MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
Senate Finance/ASSEMBLY committee on Ways and Means
Joint Subcommittee on Public Safety/
Natural Resources/transportation
Seventy-First Session
February 15, 2001
The Joint Subcommittee on Public Safety/Natural Resources/Transportationwas called to order at 8:14 a.m., on Thursday, February 15, 2001. Chairman Lawrence E. Jacobsen presided in Room 2134 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.
SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen, Chairman
Senator William R. O’Donnell
Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. David Parks, Chairman
Mr. Bob Beers
Mrs. Vonne Chowning
Mrs. Marcia de Braga
Mr. John Marvel
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Richard D. Perkins (Excused)
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst
Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Brian Burke, Senior Program Analyst
Michael Chapman, Program Analyst
Andrea Carothers, Committee Secretary
Senator Lawrence Jacobsen indicated that the committee would not be following the order of the agenda due to scheduling conflicts with some of the agencies.
The Chair recognized Allen Biaggi, Administrator, Division of Environmental Protection. Mr. Biaggi stated that the mission statement of the Division of Environmental Protection was, “To protect and enhance the environment of the state consistent with the public health and enjoyment, the protection and propagation of terrestrial and aquatic life, the operation of existing industries, the pursuit of agriculture, and economic development.” Mr. Biaggi then explained that the Division of Environmental Protection was broken down into several different environmental media specific programs, which included programs related to water quality, air quality, and waste management. He noted that each of the seven budget accounts that he would present related to one or more of these areas. Mr. Biaggi stated that he would answer any questions related to program indicators as specific budgets arose.
Mr. Biaggi gave an overview of the common areas of all the Division of Environmental Protection budgets. He stated that the division was mainly funded through federal grants and fee income, with approximately $415,000 of the division’s budgets from General Fund monies. Those monies could be found in the Water Programs Budget. He said that there was also the anticipation of rent increases in the Carson City offices due to lease expiration. Lease rates had been renegotiated to a lower level than had been originally anticipated, and the division was working with the Budget Division to get final lease amounts to the committee in a timely manner. The Division of Water Resources and the Division of Environmental Protection had been asked to vacate the Sawyer Building in Las Vegas, and budget accounts for the Environmental Protection Administration, Environmental Protection Air Quality, Water Programs, and Waste Management and Federal Facilities reflected this request in their individual decision unit M-252. Additionally, a one-shot appropriation had been requested by Buildings and Grounds for these budgets, for a total of $124,229 to assist in moving costs. Mr. Biaggi proposed the transitioning of the Water Programs and Waste Management and Federal Facilities into special use categories. He noted that there would be more detail given in those specific budget overviews. Mr. Biaggi then stated that common to all budgets was decision unit E-710, a computer replacement schedule of 25 percent, consistent with the Department of Integrated Technology (DoIT) recommendations. All budget accounts reflected an additional step to each grade and a 4 percent cost of living adjustment (COLA) in decision unit M-301, and an upgrade in the engineering positions in decision unit M-302. Mr. Biaggi introduced Jolaine Johnson, Deputy Administrator, Environmental Protection Division and noted that Verne Rosse, Deputy Administrator, Environmental Protection Division, was not at the hearing due to illness.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ADMINISTRATION – BUDGET PAGE CNR-12
Mr. Biaggi continued his testimony with the Environmental Protection Administration budget account. This budget provided the administrative support for the entire division. It supported a staff of 24 and included information services, the office of the administrator, office of fiscal and personnel management, and the small business assistance program. All revenues in this budget were derived from an indirect cost (IDC) rate to salary and fringe benefits of all other programs within the agency. For this session the IDC rate was 25.5 percent.
There were two new positions proposed, found in decision units M-201 and M‑202. Mr. Biaggi noted that due to non-state funding sources the division had a number of grant commitments and requirements placed in terms of accounting and record keeping. Due to those additional requirements the division felt that an additional position to handle the fiscal accountability was essential. The other position was found in the area of data management and computerization. Mr. Biaggi stated that this division was an information intensive agency, and this was the reasoning behind the request for a Computer Network Technician II, which was a grade 35. Both proposed positions would be located in Carson City.
Mr. Biaggi said that decision unit M-305 included a salary increase for unclassified employees, and noted that the only unclassified position was the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
E-710 was the next decision unit Mr. Biaggi discussed. This unit provided computer and software replacement funds. The software included was commonly used throughout the agency.
The agency was also requesting a new half-time deputy attorney general position, stated Mr. Biaggi. This position would assist the agency with the increase in the litigation caseload. This would bring the total agency attorney general support to 2.5 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions.
Senator Jacobsen inquired as to whether the proposed attorney general position would be housed with the agency or with the Attorney General’s office. Mr. Biaggi explained that eight or ten years ago the Attorney General made the decision to be centralized, moved from being housed with the agency, and was currently housed in the downtown area of Carson City.
Senator Jacobsen asked for more information regarding the Account Technician I position. Mr. Biaggi explained that currently there were nine positions within the accounting division. The division received a number of federal grants, and Mr. Biaggi noted that the federal grant requirements could be onerous. There was the need for another position in order to continue effectively tracking and recording the federal grants, as well as the state commitments.
Senator Jacobsen requested information regarding whether or not any of the federal grants were in danger of not being renewed. Mr. Biaggi stated that he did not feel any of the federal grants were in danger of being revoked. He observed that with the new federal administration everything appeared to be status quo. Mr. Biaggi noted that there was an increase in federal monies in some of the water programs and he would provide more information when he spoke on those budgets. Senator Jacobsen then inquired about any new regulations that might be occurring as a result of the new federal administration. Mr. Biaggi stated that he did not anticipate any new federal mandates coming from this administration, although it was too early to be sure. The division was still working with federal mandates from the previous administration, including the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program requirements for water control. This program evaluated water bodies that were considered to be impaired and delivered instructions for states to get the water bodies back into a satisfactory condition. Mr. Biaggi also noted that the Initiative to Revise and Update Regulations Governing Hardrock Mining Operations, commonly called 3809, from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), was something that the division was dealing with.
Mr. David Parks encouraged Mr. Biaggi to develop performance indicators that measured the activities and effectiveness of services provided. Mr. Biaggi stated that each budget had their own unique performance indicators, so that while there were only three for the administration functions there were many dealing with the other programs. Mr. Parks said that he desired performance indicators that dealt with the overall effectiveness of this particular budget, and how it acted and interfaced. Mr. Biaggi pronounced that the performance indicators requested could be completed, and noted that one item that was tracked for administrative functions was the number of unique billings and processes that the division went through; this totaled approximately 18,000. Mr. Biaggi stated that the agency would be agreeable to look at that information for the future and include it as an indicator.
Mr. Parks requested information regarding whether or not the Attorney General had included the proposed half-time deputy attorney general position in his budget. Mr. Biaggi noted that to his knowledge the Attorney General had requested funding for the new position in his budget.
Mr. Parks asked for comment on overall department turnover. Mr. Biaggi stated that in the engineering series there had been a yearly basis of a 14-15 percent turnover rate. Besides turnover rate, the quality of the applicants was of concern to the department. Mr. Biaggi noted that there were not many well- qualified applicants. He then said that in the accounting programs there had been a turnover rate of up to 40 percent per year, which was difficult to maintain consistency and adequacy of the tracking system.
Mr. Bob Beers asked whether the department budget reflected the results of the interim study created from S.B. 432 of the Seventieth Session on air quality programs in Clark County. Mr. Biaggi stated that the budget did not reflect the recommendations made in the study, but there would be several bills occurring during the session. Any additional responsibilities or duties that were placed upon the department would have fiscal notes attached.
Mr. Beers stated that the current plan required chemical stabilizers on vacant land, and Mr. Biaggi agreed. Mr. Beers then noted that the plan had not been approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Ms. Johnson said that one of the recommendations from the subcommittee formed as a result of S.B. 432 of the Seventieth Session was for the Division of Environmental Protection to take the lead in studying the dust palliatives for concern in dealing with environmental media. The division had been participating with a group operating out of Clark County and together they had established criteria for evaluating the palliatives and were currently proceeding with the evaluations. Mr. Beers stated that the one item the committee would need to look at when public lands was on the agenda was the requirement that vacant land in Clark County be sprayed with chemical stabilizer, and the resulting need for chain link fencing to be installed to avoid the breaking of the chemical crust. Mr. Beers stated that he felt this regulation was unreasonable and would carry hard costs for any vacant land located in Clark County.
Mr. John Marvel asked about the fiscal effect of the TMDL program requirements on local governments. Mr. Biaggi said that theoretically there could have been a significant impact. He explained that the TMDL program had been passed through Congress in 2000, but there was a fiscal rider on the bill that stated the EPA could not spend any money on the program until October 2001. Any inquiries the department had made to the EPA concerning the functionality and what the impact of the TMDL program would be had gone unanswered because the EPA could not spend any money to address the TMDL program. Mr. Marvel noted that there was fear among the population concerning the fiscal impact of this program. Mr. Biaggi noted that over the previous two years the division had offered various input concerning the TMDL program, but most of the input had not been incorporated into the final program.
Mrs. Vonne Chowning asked for more information concerning decision units M‑200, M-202 and E-710. She desired the justification for the proposed additional deputy attorney general position in decision unit M-200, the justification for the proposed additional computer technology position in M-202 and whether those services could be provided by DoIT, and for E-710 a list of the technology needs and whether that equipment was not included in the one-shot appropriation.
Mr. Biaggi began with the justification for the proposed additional attorney general position in decision unit M-200. He noted the division’s caseload had been increasing in all program areas, but specifically in the mining area. With the lowering of mining prices, 34 of the small and medium-sized mining operations had gone into bankruptcy. This had put a tremendous strain on the programmatic abilities of the division, as well as the division’s ability to attend bankruptcy hearings and to ensure that bonds were posted and releases from the bankrupt mines did not occur, and that reclamation was conducted on the bankrupt sites utilizing the posted bond monies. This strain on the division’s resources made it necessary to propose the additional position. This need would continue in mining as long as gold prices remained low, but with the increased caseload in all environmental programs there would be a continued need in all programs.
In regard to decision unit M-202, dealing with the additional computer technology position, Mr. Biaggi noted that this position would reside within the Division of Environmental Protection and assist with the local area network. He had discussions with DoIT about whether they could assist with the local area network, or whether it should be done in-house. The general agreement was that there was a need within the agency to assist with the computer development activities and the day-to-day operation and continued maintenance of the system.
The question regarding decision unit E-710 was for the list of technology needs for the division. Mr. Biaggi stated that DoIT had recently completed a report dealing with the division’s current local area network (LAN) system, a centralized system, and the enhancements the division would need in the next three to five years in regard to hardware, software, and personnel. Mr. Biaggi noted that he would provide a copy of that report to the committee. The report did suggest that there was the need for an in-house technology position to assist in the support and development of the system. Mrs. Chowning confirmed that the equipment request would be provided, and then asked if Mr. Biaggi was sure that none of the equipment was covered in the one-shot appropriation. Mr. Biaggi stated that the one-shot only covered infrastructure costs, and not equipment costs.
Senator Jacobsen inquired if DoIT’s response was adequate and timely in the division’s opinion. Mr. Biaggi opined that he was pleased with DoIT’s response and the thoroughness of the report. He noted that the division was composing a letter of thanks to DoIT for their review of the system.
Mr. Beers confirmed that the equipment list on the technology needs was created before the division received DoIT’s report. Mr. Biaggi noted that although the list was created before the report, it was consistent with the DoIT report. Mr. Beers asked if DoIT was recommending that the division obtain three new file servers for each year of the biennium. Mr. Biaggi responded in the affirmative, and stated that the current file servers needed to be upgraded. Mr. Beers asked if the department currently had six file servers. Mr. Biaggi stated that there were currently eight file servers. Mr. Beers expressed his anticipation to viewing DoIT’s report.
Mr. Marvel asked what was the balance of the amount of bonds that had occurred in regard to mine reclamation. Mr. Biaggi noted that the amount was approximately $620 million in bonds that the department held for the state of Nevada. Mr. Marvel inquired as to whether that amount was enough. Mr. Biaggi expressed his hope that it would be enough, and then stated that the division had been reviewing the reclamation bonds over the previous year and a half to ensure that they covered all eventualities, including the ability for the division to complete reclamation and fluid management if necessary. Mr. Marvel confirmed that there had been 34 bankruptcies. Mr. Marvel asked how much state money had been used in regard to those bankrupt sites. Mr. Biaggi noted that state monies had only been used with the Anaconda mine site in Yerington, and he was unsure of the total amount, but could get it for the committee.
Mr. Parks asked for comment on space requirement, and the increasing cost incurred. Mr. Biaggi restated that in regard to the increased rent issue there had been renegotiations and the lease rates were anticipated to be less than originally predicted. He stated that Mike Turnipseed, Director, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, would further address that in a future presentation. In regard to the issue of moving, Mr. Biaggi noted that the department had been stable in one building in Carson City for approximately a decade, but the space was becoming limited. He noted that the department shared a building with the U.S. Geological Survey and the department might be able to acquire space from them for future growth. In the Las Vegas office there was a different situation from that in the Carson City office. When the Sawyer Building was first built, the department was required to move to that building and currently the department was being asked to move to a different, private space. The movement was not objected to by the department as they were in need of more space than the Sawyer Building could offer them.
Senator Jacobsen inquired as to whether Mr. Biaggi felt that the spaces, both north and south, were adequate. Mr. Biaggi stated that both spaces were adequate, and were functional for the department. The two spaces were near other environmental agencies with which they interacted, specifically the water resources office and the director’s office.
Mr. Parks noticed that the one-shot appropriation for the moving costs was a General Fund appropriation, and inquired about the possibility of reimbursement. Mr. Biaggi said that there were no extra monies available in the departments’ budgets to cover the one-time moving costs.
The Chair recognized Mike Nolan, Budget Office. Mr. Nolan indicated that the moving costs were being funded by one-shots and included the wiring and office equipment because the equipment in the Sawyer Building could not be moved. The department was being forced, at the state’s request and for the state’s convenience, to move, and this was why it was felt that a General Fund appropriation was appropriate.
Senator Jacobsen asked if there were any restrictions, beside those dealing with skill level, regarding the use of inmate labor in moving the department. Mr. Nolan noted that there were no restrictions in utilizing inmates in moving, as long as the inmates were not in contact with personal information.
Mr. Parks asked if there was a possibility of federal monies covering the moving expense. Mr. Biaggi stated that moving costs had not been built into the federal grants, so there were no line items available for the moving costs. He also said that because the state was requiring that the department relocate, it would be difficult to find federal monies to fund the move. Mr. Parks restated that he was wondering if there was not a possibility of having the funding put into a federal grant. Mr. Biaggi explained that federal grants were traditionally programmatic in nature, relating to air quality or water quality, and it would be fairly difficult to include moving costs in the grants. The federal subsidies were limited and to take moving expenses from those monies would remove them from another budget line. Mr. Parks clarified that federal monies did pay for the rent costs.
Senator Jacobsen inquired as to how many committee members had visited the DoIT antenna site. He indicated that it would be something that the committee would like to visit at some point during the session.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AIR QUALITY – BUDGET PAGE CNR-20
Mr. Biaggi continued his testimony by speaking on the air quality budget. He noted that this program supported the Operation Air Quality Program, and it operated in rural Nevada, outside the jurisdiction of both Clark and Washoe Counties. These counties operated their own programs through their local health divisions.
The division had 30 FTE positions, of which two were in Las Vegas, stated Mr. Biaggi. These positions worked with steam fired generation plants, which were permitted in Clark County and in the Pahrump area. The revenues for this program were received from fees, federal grants and the air pollution control fund (I/M fund). The budget included decision unit M-590, funds used to conduct an emission inventory for rapidly developing areas of rural parts of the state, data base modifications, and the preparation of state implementation of federal mandates, such as regional haze and particulates. In the budget there was the request for additional funds to support the federal mandates and state needs, such as the emission inventories in the Truckee River corridor, and travel for meetings regarding new federal regulations.
Mr. Biaggi indicated that decision unit E-375 requested one new position at the Bureau Chief level to accommodate the splitting of the Bureau of Air Quality into the Air Quality Planning Bureau and the Air Quality Permitting and Compliance Bureau. The rational behind this change was that the Bureau of Air Quality was the largest bureau in the agency and currently had an extremely large workload that was continuing to increase due to concerns about power generation. This separation was similar to one made in the water programs. Mr. Biaggi opined that the water program split had worked very well. The new position would be located in Carson City.
Decision unit E-720 supported the purchase of new air monitoring equipment for particulates. This equipment was needed due to some new federal mandates and regulations.
Senator Jacobsen stated that he was impressed with the agency’s performance indicators.
Mr. Parks asked about the recommendation of a negative reserve balance of $159,051 for the end of FY2002-2003. Mr. Biaggi noted that the agency was working with the Budget Office to address that issue. It had to do with the availability of inspection and maintenance funds. He stated that the agency hoped to have this issue resolved in the next few weeks and would inform the committee of the resolution.
Decision unit E-720 requested a PM10 (particulate matter less than ten microns in diameter) beta attenuation monitor, to monitor air quality, and Mr. Parks asked for an explanation on the purpose of this new equipment and information on the intended location. Mr. Biaggi stated that the location had not been chosen, but it would be used in areas where air quality monitoring needs were perceived. He gave the example of monitoring facilities that had been placed in the Pahrump area due to perceived needs. This monitor could be moved around to address air quality needs as they arose. Mr. Parks noted that this policy was different than the EPA, which required monitoring stations to be permanently located. Mr. Biaggi stated that the agency had some permanently stationed monitoring systems as well.
Mr. Beers noted that in a previous meeting Mr. Biaggi had stated that the emission rates were decreasing, and because revenues were in part based on fees that were based on emission rates there was a concern about a potential decrease in funding. Mr. Beers asked if there was a potential plan to replace this potential lost revenue. Mr. Biaggi stated that the agency was exploring all possible solutions, including additional grant funding through the U.S. EPA, and raising fees. Raising fees was not something that the agency was eager to do, but it was something that might be necessary. He said that it was a positive idea to tie fees to emissions, because it provided a financial incentive to reduce emissions, which was the goal of the agency. In the coming years the agency was going to need to look at possible solutions to fund revenue shortfalls.
Senator Jacobsen inquired what other states’ fees were in comparison to Nevada. Ms. Johnson noted that the fee schedule for Nevada was low in comparison to many of the surrounding states. She stated that many states have a fee of approximately $45 per ton of emissions and Nevada’s current emission fee was approximately $5.60 per ton of emission. One of the reasons that fees were so low was because there was one very large emitting source that provided the state with a large source of income, but that source was currently planning to retrofit and that would reduce emissions considerably. This would probably cause the agency to raise their fees to an amount more commiserate with the surrounding states. The other concern was that a large emitting source in southern California was owned by Southern California Edison, a company that might be facing bankruptcy. Senator Jacobsen inquired as to whether the collection of fees was current. Ms. Johnson responded in the affirmative and noted that there was a very good compliance rate with collections and those that did not pay their fees were dealt with appropriately.
Mr. Marvel asked whether the agency was involved in the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) for the mines, and questioned if this involvement was the reason for the increased monitoring of rural areas. Mr. Biaggi answered that the agency was involved in the TRI, but stated that this was not the reason for increased monitoring. He stated that TRI was a function of the Waste Management Program. The Division of Environmental Protection did not have many activities related to the TRI from a programmatic standpoint; it was mainly handled on the federal level. It trickled down to the division because they received the phone calls and needed to address those issues to the members of the public that called and desired information. Mr. Marvel asked whether the mines were currently all within tolerance. Mr. Biaggi noted that the mines would all have high TRI numbers as a result of having to report their waste rock numbers and natural minerals in accordance with TRI requirements. Mr. Biaggi opined that this did not represent an environmental or public health risk, but it was required for the TRI. He stated that the mining industry had been appropriate in reporting those numbers in a factual and accurate manner. This year Nevada would top the TRI list, similar to last year. Mr. Marvel confirmed that there did not appear to be any danger of sanctions from those numbers.
Senator William O’Donnell referenced a newspaper article regarding the Clark County EPA’s position regarding power plants inside the Las Vegas valley and asked for substantiation on the comments. Mr. Biaggi noted that he could not comment on the article, but that he had read it. He stated the Governor was being proactive with insuring that the division moved forward with environmentally-sound plans for power plants. The division had been in contact with the BLM to pursue parallel permitting tracts and with the people who would be submitting applications. Mr. Biaggi restated that he would not comment on the article regarding Clark County’s position on power plants in the valley. Senator O’Donnell inquired whether Mr. Biaggi thought that another gas power plant could be placed in the Las Vegas valley without violating any additional air quality standards. Mr. Biaggi noted that the specifics of the plant, its size and location, would be critical in determining whether it would be appropriate in the Las Vegas valley, or anywhere in the state. Senator O’Donnell asked if the plants that Mr. Biaggi had received applications for were inside or outside the Las Vegas valley. Mr. Biaggi stated that there had been only one formal permit application submitted in the previous six months, and that was for a power plant in northern Nevada along the Truckee River corridor. This was permitted by the agency in 60 days. There were no formal applications for southern Nevada.
The agency had started a conversation with the BLM to ensure that both agencies were following the same tracts when it came to permitting in order to streamline the procedure. Mr. Biaggi noted that when he discussed streamlining the process he was not cutting environmental controls or quality, but rather accelerating the process and eliminating duplication of effort. Senator O’Donnell stated that there were occasionally differences in opinions about environmental standards and asked if the agency had jurisdictional oversight for the EPA in Clark County. Mr. Biaggi explained that the Division of Environmental Protection was required, by the Nevada Revised Statutes, to permit power plants that were using fossil fuels and the power plants that were steam generated. From that perspective the county was not involved, solely the state. If a power plant did not fall under the previously mentioned criteria then it would fall under the jurisdiction of the county, and their program was delegated by the U.S. EPA’s Clean Air Act, and the Division of Environmental Protection had an insignificant oversight role. The oversight role would fall on the U.S. EPA out of Region 9 in San Francisco, California.
Senator Jacobsen inquired about the reason for the proposed out-of-state travel allocation in the budget. Mr. Biaggi stated that there were several federal mandates and regional issues, such as regional haze, ozone transportation, and particulate matter that required the agency to remain informed. He also mentioned the national and regional organizations that address air quality issues that the agency was involved with. The travel allocation would cover travel costs to those organization meetings. Senator Jacobsen asked about the proposed slight increase in in-state travel and questioned whether the agency’s presence in southern Nevada was adequate. Mr. Biaggi stated that the presence of the agency in southern Nevada was not a concern, and the budget reflected the desire to increase travel to the field and conduct inspections to ensure compliance.
Senator Jacobsen noted that there was a request for additional equipment, and asked if there were any problems regarding storage of that equipment. Mr. Biaggi responded in the negative.
Senator Joseph Neal confirmed that there had been one power plant permitted in northern Nevada, and asked how many power plants had been requested and their predicted locations within the previous few years. Mr. Biaggi answered that eight or ten companies had made requests, but only one application had been submitted. That was for the power plant permit for the Truckee River corridor. Senator Neal noted that a Las Vegas newspaper had reported that Cal‑Pine was attempting to build a plant in southern Nevada. Mr. Biaggi said that they had not received an application, and the jurisdiction over that permitting would belong to Clark County. The division would not have any jurisdiction in Clark County over a plant with a combustion turbine that was air-cooled. Ms. Johnson mentioned that one additional power plant application had been received for a location in the canyon area between Fernley and Reno and it was currently being reviewed.
Senator O’Donnell requested information regarding an application that had been denied by Clark County, and whether the agency oversaw the application process and ensured that it followed state and federal law. Mr. Biaggi answered that if Clark County denied an application, the applicant would be able to go through due process procedures. First the applicant would appeal to the County Health Board for Air Quality, then go through the rest of the procedures. Mr. Biaggi stated that he believed that the Division of Environmental Protection did not have the authority to initiate a separate processing procedure for that permit without regard to Clark County. Senator O’Donnell inquired as to whether a change in the Nevada Revised Statutes would be needed to accomplish this processing procedure. Mr. Biaggi answered in the affirmative, to which Senator O’Donnell asked if the agency was capable and willing to accept the responsibilities that a change in the Nevada Revised Statutes would bring. Mr. Biaggi said that the agency did not possess the resources to undertake those responsibilities at the present time. He noted that due to a statute enacted in the 1970s there had been a very distinct separation of permitting responsibilities in Clark County. He stated that when there was a denial, it was a due process question, either on the state or county level. Senator O’Donnell stated that he was perturbed at the comments made by the Clark County EPA. He noted that there was an issue in Clark County about air quality protection due to federal mandates, constituent requests, and the desire to encourage tourism in Las Vegas, but he said, if there was an emergency situation and Las Vegas lost electricity because a power plant permit was denied, the logic escaped him. Senator O’Donnell stated that it would defeat the purpose of ensuring that Las Vegas had a high air quality, if no one was able to live there because of a lack of power. He suggested that a balance between the needs of power and the EPA needed to be drawn. Mr. Biaggi stated that he did not disagree with Senator O’Donnell’s statements, and noted that he believed that that was the position Governor Guinn had taken. Mr. Biaggi described Governor Guinn’s stance as one that desired to streamline the process, ensure that decisions could be made in a timely manner, and allowed the needed permits to be issued. He restated that he could not speak for Clark County, or what the author and sources of the newspaper article desired, and that that would be a good question to ask Clark County or the members of the Clark County Health District.
Senator Jacobsen noted that this issue would receive further scrutiny, and hoped that the agency would catalog all information. He then asked what the agency was planning to do in regard to the negative reserve balance and what the agency thought an adequate reserve would be. He stated that because of a lack of time the agency could comment at a future time. Mr. Biaggi quickly stated that the agency was working with the Budget Office on those issues, and as soon as they were resolved he would let the committee know.
Senator Jacobsen noted that in the budget there were monies for uncertain legal costs, and informed Mr. Biaggi that the agency was able to request monies from the Interim Finance Committee for those type of problems.
WATER PROGRAMS – BUDGET PAGE CNR-43
Mr. Biaggi began with the Water Programs budget, and described the functions of this agency. This agency operated a statewide water pollution control program and included two bureaus, Water Pollution Control and Water Quality Planning. He noted that some of the functions of this budget were to permit for discharges to surface and ground waters, ongoing water quality monitoring to ensure that existing water qualities were being maintained and improved upon, and planning activities. Mr. Biaggi also said that there were a number of grants given to local governments and conservation districts for water pollution projects throughout the state of Nevada.
Mr. Biaggi stated that this was a complex budget account, with a number of distinct revenue sources. He stated that there had been 18 separate revenue sources and 12 different divisions. This budget account was proposed to be transitioned into special use categories to allow for each revenue source to have their own budget by general ledger number. Mr. Biaggi noted that this would streamline the budget and administration process, and that this system had positive results with other budget accounts within the department. By changing to the special category budget process, Mr. Biaggi opined that it would provide for better program flexibility and consistency with the federal grants, without affecting budget tracking or fiscal accountability.
Revenues for this budget were from federal grants and fees, stated Mr. Biaggi, as well as a small General Fund appropriation. The General Fund appropriation had remained static for the previous seven years, but currently the division was requesting a caseload increase per pollution projections, and the appropriation also reflected the transfer of funds to the Division of Environmental Protection from the former Division of Water Planning, for project Water Education for Teachers (WET). This transfer could be located in decision unit E-250. Mr. Biaggi also noted that there had been a substantial number of new federal grants received within the previous twenty-four months due to new federal programs and increased funding in existing federal programs. The majority of these new monies were given to local governments for water pollution control projects and could be found in decision unit M-201. One new position was requested, for the Bureau of Water Pollution Control, in decision unit M-200. This position would be a Program Assistant III, used to assist in the operation of the state revolving loan fund, which provided low-interest infrastructure and development loans to Nevada communities for waste water services and the underground injection control program. Mr. Biaggi noted that there was a proposed reclassification of a management assistant to an Environmental Scientist III to support the 319 Water Pollution Control Grant Program and outreach efforts, in decision unit E-805. Also in E-805 was the proposed reclassification of a Management Assistant II to a Management Assistant III as a result of increased duties and responsibilities. Decision unit E-720 was a request for new equipment, including safety equipment, cameras, furniture, sampling equipment, a boat motor, and a motor vehicle for remote sampling, stated Mr. Biaggi.
Mr. Parks noted that this budget appeared to contain a half of a percent reserve, and inquired whether the reserve for this budget was adequate. Mr. Biaggi stated that the reserve in this budget account was used as a balancing mechanism for the budget, and given the financial status of the budget account, the reserve was adequate.
WASTE MANAGEMENT AND FEDERAL FACILITIES – BUDGET PAGE CNR-27
Mr. Biaggi continued his testimony with Budget Account 3187, and noted that this was the largest budget account within the division. The budget supported 67 FTE employees and included the Bureau of Waste Management, federal facilities, and corrective actions. He stated that 13 of the FTE employees were in Las Vegas, and were working with the federal facilities group addressing issues that were arising from the Nevada test site. The program included solid waste management, hazard waste management, oversaw the federal facilities, and worked with activities related to the chemical accident prevention program.
Mr. Biaggi noted that this was a complex budget with many different revenue sources and divisions. Mr. Biaggi proposed that this budget be transitioned into special use categories, as was suggested for the Water Programs Budget. Mr. Biaggi stated that all revenues in the program came from federal grants and fees. There were no new positions or programs being requested. Decision unit E-710 contained a request for replacement field vehicles with 120,000 and 127,000 miles. A new vehicle for the Solid Water Program, to be used for inspections and field work, was included in decision unit E-720.
Mrs. Chowning noted that the agency was collecting approximately $1.2 million from a two-dollar fee assessed in the selling of tires. She then asked why extra monies were being requested to dispose of used tires. Mrs. Chowning stated her belief that the monies raised should be used for a logical purpose, such as the disposal of tires, and noted that years ago, there had been a tire fire near where the women’s prison was located before the prison had been built. Mrs. Chowning then noted that there was not an accurate count of abandoned tires and air quality was extremely impacted by tire fires. She asked Mr. Biaggi who he envisioned performing tire-recycling services, and restated her objection to paying $145,000 when monies were being collected from the sale of tires.
Mr. Biaggi stated that he had previously provided the committee the annual report of the tire-recycling program, which included where tire fees went. He briefly explained the history of the tire-recycling program. In the late 1980s there was a push to implement a solid waste tipping fee throughout the state of Nevada which would put a per ton charge on solid waste disposed of in land fills throughout the state. There was a great deal of opposition to this proposal from some of the solid waste management firms in the state. The tire fees were created as a compromise for the tipping fee. It was intended to support solid waste program activities in Clark County, Washoe County, and the state of Nevada, as well as provide grants to encourage recycling in all counties throughout the state. With regard to the issue of the clean up of tire piles, Mr. Biaggi noted that this was not an issue unique to Nevada, and the committee could remember a tire pile near Tracy, California, that caught fire a few years ago and was probably still burning today. Once a tire fire started it was very difficult to end them. He stated that there had been a serious tire fire a couple of years ago in the Moundhouse area of northern Nevada and an “auto fluff” fire, that Mrs. Chowning had mentioned earlier as a tire fire, in southern Nevada. Mrs. Chowning noted that the “auto fluff” fire was very close to an underground storage of tires and that people were thankful that the fire had not spread to that pile. Mr. Biaggi recognized that there were a few large piles of tires within the state and the $145,000 Mrs. Chowning had referred to would go toward assisting in reducing the tire piles to a level that did not reflect a public health or air quality threat.
Mrs. Chowning asked Mr. Biaggi again who he thought would be completing this work. Mr. Biaggi stated that the division would have to hire environmental consultants and disposal firms to assist in the removal of the tires.
Mr. Beers noted that the requested budget was removing 6 categories and adding 13 special-use categories. He asked for an explanation regarding the benefit of this change, and noted that from the legislators’ perspective it did not seem very beneficial because the tracking system for appropriations was lost. Mr. Biaggi stated that the structure had many different revenue sources feeding into the division, and this caused added complexity to the developing and tracking of the budget. This made accountability to the state and to the federal grant organizations difficult. He explained that the proposed change in organization would allow a streamlining of the budget and greater fiscal accountability because each revenue source would be located within its own category, with its own general ledger numbers. The division would be able to identify where the money was coming from and where it was being expended with greater ease. Mr. Beers confirmed that under the proposed system the budget would be organized by grants rather than by expenditures as the legislature was accustomed to. Mr. Beers inquired as to whether the Integrated Financial System (IFS) had the capabilities to track a grant outside the chart of account structure. Lucy Zeier, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Administrative Services Officer IV, stated that IFS had not been ruled out as an option for this department. The department’s understanding was that IFS would do some grant accounting, but it was unknown to what extent that would be possible. Until the extent was discovered, Ms. Zeier stated that she believed the separate categories would allow the agency to meet their accounting needs. Mr. Beers asked when the agency expected to be able to utilize IFS. Mr. Biaggi stated that the next IFS phase would be done in April of 2001. Mr. Beers noted that he was uncomfortable with the proposed change in the budget process because he would not be able to see the total expenditures within the account.
Mr. Parks inquired as to whether the half of one percent reserve for this budget would be adequate. Mr. Biaggi noted that he did believe that this was an appropriate reserve.
MINING REGULATION/RECLAMATION – BUDGET PAGE CNR-37
Mr. Biaggi began testifying on Budget Account 3188, and stated this budget supported the Bureau of Mining Regulation and Reclamation. The bureau issued and managed 174 mining reclamation permits and 156 mining water pollution control permits. He noted that this was a status quo budget, and the sole source of revenue was from fees placed upon the mining industry. All of the staff within this budget account were located in northern Nevada. He stated that decision unit M-200 and M-201 included increased travel for inspection of mining operations as well as contract support from an accounting firm to assist in bonds, corporate guaranties, and financial information and training. The employees of the bureau included hydrologists, geologists, geochemists, and other professionals in those areas. Mr. Biaggi stated that the division felt as though it needed more professional support and that support could be provided by a professional accounting firm. Mr. Biaggi continued with decision unit E‑710, which included replacement equipment such as cameras, phones, and furniture, and decision unit E-720, that included funds for a cell phone, sampling equipment, and a new inspection vehicle for 2003.
Senator Jacobsen asked for an update on the Yerington mine. Mr. Biaggi stated that the Anaconda mine in Yerington was an historic copper mine that had been in operation since the 1930s. Approximately a year ago the owner/operator of that site walked away from the site and left it in the care of the state. Mr. Biaggi explained that the state was required to undertake the fluid management activities at the site to ensure that a release did not occur; the state was continuing to run the fluid management activities, and was reducing the amount of fluids through enhanced evaporation efforts and other means. He stated that currently there was an ongoing evaluation effort to determine the environmental conditions at the site, and the U.S. EPA had suggested that the site should be moved to the jurisdiction of the federal Superfund program. The division had reservations about placing the site under the Superfund program, and indicated that the division would like to pursue all clean up possibilities with all involved parties, including the Walker and Yerington tribes, the BLM, the state of Nevada, and ARCO, a former owner, before moving to the Superfund program. Senator Jacobsen inquired as to who was the current owner of the site. Mr. Biaggi noted that the BLM owned a great deal of the area and the former operator still owned some of the area, as well as a few other people. Senator Jacobsen indicated that he believed that State Parks and Wildlife had some involvement at the site over the last few years. Mr. Biaggi noted that he was unaware of any State Parks and Wildlife involvement in the area.
Mr. Parks asked whether the disaster relief fund had been used at the Yerington site. Mr. Biaggi responded that the Interim Fluid Management Fund, that had been put into place three years ago by the Division of Environmental Protection in cooperation with the mining industry, was not applicable for this particular site. The fund was intended to be used for other sites. The division had a small block of money that was being used for this site. Mr. Biaggi noted that due to concerns about where the site was headed, the division had worked with the Division of Emergency Management in securing emergency funds in the event that the division had run out of money. He stated that there had not been a need to go to those emergency funds and he felt confident that the fluid management activity would be able to be completed.
Mr. Parks inquired about the vehicle requested for the second year of the biennium. Mr. Biaggi noted that the division completed a number of inspections at the mine sites, and the NRS required that the division coordinate those efforts with the federal land managers. The division often went out into the field with the federal land managers and the use of this new six-passenger vehicle would assist in accomplishing this task in one vehicle rather than several vehicles.
Senator Jacobsen asked if there was a mining representative on the Environmental Commission. Mr. Biaggi answered in the affirmative, and stated that the representatives were currently Fred Gifford, an expert in mining reclamation activities, and Al Koyner, the representative for the Division of Minerals.
Senator Jacobsen questioned whether there were any other sites that the committee would be familiar with. Mr. Biaggi answered that the Yerington site was the one that the division was most concerned with.
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION – BUDGET PAGE CNR-53
Mr. Biaggi continued his testimony with Budget Account 4149, and noted that this budget account was the simplest one of the division. He stated that this budget supported the operation of the State Environmental Commission, which was the regulatory adoption entity for the Division of Environmental Protection. This budget had no staff, paid per diem for the travel of the commission members, and paid for Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) regulatory review. This was a status quo budget. Mr. Biaggi stated that decision unit M-200 added panel hearings for the commission members as a result of caseload increases.
WATER PLANNING CAP IMPROVEMENT – BUDGET PAGE CNR-157
Mr. Biaggi noted that Budget Account 4155 was a new budget account for the Division of Environmental Protection as the result of a transfer of the former Division of Water Planning. This account provided grants for infrastructure development and other activities related to municipal water supply systems. Mr. Biaggi stated that this budget had a staff of 1.5 FTE, and was not proposing any new staff or program activities. Decision unit M-150 included a $20,000 contract for fiscal and programmatic audits of projects that received grant funding, and increased the number of meetings for the Board for Financing Water Projects to a total of four per year. Mr. Biaggi noted that decision unit M‑200 included $2,000 additional costs for LCB review of regulations pertaining to the program and decision unit M-201 provided for increased travel for inspections of fund-eligible grant projects. Mr. Biaggi stated that this program probably was not suited to reside in the Division of Environmental Protection, but rather would be better fitted for the State Health Division, that also operated the revolving loan fund for water projects. The division had initiated communication with the State Health Division regarding the transfer of this budget to them in the future. Mike Turnipseed, Director, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, would elaborate on this issue further.
Senator Jacobsen stated that he believed that it would behoove the agency to develop performance indicators to ensure the committee’s proper understanding of the budget. Mr. Biaggi responded that there were performance indicators, and they should have been attached to the expanded narrative, but he would be happy to provide them to the committee if need be.
Senator Jacobsen indicated that there was one unfilled position and inquired as to whether that position should be eliminated. Mr. Biaggi stated that both positions were currently filled, but there had been a substantial delay in filling that position when it was within the former organizational structure, and that was the reason some of the performance indicators were lacking. Mr. Biaggi indicated that staffing was adequate.
Mr. Nolan advised the committee regarding the reserves that Mr. Parks had previously questioned. He noted that those budgets were “feed budgets” that did not contain vacancy savings, and there would be some vacancies and turnover, as well as savings when the rent revision was complete. The reserves would increase by a currently unknown amount. Senator Jacobsen asked whether those savings would revert back to the General Fund account. Mr. Nolan stated that those savings would stay within the budget.
Mr. Parks asked Mr. Nolan if those savings could be used for other line items within the budget. Mr. Nolan explained that that would be difficult because the agency could not be sure of turnover rates. The Governor’s raises should assist with the high turnover rate that this agency, and all state agencies, had been having, but the agency needed to anticipate for full employment. If the monies were committed to another line item, the agency would face a problem if the predicted turnover rate was higher than the actual.
Mr. Marvel desired the date of the impending revisions. Mr. Nolan stated that the revisions would be given to the committee within the next six working days.
Mr. Beers asked who compiled the agency’s Web site, to which Mr. Biaggi answered that all Web site work was completed in-house by the staff of both the bureaus with one person overseeing the entire Web site. Mr. Beers inquired as to an approximate figure of the number of FTEs working on the site and noted that the site was very impressive. Mr. Biaggi estimated that within each bureau was approximately a half of an FTE; including the one oversight position there were approximately a total of two FTEs.
Senator Jacobsen encouraged Mr. Biaggi to enlighten the committee to any sites that he felt the committee should come and tour. Mr. Biaggi indicated that the committee was welcome to tour the division at their convenience.
WATER RESOURCES – BUDGET PAGE CNR-93
The chair recognized Hugh Ricci, State Engineer, Carson City, to present Budget Account 4171. Mr. Ricci explained that he had been the State Engineer since August of 2000, and noted that it had been a smooth transition. Mr. Ricci stated that he had no increase requested for personnel or programs for the Division of Water Resources, and would later explain the transferred budget items from the Water Planning decision units into Budget Account 4171. He noted that there were no increases in fees proposed, and the recommended budget was sufficient to allow the division to meet its mission. The current mission of the division was to conserve, protect, manage, and enhance the state’s water resources for Nevada citizens, through the appropriation and reallocation of public waters. Mr. Ricci continued by explaining that there were various maintenance items included in the budget that he would not address at this time unless the committee had questions. He then stated that decision units E-710 and E-720 were for replacement and new equipment.
Mrs. Chowning noted that in decision unit M-203 the funding was increased by approximately 500 percent, and she inquired as to why there was the increase. Mr. Ricci explained that the increase was due to a combination of two things. He noted that the division had planned to microfilm all records. The office was created in 1905 and the only record that the division had was a piece of paper that included the then State Engineer’s signature as the official document. In order to preserve those documents the microfilming process was begun. The division began microfilming permits and certificates and currently was microfilming maps, which might contain 50,000 to 60,000 different sheets. In addition, the division was also going to begin to scan the documents so that they would be available on the Internet. All of these efforts were to preserve the original documents, because copying and everyday use was making the documents frail. There was currently $5,000 allocated for microfilming and in decision unit M-203, the division was requesting an additional $5,000 to continue that process as well as $15,000 for the proposed scanning. Those increases included the cost of equipment needed to implement the scanning process. Mrs. Chowning confirmed that the increase from $5,000 to $25,000 included software equipment. She asked for more information regarding the proposed increase to be provided to the staff, and noted that she acknowledged the benefit of preserving historic documents in order to be fiscally responsible in making future decisions.
Mr. Marvel inquired as to the status of the microfilming. Mr. Ricci stated that the division had finished all the permits and most of the certificates. The plan was to begin to concentrate on the maps. The process had begun in the early 1990s.
Mr. Marvel questioned Mr. Ricci as to the agency’s need for the one-shot appropriation for South Fork Dam. Mr. Ricci explained that there was a supplemental request currently going through the director’s office for administrative costs that had increased due to the U.S. Geological survey. In decision unit M-205, Mr. Ricci noted that there was a request for additional maintenance monies for the South Fork reservoir for $3,450 in FY2002 and $19,650 in FY2003. The justification for the FY2003 increase was that the agency was going to have divers inspect all of the outlet works every three years, to ensure their functionality. Mr. Marvel asked if the division could manipulate the dam from Elko. Mr. Ricci answered that this remote manipulation could not currently be done and that was one of the issues that the department was working on.
Mr. Parks asked Mr. Ricci to comment on the agency’s need for the continuation of the Flood Management Program, decision unit E-902 contained a transfer of the Flood Management Program from the Water Planning to Water Resources. Mr. Ricci stated that as a result of the dissolution of Water Planning there were three staff members transferred from Division of Water Planning to the Division of Water Resources. One of those positions was a Staff Engineer III, which was going to continue the planning effort of updating the state water plan. Another was a Program Operator II, which was in charge of the Flood Management Program, and the third was a Program Assistant III, which assisted the Program Operator II in the Flood Management Program. Mr. Ricci stated that due to the 1997 flood it became apparent that, at least in the Truckee Meadows area, there was the need for a coordinated flood plan. The flood program operator had been instrumental in that effort, and in forming the Truckee River Flood Coalition. The operator had also worked on getting the flood mitigation program grant, which would be awarded in the near future, in order to start a planning process to determine the options for preventing a future flooding in the Truckee Meadows area. This flood manager program did work throughout the state to determine what areas could be protected from floods at a minimal cost, and made recommendations to local groups about building in flood plains.
Senator Jacobsen asked about the frequency of the need for files and maps. Mr. Ricci said that the agency received approximately 100 phone calls a day, and if 30 percent of those required removing maps and permits from storage, there would be a great deal of “wear and tear.” Mr. Ricci explained that part of the proposed scanning process would enable a staff person that needed a map to obtain a copy via computer printout by the agency, or the staff person would be able to access it on the Internet. Mr. Ricci expressed that the completion of the scanning process would take some time. Senator Jacobsen inquired about whether there were records in storage that were obsolete. Mr. Ricci answered that the permit files and maps were used on a yearly basis.
WATER PLANNING – BUDGET PAGE CNR-147
The Chair recognized Mike Turnipseed, Director of the Division of Conservation and Natural Resources. Mr. Turnipseed gave a brief history of Budget Account 4161. In September 2000, there were a number of vacancies in the division and Mr. Turnipseed could see areas that could be streamlined and some cost savings, so he split the resources within the division. Mr. Biaggi noted during his testimony that the WET project had gone to Water Programs, and the grants to small water programs were currently within Mr. Biaggi’s budget, but the hope was that the small water programs would be transferred to the Health Division. Mr. Turnipseed had discussed this transfer with Yvonne Sylva, Administrator, Health Division, and Charlotte Crawford, Director, Department of Human Resources, and both of them were in favor of the transfer. The criteria and rules for granting loans to small water systems were currently placed in the Health Department, so the same criteria and rules could be applied to grants for small water systems. Three of the positions out of Water Planning were transferred to Budget Account 4161, the flood planner, the water planner, and the clerical position discussed in the previous budget. Mr. Turnipseed noted that these positions were currently vacant, and the one engineer position had been vacant for over a year because of a lack of applicants. He said that Mr. Ricci had placed an in-house ad for the position and received no applications and was currently advertising statewide. Mr. Turnipseed stated that a management assistant was transferred from the Division of Water Planning’s budget to the Director’s Office budget, and assumed assisted responsibility for the Water Projects Financing Board, Water Planning Advisory Board, and Walker River team, as well as being the secretary to the assistant director. Mr. Turnipseed concluded Budget Account 4161 by saying that it had been divided up among the other agencies and no longer existed.
Senator Jacobsen requested written confirmation of Mr. Turnipseed’s recommendations regarding consolidation. Mr. Turnipseed noted that the general feeling throughout the state was that local land use planning efforts should be dealt with on a local level, although the Division of State Lands would provide assistance. He then stated that the water planning was tied to land use planning. He noted that the Southern Nevada Water Authority had a plan through the year 2050, White Pine County had developed a water plan, Elko County was currently developing a water plan, Carson City had a water plan, Washoe County was under the Regional Water Board, and other counties had proposed to develop water plans. Mr. Turnipseed explained that the State Engineer was the only person who was able to “set aside” particular basins or parts of basins for municipal use and most municipalities were protected in that regard. Mr. Turnipseed gave examples of basins that had been closed and plans that had been created by the State Engineer, including forced conservation in Incline Village, and optimizing the use of surface water in Carson City and Reno. Senator Jacobsen restated his request for Mr. Turnipseed’s recommendations to be given in written form to the committee.
CNR ADMINISTRATION – BUDGET PAGE CNR-1
Mr. Turnipseed continued his testimony with Budget Account 4150. He stated that this was a fairly simple budget. There was a supplement to “cash out” the former director, Pete Morros’ retirement. There was also a one-shot for $80,000 over the biennium to begin a tracking accounting system on the Truckee River Operating Agreement. Mr. Turnipseed stated that the base budget was straightforward, as was decision unit M-100. Decision unit M-200 included the request for a new vehicle. There were two replacement Accounting Clerks I, found in decision unit M-201, due to the fact that the legislature had passed a bill that limited inmates’ abilities to access sensitive information. This ruling had prevented the inmates from completing tasks such as filing, opening mail, and answering telephones, and the two positions would replace the inmates that could no longer complete those tasks.
Senator Jacobsen asked if Mr. Turnipseed saw any adverse effects of using inmates. Mr. Turnipseed responded that he had no issue with utilizing the inmates, but the Department of Prisons had a problem because they were filing time sheets and payroll records that contained social security numbers. Mr. Turnipseed acknowledged that there was a fear of identity theft and the social security numbers were an issue.
Mr. Parks asked for comment on the fire billing process and reimbursement and the role that played in respect to the added positions. Mr. Turnipseed noted that there had been two heavy fire seasons in the last two years and one of those positions would support the East Lake region, and that position would be housed in the Director’s Office. He deferred further explanation to Jennifer Kizer, Administrative Services Officer, Division of Forestry. Ms. Kizer stated that the account clerk in the budget would assist the accounting specialist for forestry in the Western region, and would include fire billing, the two honor camp budgets, and four county fire protection district budgets. She noted that there was an account clerk approved in the previous biennium for the Northern region. Mr. Parks asked for comment on the reimbursements and their speed. Ms. Kizer responded that information on that subject would be provided when forestry appeared before the committee. She noted that because of the heavy fire season, reimbursements had a longer response time, but the BLM and U.S. Forest Services were reimbursing the division in a timely manner. Senator Jacobsen asked that the committee resume this conversation when the forestry budgets were presented to the committee.
DIVISION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS – BUDGET PAGE CNR-56
The Chair recognized Pam Wilcox, Administrator and State Land Registrar, Division of State Lands, and Acting Administrator, Division of Conservation Districts, to present Budget Account 4151. She stated that the mission of the Division of Conservation Districts was to regulate and assist the state’s 28 locally elected conservation districts. This was accomplished by using the State Conservation Commission, a regulatory and policy-making board, consisting of nine members. Seven of the members were laymen appointed by the Governor, and two were ex-officio members, the Dean of the College of Agriculture and the Director of the State Department of Agriculture. Ms. Wilcox noted that this agency had a small staff that included two professional positions and one clerical position. This staff was involved in a variety of resource programs generated from within the 28 elected conservation districts. The traditional programs included working with farmers and ranchers on agricultural soil productivity, water conservation, resource conservation and productivity, soil erosion control at Lake Tahoe, flood prevention along Nevada’s rivers and streams, and youth education and public information on resource conservation efforts.
Ms. Wilcox continued by saying that this was essentially a flat budget, containing no new programs or positions. The budget was a General Fund budget, with the exception of some monies received from the Tahoe Bond Act program that gave support to Tahoe-based programs and had the authority to collect and expend donations. She noted that one large change to the budget was that the grant to district programs was in the base budget, and that there was the addition of the 28th district that would need funding. The monies for the additional district could be found in decision unit M-200. M-200 also included monies for necessary payments to the industrial insurance for district supervisors and additional authorization to accept and expend donations. Decision unit M-201 was annualization for vacancies. Ms. Wilcox stated that decision unit M-202 covered the cost of attending the National Association of Conservation Districts (NACD) and the National Association of State Conservation Administrators meetings for both professionals in the Conservation Division. Decision unit M-251 was additional rental money, similar to the previously mentioned budgets. Ms. Wilcox mentioned that decision unit M-300 dealt with benefits, decision unit M-301 was COLA, and decision unit M-800 was the cost allocation to the Director’s Office to support administrative services provided by that office. She stated that there were two enhancement units. Decision unit E-710 was for the replacement of one computer each year as well as a replacement printer and office furniture. A new laptop computer was included in decision unit E-720.
Mrs. Marcia de Braga asked if there were new conservation districts formed, would the agency be able to fund them or would they need to wait for the next biennium to receive funding. Ms. Wilcox explained that according to the NRS, districts could be created by action of the State Conservation Commission, and the grant funds available would be divided equally among every district in good standing. Mrs. de Braga asked if all the districts were able to acquire the necessary matching funds. Ms. Wilcox stated that to date they were.
Mrs. de Braga questioned why the funding for travel to the Sparks NACD was found in out-of-state travel. Ms. Wilcox noted that that was a mistake, and the division was going to be working with the Budget Office to shift that to in-state travel.
Senator Jacobsen noted that in the previous session the Governor was thinking about eliminating conservation districts, to which he faced opposition. Senator Jacobsen indicated his support for conservation districts because it was a system of local control.
NEVADA TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY – BUDGET PAGE CNR-167
Ms. Wilcox continued her testimony with Budget Account 4166. She noted that this was a small agency, with statutory responsibility to regulate building in the Tahoe Basin. When the Tahoe Compact was passed by Nevada, California, and Congress, one of the issues was the casinos in the Tahoe Basin, and the solution was to freeze the casinos in time and place. Nevada had retained jurisdiction over implementing this portion of the contract and that was currently the responsibility of the Nevada Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (NTRPA).
Ms. Wilcox noted that the NTRPA had no staff, but rather a governing board that had seven Nevada members and staff workers that were provided by the Division of State Lands at no cost to the division. The program had no new programs. Ms. Wilcox stated that this agency was funded by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) in the previous biennium, and was currently funded by the General Fund.
Mrs. Chowning asked for confirmation of the fact that this agency was previously funded by the DMV and was now going to be funded by the General Fund, and asked if the monies raised by license plate fees covered these costs. Ms. Wilcox explained that the license plate program was currently housed in the Division of State Lands, and noted that the NTRPA budget was only $472. She said that budget was traditionally a General Fund budget, but last session it had been moved to the DMV Pollution Emission Control Fund, and it was currently being transferred back to the General Fund. Mrs. Chowning confirmed that although the license plate funds were in another budget they did help preserve Lake Tahoe. Ms. Wilcox acknowledged that the license plate funds were related to the NTRPA.
Senator Jacobsen suggested that the agency produce performance indicators to give the committee a better understanding of its functionality. Ms. Wilcox noted that there was one performance indicator relating to the number of plans that were reviewed. The way the agency was structured was such that when the casinos wished to remodel they would bring their plans to the agency, and the agency reviewed and approved them. This ensured that the casinos were remodeling in accordance with the compact. Senator Jacobsen restated that he believed the committee would benefit from performance indicators for this agency. Ms. Wilcox explained that the one performance indicator could be found in the budget.
Mrs. Chowning suggested that the agency might transfer the license plate monies from the State Lands budget to the NTRPA budget, and asked how much money was raised from license plate sales. Ms. Wilcox said that last year approximately $400,000 was raised from license plate sales, and explained that this budget had traditionally been a General Fund budget and that was how it was presented for this biennium. She noted that statutorily this budget had to be a separate agency, and it was not statutorily in the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Previously the agency had an independent staff, and four legislative sessions ago the agency was moved to the Division of State Lands in order to utilize their staff resources and create a cost savings. Ms. Wilcox emphasized the importance of this agency maintaining their independence. Mrs. Chowning asked the staff to look into the funding of this agency by the license plate fees.
STATE LANDS – BUDGET PAGE CNR-62
Ms. Wilcox continued her testimony with Budget Account 4173. She stated that the mission of this agency was to hold title to the state’s land, and this meant that the agency held title to all of the state’s lands except those held by the Department of Transportation, the University, and the Legislature. This was approximately 250,000 acres statewide, and included lands under state buildings, in state parks, in state wildlife areas, under prisons, and National Guard lands. The agency provided technical land support to all agencies that managed state lands, and was the archive for the state’s historic land records and answered questions from the public regarding the land records. The State Land Use Planning Agency, found within this agency, provided technical land use planning assistance to local governments upon request. Ms. Wilcox noted that the agency had also provided assistance to the state’s rural communities that did not have land use planning staff in developing master plans or subdivision ordinances. The agency had a State Land Use Planning Advisory Council, which assisted with the rural support and had one member from each of the 17 counties. In addition, this agency had a program to work on federal land planning issues and was currently updating the state’s public land policy plan. Another major unit of the agency was the Tahoe Resource Team. Last session an inter-agency Tahoe Team was created to carry out the state’s environmental improvement program at Lake Tahoe. That program was coordinated by a staff position with the Division of State Lands, and had eight people, five of whom were from the Division of State Lands.
Senator Jacobsen asked about the current office requirements, and what the agency currently occupied. Ms. Wilcox stated that when the Tahoe unit was added the facilities at Nye Lane in Carson City were no longer sufficient, and the agency expanded. There was currently a satellite Tahoe office on 5th Street. The office space was adequate for present needs. Senator Jacobsen indicated that if there was a need the agency should utilize the Legislative Building during the interim.
Ms. Wilcox began to discuss the budget for the division and indicated that this was a flat budget with no new positions or programs. Decision unit M-200 provided additional non-General Fund dollars for the agency’s land conference, self-funding publication, programs funded by the Tahoe Bond Act and Tahoe Regional Planning Agency’s (TRPA) excess coverage mitigation program. Ms. Wilcox explained that decision unit M-201 was annualization to cover vacancies. Funding for travel to allow staff to attend meetings of the Western States Land Commission Association and the Western Governor’s Association could be found in decision unit M-202. Similar to the previous budgets, decision unit M-251 covered additional rental costs. Ms. Wilcox stated that decision unit M-300 covered benefits, M-301 cost of living increase, M-305 was unclassified salary adjustments, and M-800 was cost allocation to the Director’s Office for administrative support. Decision unit E-710 provided for replacement hardware for computers as indicated in the replacement schedule, which had been approved by DoIT, and replacement of office furniture. Ms. Wilcox addressed decision unit E-710, regarding the acquisition of new computers. There were 18 computer-based positions in the agency, and one Computer Aided Design (CAD) stand-alone system. According to the replacement schedule those computers should be replaced on a two- to four-year schedule, and the agency was currently on a three- to five-year schedule. The older machines would be replaced in the first year of the biennium, and the newer computers, which were acquired in FY1998 and FY2000, would be replaced in the second year of the biennium.
Senator Jacobsen asked if the agency recycled their old computers. Ms. Wilcox stated that the agency stored approximately two old computers to use for spare parts, and the others were offered to other agencies within the department. If the other agencies had no use for the computers they were excessed through the state system.
Mr. Parks indicated that there was a base budget seasonal salary shortfall of $25,317 for each year of the biennium in the agency’s budget, and asked for comment. Ms. Wilcox stated that this shortfall was an oversight, and the agency had assumed the monies would be in the base budget because they were filled during the base year, but during the computerized budgeting process those monies were not included. The agency was working with the Budget Office to remedy this situation. Mr. Nolan responded to Mr. Parks question. He noted that in previous budgets seasonal positions had their own general ledger, but the IFS had rolled that into salaries. In order to break those figures out the agency was obligated to provide the expenditure for FY2000. The Nevada Executive Budget System (NEBS) did not automatically include those figures; Ms. Wilcox and Mr. Nolan had overlooked this.
Mr. Beers asked about the PM10 requirements being discussed in Las Vegas, that dealt with the requirement that all vacant lands have chemical stabilizers placed on the land and fences erected around it. Ms. Wilcox noted that she had only recently heard about the PM10 requirements and was beginning to look at the effect of this requirement. She noted that the state did not own a large amount of vacant land in the Las Vegas valley. Mr. Beers asked when the committee could expect an estimate. Ms. Wilcox said that if the committee felt a need for that estimate she would extrapolate it.
Senator Jacobsen indicated that it would be advisable for the agency to create a presentation on state lands in order to provide a visual aid to accompany verbal testimony. Ms. Wilcox stated that there was a PowerPoint presentation for the Tahoe program that would be presented when the committee heard the Tahoe Bond Act. She acknowledged that preparing a presentation for the entirety of state lands would be beneficial for next session. Senator Jacobsen restated that the presentation would be helpful for the committee and the legislature as a whole.
TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY – BUDGET PAGE CNR-162
The Chair recognized Juan Palma, Executive Director, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). Mr. Palma introduced Gordon W. Barrett, Acting Deputy Director, TRPA. Mr. Palma read from his prepared testimony (Exhibit C). He then thanked the committee for their contributions to Lake Tahoe efforts and noted that many of the committee members had been on the TRPA interim committee. Mr. Palma stated that the interim committee recommendations were being considered. He also thanked the Department of Administration and the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
Mr. Palma gave the immediate goals of the TRPA:
Mr. Palma continued his testimony by speaking on the agency’s requests from the Nevada legislature. He noted that an independent firm had examined the TRPA salaries, and determined that the agency was between 7 percent and 26 percent below average. Mr. Palma explained that because TRPA was not considered a state agency by either Nevada or California it was not receiving the state raises, and that was where the gap between salaries was coming from. The agency was requesting $233,000 over the biennium to close that salary gap.
Mr. Palma indicated that the agency was also requesting four new positions. He noted that forest conditions in the Lake Tahoe Basin needed to be improved. The forests needed to be cleansed and then have the natural system of fire introduced. In order to proceed with this improvement the agency was requesting a forest health position. The second position dealt with the grant administration for the agency. The agency previously had 12 grants, and currently was up to 60 grants. This position would be housed in the financial section and would ensure that good, financial records were kept. The final two positions requested by the agency were within the environmental improvement program. The agency was receiving a higher number of complex applications in the $10 million to $20 million application bracket and those two positions would help to improve the time in which those applications were processed.
The agency was also requesting a Threshold Study for the 2007 plan update. The agency had a need to continue scientific studies, but also to monitor where the nine Lake Tahoe thresholds were. Mr. Palma noted that California had agreed to assist in this study. The agency was requesting $200,000 per year from Nevada, and $400,000 per year from California.
Mr. Palma noted that the TRPA was requesting an additional $38,667 from the DMV air pollution control fund. Those funds were to be used for the TRPA air quality program.
Mr. Palma then discussed the TRPA’s fines and forfeitures. He noted that when a person violated a Lake Tahoe code or rule a fine could be levied on the individual. In previous years the fines had been put into an agency account, and some employees were funded from that account. Questions had been raised about the legitimacy of this process. The agency was currently proposing to place the fines and forfeitures into a new separate account. The Science Advisory Committee would then recommend what those funds should be used for, including studies and scientific purposes. The TRPA would approve those recommendations and use those monies for areas outside of employee salaries.
Senator O’Donnell stated that this new process still appeared to be slightly incestuous and then inquired as to why not allow those monies to be placed into the General Fund and have the legislature approve the programs that the funds would be used for. Mr. Palma stated that he did not know the legalities in the contract regarding fines, and acknowledged that Senator O’Donnell’s idea was valid, but was unsure of how to legally account for the funds. Mr. Barrett said that the TRPA had struggled with the concept, and stated that one of the issues was that 46 percent of the TRPA budget was from California; 30 percent was from local governments, fines, grants, and fees; and 24 percent was from Nevada. He noted that California might take offense at having monies from fines generated in California being placed in the Nevada General Fund. In order to avoid having to separate monies between states, the agency thought that the simplest idea was to place it into a mitigation fee account, like was done for water quality, and have local governments apply for projects. The concept was to use the monies that the TRPA had for outside contract work that did not benefit the staff, but did benefit Lake Tahoe. Mr. Barrett noted that research was a necessary component of this plan, and it appeared appropriate to have those participating in the research to make recommendations. The hope was that this would eliminate the issue of raising money by fines to support the staff. Because of the fact that there were many different parties involved, Mr. Barrett stated that he did not know if it was appropriate for Nevada to distribute the funds.
Senator O’Donnell suggested that when a fine occurred in California those monies would go to California and when a fine occurred in Nevada those monies would go to the Nevada General Fund, but noted that there might be a compromise. Senator O’Donnell expressed his appreciation for the fact that the division was attempting to find a solution, and stated that he had been trying to find a solution for eight years. He also noted that the agency had completed some good steps to remedy the “fine quid pro quo salary” issue. He asked if the fine monies could be made into a grant type fund, were people could apply for money, as opposed to research. Senator O’Donnell asked if there were any research positions within the agency. Mr. Barrett said that there were no positions that participated in active research, but rather that the agency contracted to independent companies for research needs, and noted that the agency was requesting $600,000 from different states for EIP threshold research. Senator O’Donnell noted that there remained the slight inference that the agency needed to have the threshold research done, so they should fine more people. If the agency controlled the money and then determined what should be done with it, then it had the same effect. If the money was made available for grants for research or projects, then it would not have the same stigma. Mr. Barrett stated his belief that conceptually he and Senator O’Donnell were in “the same ball park.” Mr. Barrett indicated that the EIP had a significant research element in it, which needed to be funded along with projects, and this money was being distributed to researchers through a grant system. The researchers would present the intended research to the Science Advisory Board, and they determined who should receive the grant. The only difference Mr. Barrett recognized between the TRPA’s system and the one Senator O’Donnell was proposing was possibly allowing the monies to fund EIP projects. Senator O’Donnell asked if the funds were dispersed within an open meeting. Mr. Barrett responded that the Scientific Advisory Group included a number of different agencies that met regularly. The actual distribution occurred at a public meeting with the board. Senator O’Donnell requested that those grants be expanded to the EIP projects, and commended and thanked the TRPA for their actions in the matter.
Mr. Palma stated that the TRPA would definitely consider Senator O’Donnell’s comments, and would continue to enhance the concepts and proposals.
Senator Jacobsen indicated that the committee might decide to call the TRPA back to testify again, due to a lack of time in this meeting.
HEIL WILD HORSE BEQUEST – BUDGET PAGE CNR-170
The Chair recognized Catherine Barcomb, Administrator, Commission for the Preservation of Wild Horses, to testify on Budget Account 4156. Ms. Barcomb indicated that as opposed to previous status quo budgets she had presented, this session there was an enhancement that she would touch on in a few moments.
Ms. Barcomb briefly mentioned each decision unit; M-100 dealt with inflation, M‑150 dealt with adjustment to the base budget to remove a grant received for the BLM in the previous session that was not being carried forward, M-201 was for inmate clerical assistance one day a week at the commission office, M-251 was rent adjustment, M-300 was benefits, M-301 was COLA, and M-800 was director’s office cost share.
Ms. Barcomb gave a brief history of the commission. In the 1997 legislature the commission was mandated to write a state management plan for wild horses and burros. This was an advisory agency, and was not managing the horses and burros. The agency traveled the state for two years, and held public hearings. From this the agency wrote the state management plan that represented a compilation of the wishes of the people of Nevada. The 1999 Legislative Session requested that the agency expand, and study the feasibility of creating a National Wild Horse and Burro non-profit foundation. This had been one of the recommendations from the state management plan, as well as the recommendation for the prison holding facility for wild horses under inmate care. Ms. Barcomb noted that the agency had worked hard on those proposals, and completed two studies. One of the studies was on the feasibility of the foundation, and the other was on the cost aspects of establishing and running a foundation. The report on the feasibility of a foundation was a positive report, and encouraged the agency to complete the cost aspect report. This study dealt with start-up costs and running costs for two years. She noted that the BLM had approached Congress, and received an offer for half of the funding for the foundation. The total that the foundation needed for two and a half years was $800,000. Ms. Barcomb noted that the commission was recommending spending $400,000 of the agency’s trust fund with a matching $400,000 from Congress to begin the foundation. She noted that efforts had been concentrated on assisting with the adoption program, rather than on land-management.
Mr. Parks asked about the requirements of the trust regarding whether or not there was a certain level of funds that must be maintained. He also asked if there was a possibility of the program generating funds in cooperation with the prison system. Ms. Barcomb explained that there was a Bill Draft Request (BDR) regarding the level of the trust fund. It would allow the agency to lower the level of the trust below $900,000 with legislative approval. Currently the law stated that the trust could be lowered below $900,000 with legislative approval in an emergency. The agency had worked with Mike Nolan and the Governor’s Office on this BDR, and both were recommending the change. Ms. Barcomb then addressed Mr. Parks’ second question. She noted the agency had worked with the department of prisons and developed a program that would not cost the agency any money from their budget. The prisons would hold up to 400 wild horses from the BLM, which would be paying the state to hold the horses. There had been projections about the cost to build the facility, as well as proposals to receive used material from the Department of Transportation to lower this cost. Ms. Barcomb noted that after building costs there was the potential to create revenue for the state of almost $300,000 in the first two years.
Mrs. de Braga asked whether that money would return to the prison program. Ms. Barcomb was unsure about where those monies would go within the prison budget. Mrs. de Braga asked if there were plans to replace the money from the trust. Ms. Barcomb indicated that the trust funds could be replaced by grant funds, or by donations.
Senator Jacobsen indicated that the Heil Wild Horse Bequest budget should reappear before the committee at a future date.
Senator Jacobsen adjourned the meeting at 10:58 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Andrea Carothers
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Lawrence Jacobsen, Chairman
DATE: