CRC requested seemed redundant from the 71^st Legislative Session hearings.  Ms. Giunchigliani noted the two positions in question were for an engineer and electrician.

 

Mr. Caan agreed and said they had constructed over $100 million in electrical facilities and continued to construct substations and transmission lines to deliver electricity.  As the CRC continued to grow to serve the Water Authority, every pumping facility constructed required an electric facility be built next to it to serve it.  He said they needed to continue staff enhancement to manage the new facilities.  He noted that the types of trades involved were very similar and the number of electricians and engineers required related to the scope of the territory they had to serve for the various lake and valley facilities and control systems.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the CRC had ratios or staffing patterns they used to determine staffing needs.

 

Mr. Caan said that ratios had been used.  He said the utility system was not very large and their planning was incremental as the needs grew.  He said they began by using contractors and as they grew their facilities, the economies of scale moved to using staff rather than contractors.  He said they still used contractors for emergencies, for instance, for large ladder trucks that they did not want to procure.  He said they had staff that evaluated those areas.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if there were facilities going online of which the Subcommittee was unaware that created a need for eight additional positions.

 

Mr. Caan said the Subcommittee was aware of the facilities that were part of the capital improvement program.  He said the need for the eight positions was driven by their expectations of what facilities would go online in the future.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked how many facilities they were expecting over the next biennium.  Mr. Caan said he did not know exactly how many new substations would be built but he would be happy to get that information.  Ms. Giunchigliani said that information would give the Subcommittee a better idea of the CRC’s anticipated staffing needs.  Mr. Caan said he would be happy to provide that.

 

Senator Tiffany noted that the requested positions would be located in the field or at the substations.  She said, given the volatile market, some of those might be better placed in the CRC risk management division.

 

Mr. Caan said that one of the natural resource specialist positions on their list would be part of the risk management effort.  Two positions were engineering technicians, individuals who managed wiring and controls, and were hands-on technicians that dealt with high voltage substations.  He said the risk management to which Senator Tiffany referred was an analytical position.  The natural resource specialist with the kind of work experience, training, and education they needed also had the analytical capabilities to work with risk management issues.  Therefore, one of those positions would be devoted to risk management along with other resource procurement activities.

 

Senator Tiffany confirmed that one of them would work part-time in risk management.

 

Mr. Caan said a considerable amount of their time could be spent on risk management issues, depending on the procurement activities.  He said if all of the Water Authority member agencies decided to procure, more time would be spent on risk management issues because of an increase in transaction volume.  He said the position would spend part of its time on risk management, part working with what we refer to as the S.B. 211 customers, the water and wastewater agencies, to evaluate their needs with respect to risk.

 

Senator Tiffany asked if the CRC needed all three positions immediately or if they could be added incrementally through the biennium.

 

Mr. Caan said they had planned to bring the new loads on in the fall.  One natural resource analyst position would be devoted to the S.B. 211 customers and they wanted to have that position filled in preparation for the procurement.  The other resource specialists and technicians would be involved in the water and environmental programs that would evolve over the next two years.  The endangered species recovery effort with Arizona and California, resulting from the 1997 biological opinion issued by the federal government, would probably begin in the middle of 2004.  Mr. Caan said they needed the positions authorized to anticipate staffing to manage those activities.  A consultant had determined whether to use contractors or, because of the volume and level of activity, to bring in a biologist.  He said they wanted to be prepared.

 

Senator Tiffany said that they might or might not fill those positions immediately.

 

Mr. Caan said that was correct.  He said they would not fill the positions until there was a need.  He said they expected to need the facilities positions in the next two years but would not fill them until the substations were completed and the control systems developed.  He said that was how they had historically handled the positions approved by the 71^st Legislature.

 

Senator Tiffany said the CRC needed authority to hire but might not hire until there was an actual need.

 

Mr. Caan said that was exactly what they were requesting, the authority to hire those positions during the next biennium.

 

Senator Tiffany said she had questions on the system and computers and suggested they schedule further hearings on March 25.  Chairman Parks asked if March 25^th was agreeable.  Mr. Caan said they were available any time the Subcommittee would like them.

 

Chairman Parks said they were in agreement as to the date and adjourned the hearing at 10:35 a.m.

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                                                           

Catherine Caldwell

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                                                                                         

Assemblyman David R. Parks, Chairman

 

 

DATE:                                                                             

 

 

 

                                                                                         

Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Chairman

 

 

DATE: