MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Finance
Seventy-First Session
April 11, 2001
The Senate Committee on Financewas called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio at 8:13 a.m., on Wednesday, April 11, 2001, in Room 2134 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Vice Chairman
Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen
Senator William R. O’Donnell
Senator Joseph M. Neal Jr.
Senator Bob Coffin
Senator Bernice Mathews
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Gary L. Ghiggeri, Fiscal Analyst
Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Judy Jacobs, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
John P. Comeaux, Director, Department of Administration
Judge Peter I. Breen, Department 7, Second Judicial District, District Courts
Judge Jack Lehman, Department 9, Eighth Judicial District, District Courts
Barry Lovgren, Interested Citizen
John N. Marr, Executive Director, Choices Group, Inc.
Lorraine T. Hunt, Lieutenant Governor, Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Bob Gagnier, Lobbyist, State of Nevada Employees Association
Rodney Smith, Vice Chairman, Clark County Wildlife Advisory Board
Peter Liakopoulos, Writer and Host, Outdoor Adventures
R. Michael Turnipseed, Director, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Greg Bookout, Desert Chapter Safari Club International, Las Vegas
Harold Lister, President, Nevada State Rifle and Pistol Association
Rick Elmore, Director, Nevada Bighorns Unlimited
Larry Johnson, Director, Nevada Bighorns Unlimited; Chairman, Nevada Coalition of Nevada’s Wildlife
Paul A. Grace, Lobbyist, Nevada State Rifle & Pistol Association
Bill Bradley, Vice Chairman, Board of Wildlife Commissioners, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Boyd Spratling, Chairman, Board of Wildlife Commissioners, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Freeman K. Johnson, Assistant Director, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Joseph L. Johnson, Lobbyist, Toiyabe Chapter, Sierra Club
Donald A. Molde, M.D., Nevada Humane Society
Al Bellister, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association
Randy Robison, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Boards
Gary L. Ghiggeri, Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, gave an update on the latest revenue information and the status of bills referred to the Senate Committee on Finance. He said the information from the State Gaming Control Board indicated February win was down 7.02 percent, but the February collections increased by 10.26 percent compared to a year earlier. He noted the state is still at -1.1 percent year to date as compared to the estimate by the Economic Forum of 5.9 percent.
Senator Raggio pointed out that means actual revenues are, in essence, nearly 7 percent below the projections made for fiscal year (FY) 2001. He explained anyone supporting a bill requiring appropriations that are not in the Governor’s budget should be aware of the problem. He said those are the last figures the Legislature will receive on gaming revenues. Mr. Ghiggeri noted information from sales taxes will be available in about a week.
Senator Raggio asked what to anticipate from sales tax. Mr. Ghiggeri responded sales tax was projected to grow by 5.9 percent during the present fiscal year, but the state is down .8 percent for the year.
Mr. Ghiggeri reported if there is no growth in gaming, the revenue estimate for the fiscal year would be reduced by almost $33 million. Senator Raggio recalled information had been received from the Office of the State Treasurer that interest income would probably be lower than anticipated. Mr. Ghiggeri responded that preliminary information from the treasurer’s office for transmittal to the Economic Forum indicates interest income is projected to be $8 million less this fiscal year than the original projection. Senator Raggio concluded the real reduction is probably nearer to $41 million less for this fiscal year. Mr. Ghiggeri pointed out there has been no opportunity to review the treasurer’s estimate.
Senator Raggio asked Mr. Comeaux whether he had any other information.
John P. Comeaux, Director, Department of Administration, replied the administration is aware of the numbers, and the information in the Budget Office confirms them. Senator Raggio noted that is the reason the Administration and the Legislature need to work together regarding appropriations recommended for the present fiscal year, including one-shot and supplemental appropriations. Mr. Comeaux agreed.
Senator Raggio surmised the figures will carry over into the next 2 years of the biennium. Mr. Ghiggeri commented if the Economic Forum does not adjust its economic growth rates for FY 2002 and FY 2003, presently projected at 4.7 and 4 percent, and the budget base is built on the revenues actually received in FY 2001, it would reduce revenue in FY 2002 by approximately $34.5 million, and approximately $36 million in FY 2003.
Mr. Ghiggeri said if the Economic Forum reduces its projections for FY 2002 and FY 2003 by .5 percent, the short-fall in those years would increase to $37.3 million and $41.8 million.
Senator Raggio noted the bills that are nonexempt must be processed no later than Monday. Mr. Ghiggeri reviewed the nonexempt bills remaining to be heard. Committee members discussed when hearings would be held in order to hear all bills pending in Senate committees. Senator Raggio noted several bills were awaiting action.
SENATE BILL 138: Exempts Colorado River commission from State Budget Act. (BDR 31-344)
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO DO PASS SENATE BILL 138.
SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator O’Donnell commented the Colorado River Commission provides hydroelectric power, and the measure provides a pass through in terms of the money received versus funds expended for power. He asked whether the state would lose control. Senator Raggio responded the commission would have to get approval of its budget from the Legislature.
Senator Neal asked whether the Colorado River Commission could produce power. Senator Raggio answered the bill would have no affect on that.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
SENATE BILL 145: Revises provisions governing distribution of money from state to school districts and charter schools. (BDR 34-169)
Senator Raggio noted the law requires the payment of funds through the Distributive School Account (DSA) by specific dates. He explained the funding has not been received on some of those dates, and there is no practical way to transfer the money until it is received. He provided committee members with copies of an amendment proposed by the Office of the State Controller (Exhibit C). The chairman pointed out the dates were left the same with a modification that the funds be distributed on or as soon as possible after the designated dates.
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AS AMENDED SENATE BILL 145 WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
SENATE BILL 196: Revises provisions relating to eligibility of school districts for grants of money to purchase library books. (BDR S-1124)
Senator Raggio recalled Senate Bill (S.B.) 196 was heard on March 19. He pointed out the measure was approved during the last session to appropriate funds to school districts for the purchase of library books, based upon the ability of the county to match the funding. The expenditures by district are depicted in a memorandum to Douglas Thunder in the Department of Education dated April 3, 2001 (Exhibit D). The chairman recalled earlier testimony that indicated smaller counties were unable to match the sums, and S.B. 196 would extend the date of the reversion. Mr. Ghiggeri reported Senator Mathews suggested the reversion date, depicted on line 5, page 3, of S.B. 196 be changed to June 30, 2002, instead of 2001.
According to Senator Raggio, the committee intended to make the remaining funds available to grant to those districts that have not yet obtained a match, and the funds would not otherwise be distributed.
SENATOR MATHEWS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS SENATE BILL 196 WITH THE DATE FOR REVERSION CHANGED TO 2002 TO ENSURE THE OPPORTUNITY IS AVAILABLE FOR DISTRIBUTION OF THE FUNDS TO DISTRICTS UNABLE TO MAKE THE MATCH EARLIER.
SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
SENATE BILL 480: Extends date for submittal of biennial budgets proposed by state agencies. (BDR 31-1441)
Senator Raggio pointed out Section 1 of S.B. 480 would remove the arbitrary date of August 15 for agencies to submit budgets and allow the Governor to set the date. He noted the Department of Administration would be receptive to changing the date to September 1. Mr. Comeaux concurred.
As depicted in Section 2 of S.B. 480, Senator Raggio said the administration indicated a preference for the report from the Economic Forum to be delivered by November 1 rather than by December 1. Senator Raggio opined it would be better not to include that change in the recommendation, thus providing one more month of information that would be available to the Economic Forum. He pointed out the present legislative session has shown that it is better to receive the latest information. He voiced the understanding that the Economic Forum has provided preliminary estimates prior to that date, which could be utilized by the administration.
Mr. Comeaux indicated the administration would be willing to change both dates.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO AMEND SECTION 1 OF S.B. 480 TO CHANGE THE DATE FROM AUGUST 15 TO SEPTEMBER 1, BUT NOT TO AMEND SECTION 2 BY ALLOWING SECTION 2 TO STAND AS IS LAW AT THE PRESENT AND TO DO PASS AS AMENDED.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
SENATE BILL 500: Revises various provisions of University Securities Law. (BDR 34-915)
Senator Raggio recalled that representatives from the university appeared on April 9, 2001, and suggested the bill be amended to reflect certain changes that have taken place in the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). He handed out copies of a letter (Exhibit E) written to Tim Ortez at the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN) on January 14, 2000, explaining the revisions in the UCC and how they could affect state and university bonding. The Chairman drew attention to proposed amendments to S.B. 500 on the last two pages of Exhibit E and explained the changes. He said the bill would become effective July 1, 2001, and thus would avoid any adverse amendments to Article 9 of the UCC.
Senator Coffin asked what would happen if there were revenue dates that needed an effective date prior to July 1, such as bills effective upon passage. Senator Raggio pointed out the measure applies only to the university, and he knew of no bills that would be affected.
Senator Rawson disclosed he is an employee of UCCSN, but he would not be affected by the bill.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS SENATE BILL 500 WITH THE AMENDMENT DISCUSSED.
SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR O’DONNELL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Senator Raggio announced the hearing would have to adjourn by 10:30. He asked those making presentations to be concise and avoid repetitiveness. He said he had a request to hear S.B. 143, S.B. 429, and S.B. 430 as a group. He noted those bills deal with the courts and would be heard next in order to accommodate several judges that were present.
SENATE BILL 143: Makes appropriations to judicial districts in Clark and Washoe counties for continuation of programs of treatment for abuse of alcohol or controlled substances. (BDR S-178)
SENATE BILL 429: Makes appropriation to Administrator of the Courts of Second Judicial District for continuation of its programs of treatment for abuse of alcohol or drugs. (BDR S-1352)
SENATE BILL 430: Makes appropriation to Administrator of the Courts of Eighth Judicial District for continuation of its programs of treatment for abuse of alcohol or drugs. (BDR S-1353)
Judge Peter I. Breen, Department 7, Second Judicial District, District Courts, said he presides over the adult drug court in Department 7, and he was representing the adult, family, and juvenile drug courts in the district.
Senator Raggio interjected there may be some duplication in the bills, and he requested those testifying to specify which bills they wished to support.
Judge Breen said S.B. 143 was duplicative and recommended setting it aside. He also proposed amending S.B. 429 to request $350,000 rather than $300,000, which, he noted, was the same amount in S.B. 143. He proposed adding the provisions of S.B. 429 to S.B.430. Senator Raggio indicated S.B. 429 dealt with the Second Judicial District, while S.B. 430 dealt with the Eighth Judicial District. He clarified that the suggestion by Judge Breen was to combine the bills. Judge Breen said the total amount of the appropriation would be $350,000 for the Second Judicial District, and $700,000 for the Eighth Judicial District, for a total of $1,050,000.
Senator Raggio noted the appropriations were included in The Executive Budget, but the appropriation for the Second Judicial District Court was $330,000 in S.B. 429, whereas the Judge was requesting it be augmented to $350,000.
Judge Breen distributed copies of the Washoe County Adult Drug Report (Exhibit F) presented to the Washoe County Board of Commissioners last year. Senator Raggio requested Judge Breen to remark on activities in the program that he considered successful.
Judge Breen stated:
If you get arrested for drug use, abuse, and get into the criminal system, if you go to drug court, you can have a 20 percent chance of being rearrested; 20 percent or less. If you do not go to a drug court, you have an 80 percent chance of rearrest.
That is what the statistics show nationally, and that is what they show, a little bit better, in our respective drug courts. Thereby we save the government an enormous amount of money by not having to process these people, and we improve the quality of the lives of these people by helping them improve their lives and get off of drugs.
Senator Raggio asked the judge to explain the difference between a drug court and a diversion court. Judge Breen responded in Washoe County a diversion court has been started because there are not sufficient funds to deal with all the individuals who are arrested on those types of charges. He explained they are people who are often placed on probation, some of whom do not need much attention, but are sent to drug court.
Senator Raggio observed the report indicates approximately 250 to 300 defendants will be processed through the diversion court next year. Judge Breen responded currently approximately 130 individuals go through diversion court while 250 to 300 go through drug court.
Judge Jack Lehman, Department 9, Eighth Judicial District, District Court, reported he is the drug court judge for the adult drug court as well as the early release drug court in which prisoners are released directly from state prison. He noted the Clark County drug court was the fifth in the United States, started in October 1992, and there are now over 800 drug courts nationwide. He said the number of drug courts has greatly expanded because of their success in getting people off drugs.
Judge Lehman said since 1992 1,720 people have graduated from the full year program imposed by drug court. He said 303 of those individuals have been arrested and reconvicted of additional crimes, or have become recidivists, which equates to a recidivism rate of 17 percent, substantially below the figure of 80 percent cited by Judge Breen.
Judge Lehman stated the most glaring statistic is, in the year 2000, 36 drug-free babies were born to drug addicts who were under the supervision of the drug court in Clark County. He reported the average drug-afflicted baby requires over $200,000 in neonatal costs alone; therefore, the court saved a substantial amount for the state. He said in the first quarter of 2001 there have been 17 more drug‑free babies born to drug addicts.
Judge Lehman said 277 people have gone through drug court as a result of funding provided 2 years ago by the Legislature, plus 59 youths were added to the juvenile drug court in Clark County. He stated the effectiveness of treatment services has improved by reducing the client to therapist ratio. He pointed out the statistics were set forth in a one-page handout (Exhibit G) distributed to the committee. Senator Raggio noted that 83 percent of adult graduates from the program had no further criminal convictions, which, in his opinion, is a good record.
Senator Raggio asked why there was a need to increase the Washoe County appropriation from $330,000 to $350,000. Judge Breen answered costs per person in the program have increased slightly. He pointed out the program has about the lowest costs per person in the nation, and he added the increase should help accommodate a few more people.
Senator Raggio asked whether the administration had any objection to the additional $20,000. Mr. Comeaux indicated the administration was in the process of attempting to determine how to cut the budget, but, he opined, $20,000 should not make a difference one way or the other.
Barry Lovgren, Interested Citizen, commented the three bills (S.B. 143, S.B. 429, and S.B. 430) would appropriate taxpayers’ monies to the courts for substance abuse programs with no requirement that the programs be certified by the Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse (BADA). He asserted the omission of the requirement was in violation of statutes governing use of state funds for treatment programs and for treatment programs to which the courts are allowed to assign defendants.
Mr. Lovgren spoke from written testimony (Exhibit H) to which he attached sections of the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) and the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). He asserted state funds and defendants have been going to uncertified programs provided by “Choices, Unlimited,” an entity which has been certified, but for which its programs have not been certified. He made the distinction that Choices, Unlimited, provides certified drug court assessments and referral, but not certified treatment. He went on to explain his concerns, as contained in his written testimony.
Mr. Lovgren pointed out specific sections in the statutes under which the program fails to comply, also attached to his testimony. He indicated both his objections and S.B. 143 use the same provisions of the statutes, NRS 453.580. He argued that no court in Nevada has established a treatment program, but rather the courts have acted as a conduit to other programs.
In response to a question from Senator Raggio, Mr. Lovgren explained Choices, Unlimited is a private organization that provides treatment programs and is the ultimate recipient of the funds. He noted he had no interest in the programs, but was only speaking as an interested citizen.
Mr. Lovgren emphasized that a court may only assign someone to a BADA-certified treatment program under the statutes. He charged it is fiscally irresponsible to spend state funds on a program that has not been certified by the state. He noted there are 33 programs in Washoe and Clark Counties that could easily obtain certification, and he asserted none of the three bills should be passed out of committee without amendments requiring the funds be provided only for BADA‑certified programs.
Senator Raggio asked whether Mr. Lovgren had expressed his concerns to the respective drug courts. Mr. Lovgren responded he had not, although he did testify against an Assembly bill on the same grounds.
Judge Lehman said John Marr, the director of Choices, Unlimited, was present. He requested that Mr. Marr address the charges, which the judge characterized as ludicrous. Judge Breen concurred.
John N. Marr, Executive Director, Choices Group, Inc., explained the name of his organization was formerly Choices, Unlimited, and had been changed. He distributed a response to the charges (Exhibit I) while explaining that Mr. Lovgren had made similar allegations before an Assembly committee during the previous week.
Mr. Marr drew attention to copies in his handout of BADA-certification documents. He noted the company had certification for all three program levels, a Drug Court Treatment Agency, an Outpatient Treatment Agency, and an Intensive Outpatient Treatment Agency. He noted the organization has been fully compliant with BADA standards and regulations. He added since certification, Choices Group, Inc., has received no funding from BADA, although the company worked with the drug courts and BADA several years ago to develop new criteria for certification. He reiterated the Choices Group, Inc., is a fully certified treatment agency.
Senator Raggio asked Mr. Lovgren whether his concerns were answered. He replied, “Partially.” He stated, “The requirement to be approved by the Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse is not contingent upon receiving Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse funding. It is contingent upon receiving state funds for alcohol and drug abuse . . .”
Senator Raggio interjected Mr. Lovgren had made the comment the Choices organization was not certified, but the programs appeared to be certified. Mr. Lovgren, referring to the dates of the certification documents, acknowledged Mr. Marr’s programs were certified March 19, 2001, and provided new information to Mr. Lovgren.
Mr. Lovgren voiced encouragement for the amendment he proposed in his testimony regarding restrictions on use of funds to BADA-certified programs.
Senator Raggio noted the Lieutenant Governor’s presence and opened the hearing on Senate Bill 146 to accommodate her schedule.
SENATE BILL 146: Revises provisions governing employees of office of lieutenant governor. (BDR 18-120)
Lorraine T. Hunt, Lieutenant Governor, Office of the Lieutenant Governor, spoke on behalf of S.B. 146, as set forth in her written testimony (Exhibit J). She requested that current employee positions in her office be deemed non-classified. She noted all branches of state government have non-classified employees, and the people in her office should be considered. She asserted the change would provide more accountability for the Office of Lieutenant Governor and would allow flexibility for the future. Likewise, she declared, the Lieutenant Governor would be provided a valuable management tool, which would allow for the most cost-efficient level of management.
Senator Raggio asked what difficulties she encountered in recruiting suitable staff members. The Lieutenant Governor responded that she has had very dedicated people willing to work in the office. She asserted, “I have some really overqualified people that are being underpaid, but fortunately they are loyal.” She added that the position and job of lieutenant governor is evolving and changing daily, especially in its involvement in the high-technology world, which requires different skills. She opined that will probably continue.
Senator Raggio noted the Lieutenant Governor had seven employees, and asked whether she could prioritize those she would prefer to be non-classified. In response, Lieutenant Governor Hunt explained there are two offices, one in Las Vegas and one in Carson City. She acknowledged there are secretarial staff members in each office, a total of six employees, and she is the seventh member of the team. She declared four employees should be in the non-classified category and agreed to provide a list of those recommended for that status.
Senator Neal voiced curiosity regarding the determination of benefits in S.B. 146. He acknowledged he had no problem regarding the salary, but he indicated concern regarding benefits. Lieutenant Governor Hunt responded the benefits would be the same as those set by statute for other non-classified employees. She noted all employee appropriations would have to fit within any budget set by the Legislature for her office.
Senator Jacobsen asked how well the Lieutenant Governor has been able to cover the entire state with just two office locations. Lieutenant Governor Hunt replied currently one employee is assigned to rural concerns and has had difficulty covering the entire state. She pointed out her focus has been very aggressive in rural areas both in tourism and economic development, and she could use one more person to cover the area.
Senator Jacobsen commended her for the effort she has put forth, especially in rural areas that have not experienced similar attention in the past.
Bob Gagnier, Lobbyist, State of Nevada Employees Association (SNEA), testified against S.B. 146. He noted there are a number of bills that would put employees into the non-classified status, and SNEA opposes all of them.
Mr. Gagnier stated, 2 years ago when the Governor first proposed the concept, SNEA withdrew its opposition with reservations because it recognized a potential for the premise to creep into other agencies. He asserted the Office of the Governor from other state-elected officials, and remarked even the federal government makes a differentiation. Mr. Gagnier said the Governor’s office is exempt from statutes relating to the Fair Labor Standards Act; however, all other elected officials are not exempt.
Mr. Gagnier opined other elected officials should not be permitted to institute non‑classified status for their employees because the Governor was given the ability to do so last session. He suggested it be made clear the only way the concept of non-classified status can lead to higher salaries for some staff positions is for others to have lower salaries, or for the positions to go unfilled. He admitted it is of concern to SNEA that positions will go unfilled in order to provide a greater salary to higher-level positions. He charged when that happens, the agency will return to the Legislature to request an increase in staff.
Mr. Gagnier asserted there are other problems. He explained when there is expansion into non-classified status, eligibility is changed under state law for time and a half overtime pay. He noted, in many instances, those employees are no longer eligible for overtime.
Mr. Gagnier reiterated the changes are inappropriate, and if higher salaries are needed, they should be addressed in the unclassified pay bill.
Lieutenant Governor Hunt responded she understood Mr. Gagnier’s concern and did not disagree. However, she opined, the Office of the Lieutenant Governor, with six employees, is unique and evolving, and the bill would provide the ability to maximize efficiency for better government.
Senator Raggio commented the request was similar to that of the Office of the Governor to provide flexibility to utilize the same amount of funding and not increase it. He noted one of Mr. Gagnier’s concerns was that funds would be used for high-paid positions, which might result in lower positions not being filled. Lieutenant Governor Hunt responded the lower positions would not be made any lower. Senator Raggio pointed out the concern was those positions would be left unfilled, and funding would be utilized for higher positions. The Lieutenant Governor admitted that would be a possible option in the future, if it would make the office more efficient.
SENATE BILL 136: Eliminates exclusion of certain employees from provisions requiring additional compensation for overtime. (BDR 53-306)
Senator Raggio asked whether anyone was present to address S.B. 136. Seeing none, he requested staff to confer with the Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor to determine whether anyone wished to appear. Meanwhile, he opened the hearing on S.B. 30.
SENATE BILL 30: Makes various changes to provisions relating to wildlife. (BDR 45-647)
Senator Raggio noted the bill was introduced at the request of Senator O’Connell, who sent a message that she would be unable to appear. He announced she had submitted two letters from Cecil Fredi containing proposed amendments (Exhibit K and Exhibit L). He read a portion of the second letter, Exhibit L, written on February 27, 2001, in which Mr. Fredi advocated instituting a Department of Fish and Game, moving the function out of the State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, and installing a director. Calling it an “out of control state agency,” Mr. Fredi pointed out 95 percent of the agency is funded by sportsmen, not taxpayers.
Senator Raggio referred to another letter written by John K. Rogers, Chairperson of the Washoe County Advisory Board to Manage Wildlife, dated April 10, 2001 (Exhibit M). The letter indicated a meeting had been held in which all five members present passed a motion recommending the Nevada Division of Wildlife be restored to a free-standing agency independent of the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.
Another letter, summarized by Senator Raggio, was written April 10, 2001, by Donald A. Molde, M.D. (Exhibit N). The chairman noted the letter was written on behalf of the Nevada Humane Society in opposition to several aspects of S.B. 30.
Senator Raggio reported he had also received a letter from Peter Liakopoulos (Exhibit O), who was present in the room, and another from Wilford D. Allen, Chairman of the Clark County Wildlife Advisory Board (Exhibit P), both supporting S.B. 30. He took note of another letter endorsing S.B. 30 from Tommy A. Ford (Exhibit Q), member of the Wildlife Commission, and one from Harold Lister (Exhibit R), President, Nevada State Rifle and Pistol Association, indicating the organization preferred having a separate division in order to provide better accountability of funds and availability to the public.
Rodney Smith, Vice Chairman, Clark County Wildlife Advisory Board, reported several meetings were held on S.B. 30, and no sportsmen’s groups have come out against the bill. He noted one organization posed some good questions regarding the bill and left the Clark County Wildlife Advisory Board satisfied with the provisions of S.B. 30.
In response to a question by Senator Raggio, Mr. Smith said he was a member of several clubs. He suggested it would be better to have the director answer to a state board appointed by the Governor. Mr. Smith indicated he was endorsing amendments to be addressed by Mr. Liakopoulos, which was the consensus of most of his associates. Senator Raggio interjected he would like someone to outline the specifics of the proposals.
Peter Liakopoulos, Writer and Host, Outdoor Adventures, went over his proposals (Exhibit O) for amending S.B. 30. Regarding the specifics in the bill, he said his associates would prefer the Division of Wildlife be changed to a department, and the number of commissioners in Clark County increased. He said it would be preferable to have the budget approved by the Board of Wildlife Commissioners. Mr. Liakopoulos noted the group was in favor of a fee for predator control, which has been included in Assembly Bill 291.
ASSEMBLY BILL 291: Imposes additional fee for processing application for game tag for support of programs to control predators and protect wildlife habitat. (BDR 45-169)
Mr. Liakopoulos clarified the fee provision in S.B. 30 could be removed because it was already addressed in A.B. 291 in order to avoid redundancy. Senator Raggio pointed out either bill would have to pass two houses. Mr. Liakopoulos agreed that if A.B. 291 did not pass, the fee provision should be included in S.B. 30.
Senator Raggio asked whether Mr. Liakopoulos had the specific amendments written out. In response, Mr. Liakopoulos said he did not. Senator Raggio stated the committee requires that specific amendments be presented in writing, according to policy. He asked that the proposed amendments be as complete as possible.
Mr. Liakopoulos noted there is consensus among sportsmen’s groups from all over the state, and expressed hope the committee would take that into consideration. He asserted sportsmen are looking for leadership from the committee to support the issues. Mr. Liakopoulos pointed out federal funding is available for wildlife and cannot be commingled with other funds. He remarked two states were fined and funding had to be repaid due to commingling.
Mr. Liakopoulos asserted the state wildlife board would be more responsive to sportsmen’s needs if the division were converted to a department. He offered the opinion the wildlife board has done an excellent job listening to county boards, and he indicated most members of county advisory boards, appointed by county government, have been able to offer direct input to the state board. He suggested conversion to a department would provide even greater efficiency.
Senator Raggio pointed out the issue would not pertain to wildlife alone. He noted legislative committees are reluctant to create new departments, particularly after going through many years of reorganization in the state. He suggested the committee needs to hear why it would be more effective, and why the expenses involved would be necessary, to change a division under the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources to a standalone department.
Senator Raggio reminded the audience that at one time the wildlife agency was a department. After serious consideration, he said, the agency was transferred to the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources when the state was reorganized. He indicated the responsibilities of the agency do not apply only to sportsmen. He declared he was not taking any side on the issue, but emphasized the committee would need solid reasons to make such a change. Senator Raggio pointed out the Legislature has a tremendous amount of responsibility to government as a whole. He said the committee has the responsibility to prepare a budget, meet deadlines, and find the best way to facilitate the process.
Mr. Liakopoulos responded there appears to be an $80,000 difference in funds. He explained Terry Crawforth, Division of Wildlife Administrator, indicated $80,000 would be needed to change the division to a department, primarily to change logos, printing on trucks, badges, and for similar expenses. Senator Raggio interjected the committee did not have a fiscal note, and Mr. Liakopoulos offered to provide copies. Senator Raggio also asked Mr. Turnipseed to provide a fiscal note on S.B. 30. R. Michael Turnipseed, Director, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, indicated he would provide a fiscal note.
Mr. Liakopoulos noted the newspapers reported an excess of $2.7 million in department reserves, derived from the division. When asked by the Chairman, he was unable to distinguish whether the funds were in the obligated reserve or the unobligated reserve. Senator Raggio advised him that funds in either reserve, obligated or unobligated, should not be characterized as excess money. Mr. Liakopoulos suggested budget processing would probably follow current lines, whether or not the wildlife agency continued as a division or became a standalone department.
Mr. Liakopoulos asserted the most important concern of sportsmen is the number of sorties being flown. He reported he had been told only one-half to one-third the number of sorties have been flown since the agency became a division as were flown when it was a department. He explained there is a fly-over once every 2 or 3 years, which provides biologists in the division better control. He noted a formula is used, and, should the figures be incorrect, the estimated numbers in the herds will be in error. The numbers in the herds are used to determine how many licenses and tags should be issued, he said. Mr. Liakopoulos commented that is an example of how a department can effect an important improvement.
Senator Raggio recollected one of the letters indicated “this is an out-of-control agency.” He asked whether sportsmen’s groups had the same attitude. Mr. Liakopoulos responded most sportsmen would not characterize it as such.
Senator Raggio asked which sportsmen’s groups support S.B. 30. Mr. Smith answered the Fraternity of Desert Bighorn Sheep, Trout Unlimited, Las Vegas Bird Dog Club, Ducks, Unlimited and numerous other clubs in Clark County support S.B. 30. Senator Raggio asked to be provided a list of sportsmen’s groups with official positions in support of S.B. 30 and the amendments discussed.
Greg Bookout, Desert Chapter, Safari Club International, Las Vegas, stated the Safari Club International has testified for years in Washington, D.C., about wildlife issues, but has never testified in Carson City. He asserted that fact, alone, should indicate how important the passage of S. B. 30 is to sportsmen of the state. He said his appearance before the Nevada Legislature was not a quick decision for Safari Club International, but members expressed concern about recent problems in the state and wondered how to rectify them. He noted his testimony was approved by the club’s board of directors.
Mr. Bookout declared the reversion to a department, rather than a division, seems to be the most important issue. He said:
Safari Club embraces this bill for its focus of looking beyond the current administration to establish and ensure the future of quality hunting opportunities in the State of Nevada. What is created today will determine the future that our generation leaves behind.
Mr. Bookout stated there are two other important parts of the bill. He said the “Department of Wildlife” needs the money and ability to manage mountain lions, and S.B. 30 would provide both. He suggested the state learn from mistakes made in California when a hunting ban on mountain lions was imposed in 1972. He asserted mountain lions decimated bighorn sheep to the point where the federal government had to step in and place bighorn sheep on the endangered species list. However, he said, even though mountain lions are protected, California has killed 293 more than Nevada has in the past 20 years. He reiterated S.B. 30 will provide for better management of mountain lions.
Mr. Bookout asserted the other part of the bill would provide good government in the form of accountability. He said the Nevada Division of Wildlife has a budget of $20 million, and though the wildlife commission currently reviews the budget, it has no authority to exercise control over spending. He averred accountability needs to be included so that someone will be in charge of monitoring the budget.
Mr. Bookout reiterated his plea to pass Senate Bill 30, saying, “It is good for the sportsmen, it is good for the natural resource, and it is good for the government.”
Harold Lister, President, Nevada State Rifle and Pistol Association, reported his members agree that “we had a fairer shake when we had a fish and game commission” because it was more accessible, and more was accomplished. He explained there appeared to be more accountability regarding funds, and the agency was available to listen to members.
Mr. Lister asserted at present most sportsmen feel they are “short-changed” and not heard. He stated they would prefer to have S.B. 30 passed in order to gain more control over matters for which they have paid. He drew attention to his letter (Exhibit R) listing approximately 18 affiliated clubs around the state.
Rick Elmore, Director, Nevada Bighorns Unlimited, said his organization hoped to see the amended version of S.B. 30 pass because members are concerned. Senator Raggio noted there were several proposed amendments. Mr. Elmore testified Nevada Bighorns Unlimited (NBU) endorses the provisions changing the division to a department. He acknowledged the northern part of the state generally opposes giving one more commissioner to Clark County.
Mr. Elmore stated the primary benefit of changing the division to a department would be the likelihood the supervisor of the department would be educated or experienced in wildlife management. He clarified the organization does not believe the agency is out of control, and though most groups feel the current director is receptive to wildlife concerns, there is anxiety about the future. He noted the department is financed, to a large extent, by sportsmen’s money, and the club wants to ensure the funds will be controlled by people motivated regarding wildlife issues.
Senator Raggio asked who Mr. Elmore would envision having supervision over the director of a wildlife department should S.B. 30be enacted as proposed in the amendment. Mr. Elmore responded currently there is one layer of management that would be eliminated should the current administrator assume the position of the director of the department. Also, he added, whoever would be appointed would most likely be someone who has education or experience in wildlife matters. He noted it is not necessarily the circumstance at the moment, although, he said, “in the practical sense it works that way.”
Mr. Elmore indicated the director would still be appointed by the Governor and would report to the Governor.
Senator Raggio asked who would provide supervision, and whether sportsmen were asking that the board have greater supervisory power over the director than at present. He noted some people had mentioned “supervision,” and some had mentioned it was “out of control.” The senator said the committee needs to know what people want and what would be improved should the agency be changed to a department. He asked what would be changed by the board under the proposed amendment.
Mr. Elmore responded at the moment the administrator, Mr. Crawforth, reports directly to the director of the department. He suggested should the agency be converted from a division to a department, the person in Mr. Crawforth’s position would be the director. Senator Raggio interjected the directors of all other agencies or departments report to the Governor. Mr. Elmore acknowledged that would remain the same.
Senator Raggio reiterated his question as to how the role of the board would change and how control of the budget would benefit. Mr. Elmore pointed out there is a provision in S.B. 30 that gives the board additional responsibilities with regard to budgets, but NBU is neutral on the issue of budget responsibility.
Senator Jacobsen thanked Mr. Elmore for his efforts on behalf of the bighorn team, saying that who could pull 4,000 sportsmen together at one time was doing something right. He suggested Mr. Elmore would be a good spokesman for all sportsmen. The senator noted the Legislature has been very protective of the Division of Wildlife over the years, but there seems to be some problem every session.
Senator Raggio noted there have been constant battles between various sportsmen’s groups, and the Legislature has attempted to accommodate as many requests as possible. He stated legislators do not want to see any department placed in the position of a political football because it would not serve the interests of the people of the state. He declared the committee and the Legislature has an obligation not only to sportsmen’s groups but also to the entire population of the state. He noted legislators do not take their responsibilities lightly and want to be thoroughly convinced before making any drastic changes.
Mr. Elmore responded the last thing anyone wants is wildlife issues to become divisive. Senator Raggio interjected sometimes irresponsible voices get mixed in and cause that to happen. He said name calling does not help solve legislative problems. Mr. Elmore said, “We agree.”
Larry Johnson, Director, Nevada Bighorns Unlimited; Chairman, Nevada Coalition of Nevada’s Wildlife, explained the coalition is composed of Northern Nevada sportsmen’s groups. Senator Raggio asked Mr. Johnson to provide a list of groups that have taken a position on S.B. 30. Mr. Johnson agreed to do so.
Mr. Johnson testified sportsmen’s groups in the coalition universally support one measure in S.B. 30, which creates a department of wildlife, rather than a division. He said the other concern is in regard to mountain lions, which is covered by Assembly Bill 291, the predator management bill. Senator Raggio noted action should be taken on S.B. 30 without assuming A.B. 291 will make it to the Senate; therefore the wishes of those testifying should be made known. He pointed out neither house should assume any bill in the other house will pass and become law.
Mr. Johnson indicated the concept is addressed in S.B. 30 on page 21, lines 35 through 38, Section 56, subsection 6, to increase the fee by $5. He noted the provision is repeated on page 26, Section 64, subsection 8. He said the coalition supports the concept of additional funding for predator management, including research, education, and control; however, the coalition does not want both bills passed because they are redundant.
Senator Raggio asked how much the major tag sold for at the last Nevada Bighorns Unlimited dinner. Mr. Johnson answered the Desert Bighorn tag went for $68,000.
Senator Rawson asked whether the issue included in A.B. 291 should be amended into S.B. 30, whether there are different fees for the same purpose, or whether the two bills address different issues. Mr. Johnson replied the two bills impose different fees for the same purpose, and he recommended the wording in A.B. 291 be used.
In order to adhere to committee policy, Senator Raggio proposed Mr. Johnson submit, in writing, the way he would prefer the provisions be set out in S.B. 30, even though the concept is the same. The chairman noted it would provide the committee an amendment to review. Mr. Johnson pointed out the wording in A.B. 291 is supported by the Division of Wildlife and many other organizations.
Mr. Johnson said the coalition prefers department status primarily because many members feel the sport is at risk. He noted sportsmen are under continual fire from animal-protection groups in Nevada and adjacent states, and mountain lion hunting has been stopped entirely in California. He said measures restricting trapping and use of hounds have been passed in Arizona, Oregon, and Colorado. He stated the division’s policies appear to be at risk with the present structure. He opined if a director had a personal bias against the sport, it could influence the division, and the coalition would like to remove that possibility.
Senator Raggio asked whether anything could be done because the Governor appoints the director. Mr. Johnson responded the past director of natural resources and conservation personally opposed trapping, but fortunately he was open-minded enough to meet with sportsmen on several occasions and agreed not to push his personal bias into policies in the division below him. Mr. Johnson acknowledged there was no guarantee a future director would be open-minded or conform with sportsmen’s interests.
Mr. Johnson clarified sportsmen were trying to be far-sighted, not paranoid.
Paul A. Grace, Lobbyist, Nevada State Rifle & Pistol Association, stated he would like to correct the record regarding a letter from Mr. Fredi. Mr. Grace declared he did not quote Senator Rawson as indicated in the letter, rather he voiced his opinion that the original bill would not go forward, based on his earlier discussion with Senator Rawson. He explained his opinion was formed primarily because of the amount of money required.
Mr. Grace related he hunted and fished in five states for more than 50 years, and there have always been fish and game departments with the exception of Nevada. He acknowledged he came to Nevada 6 years ago and was surprised that fish and game was part of another operation and not a separate department. He suggested an extra layer of management would cost more, and it would save money to turn the division into a department.
Senator Raggio pointed out the state would be adding money by creating a new department.
Mr. Grace noted he was fairly successful in finding $52,000 in funds for the sagebrush and bitterbrush reseeding program. He added he is involved in lobbying for A.B. 291.
Senator Raggio interjected the committee only had 15 minutes more in which to hear testimony. He reiterated his request there be no repetitiveness and comments be concise.
Mr. Grace stated the department spent a lot of money bringing in bighorn sheep, but unless there is proper predator control the sheep would become “awfully expensive cat food.”
Senator Coffin commented the sheep may have been improperly placed, because it may have encouraged mountain lions to become predators in that area, and caused the mountain lion population to increase. Mr. Grace agreed it was possible.
Bill Bradley, Vice Chairman, Board of Wildlife Commissioners, stated he was present to support the concepts already enunciated by the sportsmen’s groups regarding S.B. 30. He explained he was making reference to separation of the agency, and budgetary oversight. Mr. Bradley said he could not add much to the previously stated preferences, but expressed the opinion that sportsmen who fund and use the agency feel they should have more input. He asserted there would be better opportunity for input into the agency should there be a separate department with direct communication between sportsmen, the commission, and the head of the Division of Wildlife.
Mr. Bradley declared nobody is in favor of the agency becoming a department of fish and game; rather, they wish it to become a department of wildlife.
Mr. Bradley noted the current director of wildlife has two bosses, or two people who help influence his decisions. He said one is Mr. Turnipseed, the head of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, and the other is the commission that sets policy.
Senator Raggio asked whether the commission perceives it does not have adequate authority. Mr. Bradley responded he was unable to speak on behalf of the entire commission, but he opined at the current time there is “an excellent structure, with an excellent director, an excellent commission, an excellent conservation director, and an excellent Governor.” He asserted the combination is currently working very well.
Mr. Bradley said everyone shares Mr. Johnson’s concern that, should one link in the chains in the link become weak, the sport could be at risk. He reiterated the desire to see the chain shortened.
Senator Raggio recalled someone had concern regarding air operations. He asked whether the commission had problems with the status of air operations, and the fact the equipment is used for other purposes. Mr. Bradley responded that is part of the concern. He said there is a misunderstanding about air operations and their effectiveness.
Mr. Bradley stated Nevada Bighorns Unlimited generated enough money to purchase a helicopter for the Division of Wildlife. He explained when the reorganization took place, the helicopter became the joint property of all the agencies under the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, which “left a bad taste in the mouths of sportsmen.” He stated, in reality, the helicopter is still utilized to accomplish needed surveys, although there is concern among sportsmen’s groups that the same amount of surveys are not being made.
Senator Raggio noted the entire division is not supported by sportsmen, and there is a lot of General Fund money in such entities as the building, the hangars, and much of the equipment. Mr. Bradley agreed.
Senator Raggio asked what the commission deems is lacking in the budget process. Boyd Spratling, Chairman, Board of Wildlife Commissioners, reported commissioners Ford, Quilici, and Moran have voiced specific concerns about the commission’s input on the budget. He explained currently the board is asked to review and comment on the budget before it goes to the Governor. He stated the board can review and comment on the budget, and is held “somewhat responsible to the sportsmen as to our comments.” He said the other commissioners feel that to have direct approval capability on the budget would enable them to have more direct input into the budget process with direct results.
Senator Raggio asked what was being proposed that would be different from what now exists. Mr. Spratling responded currently the board reviews and comments on the budget, whereas the request in S.B. 30 would be to review and approve the budget. Senator Raggio asked whether that would give the board veto power over the division regarding the budget. Mr. Spratling replied, “Correct.”
Mr. Bradley interjected the hope and goal is for a subcommittee of the commission to work with the agency in development and understanding of the budget. He noted concern among members of the commission that the board would be held responsible, should the agency get into financial difficulties. Because of that, he said, there are members of the commission who want to be involved and really understand the budget as it is developed within the agency, as it is then presented to the Governor, and as it comes back with amendments. He explained that will give them a better understanding of the budget, because, if things go bad, they know they will be held responsible.
Mr. Bradley stated that sportsmen are seeking the change in part based on the fact that both the Department of Agriculture and the Division of Minerals, which are primarily user-funded agencies, were moved out in order to allow them to function on their own.
Mr. Bradley opined over the past 15 years the expectations of the agency have grown more dramatically than almost any agency in the state. He stated federal intrusion into public lands has become an overwhelming problem. He said expectations from the agency are increasing daily regarding wild horses, sage grouse, and non-game issues. He suggested the agency needs attention, and sportsmen prefer it be done through the commission.
Senator Raggio asked whether anyone has suggested that the present role, responsibilities, and obligations of the Division of Wildlife should be limited and represent only sportsmen’s groups. Mr. Bradley responded, “Absolutely not.” He asserted the agency is doing a great job with its limited power, and simply needs to be in charge of all wildlife.
Mr. Spratling suggested the agricultural community would be neutral except for the mountain lion issue and a desire on the part of southern Nevadans to have one more commissioner from Clark County.
Mr. Bradley interjected that every organization, including the Board of Wildlife Commissioners, feels the current director is doing an outstanding job.
Mr. Turnipseed pointed out he was not speaking in favor of or against S.B. 30. He listed the agencies currently within the State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, including the Divisions of Conservation Districts, Environmental Protection, Forestry, State Lands, State Parks, Water Resources, Wildlife, and the Natural Heritage Program, which he explained handles the database for endangered species. He said the groups meet once a week to discuss all those various issues. He opined, “I do not see how you can have a discussion on any of those issues without including the Division of Wildlife in the discussion. If they were made a separate department . . . they would not necessarily have to attend.”
Mr. Turnipseed stated he would like to dispel what he characterized as “myths” in a couple of letters cited earlier. He said the allegation that the division “lost” a helicopter would be better described as “gaining a pilot.” He explained, when the division was consolidated into the department, the forestry pilots were cross‑trained to fly jet Rangers owned by the Division of Wildlife, and the division pilots were cross-trained to fly fixed-wing aircraft and rotary Huey aircraft. He explained it offered the opportunity to eliminate one pilot, because it made pilots available to fly on either fires or wildlife counts at any time. He added the sorties are more efficient, and game is counted every year, unlike the allegation in the letter.
In addition to air operations, Mr. Turnipseed said, the department is now co-located in several areas, and a new office building is being constructed in Elko to house parks and wildlife division offices, partly with General Fund appropriations. He added an office building is shared in Winnemucca, and the department is co-located in Las Vegas, at the Minden hangar, and with the Tahoe unit in Carson City.
Mr. Turnipseed declared:
I perceive this as a knee-jerk reaction to my predecessor, Peter Morros, and at that time wishing to move the Division of Wildlife to Carson City. I do not share those concerns. Terry Crawforth tells me that the majority of his contacts are with the BLM [Bureau of Land Management] and the forest service, fish and wildlife service, who are all housed in Reno.
Senator Raggio asked whether that was contemplated at this time, to which Mr. Turnipseed replied it was not. Mr. Turnipseed stated there is insufficient space for them, and they operate just fine in Reno.
Mr. Turnipseed stated:
The sportsmen’s groups claim that they are united. However, I have been a sportsman for 40 years, both my sons are sportsmen. I just sat down around the table with about 10 others in the last week and filled out big game tag applications. None of them were in favor of the removal of the division to make it its own department. When they say all sportsmen are united, I kind of have to question that.
Senator Raggio noted letters have been received from both sides of the issue. Mr. Turnipseed said he is a member of Ducks, Unlimited, and he has attended Nevada Bighorns Unlimited dinners, and others.
Mr. Turnipseed stated in spite of 7 years of drought and 2.5 million acres burned in the past 2 years, there are more hunting opportunities available today than 10 years ago. He asked, “What is broken?”
Senator Raggio stated a fiscal note will be needed if the department is to be created. Mr. Turnipseed responded a fiscal note was provided to the Assembly at $101,000 the first year and $80,000 for every year thereafter. He acknowledged it was partly associated with additional accounting services, depending on whether the fee is added to the wildlife tags to help with predator control. Senator Raggio requested it be made as a fiscal note to S.B. 30 with the proposed amendments included.
Freeman K. Johnson, Assistant Director, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, spoke on the subject of air operations. He said it was not true that the number of sorties for game surveys had been reduced by one-half to one‑third over the past few years. He said both forestry and wildlife air operations have been accomplished in a fairly exemplary manner since the two air operations were combined.
Mr. Johnson reported the Division of Wildlife Management indicates that annual game surveys have been conducted with an increasing level of efficiency and results. He noted the number of hours to conduct the flights has been reduced because of new equipment (jet Rangers instead of Korea-vintage helicopters). He explained the jet Rangers have greater speed and passenger capability, thus allowing more observers to go on each flight.
Mr. Johnson noted forestry pilots are used to supplement the survey requirements for the Division of Wildlife with respect to fixed-wing aircraft, and for waterfowl and other bird surveys.
Mr. Johnson indicated it was only partially correct that the division’s aircraft was purchased by NBU. He said of the $450,000 price, a portion was donated by NBU. He said those aircraft are not used for forestry missions, but are used strictly for wildlife functions. He explained the planes cannot carry a 500 gallon bucket of water and 8 people, such as the military Viet Nam-vintage aircraft used by the forestry service. He added forestry aircraft are not used for game surveys because it would be far too expensive, and too technically difficult. He said, “You are buying more trouble by using a Huey for a game survey than you need to.”
Mr. Johnson stated all the positions in the State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources air operations program were reevaluated after the two air operations programs were consolidated, and were upgraded by the Department of Personnel. He said reevaluation and upgrades were the result of an increase in the complexity of the two pilots’ respective responsibilities. Thus, he said, aircraft operations in support of wildlife missions were made part of the responsibility of the forestry pilots, and vice versa, so they are interchangeable, and only utilized occasionally as staffing demands.
Mr. Johnson reported other economies created by the consolidation of the aviation operations have to do with the use of maintenance equipment and the human resources of pilot staff. He pointed out one pilot position was eliminated, making economies of staffing, supply, procurement, and operation. He noted purchases of fuel are made on a bulk basis, and fuel that formerly cost $2.71 a gallon in Reno now costs 71 cents per gallon and is stored at the Minden hangar.
According to Mr. Johnson, there have been no scheduling conflicts for the Division of Wildlife’s requirements, but they are coordinated from a central point of control. He explained it became necessary in response to calls made to pilots at night by various biologists in the field. Now, he said, controls have been established and funnel through his office. He stated there have been no problems connected with that procedure.
Mr. Johnson acknowledged he had no opinion whether or not S.B. 30 is a good bill, only that “trying to fix something that is not broken” raises a question in his mind.
Joseph L. Johnson, Lobbyist, Toiyabe Chapter, Sierra Club, came forward to speak as a conservationist. He stated the group has intense interest in S.B. 30. He noted the Sierra Club opposed the change of the department to division status in 1993, and also fought hard to have an independent commission. He said evaluation over the last years demonstrates the independent commission within the department has worked well.
Mr. Johnson stated the Sierra Club strongly opposes Section 16 on page 7 in which it states the department would be under the control of the commission. He said the Sierra Club also opposes subsection 6 of Section 18 of S.B. 30 on page 8 that would give approval of the budget to the commission. Mr. Johnson explained the Sierra Club feels the commission is representative of wildlife organizations such as hunters or fishermen, but to give control and approval of the budget over the proposed department to the commission is beyond what should be expected.
Donald A. Molde, M.D., Nevada Humane Society, who submitted a letter earlier in the meeting (Exhibit N), indicated he would like to e-mail his comments later because his opinion changed after hearing some of the proposed amendments. He voiced concern that either the division or a department continue interest in general public issues regarding wildlife, in addition to sportsmen’s issues. Senator Raggio suggested Dr. Molde send a letter to the Fiscal Analysis Division.
SENATE BILL 294: Revises provisions governing calculation of basic support. (BDR 34-1161)
Al Bellister, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association, testified he was not in support of S.B. 294, but wished to express his concern. He declared the bill appears to limit the growth increment currently in the funding formula for public schools. He noted the fiscal note indicated $43,296 would be paid out in growth increments to qualifying schools that were all charter schools.
Senator Raggio interjected he did not have a copy of the fiscal note. Mr. Bellister responded he was given a copy of it by Douglas Thunder from the Department of Education.
Mr. Bellister stated small county school districts, such as the Esmeralda School District with 107 students, would only need one or two families to move in to be eligible for the growth increment. He asserted that could necessitate employment of another staff member for a small district, or some transportation issue. Mr. Bellister pointed out Lincoln County has 1,000 children, with 3 percent as the first trigger, which equates to 30 new students. He expressed concern over the elimination of the increment.
Senator Rawson asked whether anyone knew the source of the measure, because the person requesting the bill draft had not come forward to testify on S.B. 294. Mr. Bellister said he did not.
Randy Robison, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Boards, indicated he had no knowledge of the source of the bill.
SENATE BILL 391: Creates Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education scholarship trust fund (BDR 34-282)
Senator Raggio noted there were no people ready to testify on S.B. 391 other than Senator O’Donnell. Senator O’Donnell approved continuing the bill until the next meeting.
SENATE BILL 287: Makes appropriations for establishment of community-based programs that serve as alternatives to incarceration of minors. (BDR S-882)
Senator Raggio noted the primary sponsor of Senate Bill 287 was Senator Valerie Wiener who indicated she would like to withdraw the bill. He explained her communication stated she wished to withdraw the measure based on bills with large fiscal impacts, and she felt the issue could be postponed at the present time.
SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE SENATE BILL 287 AT THE REQUEST OF SENATOR WIENER, THE PRIMARY SPONSOR.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator Raggio announced time was too limited to close any budgets, but he asked the committee to be prepared for a late meeting the next day. He adjourned the meeting at 10:41 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Judy Jacobs
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
DATE: