MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
Sixty-seventh Session
March 17, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Val Z. Garner at 8:05 a.m. Wednesday, March 17, 1993, in Room 330 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Val Z. Garner, Chairman
Mr. Rick C. Bennett, Vice Chairman
Mrs. Kathy M. Augustine
Mr. Douglas A. Bache
Mrs. Marcia de Braga
Mr. Pete Ernaut
Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Mrs. Erin Kenny
Mrs. Joan A. Lambert
Mr. James W. McGaughey
Mr. Roy Neighbors
Mrs. Gene W. Segerblom
Mr. Wendell P. Williams
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Mr. John Carpenter, Assembly District 33.
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ms. Dana Bennett
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ms. Lisa Foster, City of Sparks; Mr. Steve Elliott, City of Sparks; Mr. Mike Turnipseed, State Engineer, Division of Water Resources; Ms. Carol Powell, WWPA; Ms. Elizabeth Anderson, WWPA; Mr. Stan Warren, Sierra Pacific Resources; Mr. Joe Johnson, Sierra Club; Mr. George Benesch; Mr. Doug Busselman, Nevada Farm Bureau; Mr. Dick Heikka, So. Nevada Homebuilders; Ms. Juanita Cox; Mr. Bob Hadfield, Nevada Association of Counties.
ASSEMBLY BILL 258 - Makes various changes to charter of City of Sparks.
Ms. Lisa Foster, City of Sparks, testified AB 258 was a compilation of changes to the Sparks charter. She indicated all changes had been discussed in publicly noticed meetings over a series of several months. Ms. Foster stated the Sparks Charter Committee was comprised of appointees of Sparks legislators, mayor and city council members, and all changes in the bill had been approved by the committee, the city manager and Sparks City Council. Ms. Foster gave a review of the changes represented by AB 258 and distributed definitions from the federal law as they related to Section 3, subsection 2 (Exhibit C). Ms. Foster felt this section would be the most legally justifiable method for limiting appointments made by the city manager.
Ms. Foster indicated the only other change would be to remove Section 1.170, salaries for attorney, clerk and judge, as that section was no longer applicable as those positions had been made full-time.
Mr. Steve Elliott, City of Sparks, reiterated Ms. Foster's testimony.
Mr. McGaughey questioned why the salaries for city attorney, clerk and municipal judge had been removed.
Ms. Foster answered the city clerk position was now appointed rather than elected so salary was set just like other department heads, and the city attorney and municipal judge salaries were set by ordinance.
There being no further testimony Chairman Garner entertained a motion to do pass AB 258.
ASSEMBLYMAN FREEMAN MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 258.
ASSEMBLYMAN McGAUGHEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS WAS NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.
Chairman Garner assigned the bill to Mrs. Freeman.
ASSEMBLY BILL 314 - Makes various changes to application process for permit for appropriation of public waters and to fees assessed by state engineer.
Mr. John Carpenter, Assembly District 33, testified he had some concerns with AB 314 but had not had an opportunity to speak with Mr. Turnipseed regarding the reasons for the changes. He indicated he was concerned with removing the cap on the monies the water users in the Humboldt system paid to Water Resources for the distribution of waters.
Mr. Carpenter also voiced his concern on removing the caps as to the time frame for applications to be published by the state engineer.
Mr. Mike Turnipseed, State Engineer for Division of Water Resources, testifying in favor of AB 314, gave a brief background on the status of the Division of Water Resources. He indicated the Division was seven positions short of what had been funded by 1991 session of the legislature. Mr. Turnipseed said the budget as submitted reflected the reduction of five additional people in the first year and five people in the second year of the biennium, which constituted a 17 percent reduction in the work force, making a total reduction of 34 percent. He indicated he had notified the budget office he would not be able to collect the fees he had previously collected, between $1.1 and $1.2 million per year.
Mr. Turnipseed stated the purpose of this bill was to offset what he perceived as a reduction in the revenues forced by reduction of staff, mainly in permits issued. He added the budget instructed anything mandated by law which could not be met with the budget reductions be removed from the law. Mr. Turnipseed said the first section of AB 314 which removed the cap on the 21› per acre foot on the Humboldt River was deemed necessary as the State Buildings and Grounds and budget office would no longer pick up the telephone charges for the Elko office, and the only other funding mechanism available to fund the Humboldt office was out of the distribution funds, which would be paid for by the 21› per acre foot fee.
Mr. Turnipseed addressed the second section of the bill, indicating it removed the mandates which stipulated the Division had to publish within 30 days of application and act on the application within one year. He stated the third section of the bill increased the fees on applications for appropriation and change, doubled the permit fees and increased the protest fee from $10 to $25. He indicated that was estimated to generate sufficient fees to make up the shortfall in lack of revenue due to the shortage of staff.
Mr. McGaughey questioned how much money the Division put into the General Fund the previous year. Mr. Turnipseed replied $1,208,000.
Mr. McGaughey asked what it cost to run the agency in that same period of time. Mr. Turnipseed answered his work program for this fiscal year was funded at $2,786,000, which had been cut to approximately $2.3 million. Mr. Turnipseed added the legislature had greatly increased the fees in 1989 to offset hiring twelve additional people to help clear up some of the work backlog, of which five people had been cut.
Mrs. Freeman inquired if the State Water Planner was included in and affected by the budget cuts for the Water Resources Agency. Mr. Turnipseed answered no.
Mrs. Freeman asked if Mr. Turnipseed had appeared before any of the money committees. Mr. Turnipseed indicated he had appeared before Ways and Means and Senate Finance committees. Mrs. Freeman inquired what their responses had been. Mr. Turnipseed answered they felt the water resources agencies should not be cut. Mrs. Freeman then questioned if the committees had any proposals to supplement the agency budgets. Mr. Turnipseed said he knew they were working on it but was not aware of any solutions. Mrs. Freeman indicated she would like to help resolve this issue.
Mrs. de Braga voiced a concern with removing the cap on the 21› on the Humboldt water system. She also referenced Section 2, subsection 4, and Section 3, subsection 2, stating there were no replacement time frames indicated for the removal of the 30-day and one-year limits. Mrs. de Braga felt this would give the State Engineer an unlimited time frame for action on any applications.
Mrs. de Braga also had a problem with the 250 percent increase in the charge for filing a protest. She questioned if that would prevent those with legitimate protests from filing.
Mr. Turnipseed answered, "The last question is difficult to answer. In 1989 we increased all the fees substantially with the exception of the protest fee, it has historically been $10 for a long, long time, 50 years at least ... we chose not to increase that in 1989 believing like you that the people ought not to be charged a great deal to bring to our attention that they have water rights on the same source or in the same basin ... but when we were asked by the budget office to offset the reduction in fees by the reduction in staff, that was one of the areas that we chose to increase the fees, mainly because it generates a fair amount of money."
Mrs. de Braga reiterated her previous concerns regarding time frames asking Mr. Turnipseed to reply. Mr. Turnipseed answered the people should have an answer in a reasonable length of time, but he could not fulfill that criteria with a 34 percent reduction in staff.
Mr. Neighbors asked if there were any estimates on how much additional revenue would be taken in if the agency was fully staffed.
Mr. Turnipseed replied there were estimates based on AB 314. The elimination of the five positions during the first year would not save the amount of money which would decrease the general fund, but the cuts of the second five positions would show a savings to the general fund. He estimated AB 314 would generate approximately $400,000 per year. Mr. Turnipseed pointed out this bill would more than offset the salaries of the current employees and partially compensate for positions which had already been cut.
Mr. Neighbors inquired how far behind the agency was on handling applications. Mr. Turnipseed stated the 1,300 applications which were currently protested represented about a five year backlog if no further protested applications were received. Four full-time employees were working on title transfers in the deed section, which was a three-person reduction of the previous work force, creating a backlog in that area also.
Mr. Bache asked how much longer the application and hearing process would be lengthened by the reduction in staff. Mr. Turnipseed replied on average it was estimated an application would go from 150 to 380 days from filing to approval.
Mr. Bache then questioned if the budget director had considered the importance of water as a natural resource in determining the agency's budget. Mr. Turnipseed replied he could not answer that question.
Mrs. Lambert asked how much revenue was expected to be generated by the increased fees in AB 314. Mr. Turnipseed replied if the agency was allowed to keep the current trained workforce and hire a hearing officer, he felt approximately $480,000 could be generated per year.
Mrs. Lambert requested Mr. Turnipseed supply to the committee a schedule of the revenue generated by the fees. Mr. Turnipseed replied he would supply the information.
Chairman Garner asked if he understood fully, "You're telling me that with this bill we have in front of us, with proposed fee increases, that you still end up with those fee increases not being able to meet appropriate timelines that were previously in this bill?" Mr. Turnipseed answered that was correct. Chairman Garner then questioned with the fee increases proposed if the job would still not be done in a timely manner. Mr. Turnipseed replied the budget still reflected reduction of ten additional people over the next two years. Chairman Garner indicated his intent to put AB 314 in a subcommittee to address the concerns expressed in todays meeting.
Mrs. de Braga questioned if Section 1, subsection 4 only affected Humboldt River. Mr. Turnipseed said yes. Mrs. de Braga then asked what would happen to those fees if the language was removed from the bill. Mr. Turnipseed answered in the past in order to raise the fees, it was necessary to come before the legislature. He indicated those fees paid for two full-time people and several seasonal people for distribution of waters on the Humboldt. He said the Humboldt distribution fund also paid for the Elko office rent, trucks and equipment. Mrs. de Braga felt as that area was the hardest hit by the drought, the fee increase would impose a further hardship on the people. Mr. Turnipseed indicated he understood that, but the reason the fee needed to be increased was to pay for the Elko office telephones.
Mr. Hettrick asked how much money the 21› took in. Mr. Turnipseed replied he thought it took in about $140,000 a year.
Mr. Hettrick voiced concerns over the time frame issues, and asked if the agency could live with an extension of time rather than deleting it altogether. Mr. Turnipseed indicated he could, he was able to meet the 30-day advertising period, but was not sure he could continue to meet it with the reduction in staff. He also stated the agency had not been able to meet the one-year mandatory action on applications for many years.
Mr. Hettrick inquired how many cases pending had an agreement between applicant and protester to delay action. Mr. Turnipseed answered less than a dozen.
Mr. Carpenter stated he felt the cap on the fees should remain and if the fee needed to be raised, the agency should request it of the legislature.
Ms. Carol Powell, Washoe Water Protection Association (WWPA), testified in favor of AB 314 with the exception of removal of the time elements in Section 2, subsection 1, and Section 3, subsection 2 (a) and (b) (Exhibit D).
Mrs. Lambert asked what type of people belonged to WWPA. Ms. Powell answered the association was formed in 1992 in order to address the 6,437 domestic well owners who resided in Washoe County, and those who hold nonmunicipal surface and ground-water rights. She indicated in the competition for water this was a specific group of people who wished to protect their interests and included professional people, geologists and rural residents.
Mrs. Segerblom questioned if Ms. Powell represented those who lived on the canal.
Ms. Elizabeth Anderson, WWPA, answered Mrs. Segerblom, stating WWPA represented some of the people in that area.
Discussion ensued regarding the canal area.
Ms. Powell stressed the WWPA felt it was critical Division of Water Resources be adequately funded and indicated without proper financial and manpower resources, the Division would face disaster. She added she was a strong advocate of maintaining the administrative procedure requirements as it allowed the public to enter into the process.
Mr. Stan Warren, Sierra Pacific Resources, reiterated previous testimony regarding increased funding and staffing of Division of Water Resources.
Mr. Joe Johnson, Sierra Club, testified while he was in support of the fee increase and overriding substance of AB 314, and supported adequate funding for the Division of Water Resources, he felt an amendment to the bill (Exhibit E) was necessary.
Mr. George Benesch gave testimony on AB 314 (Exhibit F) and reiterated previous testimony regarding needed funding and manpower for Division of Water Resources.
Extensive discussion ensued between committee members and Mr. Benesch.
Mr. Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President of Nevada Farm Bureau, testified in opposition to AB 314 regarding the removal of the time limits, indicating the proposed fee changes were acceptable. He stated the people of Nevada owned the water of the state and as such needed to provide for funding and operation of Division of Water Resources. Mr. Busselman suggested a change in the time frames would be acceptable as opposed to deleting them altogether.
Further discussion ensued.
Mr. Ned Eyre indicated he had concerns with the removal of all time limit restrictions in AB 314. He stressed he was fully in favor of proper funding for Division of Water Resources, so was not opposed to the bill in that light. Mr. Eyre referenced Section 3, subsection 2 (a), stating he felt this should not be deleted from the bill.
Mr. Dick Heikka, So. Nevada Homebuilders, testified this was a bill which augmented the general fund, the regulations would basically extend the time frame for decisions, and there would be a reduction in staff of Division of Water Resources. He felt the state had an excellent set of regulations, but it was necessary to provide the manpower and funding to administer them. Mr. Heikka wished to support and work with the subcommittee to address the issues.
Ms. Juanita Cox testified she agreed with the fee changes, but felt to remove the right for the public to have time to file protest was unacceptable, so objected to the 30-day publish limit being removed.
Mr. Bob Hadfield, Nevada Association of Counties (NACO), reiterated comments made by Mr. Warren and Mr. Heikka. He indicated NACO supported the Division of Water Resources and was looking for ways for funding it, and the issues raised were the result of the inability of funding. Mr. Hadfield indicated NACO would also like to be represented on the subcommittee.
There being no further testimony Chairman Garner closed the hearing on AB 314.
Chairman Garner requested committee introduction of the following bill draft request:
BILL DRAFT REQUEST R-1826 - Assembly Concurrent Resolution -- Urging school districts and local governments to take certain action relating to the safety of school zones.
ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF B.D.R. R-1826.
ASSEMBLY DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ASSEMBLY BILL 8 - Requires, upon request, granting of leave of absence without pay for state employees to care for newborn or newly adopted children.
Chairman Garner indicated he would call for a motion to reconsider AB 8 at the next committee meeting.
There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 9:32 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
LINDA FEATHERINGILL
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Government Affairs
March 17, 1993
Page: 1