The Assembly Committee on Ways and Means was called to order at 3:50 p.m., on Tuesday, April 6, 1999. Chairman Morse Arberry, Jr. presided in Room 3137 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman

Mrs. Jan Evans, Vice Chair

Mr. Bob Beers

Mrs. Marcia de Braga

Mr. Joseph Dini, Jr.

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani

Mr. Lynn Hettrick

Mr. John Marvel

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mrs. Barbara Cegavske (Excused)

Mrs. Vonne Chowning (Excused)

Mr. David Goldwater (Excused)

Mr. David Parks (Excused)

Mr. Richard Perkins (Excused)

Mr. Robert Price (Excused)

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Chairman Arberry called the meeting to order as a subcommittee at 3:50 p.m. He opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 27

Assemblywoman Kathy Von Tobel, District 20, presented the bill. She explained the bill would authorize a special license plate to raise funds for the preservation of the wilderness area at Mount Charleston. The fiscal note was three pages long but the only section that had an effect on the legislation was the $100 necessary to produce the application forms. Assemblywoman
Von Tobel offered to pay the $100 herself.

Seeing no further testimony, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 27 with no action.

Dr. Robert Dickens, Director of Governmental Relations, University of Nevada, Reno presented the bill. He explained Speaker Dini had allowed the university to attach a piece of legislation, important to the cooperative extension department, to A.B. 324. The addition was found at the back of the bill and concerned abatement and educational programs regarding a noxious weed called "tall white top."

Dr. Dickens recalled in the 1997 Legislative Session there was an assembly bill that had a fiscal impact and had not been accompanied by a fiscal note. The bill had gone to the Assembly Ways and Means Committee and the university had run into some difficulties with some of their constituents. At that time
A.B. 537 of the 1997 Legislature was aimed at re-directing some cooperative extension funds to some other types of agricultural education program.

Dr. Dickens stated the university had made some mistakes and not taken proper care of some of its constituents at the time. Since then, a meeting of the minds occurred and in the interim approximately 35 hours were spent in site visits, hearings, and facilitated discussions that led to a whole series of internal administrative changes in the Nevada Cooperative Extension Service.

Dr. Dickens noted A.B. 324 had already been through the Assembly Natural Resources Committee on joint referral. Section 1 of the bill reflected the many hours of work that a large statewide working group on the extension service achieved their goals in modernizing the mission statement for the Cooperative Extension Service.

The modern functions of the service as stated in the bill were:

• Education;
• Research;
• Outreach;
• Agricultural service programs;
• Community Development;
• Health and Nutrition;
• Horticulture;
• Personal and family development; and
• Natural Resources in the rural and urban communities.

None of the recommendations achieved by the working group could be made without an 80 percent consensus. Dr. Dickens had been skeptical that level of agreement could be achieved and was happy to report each of the goals had been agreed to at that level of consensus.

The university was responding to those goals in a way that was much more appropriate in terms of balancing the needs of rural and urban Nevada regarding extension programs.

Karen Hinton, Dean and Director, Cooperative Extension Service, University of Nevada, Reno testified the working group generated a document of recommendations. The extension service was working on many of those recommendations. Dean Hinton provided committee members with a packet of information concerning Cooperative Extension Service programs and their impacts (Exhibit C, on file with the Legislative Council Bureau, Research Library). She noted the service provided many, and varied programs. Programs were developed from the ground up taking into consideration the needs of the community. The impacts of the programs were reported in a series of fact sheets.

Ms. Hinton stated a considerable amount of work had been done in two areas as a result of the working group report. They had enhanced both internal and external communications and developed flexibility in utilization of services statewide. The service had researched ways of having multi-county programming to reach more people, using technology such as the Internet, and use of compressed video.

Ms. Hinton stated an integral part of communication was making clear communication. She opined the recommendations for change in statutory language spoke to that. The terms used in the 1940’s to describe the program were archaic today. She stated the language did not necessarily change the subject areas but made them much more easily understood.

The second part of the bill contained an appropriation for eradication of "tall white top," a noxious weed. Ms. Hinton provided committee members with a fact sheet (Exhibit D) about the weed. It was very invasive and destructive. It choked out native plants, reduced bio-diversity, and rendered stream banks vulnerable to erosion. Ms. Hinton stated Sue Donaldson, a Cooperative Extension Specialist was present to answer any specific questions regarding "tall white top."

Dr. Dickens added the reason the university was in trouble during the previous session was because it had constructed some artificial barriers in terms of meeting rural needs and had shifted too much emphasis to meeting urban needs. One of the most gratifying things he had drawn both personally and professionally from the working group was that after researching the basis of the barriers, he had been able, within 30 minutes, to convince university President Joseph Crowley and Vice-President David Westfall that if the university had erected the barriers they could also erase them.

Doug Busselman, Executive Vice-President of the Nevada Farm Bureau testified in favor of A.B. 324. In the last legislative session the Farm Bureau was also part of the proposal that dealt with Nevada Cooperative Extension Service. The Farm Bureau was the constituent group referred to earlier by Mr. Dickens. He worked with the working group that had reported their recommendations to the Interim Finance Committee.

Part of the recommendations in the report was the modernization of the legislative authority for cooperative extension proposed in A.B. 324. While the proposed language expanded the direction for extension work in agriculture, home economics and rural welfare, it maintained important emphasis on agriculture, horticulture, and natural resources. It worked in both rural and urban communities. The added language of educational outreach, research and service programs also embodied the basic components of Nevada Cooperative Extension’s Foundation.

The Farm Bureau reported to the committee their experience of participation in the working group and continued involvement with the search process for a new dean/director of cooperative extension was very positive. They were pleased to report a cooperative working affiliation with the new dean/director. They were also pleased to have the full component of extension agents currently stationed in the rural counties across the state.

The changes made since the last legislative session were positive and the Farm Bureau looked forward to future opportunities of working with the current leadership in further enhancing cooperative extension for rural and urban Nevada benefits.

The appropriation in A.B. 324 was for the critical work of abatement of "tall white top." The Farm Bureau fully supported the funding request. The abatement was important not just for agricultural producers, but anyone who cared about the state’s natural resource conditions. The noxious weed was on a rampage of expansion throughout Northern Nevada and needed the attention such funding could provide.

Seeing no further testimony, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 324 with no action and opened the hearing on A.B. 662.

Assemblyman John Lee, District 3, testified imported fire ants could be a severe health risk. One or two percent of the population was at risk of having a near-death reaction to the sting of imported fire ants. The ants could cause extreme environmental damage by killing and injuring wildlife, out-competing native insect species, and causing damage to roads, electrical fixtures and plants.

The State of Texas estimated imported fire ants had cost $300 million per year in damages and several hundred million more was spent trying to control them. In some parts of Texas, to enjoy a back-yard barbecue, a home-owner might spend from $100 to $600 per year to control the fire ants.

In Nevada comprehensive public awareness programs as well as media attention was identifying numerous locations that would need a survey. Cooperation with pest control companies, nurseries, and landscape companies were expected to generate 1,000 sites to survey. Seasonal staff could be trained to conduct surveys. A.B. 662 would allow permanent staff to focus on additional educational and scientific responsibilities needed for the program.

The budget needed to support A.B. 662 was $25,000 for four seasonal employees to conduct surveys, and $15,000 for operational costs in support of those employees.

Paul Iverson, Administrator, Division of Agriculture, testified that approximately 2 months ago, Assemblyman Lee had asked the division to meet with the Cooperative Extension Service and consider what could be done concerning fire ant education.

Recently, a fire ant situation occurred in Las Vegas at Rancho Road very near the Santa Fe Hotel. Five active fire ant colonies were found. In the past colonies had been limited to planters or boxes. The colonies located recently had been present for a period of time and were established. The division was concerned that with the 80 square miles under quarantine in Southern California fire ants might have been arriving in Nevada for a long time without anyone’s knowledge because Nevada did not have border stations. The division only surveyed approximately 30 major nurseries a year.

A large amount of nursery stock came into Nevada directly from Southern California to golf courses, casinos, Wal-Marts, Home Depots, and other large facilities the division had never had the opportunity to survey. The find in California was a concern because that state had not known they had fire ants either. The California infestation was probably about 5 years old and the state was looking at spending about $5 million per year to try for eradication that might not succeed.

In the first discussions with Assemblyman Lee, 2 weeks ago, 19 nurseries were infested since that time the number had risen to 22 infested nurseries. Nevada brand inspectors were placed at border highways as they had been during the Lake Blight infestation to check some incoming vehicles.

Mr. Iverson provided committee members with a packet of information
(Exhibit E) concerning fire ants. The first page was a mailer that the division was trying to get to all residents in Southern Nevada through a number of outlets. The division was asking residents who found ants around their home to tape ants onto a card and mail it to the division. The Division of Agriculture had received permission from the United States Post Office to send the postcards with ants attached to the division. When ants were received, the entomologist could check the insects and if fire ants were found, the division would set up a quarter-mile zone around the home to search for colonies.

Pages 2 through 8 of Exhibit E was the division’s Fire Ant Plan. Mr. Iverson explained the plan was developed to identify a method for dealing with the situation.

Chairman Arberry asked if the division really wanted citizens to pick up an ant and attach it to the post card (Page 1, Exhibit E) and send the card through the mail. He asked what person would want to do that if they took the chance of looking like the arm in the picture. Mr. Jeff Knight, Entomologist, Division of Agriculture, replied the post card states the ants should be killed before they are picked up. Mr. Iverson added the division was going to have the mailers printed with "postage paid."

Mr. Iverson stated the color map on Page 4 of Exhibit E indicated locations where fire ants were found in Las Vegas in the past year. The ants were small but their sting was much more serious than most ants because they sting with a different chemical. He explained when one ant stung, all the ants stung at one time. When an ant stings, it sends out a pheromone and all the ants sting. The multiple stings could happen in a matter of seconds.

Chairman Arberry asked if anteaters might be a solution to eradication.
Mr. Iverson replied a typical nest contained 250,000 to 500,000 ants so they would kill an anteater. The ants were extremely dangerous and potent around any ground dwelling animals and even killed baby deer in the wild. Calves had been killed, and if a small child stepped on a nest they might die or be severely injured. The ants moved very fast. When a normal ant’s nest was kicked about 200 ants came out, but if a fire ant nest was kicked, thousands of ants came out.

Killer bees were protective but fire ants were aggressive. The thing fire ants liked to do best was sting. The other concern of the division was that the fire ants liked electrical wiring. They consumed the rubber around wiring, in air conditioning units, heat pumps, and expansion joints in roads.

The division was only doing about 30 nursery surveys per year and they wanted to increase that to about 2,000 per year. The budget contained in A.B. 662 would allow the division to hire some seasonal employees, rent some Motor Pool cars, and pay operational costs.

Chairman Arberry asked if the $40,000 was for seasonal staff or for ongoing salaries. Mr. Iverson replied the budget would allow four seasonal employees, Motor Pool vehicles and the necessary operating costs.

Chairman Arberry requested a copy of the proposed budget supporting the funding. Mr. Iverson replied the seasonal employees would be grade 23 positions working in the summer months, visiting nurseries and placing traps, and checking the traps. The Chair asked why those positions were not requested through The Executive Budget. Mr. Iverson responded his only involvement was to put together a request to match the bill.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated she thought through recent budget closings some funding had been provided to deal with the problem of fire ants in the state. Original budget testimony was that the division could get into the major nurseries but could not visit the smaller, discount nursery operations housed in the Wal-Marts and Home Depots that were a problem. Mr. Iverson agreed. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated her recollection was that positions were added to the agency budget to deal with the problem.
Mr. Iverson replied the agency had asked for 2 agriculturists, weights and measures inspectors, and some chemists. At the time of budget development the agency had not known they had a fire ant problem.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked what the two agriculturist positions functions would be. Mr. Iverson replied one agriculturist was to work with the pest control operator’s continuing education program. He added there were approximately 1,500 pest control operators in Southern Nevada spraying chemicals and the division was concerned that those people were not receiving some kind of continuing education. The intent for the other agriculturist was to work in nursery inspections. He added the division intended to approach the Interim Finance Commission on April 8, 1999, for help to do a survey in the current year using funds from weights and measures that were typically reverted.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated the budget should be revisited with regard to the fire ant issue.

Chairman Arberry asked if any federal grant money might be available to help with the problem. Mr. Iverson replied the division currently received approximately $6,000 annually that was targeted for the existing programs. The division had petitioned the Federal Government strongly for additional funds. Bob Gronowski, Chief, Bureau of Plant Industry, was a member of the National Fire Ant Committee and through that source might secure some funds. Mr. Iverson assured the committee that if any funds were appropriated for fire ants or killer bees in the Seventieth Legislative Session and funds were received from the Federal Government as well, the federal funds would be spent first.

Chairman Arberry asked if the division had any performance indicators to substantiate the need for additional personnel. Mr. Iverson replied in a 2-year period of time the division could determine whether a problem still existed. Seasonal help would not be needed if the problem did not exist. Although the funding would become a part of the base budget for the next biennium, the survey would simply be used to assess the ongoing need.

Assemblywoman de Braga commented if the positions were funded the goal would be to avoid needing ever-increasing numbers of employees for the program. Mr. Iverson agreed. The five established nests would have grown quickly if they had not been found. The division would approach the Interim Finance Commission (IFC) for further help if more established colonies were found. Assemblywoman de Braga asked if the positions should be seasonal because the colonies were typically in nurseries that were a year-round industry. Mr. Iverson stated the request was for seasonal help through the next two summers to identify the danger. Once a site was found, a quarter-mile quarantine was established and if more colonies were found within the quarantine area, the quarantine area was increased to one-half mile and continued to expand in that manner.

Assemblyman Beers asked if the fire ant mound looked significantly different than the typical anthill with so many more ants per mound. Mr. Knight replied the mounds currently being found were very small. They were about 8 months old and looked different than the typical anthill. The mound looked more like a pile of dirt. California trained its staff to view them as being a small gopher mound. In Texas, when fire ants were undisturbed, the colonies made mounds 14 to 18 inches tall. Two hundred to 700 colonies were contained per acre. To actually build a mound, a colony needed to be established for 3 to 4 years.

Assemblyman Beers stated he had reviewed some literature regarding how Orange County was dealing with the fire ant problem where the State of California had basically told local communities to advise the state what would be necessary to eradicate the problem. He asked if that was a true report.
Mr. Iverson responded the State of California had provided a state/county 50/50 match of $2.5 million. He expressed his belief the 80-mile quarantine would expand because nurseries were expanding and the fire ant population had
5 years to become established.

In the southern United States where fire ants were well established they were finding it nearly impossible to eradicate unless an area was caught at the stage Nevada’s colonies were presently.

Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 662 with no action and opened the hearing on A.B. 460.

Dale Erquiaga, Acting Director, Department of Museums, Library and Arts, presented A.B. 460. He stated when the bill was first heard in the Assembly Government Affairs Committee, the Governor’s Office testified on the first section of the bill. They were unable to attend the current hearing and had asked Mr. Erquiaga to testify on their behalf. He stated he would speak to the policy and allow Mr. Ashelman to address the bill as well.

Section 1 of A.B. 460 changed the qualifications for the Director of the Department of Museums, Library and Arts. When state government was reorganized in 1993, the qualifications for the position were set at a much more technical standard than any other director in state government. Most directors’ qualifications were described in general terms. For the position for director of museums, the language was made very specific to the department and in the opinion of current administration, too restrictive on the Governor’s freedom to make an appointment. The current language required a Master’s degree in one of the disciplines of the department or in Public Administration. Mr. Erquiaga stated he did not meet that qualification. The Governor’s position was that the position requirements should be changed to mirror other administrator positions and give the Governor the most latitude for appointment.

Mr. Rennie Ashelman, Chairman, Board of Museums and History and Chairman of the Cultural Commission testified both the board and the commission were advisory to the department on issues such as section 1 of A.B. 460. That board and commission agreed with the section as the department had many Master and Doctor of Philosophy-level positions already. Whoever was picked for the position really needed to have administrative qualifications.

Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 460 with no action.

Seeing no further action before the committee the meeting was adjourned at 4:32 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Cindy Clampitt,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman

DATE: