MINUTES OF THE
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
Sixty-seventh Session
February 23, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Ways and Means was called to order by Chairman Morse Arberry, Jr., at 8:00 a.m., on Tuesday, February 23, 1993, in room 352 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda, Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr., Chairman
Mr. Larry L. Spitler, Vice Chairman
Mrs. Vonne Chowning
Mr. Joseph E. Dini, Jr.
Mrs. Jan Evans
Ms. Christina R. Giunchigliani
Mr. Dean A. Heller
Mr. David E. Humke
Mr. John W. Marvel
Mr. Richard Perkins
Mr. Robert E. Price
Ms. Sandra Tiffany
Mrs. Myrna T. Williams
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst
Gary Ghiggeri, Deputy Fiscal Analyst
NATURAL RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION - PAGE 1625
Peter G. Morros, Director, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, gave an overview of the responsibilities of the director's office. He stated the office was responsible for eight divisions and 11 boards and commissions within the Department. He said the director was responsible for setting all Department goals, objectives and priorities. Mr. Morros stated the director coordinates divisional programs and delegates to division administrators.
Mr. Morros reviewed the Natural Resources Administration budget. Mr. Morros stated if the proposed reorganization was implemented the Division of Water Planning would be eliminated. He stated personnel expenses would increase in the Director's budget as remaining employees from the Division of Water Planning were consolidated into the Director's budget. In-state travel expenses would be increased to accommodate additional travel related to the Division of Water Planning. Operating expenses would decrease because of the new cost allocation plan for Attorney General assistance. Western Water, previously a line item in the Division of Water Resources budget, was transferred to this budget because the director was a member of the Western States Water Council. He stated the purchasing assessment, $58,393 in FY 94 and $43,645 in FY 95 was to be paid by the Department of Natural Resources to the Department of Purchasing. Mr. Morros indicated to offset the cost of the purchasing assessment, the Governor recommended this budget assess all divisions within the Department for a portion of the total. Mr. Morros indicated enhancement 700 general increases would increase in- and out-of-state travel funding and would reinstate the cooperative snow survey program. He stated the Western Water category included travel expenses associated with Nevada's participation in the Western States Water Council. Mr. Morros indicated the requested computer, which was cut during the budget reductions, would replace obsolete equipment in the director's office.
Mr. Spitler asked if the snow survey could be implemented when the position which performed the survey was recommended for elimination. Mr. Morros indicated the $3,000 allocation would be transferred to the Soil Conservation Service and they would provide the staffing for the program. Because the contribution was discontinued during the last biennium, the Soil Conservation Service was unable to produce a comprehensive report on the study.
Mr. Spitler asked the agency how the $58,393 in FY 94 and $43,645 in FY 95 purchasing assessment would be charged to the divisions within the Department. Mr. Morros indicated it was difficult to answer the question because if the reorganization was implemented State Parks and the Department of Wildlife would be combined. He stated the amount of the assessment was based on this assumption and he did not have adequate information to answer the question.
Mr. Spitler asked the Budget Office to explain how the amount of the assessment was determined. Joel Pinkerton, Budget Division, answered the assessment was based on a cost allocation formula. The $58,000 allocation would be used for the program budgets of the divisions. Mr. Spitler asked why the amount of the allocation, $43,645 for FY 1995, was significantly different from the FY 94 allocation. Mr. Morros interjected the purchasing assessment was composed of non-General Fund revenues. Mr. Spitler disagreed and stated the funds could be the General Fund allocations from another department. Woody Thorne affirmed Mr. Spitler's assertion and stated it was possible the purchasing assessment could be made up of General Fund dollars. Mr. Thorne explained the purchasing assessment was developed by the Department of Purchasing for each of the departments. The departments then cost allocated the purchasing assessment out to the divisions. Mr. Spitler asked if the assessment was audited to ensure the proper use of funds. Mr. Thorne stated the assessment was allocated by department and if a change occurred it would not be reflected until the following biennium. He commented the recommendation to use an assessment rather than an administrative charge was to eliminate any disincentive for the department to use purchasing services.
Mr. Marvel asked if the purchasing assessment could be displayed in other budgets. Mr. Thorne indicated there would be a purchasing assessment cost allocation plan within the Director's budget of each of the departments. The purchasing assessment cost allocation plan would disperse the cost of the purchasing assessment over the department's divisions.
Chairman Arberry asked for an explanation of the $21,000 budgeted for Instructional Supplies. Jeanne Botts, Program Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, explained the line item Instructional Supplies was an allocation for $21,000 in dues to the Western Water Counsel and was called Instructional Supplies inadvertently.
Mr. Marvel asked if the Department had only one economist position. Mr. Morros affirmed it was the only position of its kind in the Department. He commented the efforts of the Water Planning staff, which had been reduced by 40 percent, would be severely impacted by the loss of this position. Mr. Marvel commented the data collected by the economist was very important to the state. Everet Jesse, State Water Planner, Division of Water Planning, stated as required by NRS 540.051.5 the Division of Water Planning was mandated to comment on the social and economic impacts of water policy. He stated the Division of Water Planning had developed a comprehensive water planning data base which would have little impact on water planning policy for the state if it was not maintained. He asserted the economist position was a vital component in the water planning process.
Mr. Marvel asked if the Department had been interviewed by the Peat Marwick group prior to the recommended staffing changes. Mr. Morros indicated the consultation consisted of a general discussion about the Department and the consolidation of Water Planning with the State Engineer's Office or the Director's Office. Mr. Morros indicated because of the possibility of conflicts with the State Engineer's Office the decision was made to consolidate Water Planning with the Director's office. Mr. Morros commented because of the non-regulatory nature of Water Planning it had historically been one of the earliest to receive budget reductions.
Mr. Marvel asserted with extensive mine de-watering and Ecovision the water planning effort was vital to the state of Nevada. Mr. Morros commented three of the five water planning staff would be retained and the division would continue to do the best job possible with the resources provided. Mr. Marvel asked the Budget Office if any provision had been made for the water planning function. Mr. Thorne indicated the Budget and Planning Division in the new Department of Finance would have a strengthened planning capability which would include an economist and a demographer. Mr. Marvel indicated the rationale behind the movement of the water planning economist to the Department of Finance was inconceivable.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked how often litigation regarding water rights was filed against the state. Mr. Morros indicated the State Engineer commonly had 50-75 suits pending. He informed the committee historic trends demonstrated 90 percent of the decisions were in favor of the state.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked for an explanation of the State Engineer's litigation process. Mr. Morros stated the State Engineer was subject to judicial review within 30 days of a ruling on water issues. He commented these decisions were the impetus which provoked litigation. He commented the Director of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources served as a policy advisor but the State Engineer made the final decisions regarding water issues in the state.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked the Budget Office if the economist within the new Department of Finance would continue to provide water planning services for the state. Mr. Thorne explained the remaining water planning staff would continue to collect data for the state in the Director's office. The economic impact portion of the statute would be provided by the economist in the Department of Finance. Ms. Giunchigliani asked the Budget Office to provide a written explanation of duties performed by the transferred economist.
Mr. Heller commented by definition an economist was an expert on the allocation of scarce resources. He stated that in an arid state like Nevada it was essential to plan for the most efficient use of water. Mr. Heller asked how the Department would provide water planning information to the state with a 40 percent reduction in staff. Mr. Morros stated the reduction in staff would have an impact on the product the Department furnished to the state.
Mrs. Williams asked the Budget Division if the transferred economist would examine the social and economic impacts of water planning to the state. Mr. Thorne stated he was incapable of speaking about the entire scope of duties for the transferred economist. Mrs. Williams stated the committee needed assurance that water planning would receive a significant percentage of the transferred economists time.
STATE LANDS - PAGE 1561
Pamela Wilcox, Director, Division of State Lands, read from prepared testimony (Exehibit C). Mrs. Wilcox advised the committee the Division of State Lands included two agencies: The State Land Office and the State Land Use Planning Agency. The State Land Office functioned as the state's general land office, holding title to all state lands except those of the university system, the Department of Transportation and the State Legislature. Mrs. Wilcox stated the agency acquired and disposed of all interests in land and managed land not assigned to any other agency. The agency presently had a professional staff of five.
Mrs. Wilcox indicated the State Land Use Planning agency had two programs: the Land Use Planning Assistance Program and the Federal Lands Program. She stated the agency provided technical planning assistance to local governments and other agencies upon request. Such assistance typically included developing master plans, zoning ordinances and maps, ordinances for the Division of Land, and similar items relating to planning the use of land. She commented under the Federal Lands Program, the agency represented the state in its dealings with the Federal Land Management agencies, developed policies and plans for the use of lands under federal management, and coordinated the transfer of federal lands to other ownerships and uses. The State Land Use Planning Agency had one professional staff planner. She stated the budget also reflected the elimination of the Division of Conservation Districts as a separate agency, and their consolidation into the Division of State Lands. She informed the committee the two agencies had been managed by a single administrator since 1983.
Mrs. Wilcox commented the Division of Conservation Districts regulated the activities of the state's locally elected conservation districts, which work toward the conservation and proper development of the state's renewable natural resources through services to individuals, landowners and coordination with other public and private agencies. She commented agency activities had in the past been directed by the State Conservation Commission, a policy-making and regulatory board; however, this commission would now be consolidated into a new Natural Resources Board. The budget had also been adjusted to show the consolidation into the main agency budget account of the Tahoe Bond program, which was winding down and would have certain continuing expenses relating to the management of the sensitive lands acquired in the Tahoe Basin.
Mrs. Wilcox acknowledged during the next biennium, it had been proposed the agency charge for its services. She noted that the base budget showed revenue for administrative charges totally $126,162 in FY 94 and $127,192 in FY 95. She stated the base budget for the new biennium included the reduction of one professional planner and one/half clerical position from the budget approved two years ago, due to budget cuts. Personnel expenses had been adjusted to show the elimination of the Division of Conservation Districts as a separate agency and their consolidation into the Division of State Lands.
Mrs. Wilcox advised one professional position had been transferred from the budget of the Division of Conservation Districts. Mrs. Wilcox indicated a clerical position and the salaries for the State Conservation Commissioners had been eliminated from the budget. The State Conservation Commission was being consolidated into the new Natural Resources Board. Mrs. Wilcox noted the $3,803 allocation each year would pay worker's compensation premiums for locally-elected conservation district supervisors. She called attention to the transfer of the Tahoe Bond Program and its professional forester to the State Lands budget. The base operating budget had also been adjusted to reflect the transfer of the conservation district program to this account, with the addition of $9,934 each year of the biennium. She commented the land conference item covered normal expenses associated with the annual land use planning conference, which was self-funded.
Mrs. Wilcox advised the maintenance budget allowed for routine adjustments which were required for the agency's insurance charges. Personnel expenses made normal adjustments for fringe benefits. The agency requested additional funds to: (1) allow increases in the self-funding planning conference and agency publication, and (2) to cover a few other necessary agency expenses, primarily additional agency travel and replacement of an aging copier. The enhancement budget (710 transfer from 4191 - Tahoe Bond Program) reflected the additional funds necessary to complete the transfer of the Tahoe Bond Program into the agency's main budget account.
Speaker Dini commented the Commission on Tahoe Land was recommended to be abolished and its forester was recommended for transfer to the Division of State Lands. Speaker Dini asked how the work of the Commission would be achieved. Mrs. Wilcox remarked it was difficult to comment on the final outcome of the consolidation since the Division had not seen the statute which would facilitate this change. She assured the committee the duties of the forester would continue within the Division of State Lands.
Speaker Dini asked for a brief description of the operations of the Commission on Tahoe Land. Mrs. Wilcox described the existing Commission had seven appointed conservation district members and two ex-officio members, the Dean of the Department of Agriculture and the Director of the College of Agriculture. She stated the Commission met four times annually and promogated regulations which informed conservation districts about open meeting laws, financing and grants. Speaker Dini asked how much money was brought into the state from these grants. Mrs. Wilcox stated most were energy conservation grants through the Office of Community Services. She said she would provide specific financing information at a later date.
Mr. Price asked how much input the Division of State Lands had in the reorganization effort through either the Budget Office or the Peat Marwick consulting group. Mrs. Wilcox stated all the administrators filled out questionnaires very early in the process. She informed the committee although she was never personally interviewed Mr. Morros was and he did know the Division's concerns. Mr. Morros interjected he had two lengthy meetings with the Peat Marwick group and did express the Department's concerns as well as support for the reorganization effort. Mr. Price asked for an explanation of the concerns for the proposed reorganization. Mrs. Wilcox stated the projected reorganization savings from the consolidation of the Commission on Tahoe Lands into the Division of State Lands would be $30,000. She commented it was up to the committee to decide if the savings was worth the effort. She stated the Division certainly could make the reorganization work since there had been an effective consolidation in effect for the past 10 years.
Mr. Price asked if the public meeting portion of the Commission's duties were discussed during meetings about reorganization. Mr. Thorne stated the Budget Office did hold public hearings regarding the reorganization.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the consolidated Natural Resources Board would be advisory or regulatory. Mr. Thorne answered the Natural Resources Board would be regulatory.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked for clarification about the structure of the proposed Department of Natural Resources. Mr. Thorne referred to beginning of the Natural Resources section in the Executive Budget, "Department of Natural Resources, Operational Organization". Mr. Thorne indicated the Department of Natural Resources was proposed to have four divisions: (1) Administrative Services; (2) Lands and Forestry; (3) Wildlife and Parks; and (4) Water Resources.
Mr. Marvel asked which boards would be consolidated to form the Natural Resources Board. Mr. Thorne informed the committee the new Natural Resources Board would consolidate the state conservation commission, park advisory commission, advisory board on water resources, and the board of wildlife commissioners. Mr. Marvel asked when the members of the new Natural Resources Board would be established. Mr. Thorne indicated those details would be worked out within the reorganization bill.
Speaker Dini asked if one Forester, assigned to manage the Tahoe Basin Act which acquired sensitive properties with bond funds, would be sufficient staffing for the program. Mrs. Wilcox informed the committee the Division had made a $24 million land acquisition which was approximately 500 parcels at Lake Tahoe. She hoped one forester would be adequate staffing for the management of these lands. She commented the drought had caused multiple tree kills and the Division was concerned about spreading tree diseases and fire danger in the Tahoe Basin. Speaker Dini commented one forester was very scarce management for such a large area. He asked the agency representative to provide a recommendation which would strengthen staffing in this area.
Mrs. Williams requested information about application and permit fees the Division had suggested as a means of revenue generation. Mrs. Wilcox stated the agency did not currently charge for services, however, the agency could not continue to offer the services without charge. She stated a bill draft request (BDR) had established an application and permit fee schedule.
Chairman Arberry asked how the division participated in out-of-state meetings without funds. Mrs. Wilcox stated employees did not travel out-of-state because the department had no funds. Occasionally staff members paid for travel to important out-of-state meetings themselves. Mrs. Wilcox indicated for many years the agency had participated in national groups such as the Western States Land Commissioners Association (WSLCA) but did not attend the meetings. Mrs. Wilcox stated she was the chairman of the resolutions committee. Chairman Arberry asked how she attended out-of-state meetings. Mrs. Wilcox replied she had attended one meeting last year by paying her own travel expenses although the conference had paid for her room. She said the agency had been faced with the prospect of reverting out-of-state travel funds or loosing staff. She indicated the agency had chosen to relinquish out-of-state travel. Chairman Arberry asked the agency representative to provide an estimate of the cost of out-of-state travel over the next biennium.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY STATE LANDS
Eddie Venturacci, Chairman of the Nevada State Conservation Commission, read from prepared testimony, (Exhibit D). Mr. Venturacci commented he was a rancher and had been a conservation commissioner for the past 12 years. He stated the current role of the conservation commission was to develop regulations and give guidance to the state's 29 conservation districts. He commented over the past several years there had been an increase of 50 percent in district activities and programs. Mr. Venturacci explained commission grants had awarded districts for, energy conservation demonstration projects, long range planning, and water quality planning. He expressed concern that under the proposed reorganization the functions of the conservation commission would essentially be eliminated.
Frank Soares, Vice President of the Nevada Association of Conservation Districts, read from prepared testimony, (Exhibit E). Mr. Soares read a statement from Lahontan and Stillwater Conservation Districts which represented the Nevada Association of Conservation Districts position which opposed the reorganization of the State Conservation Commission and Division of Conservation Districts.
CAREY ACT - STATE LANDS - PAGE 1568
Mrs. Wilcox read from prepared testimony (Exhibit C). Mrs. Wilcox stated the Carey Act Trust Fund supported a program to assist settlers to acquire and develop federal lands for irrigated agriculture. She commented all staff support was provided by the Division of State Lands, and program travel and operating expenses were paid out of the Carey Act Trust Fund.
Chairman Arberry stated the budget increased substantially over work program levels, yet most of the additional revenue was held in reserve. Chairman Arberry asked why revenue was increasing. Mrs. Wilcox stated the agency only attempted to project revenue. Carey Act applicants paid a variety of fees as they moved through the application process which were deposited directly into the trust fund. Chairman Arberry asked why the reserve level was so high. Mrs. Wilcox replied the reserve level in the first year of the biennium, $10,750, represented FY 92 actual. The increase was based on the projected amount generated from application fees which would be deposited in the Carey Act Trust Funds. Chairman Arberry asked how the funds would be utilized. Mrs. Wilcox stated the funds could be used only for the Carey Act program. The Division of State Lands utilized the fund to cover expenses such as rent, travel and operating associated with the administration of the program. Chairman Arberry asked if staff time was a covered expense. Mrs. Wilcox stated staff time was not covered in this program.
Mr. Humke asked if the budget utilized subsidized staff time. Mrs. Wilcox stated the balance in the account was $15,000 and to charge staff time to the account was not very practical. She stated the program was shrinking in size and the staff time required was minimal.
Mr. Humke asked if only 3 percent of Carey Act applications were approved. Mrs. Wilcox conceded the agency had not approved any patents recently; however, the agency expected to approve several patents over the biennium. Mrs. Wilcox explained the application process was highly complex. First the applicant needed to receive water rights from the State Engineer's office, then federal lands had to be released. Mrs. Wilcox indicated many of the applications never completed the process either because the land selected was not suitable or available, or there was not enough water to support the application. Mr. Morros interjected 3 percent was the combined success rate of the Carey Act and the Desert Land Entry program where groundwater was the primary source of water. He indicated the turn of the century success rate was 38 percent because most of the applications were approved based on surface water supplies which were no longer available. Mr. Humke asked how long the program had been at the 3 percent success rate. Mr. Morros indicated it had been at 3 percent since the late sixties.
FEDERAL LAND LAWS - PAGE 1571
Mrs. Wilcox read from prepared testimony, (Exhibit C). Mrs. Wilcox advised the account supported the work of the State Multiple Use Advisory Committee on Federal Lands. The committee consisted of fourteen persons appointed by the governor to represent specific groups which were concerned with federal lands issues. The committee had for many years advised the Governor, our congressional delegation, and others on the use of the federal lands within Nevada. Mrs. Wilcox commented the budget supported only the direct expenses of the committee; all staff services were provided by the staff of the Division of State Lands. She explained budget cuts during the past biennium made it necessary to eliminate the meetings of the committee although funds were retained to allow the members to continue on the state payroll.
Chairman Arberry asked for more information on the required payroll assessments. Mrs. Wilcox stated the board members were standard salaried board members and the agency was required to pay an assessment for them to be kept on the state payroll. Chairman Arberry asked if they were not paid why the agency needed to pay a payroll assessment. Mr. Thorne explained the detailed Executive Budget indicated the $500 assessment was for board and commission pay. Chairman Arberry asked how many meetings would be held over the biennium. Mrs. Wilcox stated the agency received a quarterly assessment even if no salary was charged against the account. Mrs. Williams asked the Budget Office representative to provide an explanation of the payroll assessments.
Public Testimony
Don Quilici, Chairman, State Multiple Use Advisory Committee on Federal Lands, stated the committee was composed of 14 members using federal lands in Nevada. The committee provided a public forum where agencies, groups and citizens could gather to discuss public land issues. The issues include desert tortoises, wild horses, wildlife reintroduction, livestock grazing, military land withdrawals, mining and land exchanges. Based on the meetings the committee provided recommendations to the proper entities such as the Governor, the Nevada Congressional delegation, Legislative Committee on Public Lands, various state and federal agencies and other interested organizations. Mr. Quilici commented the committee was not funded because of budget difficulties. He stated although the advisory committee appeared insignificant during difficult financial times, he would still submit a request for funding.
Mr. Heller asked if a meeting did not take place over the next biennium could the committee remain effective. Mr. Quilici stated the committee would no longer have the ability to provide a forum for federal land use discussions. Mr. Heller questioned the purpose of having the committee. Mr. Quilici stated the committee, without proper funding, would be non-functioning and could no longer make recommendations about federal land use in the state.
FORESTRY - PAGE 1573
Roy Trenoweth, State Forester, stated the mission of the Division of Forestry was to administer, manage and coordinate all forestry, nursery, endangered plant species, watershed and conservation camp activities on certain public and private lands; to protect structural and natural resources through fire protection, prevention and suppression; and to provide other emergency services as required under the law.
Mr. Trenoweth gave an overview of the forestry budget. He indicated the account funded the administrative functions of the Division. He stated the reorganization recommended the transfer of the communication supervisor to the telecommunications budget. The Division would then be held responsible for payment of telecommunications services. Mr. Trenoweth stated emergency communication would not be impaired in any way by the transfer.
Mr. Trenoweth indicated increased insurance assessments, occupational studies and fringe benefits had caused an increase in the maintenance budget. Mr. Trenoweth explained the enhancement items included: (1) a $1,000 allocation for attendance at the Great Basin Coordinating Meeting; (2) a $9962 allocation which would include funding from the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to update the Minden dispatch center; and (3) a $10,000 allocation for pest control. Mr. Trenoweth informed the committee the endangered species $20,000 grant was from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife.
Mr. Spitler noted FY 92 actual aircraft repairs expense had been $44,449 and asked if the agency had anticipated routine aircraft maintenance over the next biennium. Mr. Trenoweth explained the $44,449 funded major repairs for the 1965 Aero Commander. The one-shot appropriation from the 65th Session was used for the acquisition of a Cheyenne II. Mr. Trenoweth explained the aircraft repairs request was inadvertently dropped from the budget. Mr. Spitler asked the agency to prepare a revised budget which included an aircraft repair request.
Chairman Arberry commented on the apparent reduction in productivity for the Division over the 1993-95 biennium and asked if this was related to the closure of the seven conservation camps. Mr. Trenoweth affirmed Chairman Arberry's suspicions and explained the performance indicators assumed the camps would not be in operation over the biennium.
Chairman Arberry asked the agency to provide detailed information on the new data processing equipment allocation totalling $9,962 in FY 94 and $9,969 in FY 95. Mr. Trenoweth indicated the data processing equipment would be used for the new Minden dispatch center. Chairman Arberry asked if the agency had contacted Karen Kavanau, Director, Data Processing to ensure the best equipment was purchased. Mr. Trenoweth stated the Department of Data Processing had been contacted.
Ms. Tiffany asked if the data processing allocation included software, hardware, training and a maintenance agreement for the computer aided dispatch system. Mr. Trenoweth explained the complete system would cost approximately $30,000-$40,000. The system would be funded in part by the Division of Forestry, U.S. Department of Forestry and Bureau of Land Management. Ms. Tiffany asked the agency representative to provide detailed information about the system to the committee. Mr. Spitler asked the agency representative to provide the purpose and scope of the new dispatch system.
Speaker Dini asked what impact the reduction in personnel and the closure of the Elko office would have on rural fire protection. Mr. Trenoweth stated approximately $32,000-$35,000 in federal funding was anticipated to continue to fund the rural fire protection; however the $10,000 annual state contribution for rural fire protection would be eliminated. Mr. Trenoweth stated the result would be less fire protection equipment to the rural areas over the biennium. Mr. Trenoweth stated the position reductions would not impact rural Nevada.
FORESTRY INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS - PAGE 1579
Mr. Trenoweth stated the budget funded county fire district personnel which included seasonal firefighters. He explained the maintenance increases were due to increased insurance assessments and fringe benefits.
FORESTRY FIRE SUPPRESSION - PAGE 1582
Mr. Trenoweth explained $546,696 in additional funding for each year of the biennium had been allocated for the suppression of fires because of the closure of the seven conservation camps.
Mr. Marvel asked if the additional funding would be sufficient in light of the elimination of the honor camp crews. Mr. Trenoweth indicated the fire suppression costs over the last year had totalled $2.5 million. Mr. Marvel commented based on historic trends the funding was obviously insufficient. Mr. Marvel commented the fire season could be severe because of the additional vegetation from winter precipitation. Mr. Trenoweth indicated the fire season could be delayed or shortened by the winter precipitation.
Mr. Marvel asked if initial response would be delayed because of the closure of the conservation camps. Mr. Trenoweth indicated the Division would have to rely heavily on volunteer firemen throughout the state for support. Mr. Marvel asked what the agency planned to do if funding for fire suppression was depleted. Mr. Trenoweth stated there was a high possibility funding would be depleted and the Division would be forced to request additional funding from the Board of Examiners and the Interim Finance Committee.
Mr. Spitler asked the agency to comment on the status of outstanding reimbursement billings totalling $922,693. Mr. Trenoweth indicated all of the reimbursements from the last fire season had been billed. He stated the Division had collected approximately $700,000-$1,000,000 of the reimbursements. Mr. Spitler asked how much the agency anticipated would be returned to the Interim Finance Contingency Fund. Mr. Trenoweth stated he would provide the information at a later date.
Mr. Heller asked the agency to clarify the total amount of fire suppression costs over the last year. Mr. Trenoweth stated the Division had utilized $1.9 million for fire suppression over the last year.
Mr. Humke asked if the Division had recovered any penalty fees from arsonists. Mr. Trenoweth stated the penalties were determined by the judicial system. Mr. Humke asked if the agency had received any large sums from these penalties. Mr. Trenoweth indicated an arson in Verdi did generate approximately $157,000 which was paid by the arsonists insurance company.
FORESTRY HONOR CAMPS - PAGE 1584
Mr. Trenoweth explained the base expenditures included a $15,000 allocation for the closure of the buildings and large unusable equipment at the closed camps. He stated other equipment such as chain saws and shovels would be utilized at the remaining three conservation camps. He said the older non-usable equipment would be sent through state purchasing for auction.
Chairman Arberry asked the agency representative to specify how the $20,000 funding would be utilized to prevent the equipment decay and to ensure equipment/supplies would be accounted for. Mr. Trenoweth indicated only the usable equipment from the camps would be covered by the allocation. The Division would not be responsible for the closure of the camps. Also a small portion of the allocation would be utilized for vehicle insurance. Chairman Arberry asked the Budget Office to explain which agency would be responsible for the closure of the camps since the Department of Prisons had not received an allocation. Mr. Thorne stated he would have to research the Department of Prison's Budget.
Mrs. Evans expressed concerns about the salvaging and maintenance of equipment from the seven conservation camps. She asked the Budget Office representative to research the prisons budget and describe the closing plan for the conservation camps.
Mr. Price commented the closing of the conservation camps could promote vandalism and he would like to see preventive measures taken to prevent this from occurring. Mr. Price asked the agency representative to provide the average cost per prisoner for the conservation camp.
Mr. Humke asked if the honor camps would be closed permanently. Mr. Thorne stated the re-opening would depend on the financial resources of the state in the future. Mr. Humke commented he agreed with Mr. Price that the camps would be vandalized if preventive measures were not taken.
Chairman Arberry commented the committee obviously had a major concern about the manner in which the camps would be closed. He asked the Budget Division to provide detailed information on the how the conservation camps would be secured.
Mr. Spitler noted the impressive number of community, county, state and federal projects provided by the conservation camps. He commented the cost of the projects provided by the conservation camp prisoners would be passed on to other entities if the camps were closed. Mr. Spitler asked the agency to provide a detailed cost benefit analysis from the conservation camp projects.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked the cost benefit analysis to include information about how the value of the benefits were derived. She asked how many fire crews were currently available and how many would be available after the closure of the camps. Mr. Trenoweth stated with the camps closed 39 crews would be available in three remaining camps. He commented three of the crews were from the Indian Springs camp which did not provide fire assistance. Therefore 36 crews would be available for statewide fire assistance. He said the net loss of conservation camp crews was 54. Ms. Giunchigliani asked how Carson, Indian Springs and Yerington were determined to remain open. Mr. Thorne indicated the Department of Prisons had determined which conservation camps were to remain open. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the enhancements would be used to improve the existing conservation camps. Mr. Trenoweth affirmed the allocations would rebuild and enlarge the remaining camps.
Mr. Marvel asked what would happen if the Legislature did not pass the Facilities Capacities Act. Mr. Thorne said a $47 million budget shortfall would occur. Mr. Marvel asked if the Budget Division had determined another means of meeting the budget shortfall. Mr. Thorne indicated no other provisions had been made given the limited revenues available to the state. Either the entire budget would have to be restructured or the Legislature would have to propose a tax increase.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Senator Jacobsen testified in favor of keeping the honor camps open. He stated the camps did not subsidize the communities in which they were located. He stated he had visited and worked in every honor camp in the state. Senator Jacobsen cited some of the services provided by the honor camps. He said the conservation camps had benefitted the Legislature directly by removing 15 trees at a cost of $220 when contractors estimated $20,000. He commented Marlette Lake's fishery was constructed by the prison honor camps. He stated the honor camps provided a much needed service to the Veterans cemetery in Las Vegas. Senator Jacobsen displayed some photographs which showed the projects completed by the honor camp crews. Senator Jacobsen suggested the committee should consider assessing a fee for the honor camp projects to offset the cost to maintain the camps. Senator Jacobsen stated the program also provided needed rehabilitation and work skills to the prisoners.
FOREST NURSERIES - PAGE 1588
Mr. Trenoweth stated the budget funded nursery sales in Washoe Valley, Las Vegas, and Nevada Youth Training Center in Elko. The maintenance budget included increased insurance and fringe benefits. The enhancement included a federal allocation totaling $69,196 which included a small business grant and a stewardship incentive program. The stewardship incentive program grant totaled approximately $29,000 and would be allocated the Soil Conservation Service to enable private individuals to plant trees.
WATER RESOURCES - PAGE 1592
Mike Turnipseed, State Engineer, stated the Division of Water Resources was completely funded by the General Fund and all fees assessed by the Division were returned to the state. He highlighted the work program of $1,892,982 which reflected a personnel reduction of 10 positions over the biennium. Previously the budget reductions had eliminated 7 positions from the Division.
Mr. Marvel asked if the Division would be able to maintain the same level of revenue generation with the staffing decrease. Mr. Turnipseed stated the Division had been generating approximately $1.2 million for the General Fund and with the reduction in staff this would no longer be possible. The estimated reduction to the General Fund in revenue would be $800,000. Mr. Turnipseed stated the budget reductions had resulted in the loss of the hearing officer, engineer and the adjudication officer. He continued in combination with the loss of key personnel and the proposed reduction in staff the number of protest applications would continue to escalate. Mr. Marvel asked how long it would take to process the current number of protest applications at the current staffing level. Mr. Turnipseed stated the Division had 1,300, or six years of applications to process, assuming no other applications were submitted. He stated to collect the fees over the past biennium the Division had to forgo other important functions of the office including dam safety and adjudication.
Mr. Turnipseed stated the operating budget reflected an $80,000 reduction which included the removal of the Deputy Attorney General's salary and the transfer of computer operations supervisor to the Department of Data Processing. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) allocation of $88,128 was for a cooperative stream gauging program. The Western State Water Counsel expenditure had been reallocated to the Natural Resources Director's Budget. Maintenance increases were due to insurance assessments, fringe benefits, and an occupational study. The water management enhancement would include the salary and other equipment for three employees for the new program. The other portion of the enhancements would be used to reinstate personnel lost during the budget reductions, a part-time attorney general and additional money for the South Fork Dam.
Chairman Arberry commented the agency had requested a $15,000 allocation for gauging inflow and outflow at the South Fork Dam. He asked if the computerized dam control system was working. Mr. Turnipseed explained the poor quality of phone lines in the Dixie Creek area prevented the computer system from operating. The Telecommunication Division had researched a radio link for the Elko Office so they could determine if the dam needed regulation. Chairman Arberry asked if the computer was nonfunctional why the Division needed the $15,000 allocation. Mr. Turnipseed stated the computer equipment was not capable of reading the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) satellite computer equipment in Carson City. Mr. Turnipseed explained the allocation would be used for the fully operational cooperative gauging station agreement with the USGS.
Chairman Arberry noted the $10,772 allocation for additional computer equipment. Chairman Arberry asked the agency representative to provide an itemized list of computer equipment recommended to be purchased and how the equipment would be used. Mr. Turnipseed stated the budget reductions had decreased the computer allocation recommended by the 1991 Legislature. The $10,772 would purchase mapping software and complete the original computer system allocation. The mapping software would be either ARCINFO, or Autocad.
Mr. Spitler asked the agency representative to comment on the relationship between the reduction in staff and its ability to generate revenue. Mr. Turnipseed commented the 1989 Legislature increased the fee assessment to offset the cost of 12 new employees. During budget reduction 7 of the 12 were eliminated and in the proposed Executive Budget the Division would loose 10 additional personnel. Over the last biennium many duties of the remaining positions were reassigned to maintain the fee generation. However, the proposed reduction of 10 additional employees over the next biennium would directly impact the Division's ability to generate the current revenue. Mr. Spitler commented the reduction in staff adversely affected the Division's ability to contribute to the General Fund. Mr. Spitler stated the reduction in staff could actually pose a higher demand on the General Fund than if the requested staff were approved. Mr. Turnipseed concurred with Mr. Spitler's conclusion. Mr. Thorne interjected the net difference between the decrease in fee generation, $400,000, and the cost to employ additional staff, $700,000, was not revenue neutral. Therefore the fee generation did not contribute enough to cover the additional staff. Mr. Spitler asked the agency to provide a proposal which demonstrated the relationship between fee generation and staffing levels.
Mrs. Williams asked about the status of the water theme park associated with the South Fork Dam. Mr. Morros commented the State Park Division would be better able to answer the question. Mr. Morros stated the dam was capable of holding 40,000 acre feet of water but to date had only held 25 percent of its capacity because of the severity of the drought. Mrs. Williams asked if any deterioration had occurred to the dam as a result of the drought. Mr. Turnipseed replied deterioration had not occurred. The Division was anxiously awaiting more water to test the relationship between the dam and its foundation.
Mrs. Tiffany asked what database management system the Division would be using. Mr. Jesse, State Water Planner, stated a relational database called Ingres would be used which could be used in conjunction with existing systems at the USGS. Ingres had the capability of querying information on water rights within a particular township, range and section. Ms. Tiffany asked if all water rights information in the state was accessible through the Ingres database. Mr. Turnipseed indicated 76 percent of the files had been input into the computer. Ms. Tiffany asked what services were currently provided from the database. Mr. Turnipseed stated approximately 200 water right decisions per month were based on information from the database. Ms. Tiffany asked if the transferred data processing position provided data entry duties for the computer database. Mr. Turnipseed replied the position did not but it did verify the accuracy of the input files and produced all the Division's reports. Ms. Tiffany asked if the $37,000 allocation would be sufficient to complete the database. Mr. Turnipseed stated funding was sufficient for the data management portion but not sufficient for the GIS mapping portion. Ms. Tiffany recommended the agency form a statewide committee to ensure mapping capabilities were not duplicated. Mr. Turnipseed stated the agency intended to map only the water rights information for the state in their GIS system. He remarked Washoe and Clark counties had offered their GIS capabilities if the system became operational.
Mr. Marvel asked how many employees would be needed to process the applications of Ecovision, Las Vegas and mining filings in the north. Mr. Turnipseed was confident with the restoration of the seven positions and adequate funding the Division could meet the demands of these filings.
Mr. Marvel asked how much money was generated from the Humbolt River Assessment. Mr. Turnipseed indicated the total assessment was $200,000.
HEIL WILD HORSE BEQUEST
Catherine Barcomb, Director, State Wild Horse Commission, explained the mission of the agency was to: (1) serve as an advocate for wild horses through funding educational, promotional and habitat programs and projects; (2) participate with federal agencies in the land use planning process to ensure sufficient habitat and viable populations; (3) serve as a source of information to the public on all aspects of wild horses; and (4) coordinate with state and federal agencies with information regarding illegal activities against wild horses.
Mr. Heller asked what impact the severe winter had on Nevada's wild horse population. Mrs. Barcomb stated the federal government was charged with the management of the wild horses and the agency monitored federal management of the herds. Currently the herds were severely depleted in much of the state and federal agencies were performing emergency gathers.
Mr. Marvel asked how the agency displayed interest income in the budget. Tracy Raxter, Chief of Administration Services, explained interest income was shown in the other resources category which totaled $74,916 in FY 94 $75,098 in FY 95. Mr. Marvel asked if the agency was in any way funded by the General Fund. Mr. Raxter stated the agency was not funded by the General Fund.
Mr. Marvel asked for justification for the elimination of the clerical support position and the reduction in the board's salaries. Mrs. Barcomb stated the board's salaries were not decreased and the clerical position had been eliminated before the 1991 legislative session.
Mr. Marvel asked what programs the agency had underway to ensure the safety of the wild horses. Mrs. Barcomb explained assessments were being completed in conjunction with Department of Wildlife data. The agency was also coordinating gathers with the Bureau of Land Management.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked how many horses had been killed over the last year. Mrs. Barcomb stated three horses had been shot near Tonopah.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked how much money the contract grantperson/fundraiser had raised for the agency. Mrs. Barcomb stated the position was only filled for a two-month period. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the travel allowance in the current budget was for a contract employee or the executive director. Mrs. Barcomb indicated the $2,205 travel allocation was for the executive budget and there was no independent contractor for this budget cycle.
Mrs. Williams asked the agency representative to provide information regarding the agency's role in the preservation of the wild horses.
There being no further business before the committee Chairman Arberry adjourned the meeting at 10:55 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
_________________________
Courtnay Berg
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Ways and Means
February 23, 1993
Page 1