MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining

Subcommittee

 

Seventy-Second Session

March 31, 2003

 

 

The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining Subcommittee was called to order at 1:04 p.m., on Monday, March 31, 2003.  Chairman Chad Christensen presided in Room 3161 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Guest List.  All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

 

Note:  These minutes are compiled in the modified verbatim style.  Bracketed material indicates language used to clarify and further describe testimony.  Actions of the Committee are presented in the traditional legislative style.

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mr. Chad Christensen, Chairman

Mr. Bob McCleary

Mr. Harry Mortenson

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

None

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

None

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Linda Eissmann, Committee Policy Analyst

Erin Channell, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Wayne Perock, Administrator, Division of State Lands, Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources

Steve Weaver, Chief, Planning and Development, Division of State Lands, Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources

 

Chairman Christensen:

We will call this Subcommittee to order.  [Roll was called.]  Today we are in a Subcommittee for A.B. 287 involving the Floyd Lamb-Tule Springs Park.

 

Assembly Bill 287:  Revises provisions relating to transfer, establishment and maintenance of certain parks. (BDR 26-657)

 

Chairman Christensen:

Let’s have some open, free dialogue, respecting the building we’re in.  Why don’t we start out by getting a better understanding where you guys are.  If you’d like to come up and have a seat, let’s begin.  On the list for people wanting to meet and speak on this I have Mr. Smith with the City of Las Vegas, Mr. Weaver with State Parks, and Mr. Perock with State Parks.

 

Wayne Perock, Administrator, Division of State Lands, Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources:

[Introduced himself]  I apologize for not being here last week; I’ve come in a little hoarse.  We want to continue our support for A.B. 287.  I look at it as providing protection not only for the Floyd Lamb State Park or the Tule Springs site in any leases or trades that we do here, but it has an impact on all 24 of the state parks as we go into the future and have arrangements with political subdivisions.  I think it’s a good bill.  A lot of the state-owned properties that the Division of State Lands administers are provided additional federal protection under the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

 

If you look at, say Floyd Lamb State Park, about 600 acres are within 6(f) L and W encumbrance.  It’s very hard to trade it or sell it, so there is some protection.  But this expands upon that, and also adds the protection to Recreation and Public Purposes Act lease lands, which are the other couple thousand acres.  The Tule Springs site, we have protected it with 6(f) so it has a federal encumbrance.  That encumbrance keeps it from any other uses other than outdoor recreation.  State property is well-covered.

 

One thing we noticed, some of the language in the bill right now is consistent with language in a S.B. 144.  It has the same type of language in it to protect the resources, but it also has a second part which has to do with our ability to put a surcharge on land or water conservation fund grants, and to help fund a position to administer the grant.  I have Mr. Weaver here who will address those points.  We have an amendment (Exhibit C) before you that would allow the two bills to mirror each other, so we would like you to take that into consideration.

 

Chairman Christensen:

Who is carrying S.B. 144?

 

Wayne Perock:

S.B. 144 was in Senate Government Affairs Committee and we had some dialogue with lobbyists from the counties and also the City of Las Vegas.  The amendment we have before you reflects those negotiations.

 

Steve Weaver, Chief, Planning and Development, Division of State Lands, Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources:

[Introduced himself]  I wanted to clarify that we are in full agreement with A.B. 287, all of the existing wording.  What Mr. Perock was just alluding to is that we would recommend that this other language dealing with a completely different subject matter be incorporated into this bill, because this other language is very important to us as well.

 

This amendment will allow us to fund a grants position to administer the Land and Water Conservation Fund Grant Program, which is a federal grant program that the Division of State Parks administers without any staff.  We actually haven’t had any staff since 1986, at least not any full-time staff to work on this.  In recent years, Congress has seen fit to increase funding for the program, and it’s becoming overwhelming.  As the number of grants accumulates, there’s always a backlog of several years.  It usually takes several years to get the projects completed. 

 

There’s also quite a bit of effort that has to be put into maintaining eligibility for the state of Nevada.  Using or requesting General Fund money we knew wasn’t going to go over well at all, so we explored some alternative funding mechanisms.  There are two possibilities, and this bill actually provides express authorization to go with either one.  The first one deals with direct cost reimbursement.  That would be our preference because the federal government would actually be, in effect, paying for half of the position we’re talking about, as well as related administrative costs: travel, per diem, supplies, and equipment.  So far, the National Park Service’s Washington Office has been very resistant.  They say that their solicitors said that that’s not allowed by current law.  We disagree; a number of other states disagree.  Even the Western Regional Office of the National Park Service disagrees.

 

Chairman Christensen:

When you say that they disagree, what parts specifically are you seeing that they disagree with?

 

Steve Weaver:

Direct cost reimbursement; there’s a disagreement about whether the federal law, the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, allows direct cost reimbursement or not.  There actually are no provisions for a set-aside or direct cost reimbursement at all.  You have to infer it from other federal regulations.  That’s what our preference would be, but we think it’s going to take some time to get things ironed out and to get some lobbying by various states.  We’re not the only ones who would like to see the direct cost reimbursement to fund administration of the program.  All the states administer the program for their respective states.

 

The other option, and it’s being utilized by Arizona, which is where we got the concept from, is to charge all grant recipients a one-time fee; a surcharge is what they call it.  This proposed amendment (Exhibit C) would allow us to do that.  Our intent is to utilize that alternative in the interim until or unless we can get the direct cost reimbursement plan squared away with the federal government.  Right now, we’re pretty desperate to get a staff person to administer that program.  I haven’t made it any secret that the only reason we still have the program is because I have been donating the time, nights and weekends, no overtime because we don’t much in the way of overtime funds, to keep the program going. 

 

As new federal funds accumulate, we’re going to be getting another $1.1 million this year.  It’s becoming overwhelming.  That’s why it’s important to us to get the funding approved so we can hire this position and keep the program going in future years.  That’s all I have to say unless you have any specific questions.

 

Assemblyman Mortenson:

What you have expounded sounds very good to me.  I think it’s a good and worthy kind of project to get that reimbursement for the costs, but what I don’t understand is why you would attach it to this bill.  It is totally alien to this bill.  This bill, as I see it, has no fiscal note on it; it doesn’t talk about money in any way.  I’m a little leery, but maybe you can explain why it should attach to this bill.

 

Steve Weaver:

We actually requested this particular language in a separate BDR [bill draft request] originally.  The decision was made to combine it in one bill so that State Parks in effect would have one bill before the Legislature.  I think A.B. 287 has an excellent chance of making it through both houses of the Legislature; we certainly hope so.  We’d just like to tag this other legislation on to make sure that it does get through and doesn’t die in the waning days of the Legislature.

 

Assemblyman Mortenson:

My problem is tagging it on there, when it killed my bill, when it’s an alien amendment and has nothing to do with the bill itself.

 

Wayne Perock:

I would hope that would not be the case.  We were debating whether or not to amend this.  When people saw the similarity in language of the A.B. 287 with the S.B. 119, there was some consensus at the Department level that we bring this forward to you, so that the two bills would mirror each other (Exhibit C).  If it passes both houses, it’s going to make it that much easier in a Conference Committee to rectify the issues.  There is no opposition to what you’ve seen here.  In our hearing before Senate Government Affairs Committee the county association supported it.  We worked out some negotiating things in the language you have.  There was also a lobbyist from the City of Las Vegas, and we’ve resolved their concerns that are in this amendment.

 

Chairman Christensen:

My understanding of the purpose of this meeting is to figure out, with the State Parks, with our constituents who use this park, how this bill can be carried out, how we can make a transfer everyone feels happy with.  I don’t know how we can really address, in the time remaining, where our Committee is expecting us to make a recommendation to them, how we can go through and really address this amendment that’s been presented for A.B. 287.  With this, where do we go where we have other issues to go through?

 

Assemblyman Mortenson:

I believe that if they’re having no objection and it’s doing fine in the Senate, let it stay there and go through.  Let this one go through as is, and it’ll be fine.

 

Chairman Christensen:

I think that would be preference.

 

Wayne Perock:

One thing I’ve noticed, there’s another bill that’s not being presented.  We didn’t look at this one as the bill that would transfer Floyd Lamb State Park to the City of Las Vegas.  That is S.B. 444, and it specifically allows for the transfer, by name, with all the parcel numbers and land description.  It also has the same conditions that you put forth in your original bill here.  It has the same text to protect those properties, no matter who’s managing.

 

Chairman Christensen:

Mr. Perock, I mentioned Floyd Lamb Park in particular.  This bill does not make specific reference to that bill.  The Park is in my district [Clark County Assembly District No. 13], I hear about it every day, read tons of e‑mails, that’s right there in my mind.  I apologize if I confused anyone.  I guess I’m leaning to the two of you as well, how we want to move forward, as far as figuring out what kind of recommendation we want to make to our Committee.

 

Assemblyman McCleary:

I don’t see any need for this amendment.  I’m comfortable with the bill.  Is there any opposition at all to this bill?

 

Chairman Christensen:

I don’t have any opposition signed in.  Is there anyone here who would have a very brief opposition?

 

Assemblyman McCleary:

Can I make a motion for a “do pass?”

 

Assemblyman Mortenson:

We can recommend to the Committee for “do pass.”

 

Chairman Christensen:

So we can recommend with or without the amendment.  Yes, I will certainly entertain a motion.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN McCLEARY MOVED TO RECOMMEND THE COMMITTEE TO DO PASS A.B. 287.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN MORTENSON SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Chairman Christensen:

To the members of the Subcommittee, and to those with the Division of State Parks in the audience, I just wanted to speak to this bill, and more in particular to where we’re addressing any swap of Floyd Lamb-Tule Springs Park.  This is from communication that I’ve had with the Floyd Lamb-Tule Springs Preservation Committee.  When we do get to a point where we’re deciding with the State Parks how we work together in any kind of swap, what responsibility individual groups take upon themselves, we want to make sure that anything that is involved with the swap goes under the open meeting law, so that groups such as the Northwest Network of Neighborhoods know that there is also a bird watching group, and they can be involved with how this moves forward.

 

Assemblyman Mortenson:

I’m not how sure there could be a meeting or hearing without the open meeting law.

 

Chairman Christensen:

They just wanted me to put that on the record.  For this Subcommittee on A.B. 287, is there anything else that anybody wanted to add?  Thank you for being here.  [Adjourned at 1:23 p.m.]

 

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                                                           

Erin Channell

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                                                                                         

Assemblyman Chad Christensen, Chairman

 

 

DATE: