MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
Sixty-seventh Session
February 25, 1993
The Senate Committee on Finance was called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio, at 8:00 a.m., on Thursday, February 25, 1993, in Room 223 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Vice Chairman
Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen
Senator Bob Coffin
Senator Diana M. Glomb
Senator William R. O'Donnell
Senator Matthew Q. Callister
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Dan Miles, Fiscal Analyst
Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Dee Crawford, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Pete Morros, Director, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Judy Matteucci, Director, Department of Administration
Everett Jesse, State Water Planner, Division of Water Planning
Ronald James, State Historic Preservation Officer, Division of Historic Preservation and Archeology
Scott Miller, Administrator, Department of Museums and History
Bernadette Francke, Inspector, Comstock Historic District
Commission
Pam Wilcox, Administrator and State Land Registrar, Division of State Lands, and Acting Administrator, Division of Conservation Districts, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Don Quilici, Chairman, State Multiple Use Advisory Committee on Federal Lands
Ed Venturacci, Chairman, State Conservation Commission
Frank Soares, Vice President, Nevada Association of Conservation Districts
Roderick Mier, Chief Administrative Officer, Tahoe Resources Conservation District
Mike Turnipseed, State Engineer, Division of Water Resources
Roy Trenoweth, State Forester, Division of Forestry, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Cathy Barcomb, Executive Director, Commission for Preservation of Wild Horses
Department of Natural Resources - Page l625
Pete Morros, Director, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, pointed out the director's office is responsible for eight divisions and ll boards and commissions within the department. Currently, the director's office provides administrative, technical and budgetary supervision and direction to all divisions of the State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources: Water Resources, Water Planning, State Parks, State Lands, Conservation Districts, Environmental Protection, Forestry, Nevada Natural Heritage and Historic Preservation and Archeology.
Under the Governor's reorganization plan, the department is renamed the Department of Natural Resources. The Division of Environmental Protection becomes a separate Department of Environmental Protection. The Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology becomes part of the Division of Museums and History in the proposed Department of Museums, Library and Arts. The Divisions of Forestry and State Lands are combined into one division. The Division of Water Planning is abolished and the director's office assumes the responsibilities and some of the employees of that division. The Division of Conservation Districts is abolished and one of its employees is transferred to State Lands. The land purchases of the Tahoe bond program are nearly completed, but the land management phase continues. A Forester I, charged with managing the environmentally sensitive lands, is transferred to the Division of State Lands and the Tahoe bond budget account is abolished. The Department of Wildlife is consolidated into the Division of State Parks.
Mr. Morros pointed out travel has been increased to reflect the consolidation of the Division of Water Planning. The Base budget reflects a change due to combination of the Division of Water Planning and salary of the agency attorney general transferring directly to the attorney general office budget.
Continuing, he explained:
The Western States Water Council line item, that particular line item in the past has appeared in the...Division of Water Resources, that has been transferred to the director's office.
The purchasing assessment...reflects what will be assessed against the other non-General Fund sources within the department....That figure also includes the Department of Wildlife assessment coming into the department under the reorganization.
Senator Raggio asked, "Judy, this is what we'll see now, following up on our discussion yesterday on the assessment...."
Judy Matteucci, Director, Department of Administration, responded:
No, that's correct....The way we funded the purchasing is no longer through an AC [administrative charge] as has been in the past. I think that has actually been some of the problem as some of the higher cost agencies are doing. So we prorated the assessments to the various departments....
Senator Raggio remarked, "If you don't see them in the division, you're just going to see them in the administration budgets."
Ms. Matteucci responded in the affirmative.
Senator Raggio added, "How did you formulate this insofar as each of these divisions, or departments, are concerned? Was it based on historical use, or what?"
Ms. Matteucci responded she couldn't recall the process, but would send the information to the committee.
Mr. Morros continued:
Under Maintenance it reflects some increases for insurance and fringe benefit breaks and the occupational study. Under General Increases, we are requesting additional funds for both In-State and Out-of-State Travel for our general operating costs [and] the restoration of a snow survey program....
The only piece of equipment that we are requesting is a computer to replace a l2-year old memory writer for the Management Assistant IV position in the director's office....
Senator Rawson requested information regarding the agency's performance indicators.
Everett Jesse, State Water Planner, Division of Water Planning, came forward to testify:
...When we look at that, we look at that on a county basis....When we put those reports together in the form of a report, then it becomes a single report and that's how there is a difference....
Senator Raggio pointed out the economist in the Division of Water Planning has developed an extensive data base of Nevada's economic, demographic and water data. Senator Raggio queried what will happen to that data base if the position is eliminated.
Mr. Morros declared the agency will continue to maintain the system to the best of their ability.
Mr. Jesse cited subsection 5 of Nevada Revised Statutes 540.05l and pointed out the division is responsible to examine and comment on the social and economic effects of water policy. The only way to do that is with a credible data base, he asserted. "What we've done over the past couple of years is gather public domain information that is available to the public and put it on a data base so it's readable and usable to anybody. In fact, both the universities have used data from the division and other state agencies have used the data...." he proclaimed.
Continuing, he pointed out, if the economist position is eliminated, it will be very difficult to maintain the data bases and to accomplish the analysis necessary to ascertain impact of major water projects.
Senator Raggio asked, "According to our information, first you have to complete the state water plan. That is due to be completed this biennium, isn't it?"
Mr. Jesse responded in the affirmative.
Senator Raggio pointed out the agency plan for the biennium is to evaluate and identify alternatives to prevent a water shortage, increase agricultural water use efficiency, forecast mining water demands, prevent problems to fish and wildlife due to lack of water, report on social and economic effects of the Truckee River Operating Agreement, water rights purchase program for Lahontan Valley Wetlands and report on additional water resources for southern Nevada as well as provide four water education workshops for teachers. He asked if the agency would be able to accomplish all those goals in light of the anticipated reduction in staff.
Mr. Jesse said, "With...only three people in the office to do all those things, [it] would be impossible."
Senator Raggio asked which goals could be eliminated if staff were diminished and which goals were deemed unimportant.
Mr. Jesse stated:
All are important. The ones that would be eliminated would be being able to comment on the social and economic effects for...the Truckee River Operating Agreement out in Stillwater. One of the benefits in Stillwater is, when we examined what was going on out there, they thought they needed l25,000 acre feet of water for wetlands. We looked at the computer model that was generated for that and discovered they did the evaporation calculations incorrectly and they really only needed ll5,000 [acre feet]. That l0,000 acre feet represents $3.5 million in savings to the State of Nevada and to the Federal Government....If we don't have the people, we can't do things like that.
Senator Raggio asked how many staff were needed to fulfill the agency goals.
Mr. Jesse proclaimed, "I need the staff I have now."
Senator Raggio asked Mr. Jesse if the economist position was needed.
Mr. Jesse replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Matteucci commented:
If you look back in the Department of Finance, there is an economist position that is recommended there. There's a question as to who should be doing economic projections....We feel very comfortable that Rhett [Jesse] can still achieve many of the things that he's laid out, because that particular position can assist with the economic pieces of the information.
Senator Raggio noted, "If I'm understanding what he's saying, they would need this economist position just to do the things they need for this department. That economist is not going to be designated solely for this division, is it?"
Ms. Matteucci insisted:
That economist is not going to be designated solely for this division, however, that economist can certainly provide the economic information that Mr. Jesse is referring to. Much of the information, and the things he laid out for you, are really engineering-type activities. Our office can supply him the economic information so that he can achieve the goals that he's set up for himself. I also might add that there is a planning position in the wildlife budget that was added to help this...that should be moved up to his particular office to help with the development of the statewide water plan and that was part of our critical issues. There are positions that I think can support his efforts.
Senator Raggio stressed the importance of the agency goals and expressed his concern the agency may not achieve its goals in light of reduced staffing levels.
Senator Glomb asked for an explanation of the boards and commissions.
Ms. Matteucci referenced the Budget in Brief and responded four boards will be consolidated into the natural resources board:
the wildlife commission, conservation districts, State Park Advisory Commission and the Advisory Board on Water Resources Planning and Development.
Senator Glomb asked what was the rationale in commingling the various boards, while others maintained autonomy.
Ms. Matteucci responded:
It was reviewed by the consultants and when they were doing their detail work with us, in what each one of those boards and commissions did, and you have to take that into consideration when you're bringing in the current Department of Wildlife. So when you see the consolidation of wildlife and parks, I think naturally answers that question that the parks advisory commission and wildlife commission should...be combined, you don't need two separate boards directing one division.
Water planning is going into the director's office, at the request of Pete [Morros] in order to avoid any kind of conflict over in the water resources division....Then the soil conservation district appeared to be of like duties and responsibilities.....
Senator Callister pointed out differences in focus between wildlife and parks and questioned the concept of commingling the two entities. He asked if Mr. Morros was comfortable with the suggested consolidation.
Mr. Morros pointed out in other states the two agencies are commingled. He explained:
Most cases, they are separate divisions, but are under the same department head. Utah is one good example, it's worked quite well over there and there is a lot of interfacing between those two divisions....I've talked with my counterpart over there and he said there were some problems right after the reorganization occurred, and there's anxiety on the part of employees of both divisions that there's going to be fierce competition for limited funds....
I have mixed emotions about it....Looking at reorganization as a whole, there's a lot of good stuff that's being proposed in reorganization, particularly some of the stuff that's being moved into the environmental protection division or department....
Senator Callister expressed his concern and stated:
I think Nevada is well-known and highly respected and...gained a lot of credibility in the last l0 years because of its wildlife programs....I'm not certain we're not taking a step backwards by marrying these two particular divisions that have such significance independently of each other....
Senator Callister concluded, "Do other states routinely marry wildlife...with parks, or are those two traditionally maintained separate and distinct....I'd appreciate it if someone would put that data together for us for subcommittee [hearings]...."
Senator Coffin acknowledged the purpose of reorganization is to promote efficiency and save money, but declared:
...The thing that I am concerned about is the...advisory boards. To me, they are one sure way that you have a broadening of appreciation of the government, but I don't like the idea of disposing of them and merging them into a superboard...or reducing citizen participation in the government, because this is a unique state. Maybe in your response to Senator Callister, you might also try to draw a parallel between those states that may have accomplished that particular kind of change, which also have their population center so far removed from the seat of government....
Senator Jacobsen requested a chart indicating current boards and commissions, those anticipated to be eliminated and a proposed reorganization flowchart.
Historic Preservation - Page ll47
Ronald James, State Historic Preservation Officer, Division of Historic Preservation and Archeology, testified under the Governor's reorganization plan, the agency, which was a separate division within the State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, will be placed within the Division of Museums and History in the new Department of Museums, Library and Arts. The agency's only clerical position, a Management Assistant II, has been abolished.
Senator Raggio asked if the agency will have clerical assistance from the Department of Museums.
Mr. James responded, "I would doubt that...."
Senator Raggio asked if the Division of Historic Preservation and Archeology would be able to operate without clerical assistance.
Mr. James declared, "We've been operating without clerical help since September l, and we are continuing to keep our heads above water."
Senator Raggio asked Ms. Matteucci if she anticipated providing clerical assistance from staff of the Department of Museums to assist the Division of Historic Preservation and Archeology.
Ms. Matteucci stated, "No. This was one of the budget cuts that was proposed by the agency and they seemed to be doing all right without the clerical position. I don't know whether museums would be anticipating providing clerical help....According to Ron [James], so far, so good."
Mr. James testified the historical marker program has been abolished. Although many of the signs have fallen into disrepair over the years, there will not be funding to repair or replace the signs, he said. He pointed out the historical marker program cannot be funded using the agency's federal grant and declared:
It's the only program that we're mandated to do that the federal grant specifically prohibits funding, so it has to be funded with l00 percent state funds. Our Management Assistant II was doing a bang-up job coordinating this historical marker program when she accepted a promotion in another agency and that position became frozen out of existence. We had to give up the marker program because she took with her those salaries designated for her....
Mr. James pointed out the agency is responsible for a series of functions. They review all federal undertakings within the state to ensure Nevada's cultural resources are not damaged. The agency also reviews nominations to the national and state registers, provides assistance to developers regarding the federal tax credit system and maintains a grant program that disseminates federal funds to local agencies and organizations to assist them in their preservation efforts.
It was pointed out the federal government has changed the required match on this program from 50/50 to 60/40. However, since the federal funding is not increasing with their assumption of an increased share of program costs (from 50 percent to 60 percent), the proposed shift will result in a decrease in the state share, from 50 percent to 40 percent, and less funding overall.
Senator Raggio asked, "Are you satisfied this meets the 60/40 grant requirement?"
Ms. Matteucci responded:
There's some...federal money in there, so you can't just take a 60/40 on the top line and calculate that. We're satisfied that this budget will be all right and I think Mr. James concurs.
Senator Callister asked to what extent is Mr. James involved in the program to fund historic preservations. Presuming there is some successful rehabilitation of that funding mechanism, he asked, "Will you be adequately staffed, given these reductions? Because I think you'll have a key role to play in that, as people learn that money is available...."
Mr. James responded, "I'm not saying it wouldn't be problematic if that were resuscitated....We would try our best and we would get it done...."
Senator Callister expressed his concern, "The very program that would require more of your agency's services than previously and you're not going to be able to have enough people to respond to that."
Senator Jacobsen asked what has been the monetary investment in the historic marker program to date.
Mr. James responded:
I honestly don't know because the marker program goes back to l964....I would expect we have several million dollars invested in it. We have 250 markers scattered across the state. I share your concern, I don't mean to say that this is our lowest priority and let me explain why that was targeted. It was a painful decision, but it's the only program that is not required by our federal grant....
Senator Jacobsen posed the question to transfer the program to another agency, for example, the Department of Transportation, using honor camp crews.
Mr. James recommended to "wait and see how the reorganization works....But without real physical dollars attached to the marker program, no matter where it is, nothing is going to happen....But I'd certainly recommend it, if just for maintenance purposes if nothing else. There's no question they are extremely valuable to tourists and visitors to the state."
Senator Jacobsen expressed his concern over the program being abandoned.
Senator Coffin expressed his support of the proposed merger of the agency in the reorganization plan and declared "I'd like to hear the director of the museums...as to how he will handle this on the short term so we can see if no progress can be made in the merger, we need to either reinforce this budget or discuss it with museum's budget."
Scott Miller, Administrator, Department of Museums and History, came forward to respond:
We anticipate, given the current reorganization, that HPA [Historic Preservation and Archeology] is to be merged into what would amount to a bureau within the current Department of Museums, which becomes a division. I've indicated to Ms. Matteucci, as well as Ron [James], that my choice would be to see it made division status equal with that of the state arts council and the museum system and the library and archives as basically four branches within the department....
As far as what the museum system can provide to Ron [James], I'd like to think we would have some wherewithal....Without capital dollars, I don't know whether that can address such concerns, as Senator Jacobsen, concerning the marker plan. We like to think we can gather together physically so that we'll be able to rely on one another...but as it's currently constructed, my department...is constituted by an assistant to my position, which is actually a railroad employee...and public information officer as well as an account clerk....The clerical aspects that were brought up earlier, we don't bring clerical to the table...there aren't any....
Long-term plans, long-term assistance to the department I believe can come in many different fashions but there are going to be specific programs such as the one described, the marker, that we may not be able to do anything about....
Senator Coffin summarized the State of Nevada has a large investment in the historic marker program and opined it is a relatively small capital outlay to "keep them alive."
Senator Callister asked to be supplied with an inventory list of the location of all historic markers in the state as well as their present status.
Senator Callister asked Ms. Matteucci why the Division of Tourism or the Department of Transportation "shouldn't have some funding participation...someone that is on the road and has remote capacity for repair and maintenance, since they're out there. Also, the obligation to participate in that level of maintenance and repair. I think it is a tourism benefit so I think they, as well, ought to help shoulder some of this cost."
Ms. Matteucci responded:
...The Department of Transportation has fairly restrictive uses for which they can spend money. There may be some way to satisfy both the constitutional requirements of the expenditure of dollars out of the
Department of Transportation and meet the needs of this program. I'd be happy to explore that.
As far as tourism...he [Mr. Scott Miller] had a little bit of difficulty even getting money from the Department [Division] of Tourism to continue some of his programs that were funded by this committee last time. One of the agreements that the Governor made with the tourism commission was they would participate fully in some of the recommendations for funding for tourism purposes. I don't know whether Ron [James] even put in a request for them to consider this time, we can discuss it with them, but they are reluctant to use their money to subsidize state programs when they think they can get more cost- effective usage through advertising programs. I will explore that with the Lieutenant Governor also and indicate your interest in that.
Senator Callister asked for clarification of the level of clerical support between the Division of Historic Preservation and the Department of Museums.
Mr. Miller responded, "My department, which at this particular point in time includes the staff of the state museum, have a Management Assistant I and there are 28 of us."
Senator Callister expressed his dismay.
Mr. Miller responded, "The problem only becomes one if the Department of Museums and History were removed from the museum. Quite frankly, our Management Assistant arrangement has worked very well for us in that museum because we have a lot of people who simply do all of their work by computer....The museum is somewhat different. Not having any clerical help is going to be a rather difficult task, but speaking strictly for the Department of Museums and History and the state museum right now, we get by pretty well...."
Comstock Historic District - Page ll5l
Mr. James introduced Bernadette Francke, Inspector, Comstock Historic District Commission.
It was explained the commission is comprised of nine commissioners, almost half of whom live outside the district. The Comstock Historic District Commission, a separate agency under the State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, is recommended under the Governor's reorganization plan to become a part of the Division of Historic Preservation and Archeology under the Division of Museums and History in the new Department of Museums, Library and Arts. Although salaries for the nine commissioners have been eliminated, according to the reorganization plan, the commission will continue in an advisory capacity.
Mr. James pointed out the commission has often met without salary because they are dedicated to the cause of the Comstock Historic District. Mr. James elaborated:
...I'm most concerned about the outside talent and how that's going to affect that. The commission is required to maintain two commissioners who are architects. They both have to be imported from outside and the architects are busy professionals who sell their architectural services as part of their business....I'm hoping they will be very generous about it, but I am concerned about how that is going to affect their attendance....
Continuing, he declared, in June l993, "we're going to open up the first archeological field school on the Comstock. It will last for 5 weeks and between our two agencies supply daily tours, working with volunteers and in-house staff, of those archeological sites...."
State Lands - Page l561
Pam Wilcox, Administrator and State Land Registrar, Division of State Lands, and Acting Administrator, Division of Conservation Districts, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, explained the state lands office is the oldest agency existing since statehood and functions as Nevada's general land office, holding title to all state lands except those of the university system, the Department of Transportation and the state legislature. She explained the state lands office acquires and disposes of all interests in land and manages lands not assigned to any other agency.
Ms. Wilcox declared under the Governor's plan for reorganization of state government, the Division of State Lands and the Division of Forestry are combined into a single Division of Lands and Forestry within the proposed Department of Natural Resources. Ms. Wilcox pointed out the Division of Conservation Districts is earmarked to be eliminated as a separate division and to be consolidated into the Division of State Lands.
Senator Raggio asked, "This budget has delineated state lands and that will be an ongoing budget, but when I look at the operational organization chart, what are we looking at, the Division of Lands and Forestry?"
Ms. Matteucci interceded to explain:
The Division of Lands and Forestry would be an operating division. We haven't consolidated forestry and the [state] lands budgets.
Senator Raggio responded, "But there will be this Division of Lands and Forestry?"
Ms. Matteucci responded:
That's the proposal and structure around which this budget is built. Again, what we're proposing in order to give the new directors flexibility, is that all the duties and responsibilities be assigned to the director and let them establish their own divisions as they see fit. But we needed a structure around which to put the budget, that's how this one is put together.
Senator Raggio referred to the agency organizational chart and asked, "What box is this going to be in when we finally approve this reorganization? Is it going to be in the Division of Lands and Forestry?"
Ms. Matteucci responded:
If you approve the budget the way it is established right here, and if you want to specify that it be lands and forestry instead of assigning all the duties and responsibilities to the director for him to decide whether he wants lands and forestry in this particular arrangement, then yes, it will be. That's entirely up to the legislature.
Continuing, Ms. Wilcox distributed Exhibit C, Draft Legislative Amendment, dated November l6, l992, to the committee. Ms. Wilcox explained the agency's revenue is proposed to be modified. The amount of revenue that comes from other sources has been substantially increased, she avowed. Referring to Exhibit C, Ms. Wilcox explained, "This agency has been fortunate to not have to charge fees for its services in the past...but that has proposed to be changed. We do have a fee schedule that has been developed and will be introduced as separate legislation."
It was pointed out the Division of Conservation Districts is recommended to be consolidated into state lands and two employees from the Division of Conservation Districts will be transferred into that account. One of the positions, a Management Assistant I, is not funded and will be abolished on July l, l993. Further, the commission on Tahoe land is being abolished. The program's half-time Forester is transferred to state lands and increased to full-time status. "We have five people in the land office, one Planner in the Land Use Planning agency and two clerical positions and myself," Ms. Wilcox reported.
Ms. Wilcox pointed out that Personnel expenses, In-State Travel and Operating expenses have been increased to show the consolidation of "the conservation district program and the Tahoe bond program into the budget."
Senator Rawson asked, "...The Tahoe bonds area of work, was that covered by General Fund money before?"
Ms. Wilcox explained, "No, it was not. The Tahoe bond program was funded by the Tahoe bonds that were approved by the voters in l986 and by the legislature in l985. This $3l million bond issue and the expenses were covered by that bond issue." The Tahoe Basin Act authorized the issuance of $3l million in General Obligation Bonds to be used for the purchase of environmentally-sensitive land and erosion-control projects in the Tahoe basin. Continuing expenses associated with the management of the sensitive properties acquired with the bond funds continue to be covered by other funds.
Senator Rawson asked, "By moving that in here, will that transfer that to General Fund money?"
Ms. Wilcox responded, "That will change the expense of one person and a small amount of travel and operating and will become a burden on the General Fund, yes."
Senator Rawson pointed out, "So Nevada will be picking up, in essence, a bigger portion of that. Or the people of Nevada will be."
Ms. Wilcox answered in the affirmative and explained, "I'm sure it was always understood that when we got finished spending that much money acquiring property that the state would have to continue to manage those properties in the basin and that will be a continuing responsibility indefinitely."
Senator Raggio asked what was the anticipated funding to be raised by charging for application and permit fees.
Ms. Wilcox estimated $l25,000 annually.
Senator Raggio asked Ms. Matteucci if those funds would be earmarked for this agency.
Ms. Matteucci responded, "They are to come into this particular account and not go into the General Fund."
Senator Raggio referenced Exhibit C, page 2, item (e) and declared he would take exception to the line item "Uses not listed will be charged fees comparable to the most similar listed use" and opined it would give too much discretion to the collector.
Ms. Wilcox explained that section has been revised by the legislative bill drafter and declared, "You will see it in substantially different form...."
Senator Glomb asked how many employees would be consolidated from each of the divisions and who would have the responsibility to perform the erosion-control activities.
Ms. Wilcox explained:
The erosion-control part of the Tahoe bond fund, those were all grants that were specific to erosion-control projects and one of the conditions of those grants was the people who receive the grants...have to continue to maintain those projects in the future. As far as there may be an erosion problem on any of the almost 500 lots we've bought up there, that will be our responsibility and it's one of the responsibilities of the Forester.
Senator O'Donnell referenced the Tahoe Oversight Committee and asked, "You talked about doing a...sort of environmental bank. Will this budget put that on hold?"
Ms. Wilcox responded:
No, I believe you are speaking of the mitigation fee program....That will be entirely funded with TRPA [Tahoe Regional Planning Association] dollars. TRPA will be given the agency funds from the mitigation fees it collects for excess coverage, and the agency will be using those funds to acquire additional properties and retire the coverage which is required to complete TRPA's charge. The TRPA will allow us to spend up to l2 percent of that for administrative expenses. We have prepared a fiscal note...that details how we would do that and that would be an enhancement to this budget, which you do not see before you at the present time because that just came up since this budget was put together.
Senator Jacobsen referenced Exhibit C and pointed out the boat ramp at Cave Rock was earmarked for reconstruction and asked if the state would be subject to the permit fees.
Ms. Wilcox responded, "No, it is my position that we are not. State lands acquired for the use of stage agencies and the law provide that we assign them directly to agencies...."
Senator Jacobsen asked, "I never noticed anywhere where we sell any lands. Do we have anything [state land] up for sale now? When we're hurting like we are, financially...usually you have to sell something. Do we have anything to sell?"
Ms. Wilcox responded, "We do occasionally sell lands, but we really don't have much to sell....Because we acquire lands when we need it, they rarely become excess...."
Carey Act - State Lands - Page l568
Ms. Wilcox explained the Carey Act assists farmers to acquire federal lands which must then be settled and used for irrigated agriculture. All program expenditures are funded through program fees. It was explained, fees include application fees and land sale proceeds and are deposited in the Carey Act Trust Fund which is pledged to the program.
Senator Raggio pointed out in Fiscal Year 1992 "you only had $l,700 in application fees."
Ms. Wilcox responded in the affirmative.
Senator Raggio asked if pending applications will be resolved soon.
Ms. Wilcox explained, "We have 67 still pending. Some of those will probably fall by the wayside. It's a difficult process....Of those, there are a few I hope will work within the next biennium...."
Federal Land Laws - Page l571
Ms. Wilcox explained the State Multiple Use Advisory Committee on Federal Lands was established to help the state oversee issues concerning the use of land controlled by the federal government. The committee is supported by the General Fund. Since the committee is established by federal mandate, it is not recommended for elimination under the Governor's reorganization plan. Ms. Wilcox pointed out the funding is only recommended at $500 per year to cover payroll assessments for the appointed committee members if they choose to meet at their own expense. She explained the reduction was preferred rather than layoff of personnel. "There are not sufficient funds in this budget for this biennium for the committee to be meeting at state expense," she proclaimed. Ms. Wilcox pointed out the chairman of the State Multiple Use Advisory Committee on Federal Lands was present in the audience and wished to address the committee.
Senator O'Donnell asked how an advisory committee to oversee federal lands existed without funding to support it.
Ms. Wilcox maintained, "There were very limited funds available, and we had very difficult choices to make."
Don Quilici, Chairman, State Multiple Use Advisory Committee on Federal Lands, approached the committee to testify.
Senator O'Donnell pointed out funding for the committee was reduced from $l0,000 to $500 and asked, "And you're still going to be meeting?"
Mr. Quilici responded, "Negative, we would not be able to meet with the current budget amount budgeted for our committee and with the inability to meet, our committee would not be able to function."
Senator O'Donnell asked if the committee meetings were a statutorial requirement by the federal government.
Mr. Quilici answered, "Not by the federal government, it's statutory by the State of Nevada. We have l4 members on our committee who represent various groups that come in contact with, or use, public lands in the State of Nevada...." Continuing, Mr. Quilici avowed he would like to see the committee receive the necessary funding to allow the committee to meet "hopefully twice a year...."
Senator Callister pointed out funding was originally by a trust fund, not by General Fund.
Ms. Wilcox explained, "This committee was set up...originally in about l960 as the Land Law Review Committee...." Ms. Wilcox reiterated that reduced funding for the committee was chosen as an alternative to staff layoff.
Ms. Wilcox noted the committee was a reflection of the fact that more than 85 percent of the land in Nevada is federally-owned, that it is important to Nevada how those lands are managed and that there is no other committee in the executive branch that oversees those federal lands from a general perspective.
Mr. Quilici explained public testimony before the State Multiple Use Advisory Committee on Federal Lands provides the committee with areas of recommendation to "the Governor, the Secretary of the Interior, wherever applicable, depending upon the issue that has come before us."
Ms. Wilcox offered to provide a summary listing of recommendations provided by the advisory committee.
Senator Raggio invited public testimony.
Ed Venturacci, Chairman, State Conservation Commission, distributed Exhibit D, listing of local conservation districts, to the committee. Mr. Venturacci testified from written text as provided in Exhibit E in opposition to the merging of the State Conservation Commission and Division of Conservation Districts. Mr. Venturacci pointed out over the years there has been an increase of 50 percent in conservation activities and programs. Under the proposed reorganization, the State Conservation Commission is to be merged with three other boards. "The concept of the new natural resources board may be timely in dealing with the state's natural resource issues, but I do not feel the commission should be eliminated and be a part of the new board," he stressed.
Continuing, Mr. Venturacci expressed his concerns "that under the new natural resources board, the current statewide geographic representation of the commission will be lost...." Mr. Venturacci pointed out:
...I also have a concern on the cost savings of $28,000 by restructuring the conservation commission and the elimination of management assistant staff support to the commission and the Division of Conservation Districts. The shifting of half the Division of Conservation Districts' staff to the Division of State Lands, without clerical support, does not mean efficiency is going to increase by adding conservation district programs to an already heavily committed state lands staff.
Frank Soares, Vice President, Nevada Association of Conservation Districts, approached the committee to testify in opposition to the merging of the entities. Mr. Soares provided copies of his written testimony, Exhibit F, to the committee for the record.
Mr. Soares avowed, "The Lahontan Conservation District and Stillwater Conservation District, Churchill County, and over 500 cooperators are adamantly opposed to Governor Miller's proposal to eliminate the Division of Conservation Districts and combining the State Conservation Commission with the wildlife and parks commissions and state advisory water planning board."
Mr. Soares concluded he was opposed to the reorganization proposal "for it does not give a clear view of the commission and its status within the new natural resources board and its commitment to conservation districts." He opined:
...The [State] Conservation Commission and Division of Conservation Districts are necessary for us to build and strengthen our working relationships with our conservation partners. We share a common delivery system not only to the agricultural community, but to the rural and urban resource users throughout the state. Without them, this system is fragmented, uneven and often disjointed. They are necessary to encourage and direct the local district programs. Without them, many districts stand to become inactive, thus losing a vital link to local community resource involvement of issues....
Senator Jacobsen asked if the proposed reorganization would impact any of the federal grants which are available to the Division of Conservation Districts.
Ms. Wilcox declared:
I would say not directly. That is, there is no federal requirement that this division exist as a separate division. But certainly, we're seeing a 50 percent drop in personnel and we're seeing the [State] Conservation Commission being consolidated into a new board....If the strengths of the individual districts [are] affected, and if the chairman of the [State] Conservation Commission has been for channeling funds through to local districts, if that is disrupted, it certainly would have an effect....
In objection to the reorganization merger, Roderick Mier, Chief Administrative Officer, Tahoe Resources Conservation District, testified from written text, Exhibit G, and distributed a copy of Exhibit H, Tahoe Bond Act, Capital Improvements Program Final Report, (Exhibit H - Original on file in the Research Library) to the committee. In support of the Division of Conservation Districts, Mr. Mier pointed out the Nevada Tahoe Conservation District was instrumental in the installation of over $12 million in capital improvements and erosion-control projects in both Douglas and Washoe counties as a result of the l986 Tahoe Basin Act. Mr. Mier drew the committee's attention to the fact that all of the projects were administered through the Division of Conservation Districts. In summary, Mr. Mier opined the [State] Conservation Commission and the Division of Conservation Districts provide an important and necessary link between the various departments and agencies within the state and the conservation districts, respectively, as well as the Federal Soil Conservation Service. He declared elimination of these departments would seriously affect the mission of the conservation districts within the state.
There being no further public testimony, Senator Raggio moved to hear the budget of the water resources division.
Water Resources Division - Page l592
Mike Turnipseed, State Engineer, Division of Water Resources, testified the agency is charged with enforcing the water laws of the State of Nevada. Other responsibilities include the adjudication of claims of vested water rights; distribution of water in accordance with court decrees; review of water availability for new subdivisions; review of the construction and operation of dams; appropriation of geothermal resources; licensing of well drillers and water right surveyors; review of flood control projects; maintenance of water resource data and records; and providing technical assistance to government boards, offices and agencies.
It was pointed out the Division of Water Resources lost 7 positions during the budget reductions. Over the l993-95 biennium, l0.5 positions were abolished. On July l, l993, 5.5 positions would be abolished and on July l, l994, 5 more positions will be eliminated. Of the 50.5 positions approved by the l99l legislature, l7.5 would be eliminated, which represents 35 percent of the positions approved by the l99l legislature. "One of the most important positions that was lost during the biennium was our hearing officer. We have around l,300 protested applications that are awaiting resolution, most of which have to be resolved by hearing," Mr. Turnipseed avowed.
Senator Raggio asked how many staff will now be available for the hearing process activity.
Mr. Turnipseed responded, "The hearings are held by myself and the two deputy state engineers and we have two other people that support that hearing section. But without a hearing officer, the number of hearings we can hold in any given year are greatly reduced."
Although Nevada Revised Statutes 533.370 requires applications for water permits to be issued within one year of the date of application, the agency anticipates the loss of staff will eliminate compliance with that requirement. It was disclosed that approximately l,500 applications are received each year, as well as a 5-year backlog in processing water-right ownership transfers. During the l988-90 biennium, 809 protests were filed, but in the l990-92 biennium, 5,8ll protests were filed.
Additionally, the dam inspection efforts of the agency have been put on hold as the only staff engineer reviewing dam plans and inspection of dams is reviewing mine dewatering mitigation plans, as well as other geotechnical duties.
Mr. Turnipseed avowed the adjudication of vested rights in Diamond Valley, Monitor Valley, Carson Valley, Quinn River Valley and the Owyhee River, including the negotiated settlement of water rights for the Shoshone and Bannock tribes, has come to a standstill. The only position working on the adjudication process was eliminated in the budget cuts.
Senator Raggio pointed out "These are the major purposes for the existence of your division. How are you going to function? We can't, even in a budget reduction period, have those kinds of backlogs and the major applications and claims in your office are not being addressed at all...."
Mr. Turnipseed replied:
We are proposing to do what we can in the dam safety area and process as many applications as we can and also settle as much litigation as we can. We anticipate at least starting the efforts on the hearings on the Las Vegas importation project....I doubt we will have any staff or funding to hold hearings on the Eco-Vision proposal.
Senator Raggio pointed out the agency has 3,6l2 protests on the Las Vegas Valley water importation project.
Mr. Turnipseed also pointed out there are in excess of l0 major dewatering efforts planned, or in progress, of which three have major ongoing studies being conducted by the United States Geological Survey. During the dry period of l99l and l992, more water was being pumped from mine pits than was flowing in the Truckee, Carson and Walker Rivers combined. It takes a major effort on behalf of the division to ensure existing water rights are protected and Nevada residents suffer no long-term effects from dewatering, he avowed.
Senator Raggio asked if sources other than General Funds existed to fund additional positions.
Mr. Turnipseed declared in l989 the legislature saw fit to increase the fees to offset the appropriation to add l2 positions to the staff. "There is a bill to offset what we expect to be the reduction in revenues as a result of the budget cuts, but it would not be sufficient to restore the positions," he proclaimed.
Senator O'Donnell referenced the agency's performance indicators indicating the length of time to process an application for water was from 292 to 380 days.
Senator O'Donnell declared:
Water is the most critical item...facing the state in the next decades to come. Are you comfortable with this budget, knowing that it's going to be your responsibility...as it is, knowing the future of our state.
Mr. Turnipseed replied:
I understand that we're also in a recession and I'm willing to take my share of the budget cuts, however, I don't think the state can continue on with diminishment in my budget the way it is. I should add, I share the responsibilities for finding additional sources of water for the state with the Colorado River Commission....Am I comfortable with it? I'm not entirely comfortable with it, but all I can say is we will continue to function, the backlog will continue to increase, it will take longer to get applications processed, the mining activity continues to escalate in the north...and some of the other responsibilities of the office will suffer.
Senator Raggio pointed out the agency is currently generating approximately $l.l million in fees to the General Fund:
The General Fund budget is based on, actually, an increase for l994-95 of $l.l40 million and $l.l52 million...based on anticipation of increase in the fees that you have been historically collecting. It's my understanding that you have predicted you are going to reduce your ability to collect fees by as much as $225,000. How does that track, if they're predicting they are going to be unable, because of staff reduction, to generate those kinds of fees, how can you build that into the General Fund budget?
Ms. Matteucci responded, "As Mr. Turnipseed indicated, there's a slight increase in the fees to offset the loss elsewhere and that bill is being drafted."
Ms. Matteucci stated the agency will increase fees to make up for the loss in volume.
Senator Raggio opined if the public is going to receive reduced services, how can higher fees be justified. "This agency has been subject to great criticism because of the backlog, and I would hope the Governor isn't making the statement that this is an unimportant function of state government by the limitation on this budget," he asserted.
Ms. Matteucci contended the Governor is indicating "you can't spend money you don't have."
Senator Raggio pointed out the duties of the agency are not discretionary and "must be maintained."
Ms. Matteucci agreed and added, "But it's going to take longer with this budget as you see it today."
Senator Callister readdressed the issue "How much longer, what's the average increase, in your estimation, going to be on the time of resolving these disputes, or adjudications?"
Mr. Turnipseed stated, "The adjudication during the next biennium will have no activity at all...."
Senator Callister expressed his dismay, "If you've got something presently pending, it won't even get looked at for 2 years?"
Mr. Turnipseed replied in the affirmative and clarified:
In the adjudication effort. In the dam safety effort...we get around to about 5 percent of the dam to inspect them. Our technical person who reviews plans and specifications, we have only one person doing that now and his time is fully committed to reviewing plans and specifications for new dams....Inspecting 5 percent of the dams is practically no activity and the hearing officer position that was eliminated, all that does is just slow down that process [the appropriation process on the protested applications].
Mr. Turnipseed provided the example that prior to l989, a protested application took approximately 2 years to process. He explained, "When they increased the fees and increased the staff, we reduced that to about l year. On an unprotested application, I believe the time used to be around 350 days, we were able to get that down to about l50 days. Now we have lost all those people and more, we project that will slide backwards to more than l year...."
Senator Callister requested written information from each department that characterizes the reduction in services that the public is going to receive as a result of the underfunded budget.
Forestry - Page l573
Roy Trenoweth, State Forester, Division of Forestry, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, noted the Division of Forestry will be combined with the Division of Lands to become the Bureau of Lands and Forestry.
Mr. Trenoweth testified regarding the overall affect of the reorganization on the agency. He pointed out the agency mission is to administer, manage and coordinate all forestry, nursery and endangered plant species, watershed, conservation camp activities on certain public and private lands and to protect structural and natural resources through fire protection, prevention and suppression.
Mr. Trenowith pointed out the effects of the reorganization efforts on this budget is in the Communication section. "...You will see a large increase...that reflects the loss of one position, the communication supervisor, who is not lost in the system, he's just going to the Department of Telecommunications...," he stated.
Forestry Intergovernmental Agreements - Page l579
Mr. Trenowith testified there are six fire protection districts in the state for which this agency has responsibility. There are no General Funds included in this budget. The program represents the cooperative agreements between the Division of Forestry and various political subdivisions and provides initial response to any fires or other emergency which threatens human life on the Humboldt and Toiyabe National Forest lands. It also provides protection for the Sierra Forest Fire Protection Districts, Clark, Elko, Eureka, Storey and White Pine counties including manpower, equipment and operating funds to accomplish fire protection and prevention.
Forest Fire Suppression - Page l582
Mr. Trenowith testified this program provides funding to cover expenses caused by any fire, including structure or other emergencies necessary to fire protection and forest and watershed management either directly or through mutual aid agreements with other governmental agencies.
This agency account is funded through the General Fund and reimbursement for fire fighting efforts.
Forestry Honor Camps - Page l584
Mr. Trenowith testified, based upon the proposed Facility Capacity Act, this budget reflects a reduction in seven conservation camps with the three conservation camps still on-line being expanded, i.e., Indian Springs, Silver Springs and Stewart.
Senator Raggio asked if the opening date for the expansion of the Indian Springs conservation camp had been resolved.
Ms. Matteucci replied the State Public Works Board moved the anticipated completion date without notification to the Department of Prisons. She advised the new schedule for the Indian Springs conservation camp will be completed by June l994.
Senator Jacobsen referenced the Governor's reorganization plan and asked, "Will the responsibility be returned back to local entities to perform?"
Mr. Trenowith stated:
...In this budget, we'll still have 39 crews available to do whatever, statewide. But three of those crews are going to have to be held in Las Vegas because they will work with the boot camp out of Indian Springs....
Senator Jacobsen asked what was the cost to train an honor camp supervisor.
Mr. Trenowith declared he would send that information.
Senator O'Donnell asked if the agency stands by its performance indicators as outlined in the Governor's Executive Budget.
Mr. Trenowith responded in the affirmative.
Forestry Nurseries - Page l588
Mr. Trenowith reported this budget is self-supporting. The recommended budget provides funds to operate state nurseries in Washoe Valley and Las Vegas and a satellite line-out nursery in Elko.
Heil Wild Horse Bequest - Page l6l6
Cathy Barcomb, Executive Director, Commission for Preservation of Wild Horses, testified the Commission for Preservation of Wild Horses is charged with administering the Leo Heil Bequest to preserve wild horses in Nevada. She explained the agency serves as advocate for wild horses through funding of educational, promotional and habitat programs and projects. Continuing, she declared the agency participates with federal agencies in the land use planning process to ensure sufficient habitat and viable populations of wild horses. The agency also serves as a clearinghouse for information to the public and news media on all aspects of wild horses. Additionally, the agency coordinates with various state and federal law enforcement agencies with information regarding illegal activities against wild horses.
Expenses of the five-member commission and its executive director are paid from interest earned on the investment of money in the fund. Statutorily, at least $900,000 of the fund must be held in reserve.
Last session, the commission's clerical position was eliminated, which left only one employee, the executive director. Lowered interest rates have left the agency with no funds available for grants. The commission plans to pursue additional funding from private and public grants and has $l00,000 built into the budget each year for revenue from foundation grants.
Senator Raggio asked what has the commission accomplished.
Ms. Barcomb responded:
We work with the [United States] Bureau of Land Management and the main function is land use planning. There are approximately l,200 allotments in the State of Nevada that involve wild horses and we comment on allotment evaluations and environmental assessments and environmental impact statements, multiple use decisions and herd management area plans for all of those.
Senator Raggio asked for a management update of the wild horse population in Nevada.
Ms. Barcomb stated currently there are approximately 35,000 wild horses in Nevada. The agency has recently started a new fertility control program. Instead of the cost of approximately $l,000 to remove and adopt a horse, a fertility control shot would cost approximately $20, she declared.
Senator Raggio asked if any litigation is in progress regarding the original bequest for the Heil Horse program.
Ms. Barcomb said:
...The person that filed the suit recently passed away....The recommendation from the attorney general's office is that, instead of filing for dismissal, which might stir things up, it will expire this fall from a 5-year statute of limitation....
Ms. Barcomb distributed Exhibit I, Grants Awarded by the Commission for the Preservation of Wild Horses, to the committee.
There being no further business to come before the committee, Senator Raggio adjourned the meeting at l0:40 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Dee Crawford,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Finance
February 25, 1993
Page 1