ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE AND MINING

mINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining

Seventy-First Session

February 28, 2001

The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Miningwas called to order at 1:30 p.m., on Wednesday, February 28, 2001. Chairman Marcia de Braga presided in Room 3161 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mrs. Marcia de Braga, Chairman

Mr. Tom Collins, Vice Chairman

Mr. Douglas Bache

Mr. David Brown

Mr. John Carpenter

Mr. Jerry Claborn

Mr. David Humke

Mr. John J. Lee

Mr. John Marvel

Mr. Harry Mortenson

Mr. Roy Neighbors

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall (Excused)

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblyman Joe Dini, Assembly District 38

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Linda Eissmann, Committee Policy Analyst

June Rigsby, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Pamela B. Wilcox, Administrator of the Division of Conservation Districts and Administrator, Division of State Lands

Ernie Nielsen, Washoe-Storey Conservation District

Frank Soares, Lahontan Conservation District

Jason Shackelford, Nevada Tahoe Conservation District

Deloyd Satterthwaite, Nevada Rangeland Resource Commission

Joe Guild, President, Nevada Cattleman’s Association

Stanley S. Brokl, Citizen

Bob Service, Citizen

Wayne Perock, Administrator, Nevada State Parks Division

Jim DeLoney, Park and Recreation Program Manager, Nevada State Parks Division

Allen Newberry, Chief Field Operations and Maintenance, Nevada State Parks Division

Assembly Bill 84: Revises provisions governing conservation districts.

(BDR 49-744)

Pam Wilcox, Administrator of the Division of Conservation Districts and the Division of State Lands, thanked the committee for sponsoring A.B. 84, a bill that proposed to change Section 1 of the conservation law to conform to current practices (Exhibit C). The bill stipulated that vacancies on boards would be filled as soon as practicable after the office became vacant. It further proposed to broaden the following: the types of projects the district could do; the number of groups with which the district could enter into agreement; and, the groups from which they could accept funds.

Assemblyman Collins wished to have a definite time in which to fill board vacancies by appointments because there had been too many unfilled positions for too long. He asked if 60 or 75 days would be appropriate.

In response to questions from Mr. Collins, Ms. Wilcox replied that these were elected four-year term positions and an appointment only happened when there was a vacancy during the interim. For the rural boards that only met quarterly, the problem was more constraining. The deadline had to be longer than three
months. Special meetings were problematic once the agricultural season started.

Ernie Nielsen, representing the Washoe-Storey Conservation District, spoke in favor of A.B. 84. He emphasized that the bill allowed the District to pursue funding from the private sector to match government funds. As for the filling of vacancies, Mr. Nielsen affirmed that time was essential to find the best-qualified individual. He concluded by endorsing the committee’s support of this bill.

Chairwoman de Braga inquired if the provisions of A.B. 84 Section 2 (2) which added “repair and restore property within the district, including, but not limited to, wetlands, stream corridors and other riparian property,” were new or merely clarification of the situation. Mr. Nielsen replied that, with recent Attorney General rulings, there had been uncertainties. This bill gave explicit authority for the responsibility they assumed.

Ms. de Braga felt that this was an important section since some groups had been restricted in doing important work, which in turn lead to larger problems.

The vice chairman of the Lahontan Soil Conservation District in Fallon, Frank Soares, supported the bill and thanked the committee for the sponsorship of it. Chairwoman de Braga responded they also appreciated the work of the district.

Jason Shackelford of the Nevada Tahoe Conservation District, thanked the committee for their continuing support. He believed the bill would help them do the needed work.

Chairwoman de Braga closed the hearing on A.B. 84.

ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 84.

ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE SECONDED.

In the call for discussion, Assemblyman Collins requested the bill be amended to include a time limit for filling board vacancies. Ernie Nielsen had no problem with time specific but recommended that it be longer than “the second meeting after the vacancy occurs,” perhaps 180 days. Mr. Collins suggested that perhaps the time frame did not matter if there were elections and if there was no penalty for not filling the vacancy, but his concern was that people were “timely” represented.

Chairwoman de Braga understood Mr. Collins’ concern. Positions often did remain vacant and produced a less effective representation on the board. Mr. Nielsen suggested that perhaps a better way to state it would have been to say that “by the second meeting after the vacancy is announced” that the board was “moving forward to fill that vacancy through recruitments.” Ms. de Braga wondered if the wording could be left at “as soon as practicable” but add “within 150 days.” All concurred.

ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS WITHDREW HIS ORIGINAL MOTION.

ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE WITHDREW THE SECOND.

Chairwoman de Braga drafted the amendment to line 4 to read “as soon as practicable but within 150 days after the office becomes vacant.”

MR. NEIGHBORS MOVED TO AMEND A.B. 84 AND DO PASS.

THIS MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.

Discussion continued. Mr. Collins withdrew his request for an amendment.

ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 84.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

**********

The Chair proceeded with the presentation on Rangeland Resources Commission from the Cattleman’s Association.

Deloyd Satterthwaite, representing the Nevada Rangeland Resources Commission (RRC), stated that during the 1999 Legislative Session S.B. 310 of the Seventieth Session created the RRC. He praised this legislation for the promotion of the livestock industry it offered. During the previous twelve months, the following were accomplished: developed a press packet (Exhibit D); manned a booth at the First Annual National Grazing Conference in Las Vegas; produced a brochure (Exhibit E) which went to all permit holders; and, developed a working relationship with the Idaho Rangeland Commission. Future goals include: more radio spots in Washoe and Clark counties, production of a children’s book, early-morning radio advertising, posters for schools, television ads, and billboards. The accomplishment of these goals required time, money and many people. He thanked many persons by name and reiterated how important this legislation had been.

Chairwoman de Braga commented that the Natural Resources Committee was happy to have passed the legislation because the burden of paying was on the industry itself. She then asked if any members had requested a refund to withdraw. Mr. Satterthwaite replied about 19 percent in 2000. The commission billed $172,000 and received $120,927.

Joe Guild, President of Nevada Cattleman’s Association and member of the Rangeland Resources Commission, expressed appreciation for the committee’s support of this endeavor, which had resulted in increased promotion of their efforts.

Mr. Marvel commented that he was pleased with education the program provided. Chairwoman de Braga stated the committee was pleased to have had the feedback since this was controversial at the start. The outstanding features of the program were: it was local, it was not a bureaucracy, and there were no dues to a national organization.

Joe Guild added that he had distributed a “pro forma” copy of a storybook (Exhibit F) that was developed by a commission member and illustrated as a coloring book by Sue Abel (Exhibit G). The intent was to put the book in every 5^th and 6^th grade class in Nevada.

Assemblyman Neighbors asked if the new director of the Interior had considered reviewing the grazing fees. Mr. Guild affirmed that the new Secretary of the Interior, Gayle Norton, would not revise these this year.

Assembly Bill 80: Revises requirements for issuance of permits for free use of state parks and other recreational areas by certain disabled persons and by older persons. (BDR 35-312)

Assemblyman Joe Dini, the bill sponsor, opened the hearing on A.B. 80, which proposed to lower the age to 60 and add “physical and mental impairment” as a disability. Mr. Dini felt that this would be beneficial to many who would use the parks more.

Stan Brokl, concerned citizen, spoke on behalf of disabled persons and supported this bill “very much.” Mr. Brokl felt this would have little fiscal impact because the parks charged fees for cross-country skiing, overnight camping, and boat launching. The few disabled people who used the parks at a reduced fee would minimally impact the total revenues.

Bob Service, a resident of Dayton, testified about the lack of orderliness and civility at Lahontan Reservoir State Park, including drunkenness, noise, and threats. Park personnel went off duty at 5:00 p.m. Park rangers were fearful of confronting the unruly because they had no backup. Alcohol appeared to be the big problem; homicides had been committed because of it. Montana had a curfew and locked their park gates at night. Mr. Service recommended a camp host, such as used by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, could put some control on these activities. He further stated that Lahontan was the only state park that had this problem and suggested that a no-alcohol law might be a solution.

Chairwoman de Braga said the problem might have been that the hosts were volunteers who could not be asked to enter into a threatening situation. Assemblyman Collins stated he had this same problem in southern Nevada—manning parks, staffing and maintaining parks properly. He strongly opined that these problems should be brought before Ways and Means to effect safer state parks. Mr. Service added that another solution might be a telephone call box linked directly to the sheriff’s dispatcher.

Assemblyman Mortenson agreed with Mr. Collins; parks seemed a “second priority” in Nevada. He recalled that during the Seventieth Legislative Session, park personnel testified to this committee in favor of raising the rates for the elderly because they “come in their Mercedes Benz and they had these expensive travel trailers and they take up all the room and they pay nothing and we need to raise the rates on them.” Nevada appeared to want the parks to be self-sustaining, and he felt that was wrong. In the opinion of Mr. Mortenson, citizens got very little in Nevada as compared to business and industry, yet a park was a “concession to the citizens” that something was done for them with their tax money.

Chairwoman de Braga confirmed that in the last session the discussion was that older people who came at reduced rates, or free, would come in and take up all the spaces all weekend, so that paying campers had no spaces.

Mr. Brokl commented that, for instance, most of the parks at Tahoe and this region were day-use. People who had been forced out of the workforce did not have unlimited funds and did not drive Mercedes. California had very large fees for all users and have had to cut back because the state parks were not being used.

Assemblyman Humke agreed with Mr. Service; decent people would not want to go to Lahontan. This was a shame. As for the fees, he thought there was a mix of funding state parks with fees and general fund appropriation and that was a dynamic balance that must be preserved. He recommended referring this to Ways and Means. Nevada liked to capture the fees from the many tourists. He noted that A.B. 80 had a residency requirement, which was good, but he suggested the age factor could be scaled back just a little.

Mr. Dini commented that years ago there was a disagreement about reduced rate hunting and fishing licenses. Since then Nevada had subsidized, from the state General Fund, the difference between the regular fee and the senior fee, several hundred thousand dollars per year. He did not want to hinder the State Parks Division but said the objective of this bill was to help a category of people that needed some help. He remarked there were good state parks but these parks had not been funded well.

Assemblyman Claborn felt just a few people would qualify under this bill. Ms. de Braga said the fiscal note was an estimate of state revenues lost due to the provisions of free services--$269,200 in FY2001-2002, and $278,866 in FY2002-2003. State costs to supply the services were $192,000 and $199,000. Mr. Dini calculated, at $75 per year annual fee, that amount supposed that 3,500 people used the disabled provisions.

Next, Wayne Perock, Administrator of the State Parks Division, admitted that he had been bothered for years by the situation at Lahontan State Park. He said there were five peace officers at the park, which is inadequate, but these officers did patrol on summer weekends until 10 p.m. or as late as 1 a.m. Mr. Perock further stated that the Parks Division contracted with the sheriff’s department and used canine units.

Mr. Collins wanted this issue to go to Ways and Means and wished to “put it on record” that Mr. Perock asked for more than he got. Mr. Perock replied there were instructions they followed in building the budget and there had been a trend for years that the Parks Division must finance any changes. He had done a number of things to help offset or pay for new staff. He acknowledged it was a problem.

Mr. Perock’s testimony was in opposition to A.B. 80. The bill resulted in significant loss of revenues and increased costs for providing services to eligible persons. Implementation by July 1, he said, was “virtually impossible. A.B. 439 of the Seventieth Session, which revised provisions governing use of state parks and other recreational areas was heard, passed and signed by the Governor. Age 65 and the residency requirements were adopted to be in line with other state agencies. The lost revenues mentioned above were too high for the agency to absorb. Mr. Perock presented the committee photos (Exhibit H) of the types of vehicles used in the state parks by senior citizens.

Reading from his position statement (Exhibit I), Mr. Perock expostulated that the elimination of fees for senior citizens and the disabled would place an unfair burden on those who did pay the cost. The passage of A.B. 80 extended privileges greater than offered to seniors for hunting and fishing licenses. The criteria for disabled persons as outlined in the bill, was vague and unmanageable, Mr. Perock believed. The DMV criteria was much more definitive. In conclusion, he said there was an assumption the Division could absorb the fiscal impact, a theory he contradicted.

In the Governor’s budget, it was recommended that the percentage of revenue generated by user fees should be 21 percent. Mr. Mortenson felt a continuing rise in fees would price parks out of existence. He believed state parks should be supported by taxes rather than fees. In response, Mr. Perock said he did what he could with the resources he had. He had been directed to generate revenues.

Assemblyman Carpenter asked what it cost for a senior pass. The annual permits ranged from $35 to $150. Assemblyman Brown asked about the estimation of revenue lost by lowering the age and by lowering fees for the disabled. Jim DeLoney, Park and Recreation Program Manager, Nevada State Parks Division, replied that these were in the tables at the back of Exhibit I.

In attempting to define the intent of the bill, Ms. de Braga said the dilemma was with those who were unable to afford to use the parks. Mr. Perock said a permit paid for itself after the fifteenth visit, but if a person bought 15 individual passes, there was no way to track it and that people kept on paying per visit. The argument was justified that just because a person was 60 or 65 or disabled did not necessarily mean that person was unable to afford the park fee.

Mr. Perock interjected that many states were dealing with the issue. Florida had taken age and disability out and focused on a financial need based on food stamps, for instance. Mr. Marvel said the committee struggled to bring parity to the various charges. He believed some element of a user fee was needed. Fees charged in other states varied greatly but few parks are free. There was a brochure that outlined fees. An administrative code covered the curfews and the officers enforced all state statutes, county codes and ordinances, but that was failing.

Mr. Perock had a concern about the management of the disability criteria. The DMV handicapped sticker only dealt with persons in ambulatory conditions and left out many other disabled persons. Assemblyman Collins suggested that the Parks Division adopt a “bulldog” attitude to capture the funds needed. Stan Brokl said the easiest method to certify disability was to ask for a Medicare card. If a person was under 65 and had a Medicare card, that person was disabled.

Chairwoman de Braga said the committee did not need a subcommittee but there would be a work session.

Allen Newberry, Chief Field Operations and Maintenance, Nevada State Parks Division, testified that the State Parks would love to offer free service. If a credit for seniors and for the disabled came back through the budget system as a subsidy, that could work. Non-paying customers had a large fiscal impact.

Mr. Marvel asked, what was the total cost of inventory for maintenance? Mr. Perock said they had a backlog of inventory at $32.5 million, unfunded.

Chairwoman de Braga closed the hearing on A.B. 80.

There was no additional business and the meeting adjourned at 3:33 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

June Rigsby

Recording Secretary

______________________________

Linda Lee Nary

Transcribing Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Chairman

DATE: