MINUTES OF THE JOINT Subcommittee on
Public Safety/Natural Resources/Transportation
of the
Senate Committee on Finance
and the
Assembly Committee on Ways and Means
Seventy-second Session
February 26, 2003
The Joint Subcommittee on Public Safety/Natural Resources/Transportation of the Senate Committee on Finance and the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means was called to order by Chairman Dean A. Rhoads at 8:06 a.m., on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 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.
Senate COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Chairman
Senator Sandra J. Tiffany
Senator Bob Coffin
Assembly COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. David R. Parks, Chairman
Ms. Christina R. Giunchigliani
Ms. Sheila Leslie
Mr. John W. Marvel
Mr. Joshua B. Griffin
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Richard D. Perkins (Excused)
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Steven J. Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Michael J. Chapman, Program Analyst
Judy Coolbaugh, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
R. Michael Turnipseed, Director, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Mike Nolan, Budget Analyst, Budget Division, Department of Administration
Pamela B. Wilcox, Acting Administrator, Division of Conservation Districts, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resource and Administrator and State Land Registrar, Division of State Lands, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Kevin L. Piper, District Manager, Dayton Valley Conservation District
Chris K. Freeman, Natural Resource Specialist
Hugh Ricci, State Engineer, Division of Water Resources, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Allen Biaggi, Administrator, Division of Environmental Protection, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Jolaine Johnson, Deputy Administrator, Air, Mining and Water Programs, Division of Environmental Protection, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
R. Michael Turnipseed, Director, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources:
The director’s office provides administrative, technical, budgetary, and supervisory support to divisions and bureaus within the department. We also provide leadership for two programs: the Nevada Natural Heritage Program and the Commission for the Preservation of Wild Horses. We have approximately 1000 full time employees (FTE) and 114 budget accounts. Our annual budget is over $3 million, which is 8.2 percent of the General Fund.
STATE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES - OVERVIEW
CNR Administration – Budget Page CNR-1 (Volume 3)
Budget Account 101-4150
I have distributed a handout entitled Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Office of the Director (Exhibit C. Original is on file in the Research Library.). Thirteen accounting positions that are assigned to the Nevada Division of Forestry (NDF) will be budgetarily transferred back to NDF in enhancement unit 901 (E-901). I will not address the base maintenance unit 100 (M-100) or M-300 unless there are questions.
In order to fund critical areas within the director’s office, and respond to shrinking General Fund resources, I have prioritized areas with General Funding. In some budget accounts, the General Funds were completely eliminated, and in others, the General Funds were converted either totally or partially to alternative funding sources. More specifically, the Natural Resource Plan was converted to federal funds with a savings to the General Fund of $173,194 over the fiscal year (FY) 2004-2005 biennium.
We also revised our cost-allocation formula covering three positions in our accounting section. In the past biennium our recovery was $69,784. As a result of the new methodology, we will increase that amount to $166,967 for a savings to the General Fund of $97,183.
E-501 Accessible, Flexible, Cost-Efficient Government – Page CNR-5
We have drastically reduced our Web site service charges by purchasing a server to house all the conservation division Web sites. There was an up-front equipment cost for the server in FY 2003 of $18,000, but the elimination of the Department of Information Technology (DoIT) charges more than covers those costs. For the director’s office alone the savings was $82,578 to the General Fund.
E-906 Transfer to UNR-Climatologist – Page CNR-8
As a cost-savings proposal, the director’s office is proposing to have the State climatologist position removed from this budget account. The request is to have the account transferred to the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) to fund with non-General Fund sources. This decision unit would save the General Fund $72,332 over the biennium. The director’s office is proposing to utilize the savings to fund all or part of the maintenance and enhancement unit requests in budget account 4150.
E-275 Working Environment & Wage – Page CNR-3
This decision unit requests a new accounting technician position. Since the summer months represent the busiest and most critical activities, this position has a start date on July 1, 2003. The position is needed for increased program complexities, increased funding and staffing levels, and additional workload created by the integrated financial system (IFS). This unit requires a General Fund appropriation of $18,582 in FY 2003-2004, and $17,565 in FY 2004‑2005. The majority of the cost for this position will be borne by the new cost accounting formula.
E-276 Working Environment & Wage – Page CNR-3
This decision unit requests an administrative assistant for the director’s office. The position is required to assist the executive assistant with clerical duties and to provide relief support during leave periods and lunch coverage. Including associated staffing costs, this unit represents a General Fund appropriation of $30,608 in FY 2003-2004, and $38,655 in FY 2004-2005.
E-710 Replacement Equipment – Page CNR-6
This decision unit recommends General Fund appropriations of $33,236 in FY 2003-2004, and $2,500 in FY 2004-2005 to replace computer software, hardware, and network components including four desktop computers, one file server, and a printer. We did defer the replacement of a second file server to the next biennium.
E-840 AB9 Conservation Bond – Page CNR-7
I have distributed a spreadsheet entitled “Division of State Lands (DSL), AB 9‑Summary of DSL Responsibilities” (Exhibit D). A.B. 9 of the 17th Special Session of the Legislature approved up to $200 million in general obligation bonds for the purposes of protecting, preserving, and obtaining the benefits of property and natural resources in the State. Of the $200 million available, $120 million is allocated specifically as follows.
Twenty-seven million dollars will go to the Division of State Parks for property acquisition and/or capital improvements, and renovations to facilities in State parks.
Twenty-seven and a half million dollars will go to the Division of Wildlife for the acquisition of property to enhance, protect, and manage wildlife and wildlife habitat; or enhance recreational opportunities relating to wildlife; or for the development and renovation of facilities or improvements to existing habitats for fish and other wildlife.
Sixty-five and a half million dollars will go to the Division of State Lands to provide grants to state agencies, local governments or private non-profit organizations for natural resource programs, such as recreational trails, acquisition of parks and greenbelts, habitat conservation plans, planning, and acquisition of open space, Carson River enhancement and restoration, and development of a Lake Tahoe path system.
The director’s office will manage the entire fund, the timing of disbursements, and coordination of the general obligation bonds issuance. This decision unit requests two positions and their associated operating and equipment costs to run both the technical and fiscal portions of the program. The request is for $130,930 in FY 2003-2004, and $128,518 in FY 2004-2005. Since bonds will first be sold in June 2003, the start date for these new positions is July 1, 2003.
E-901 Transfer NDF Fiscal Unit to NDF (Base & M150) – Page CNR-8
Effective February 2002, the NDF fiscal unit was, administratively, returned to the NDF. At the same time the State Forester Firewarden also reassumed responsibility for direct supervision of the administrative service officer (ASO) and all personnel within that unit. The departmental ASO continues to provide departmental fiscal oversight.
This decision unit is requesting the final step in the process, which is the budgetary removal of the NDF fiscal unit from the director’s office budget account 4150 and placement of it in NDF’s budget account 4195. There are 13 FTEs associated with this transfer along with their attendant costs. This unit gives a reduction of $653,742 in FY 2003-2004, and $674,002 in FY 2004-2005.
In summary, this budget request reflects our best efforts to find alternative funding sources to reduce, totally or partially, the General Fund request. Although new positions are requested, the General Fund appropriation was reduced by $207,507, which amount was reverted to the General Fund. We did pledge $119,351 for a new administrative service officer for NDF. This is a critical position since the fire season is coincident with budget preparation and budget closing. The result is NDF becomes “swamped” in the middle of the summer. Even with this new position, there is still a General Fund savings of $88,156.
There are a few other smaller decision units for training and the Natural Resources Leadership Council of the States conference.
Senator Rhoads:
What functions will the new positions have in the administration of the Question 1 program?
Mr. Turnipseed:
There will be two positions. One will be a lower level accounting position for writing the policies and procedures, coordinating with the treasurer’s office on cash flow analysis, and arbitrage and bond sale issues. Once these initial functions are in place, the focus of the position will shift to payment review, approval, and processing. The other position will be an upper level accounting position for general administrative and program duties, and oversight.
Senator Rhoads:
Is a large portion of the $200 million going to be used to purchase private land?
Mr. Turnipseed:
I envision, particularly in the rural counties, the funds will be used for conservation easements rather than removing the land from the tax rolls. I know Ms. Wilcox has been investigating what the rules ought to be for matching funds.
Senator Rhoads:
Will she be discussing this later in the presentation?
Mr. Turnipseed:
Yes, she will.
Assemblyman Marvel:
How many new positions will be added department-wide under Question 1?
Mr. Turnipseed:
There will be eight new positions. Three positions will be in State parks, three in State lands, and two in the director’s office.
Assemblyman Marvel:
At one point, we transferred positions out of forestry into the director’s office, and now we are transferring them back into forestry. What is the rationale for these transfers?
Mr. Turnipseed:
In 1995, there was an unsatisfactory audit at the NDF. My predecessor took over the fiscal function for the NDF to provide oversight and control. Since then another audit has been completed that indicates significant improvement. One problem encountered in providing direction to the various departments making up the NDF was having eight divisions located at nine different addresses. This geographic division created a lot of mailing problems and fiscal errors. The NDF has merged into one location, and can exercise more internal control.
Assemblyman Marvel:
Do you have enough fiscal people working in your office?
Mr. Turnipseed:
Yes, I do.
Senator Rhoads:
Will a bill draft request be submitted identifying the general obligation bonds to be sold, and the amount of property tax increase recommended to support repayment of the bonds with interest in the FY 2003-2005 biennium?
Mr. Turnipseed:
I really do not know how that works. I was not in the director’s office when Question 1 bonds were sold. Perhaps Ms. Wilcox or the treasurer’s office knows the procedure.
Senator Rhoads:
If Ms. Wilcox does not know the answer, will you find it out for us?
Mr. Turnipseed:
Yes, I will.
Assemblyman Parks:
I know there is a Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) that states you cannot use debt instruments and interest earned from them to fund salaries or positions. Have we conveniently ignored this NRS over the years? I would like a listing of all the positions that will be administering the bond issue. Could you include a detail of the activities they will be performing, and what percentage of their time will be devoted to each activity?
Mr. Turnipseed:
We can provide that listing.
Senator Rhoads:
Currently, there is a seven member Natural Resource Advisory Board (NRAB). Are you planning on adding another person, and if so, would you elaborate on that decision?
E-500 Accessible, Flexible, Cost-Efficient Government – Page CNR-4
As a cost-saving proposal, the director’s office is proposing to eliminate funding for the Advisory Board on Water Resources Planning and Development (ABWRPD). In a memo to the Governor’s office, it was suggested to eliminate the statutory authority, NRS 540.111, for this board. It is anticipated that the NRAB, authorized by NRS 232.085, will now handle any issues previously addressed by the ABWRPD board.
To partially compensate for the loss of the entire ABWRPD board, I have recommended the addition of one person to serve as a water representative on the NRAB. A bill draft request will be required to make this addition. The amount being removed from the ABWRPD is the actual expenditures made in the base year of FY 2002. Even with the addition of one new board member, and attendant travel, this decision unit will still provide a savings of $1039 in each year of the biennium.
Senator Rhoads:
Has the E-906 elimination of the State climatologist been coordinated with UNR?
Mr. Turnipseed:
I do not know.
Mike Nolan, Budget Analyst, Budget Division, Department of Administration:
The Governor made the decision that he would support the cut. I am not sure at this point if the details of coordination have been discussed with UNR. It could continue the program if there was the desire and funding to do so.
Assemblyman Marvel:
Was the State climatologist a full time position with you, or was there a split with UNR?
Mr. Turnipseed:
We paid approximately half the cost for the State climatologist each year, and UNR matched our contribution with its own funding. The State climatologist, John James, has retired from the university system, but I believe he is still under contract in the geography department at UNR. We supplied a lot of data to the State climatologist gathered from our 27 precipitation gauges. His job was to track rainfall measurements, high and low temperatures, and areas of drought throughout the State on a yearly basis. I am able to obtain the same information from the Web.
Senator Rhoads:
What is the Web site address?
Mr. Turnipseed:
The data is compiled by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, and distributed through the National Data Climate Center. I am more interested in current snow survey reports informing me how much water to expect in the coming summer than in reviewing rainfall and temperature data from the past. Even though we received snow yesterday, our yearly precipitation to date went from 97 percent of average to 96 percent. Eastern and central Nevada are still in serious drought jeopardy.
Assemblyman Parks:
In E-276 you are requesting an administrative assistant to function as the receptionist in the director’s office. Is your executive assistant currently performing this function?
Mr. Turnipseed:
Yes, that is correct.
Assemblyman Parks:
Is there enough additional workload to justify a new position?
Mr. Turnipseed:
Yes, there is. There are times when the executive assistant is absent from the office, and Mr. Freeman, Assistant Director, and myself have to perform the receptionist duties. The result is we get way behind in all areas of responsibility.
Division of Conservation Districts - Budget Page CNR-10 (Volume 3)
Budget Account 101-4151
Pamela B. Wilcox, Acting Administrator, Division of Conservation Districts, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources:
This division is a small agency with three positions in one office in Carson City. This account is a flat budget. The agency’s mission is to train and assist the districts, which work to conserve, improve, and sustain the State’s renewable natural resources. It is a program of “grassroots” support and functions by providing outreach and technical assistance to landowners in partnership with other local, state, and federal agencies.
There are 28 conservation districts. All are locally-elected subdivisions of State government. The varied programs work on resource conservation statewide. Water conservation, soil erosion and productivity assistance to farmers and ranchers, flood prevention, noxious weed control, public and youth group education are some of the projects.
Districts work on a program of voluntary cooperation with private landowners who sign up as district cooperators. They receive technical assistance in applying conservation practices on private lands. There is a traditional partnership with the U. S. Department of Agriculture, and local districts leverage a lot of federal funds into the State.
Assemblyman Marvel:
Do all 28 conservation districts receive the same amount?
Ms. Wilcox:
The law states the grant funds are to be divided equally among the districts. However, the regulations also provide that if a district does not spend all of its money in any 1 year, the unspent portion is carried forward. The remaining amount is then subtracted from the grant in the next year. One district, the Stillwater Conservation District, only spent half of its FY 2001 appropriation, so in FY 2002 that amount was subtracted from the grant. Therefore, there was a reversion of the $2500 in the base year, FY 2001.
Assemblyman Marvel:
Will they now be fully funded?
Ms. Wilcox:
Since the reversion occurred in the base year, everyone will get a little less since the $2500 was deducted from the base year funding.
Assemblyman Marvel:
How much will each district lose?
Ms. Wilcox:
The grants are also affected by the 3-percent budget cut. For a number of years, each district has been granted $5000, which totals $140,000 for the 28 conservation districts. Because the cut was in the Executive Budget, $4200, or 3 percent, was cut from the total grant money, plus the loss of $2500 from the Stillwater reversion. Each district will lose about $240 out of its $5000 appropriation.
Assemblyman Marvel:
Is the private money coming in statewide?
Ms. Wilcox:
The districts have done an excellent job with the funds. In the base year, the data we keep shows there was a return of 15 to 1. For every dollar we gave the district, it brought in $15 from other sources, including county, federal, foundation, and private support. This has been a tremendously successful program considering the small amount the State provides.
Senator Rhoads:
This “spend it or lose it” policy seems to encourage the wasting of funds. Is this policy a State law or a mandated regulation?
Ms. Wilcox:
The regulation simply requires if the money is not spent that amount has to come forward and be subtracted from the new grant. This prevents the money being stockpiled if the districts do not need it.
Senator Rhoads:
Does that policy invite wasting of funds?
Ms. Wilcox:
A large proportion of our function is to work with districts to develop worthwhile programs. I do not believe the districts are frivolously spending the funds. They are doing a great deal with a small amount.
Kevin L. Piper, District Manager, Dayton Valley Conservation District:
I am speaking for all the conservation districts when I say they are all very grateful to have this program. The districts are very proud of their accomplishment in matching State funds 15 to 1. The budget reduction translates into $60,000 to $70,000 of loss from matching funds. A reduction in funding will also impact the districts’ ability to access some of the farm bill money. As our other funding sources are shrinking, we now have an opportunity to obtain a large amount of funds through the farm bill. Considering the program’s successes, a reduction in State funds for this program sends the wrong message to folks in local communities who are working very hard. There should be no reduction in funding. These funds reward a relatively small program with the continued ability to do exceptional work.
Chris K. Freeman, Natural Resource Specialist:
I am a volunteer and supervisor in the Nevada Tahoe Conservation District, and president of the Nevada Association of Conservation Districts. I encourage you to support the programs by providing the districts with full funding.
State Lands – Budget Page CNR-18 (Volume 3) Budget Account 101-4173
Pamela B. Wilcox, Administrator and State Land Registrar, Division of State Lands, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources:
This agency acquires, holds, and disposes of all State lands and interests in lands, except for the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN), the Legislature, and the Department of Transportation. The division’s land use planning agency provides planning to local governments and represents the State on federal land issues. The division administers the Tahoe Bond Act, Environmental Improvement Program, and the Lake Tahoe Mitigation bond accounts.
We are the archive and depository for the State’s historic and current land records. We have two new programs in our agency. One is the Mount Charleston license plate program. The license plates are in production, and those funds will be placed in a fund to protect Mount Charleston. Our other new program is the Question 1 program.
The agency has 18.2 FTE positions and 2 offices in Carson City. This is a flat budget with only three new positions requested for the Question 1 bond program.
The agency is seeing a gradual shift in its focus from a technical agency working on land and land use planning issues. With the Lake Tahoe and Question 1 bond programs, the agency is becoming more of a general environmental program, especially in providing environmental support to local governments in the State.
Assemblyman Marvel:
How do we actually implement Question 1?
Ms. Wilcox:
The bond act does not require any further legislation to implement. The treasurer can sell the bonds when he deems it appropriate. Immediately after the passage of Question 1, the treasurer had representatives of all the agencies receiving the funds present their long-term cash needs. With this information, the treasurer began to establish when the bonds would be sold, in what amounts, and how they would be repaid. That is the responsibility of the treasurer’s office.
Assemblyman Marvel:
How long does this authority last?
Ms. Wilcox:
The State law generally provides that once voters have approved a bond, the bonds must be sold within 6 years of that election. The termination date for the last bond sale would be November 2008. Internal Revenue Service rules generally require bond funds to be spent within 3 years. Altogether, we are looking at about a 9-year program.
Assemblyman Marvel:
Have you identified any programs that will use the bond funds?
Ms. Wilcox:
We are in charge of the $65.5 million in pass-through grant money to local governments and to conservation non-profit organizations. We have had 11 general public workshops all over the State, plus another 6 or more focus meetings. We are asking people what is needed, and what the ground rules should be. A time schedule requires us to have regulations in place by July 2003. When the first bonds are sold in June 2003, we are hoping to have the first application window in the summer, and the first issuance of bond money in the fall.
Assemblyman Marvel:
How much will be sold in the first issue?
Ms. Wilcox:
I do not know the grand total to be sold, but we have asked for $6 million for our programs. We estimated our request at one-eleventh of our total funding.
Assemblyman Marvel:
Does the director’s office know the total amount to be issued?
Ms. Wilcox:
The treasurer’s office is compiling the information. I believe Washoe County is going to request half of their bonds be sold this first time. The museums are only asking for planning and design money. Of its $10 million total, Clark County is requesting $2 million to $3 million in this first sale.
Assemblyman Marvel:
What amount is the State park agency asking for?
Ms. Wilcox:
I do not recall, but I can get you the information from the treasurer’s office. The bonds will not be sold unless the agency shows a demonstrated need to expend the funds in the near future.
Assemblyman Marvel:
There has been some talk about raising the bond indebtedness by one cent. Would that cover the required amount?
Ms. Wilcox:
The debt limit in the Constitution does not apply because the majority of the bonds are for conservation. The treasurer’s office is looking closely at what other bonds are being retired.
Assemblyman Marvel:
I realize these bonds do not count against our indebtedness, but they still have to be paid for.
Ms. Wilcox:
Yes, they do. The treasurer’s office is monitoring and deciding on the procedure for repayment.
Assemblyman Parks, in response to your question about funding positions with the money, our plan is to fund the positions with interest rather than with the principal on the bond. We will have to borrow from the principal in the beginning for start-up, because not enough interest will have been initially generated. We have used this procedure with all of our Lake Tahoe bond programs, and it has been very successful. The Lake Tahoe bond programs have had no impact on the General Fund for implementation. The programs have the interest returned to the agency for administrative purposes.
Senator Rhoads:
Is your agency responsible for monitoring the activities of the Southern Nevada Public Lands Act?
Ms. Wilcox:
The State has one seat on the working group, which makes recommendations to the heads of the federal agencies. I do cast that vote, although I do it as a multi-agency effort.
Senator Rhoads:
Many of us in the rural areas are concerned about what little private land we have left. The Southern Nevada Public Lands Act is being used to buy up $148 million of land in rural Nevada. There is also a statement in the proposal saying the Nevada Division of Wildlife, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Division of Forestry have endorsed this land acquisition. They have valued the land at $2800 per acre. Were you aware of this proposal?
Ms. Wilcox:
I was not aware of the proposal until it was actually nominated in round four to be funded by Question 1. We have seen more nominations in rural Nevada in round four than we saw in the first three nomination rounds. Like you, I am very concerned about the impact on rural Nevada, and all the federal agencies are aware of my concern. The federal agencies have to implement the act as it was written, but we can propose amendments.
I am encouraging the federal agencies not to seek land nominations in rural Nevada unless they can develop a way to mitigate the impact on local governments. We are also working with local governments to establish what impact such land acquisitions would have on the local economy. To answer your question about land value, a party can ask anything it wants for its land, but the federal government can only pay the appraised value.
Senator Rhoads:
The statement indicated the Nevada Division of Wildlife, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Division of Forestry had already endorsed the proposal.
Ms. Wilcox:
Those three agencies have sent letters saying the particular property has environmental value and would be a good federal acquisition. No appraisal has been completed on the land. The nomination procedure involves a series of steps. The first step is the threshold process, which means it needs a willing seller and a willing buyer. Further, the acquisition of the property has to be in the federal agency’s land use plan, and there have to be no hazardous materials or environmental problems that cannot be mitigated.
Next, there is a public input process followed by a scoring process administered by the working group on which I have a vote. If the property owners complete all these procedures, they are on the nomination list. From there, the property is appraised, and that begins the negotiations between the landowner and the federal government. At that point, some of the prospective sellers decline any offers because they believe their property is more valuable than the appraised amount.
Senator Rhoads:
Although it is not in the budget, tell us about the E-300 Geographic Information System (GIS).
Ms. Wilcox:
I am embarrassed to say this because we are the State land agency. We do not have any GIS capability. If you request a map for some piece of State land, you will receive copy of an old map out of my file. We have been working with DoIT for years on a proposal to develop an automated database and then a GIS component. The automated database has been completed. The next step is the GIS component and we need funds for it. We have $10,000 set aside to keep working on the GIS proposal through the next biennium.
Senator Tiffany:
Did you say you had DoIT develop an application for GIS?
Ms. Wilcox:
DoIT completed for us an outlook study, which is one of their standard planning tools. They do business reviews for agencies as part of their services included in our general planning assessment fee. DoIT confirmed we need to have GIS capability.
Senator Tiffany:
Did you pay DoIT for this study?
Ms. Wilcox:
No, we did not pay DoIT for the study. It was paid when we paid our planning assessment fee.
Senator Tiffany:
It is outrageous that you are being assessed that fee. The GIS has been around forever and is an off-the-shelf package. I do not understand why all this planning is required because the GIS is easily available.
Ms. Wilcox:
The problem we have encountered is large portions of our State lands are titled from deeds that date back to the 1800s.
Senator Tiffany:
What is the problem with the automated database?
Ms. Wilcox:
We do not have the staff to do the data entry, and it would cost to add staff. We are just proceeding slowly.
Senator Tiffany:
What are you still paying DoIT for?
Ms. Wilcox:
The $10,000 is not for DoIT. The legal descriptions are now in the system, but its formats are so varied the automated data conversion has limited utility. Part of the money is for data conversion, and part for payment to vendors for data entry.
Senator Rhoads:
In FY 2001 you replaced 19 desktop computers. Why are you requesting 9 more, which means you will have 28 computers for 18 positions?
Ms. Wilcox:
We have a 4-year replacement schedule. We have one more computer than positions because we have a GIS-CAD (computer assisted drafting) station, which is a more powerful machine. The computers requested will be 4 years old by the end of the biennium, and will be replaced on a 25-percent replacement schedule. I have distributed a handout entitled “Lake Tahoe Environmental Improvement Program Status Report – State of Nevada” (Exhibit E). The information summarizes where we are and where we spent our money.
Water Resources - Budget Page CNR-32 (Volume 3) Budget Account 101-4171
Hugh Ricci, Engineer, Division of Water Resources, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources:
We have 62.5 FTE positions primarily located in the Carson City office. We have branch offices in Las Vegas, Elko, and one water commissioner in Winnemucca. We are requesting no new programs. We have some replacement equipment and one new item, the installation of voice-mail at the Carson City office. All the requests in our budget are within the Executive Budget guidelines.
E-710 Replacement Equipment – Page CNR-35
This decision unit replaces 1 facsimile machine, 1 network printer, and 11 desktop computers. These computers were eliminated in FY 2002 to meet budget cuts. The two replacement computers in FY 2004, and the nine replacements in FY 2005 are all more than 5 years old. Our replacement schedule coincides with the DoIT schedule of one every 4 years. We have 65 computers, which represent a few more computers than personnel, as some computer stations are available to the public.
Our performance indicators are detailed on page CNR-32. We fell somewhat behind our projections for the last biennium. Since I became the State Engineer in August 2000, it has taken longer than we anticipated to meet our goals. Additionally, we had changes in personnel including four retirements, two resignations, and one death. The recruitment, training, and getting new personnel up to speed have hindered us in meeting our projected goals.
Except for the number of title changes, which dramatically increased, we fell behind in all other indicators. We place a lot of emphasis on title changes because we are required to act on some of the applications. Even if the application is not protested, each one is scrutinized to make sure any action we take is appropriate. Any applications over 1 year old from the final date of the protest are considered backlogged. We fell behind in clearing the backlogged applications.
We did an analysis of all applications through the 1990s, and, although we have acted on almost every one, there is some item holding up their finalization. We acted on 90 percent of all applications over that decade.
Stock water applications are backlogged because there are a number of ongoing adjudications concerning stream systems. We have about 150 applications for water importation projects, and some for additional power plants in southern Nevada.
Senator Rhoads:
Do you have any applications from the Bureau of Land Management for stock water rights?
Mr. Ricci:
Yes, we do.
Senator Rhoads:
Have any of these applications been granted since the lawsuit?
Mr. Ricci:
The nine applications that were the test case in Douglas County have been granted. Subsequently, the grants were overturned by the Supreme Court of Nevada and remanded back to us.
Senator Rhoads:
Are there any more stock water applications pending?
Mr. Ricci:
There are approximately 110 applications pending.
M-400 Travel & Training Adjustment – Page CNR-35
This decision unit requests a reinstatement of out-of-state travel funds and operating, vehicle fuel, costs reduced as a result of the budget cuts.
Every year the Association of Western State Engineers holds a spring workshop, which one or two of our staff members attend. In the base year for preparing this budget, it was Nevada’s turn to host the conference, so no out-of-state travel funds were required.
Assemblyman Marvel:
Are there any water basins left in Nevada that have not been closed?
Mr. Ricci:
There has never been a water basin that we have completely closed by stopping the issuance of any permits. We have made some very tight restrictions on areas like Las Vegas and Pahrump, and have released to them very minimal amounts of water. In a number of areas in eastern Nevada, wherever there is a potential for some water to be available, there is an application filed. Central Nevada is not quite as impacted with applications.
Environmental Protection Administration – Budget Page CNR-47 (Volume 3)
Budget Account 101-3173
Allen Biaggi, Administrator, Division of Environmental Protection, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources:
The department’s mission is to protect and enhance the environment of the State, consistent with public health and enjoyment, propagation and protection of terrestrial and aquatic life, operation of existing industries, the pursuit of agriculture, and the economic development of the State. There are two major components to our mission statement. One is a public health and environmental protection component, and the other is the economic component. Balancing these competing interests makes our job very difficult.
We have 191.5 FTE positions and 3 federal employees temporarily assigned to our agency. Our two offices are located in Carson City and Las Vegas. Organizationally, we have nine bureaus representing the environmental areas they regulate. We also have an office of fiscal and personnel management, and a program of environmental information and planning. The department is almost exclusively funded through fees, which make up 57 percent of our budget, and federal grants, which make up 42 percent. We have a very small General Fund appropriation consisting of less than 1 percent of our budget in water quality planning. The appropriation is used to support salaries and for matching funds for federal grants.
In FY 2003, we realized reductions of 5.5 percent of our General Fund money, and realized an additional 3 percent in FY 2004-2005. We have a complex funding structure consisting of a combination of federal grants from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, and fees from our regulated community. We currently have 19 budget accounts, including 6 executive accounts. We are asking for the addition of two executive accounts to simplify accounting procedures and increase accountability in two of our more complex programs.
This budget account is funded through an assessment of 25.2 percent of all salaries and fringe benefits, and the assessment fee is collected from all our agencies. This administrative budget supports personnel, fiscal management, and our information system infrastructure for the agency.
E-378 Environmental Policies & Programs – Page CNR-51
This decision unit requests an increase for litigation and enforcement appeals costs in the amounts of $50,000 in FY 2004 and $75,000 in FY 2005. These figures are an estimate of increases in litigation expenses. It is difficult to project future caseload because many of the factors driving the increase are out of agency control. Actions and litigation such as the Las Vegas discharge permit appeals, the Roger Hagar case, mining bankruptcies, and Anaconda Yerington have demanded additional attorney general services. This unit includes an additional 0.5 FTE attorney general.
E-710 Replacement Equipment – Page CNR-52
This decision unit recommends funding of $88,932 in FY 2003-2004, and $98,157 in FY 2004-2005 to replace office equipment, including a new telephone system for the entire agency, clerical workstation, and computer hardware.
E-720 New Equipment – Page CNR-52
This decision unit requests funding of $47,278 in FY 2003-2004, and $85,938 in FY 2004-2005 for new computer software, including anti-virus and Arcview, computer hardware, color laser printer, and three new computers.
E-900 Transfer Position to B/A 3185 – Page CNR-53
This unit requests an environmental scientist transfer out of this budget account into budget account 3185, which is our Bureau of Air Quality. This individual provides regulatory assistance for air quality and outreach to business and industry.
E-950 Transfer Position From 3187 – Page CNR-55
This decision unit requests a transfer into this budget account of an environmental programs bureau chief from budget account 3187, which is the Bureau of Waste Management and Bureau of Corrective Action. A restructuring of the agency necessitates this transfer. It reflects our need to do a better job on our information systems, on our outreach to the regulated community and the public, and to other agencies. We also need to enhance our efforts to complete short-term and long-term environmental planning.
The administrative base budget has been adjusted to include the payment of non-state owned building rent for all the bureaus. Previously rent was allocated to the individual bureau budgets. Building rent costs have been factored into the recommended indirect cost (IDC) rate.
Senator Rhoads:
What was the reason for creating the Bureau of Information Management and Environmental Policy?
Mr. Biaggi:
We are finding most of our information can be placed on the Internet for easier public access. We have secured some federal grants for combining public health and environmental data. This is an outreach program generated by the Fallon cancer cluster investigation. We need to place all hardware and software systems under one umbrella with one bureau chief to ensure proper outreach and accessibility of information to the public.
Assemblyman Marvel:
How many mining bankruptcies is your agency involved in?
Mr. Biaggi:
There are approximately 36 mining sites in bankruptcy proceedings.
Assemblyman Marvel:
What is the average size of the mines?
Mr. Biaggi:
It is difficult to characterize the mines by size. If we use a small, medium, and large categorization, the mines have generally been in the medium to small range.
Assemblyman Marvel:
Considering the number of mining bankruptcies, how is your reclamation funding account been impacted?
Mr. Biaggi:
Our reclamation fund is holding up well. Fortunately, many of these mine sites have had surety bonds or some other financial mechanism behind them. We have been able to call those due and proceed with environmental reclamation. The one site where we have expended short-term State resources is the Arimetco Yerington mine, and associated sites at Paradise Peak and Ketchup Flat. ARCO has agreed to reimburse the reclamation costs back to our agency.
Assemblyman Marvel:
Have the mining companies been experiencing difficulty in obtaining surety bonds or letters of credit?
Mr. Biaggi:
The situation is analogous to the problems we are seeing in the financial markets with doctors and the construction industry. The companies are not writing letters of credit, surety, or guarantees for the mining industry. Thus, the industry is either not expanding or it is finding alternatives such as very expensive insurance mechanisms. Some mining companies are obtaining corporate guarantees.
Assemblyman Marvel:
The corporate guarantees may be the avenue for some of the larger companies to pursue. With our current economy, we have to do everything we can to not make it prohibitive for the mines to operate, even while we continue to provide environmental protection.
Mr. Biaggi:
Late last year through our agency, we set up a mine bonding task force and forum in an attempt to identify some of the issues associated with this problem. Some of the problem areas identified are low gold prices, although metal prices are always fluctuating, the impact of September 11, and the refusal of surety and bonding companies to provide security instruments. There is a need for mining expansion in Nevada. It is a very important economic resource, especially for the rural areas.
Assemblyman Marvel:
How many lawsuits are you currently engaged in?
Mr. Biaggi:
I cannot begin to estimate how many lawsuits and appeals we currently have. We have three appeals with the State Environmental Commission. We just finished a hearing before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and we have a number of other ones pending. I can provide a complete listing for you.
Assemblyman Marvel:
How many deputy attorneys general does your division have?
Mr. Biaggi:
We are utilizing the services of 2.25 deputy attorneys general.
Assemblyman Marvel:
Is that adequate coverage from the attorney general’s office?
Mr. Biaggi:
No, it is not. We are requesting an additional 0.5 deputy attorney general position for the next biennium.
DEP Air Quality – Budget Page CNR-57 (Volume 3) Budget Account 101-3185
Mr. Biaggi:
This budget account supports the Bureaus of Air Quality Planning and Air Pollution Control. They are responsible for planning, directing, coordinating, and controlling air quality monitoring, permitting, and compliance assurance to achieve and maintain air quality to protect human health and safety. This bureau operates statewide, excluding Clark and Washoe Counties. Those two counties have their own air quality programs, which are directly delegated from the USEPA. The only activities we perform in Clark and Washoe Counties are the permitting of fossil-fuel fired power plant systems.
We have some significant issues we are dealing with in the State concerning air quality, and we require six new positions for coverage of the expanding workload. We are proposing these positions be funded through the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) inspection and maintenance fund.
M-590 Clear Air Act – Page CNR-59
The Clear Air Act, recently adopted by the USEPA, and maximum achievable control technology (MACT) federal regulations require the State to identify, permit, and monitor the compliance of a variety of new sources of hazardous air pollutants that have never before been regulated.
In addition, Pahrump Valley has recently been determined to be in non-attainment with the federal air quality standard for particulate matter (PM10). This designation requires the State to prepare an implementation plan to bring Pahrump Valley back into compliance. The plan must include a complete emissions inventory for the area, including area and mobile sources; modeling to identify the possible sources and their relative impacts; the identification and implementation of enforceable control measures; a determination of the effectiveness of those control measures; and timelines for implementation.
Similar work will need to be done in the I-80 corridor and other areas triggered for the federal prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program to ensure federal standards are not being exceeded as economic development occurs in those areas. The USEPA has new regulations that detail 120 new sources for PSD.
This decision unit adds 6 new FTEs with associated costs and approximately $300,000 in contract support each year of the biennium. The total request amounts to $657,872 in FY 2003-2004, and $763,976 in FY 2004-2005.
E-900 Position Transfer From BA 3173 – Page CNR-61
This position transfer will assist us in our outreach and technical assistance efforts to business and industry to ensure compliance in air quality programs.
E-375 Environmental Policies & Programs – Page CNR-60
This decision unit includes $400,000 in FY 2005 to be transferred from the DMV Pollution Control account to replace anticipated lost revenues from the permanent or temporary closure of the Mojave Generating plant in Laughlin. This possible closure is the result of a lawsuit brought by the Grand Canyon Trust and the Sierra Club. The settlement requires the plant to provide for the installation of increased pollution control devices to reduce emissions by the end of calendar year 2005. The plant is experiencing significant problems in securing coal contracts from the Navajo tribe in Arizona. Additionally, water sources are lacking to slurry the coal from the Navajo reservation to the facility in Laughlin. Unless these problems can be resolved the plant will be closing at the end of calendar year 2005.
E-710 Replacement Equipment – Page CNR-61
This decision unit includes air permit and maintenance fees of $55,143 in FY 2003-2004, and $47,596 in FY 2004-2005 for replacement of monitoring equipment, such as ozone analyzers, strip, chart recorders, and beta attenuation monitors, is also requested, along with a replacement vehicle, 18 desktop computers, 2 laptop computers, and 5 printers.
Senator Rhoads:
Can you explain your MACT program in Pahrump Valley?
Jolaine Johnson, Deputy Administrator, Air, Mining and Water Programs, Division of Environmental Protection, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources:
The program in the Pahrump Valley is a non-attainment issue. Dust in the area has created a PM10 violation of air quality standards. We have to work with the county and the USEPA to develop measures to reduce the dust generated. This is not a MACT program, which is more closely associated with toxic air pollutants, and administered on a statewide basis.
Senator Rhoads:
Does the plan have to be in place by December 31, 2003?
Ms. Johnson:
Yes, that is correct. We are trying to achieve compliance by developing a memorandum of agreement between the county, the State, and the USEPA.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
What is generating the dust in the Pahrump Valley?
Ms. Johnson:
The dust comes from large, cleared construction areas.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Why are the construction companies not paying for the cleanup?
Ms. Johnson:
We will be working with the construction companies to limit the amount of acreage they clear at one time, and require them to return to the site after the construction projects to ensure compliance.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Why not set up a clean-up trust fund for the construction companies requiring them to pay a certain amount into the fund when they receive a building permit?
In this manner, the funds for clean-up would be available on the front end of the project.
Ms. Johnson:
We are considering that type of funding coverage.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
If you require some legislation to implement this program, now is the time to let us know. I would like to see the plan in force in Clark County for its dust pollution problem. Do you work with the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) when they are doing new construction projects? How do you coordinate efforts with Clark and Washoe Counties?
Ms. Johnson:
We do work with NDOT. They prepare environmental impact statements in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. We are not participatory in their federal process, but when NDOT is clearing areas, their contractors do get dust control permits. Clark and Washoe Counties work directly with NDOT.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
In Clark County, we have a situation in the older neighborhoods of Las Vegas where NDOT expanded the viaduct. In doing so the existing houses are almost completely under the viaduct in a landlocked area. It is a noise pollution issue, as well as an air quality one. Many older citizens live in these homes and they are concerned about health problems created by the air pollutants. Apparently, NDOT does not purchase any land other than the necessary right-of-way. For future reference, we need to know if a policy for prevention is required to provide controls for these problems.
Ms. Johnson:
I will speak to the appropriate personnel in Clark County who administer the area you have indicated. They can set up monitors to determine if health standards for air quality are being exceeded. NDOT is required, when they do expansion projects, to evaluate and determine if the surrounding community is going to have an air quality problem because of the project. If they determine acceptable federal standards will be violated, they have to mitigate the problem.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
The residents in the neighborhood I am referring to offered to sell their properties to NDOT, but were refused. This is an older area. Would you suggest I go back to the time the project was completed to see if a mitigation plan was in place?
Ms. Johnson:
Yes, that is correct.
Senator Rhoads:
Will the three positions that the Interim Finance Committee approved for the regional haze plan be vacated after the plan is submitted?
Ms. Johnson:
It is not our intention to vacate those positions. Once the plan is accepted, there are implementation requirements, and we are responsible for ensuring the efforts are being made for compliance. We would have to continue inspections and evaluations for USEPA reporting and provide enforcement action as necessary.
Senator Rhoads:
Is the request to make up the reduced revenues in the Executive Budget because of the anticipated Mojave power plant closure?
Ms. Johnson:
Yes, it is. We will probably receive the revenue shortfall in FY 2005 because the plant will be operating through the end of calendar year 2004.
Senator Rhoads:
Does your division have any plans for raising fees?
Mr. Biaggi:
I anticipate for the next couple of years, we will have a restructuring of fees in the air quality program. There will probably be a slight reduction to reflect the new MACT requirements. The current fees for some projects, such as landfills and paint booths, are exorbitant. The fee schedule was intended for large power plants and industries, so we recognize a fee reduction is necessary to make the permits accessible to smaller business enterprises.
DEP Water Pollution Control – Budget Page CNR-63 (Volume 3)
Budget Account 101-3186
This account funds two bureaus, the Water Pollution Control and the Water Quality Planning. The funding structure for this account is very complex containing 25 different sources of revenue. We are asking for this budget account to be split in two.
E-901 Base Transfer to B/A 3193 – Page CNR-69
This decision unit separates Water Pollution Control and Water Quality Planning into separate bureaus. Specifically, the request transfers the base and M‑150 requests for 16 FTEs to BA 3193, which will be the new Water Quality Planning budget. The reduction for this budget account is $3,426,804 in FY 2003‑2004, and $3,483,692 in FY 2004-2005.
E-500 Accessible, Flexible, Cost-Efficient Government – Page CNR-66
This decision unit requests a new position in northern Nevada for the stormwater program. New Phase 2 stormwater requirements will begin March 2003, and will require additional resources to maintain our delegation from USEPA. The position will perform field duties such as plan, review, inspections, meetings, and outreach in accordance with the new requirements. The cost is funded from water permit fees of $72,429 in FY 2003-2004, and $94,048 in FY 2004-2005.
E-503 Accessible, Flexible, Cost-Efficient Government – Page CNR-67
This decision unit adds a new environmental scientist position for the nonpoint source program, which has seen a significant increase in workload and federal funding for water quality improvement projects. Federal grant funding is requested in the amounts of $61,897 in FY 2003-2004, and $73,617 in FY 2004-2005.
E-720 New Equipment – Page CNR-68
This decision unit recommends additional federal funds and water permit fees of $88,761 in FY 2003-2004, and $26,760 in FY 2004-2005 for new equipment, including specialized water testing equipment, two new 4x4 trucks, cell phones and color printers.
DEP Water Pollution Control – Budget Page CNR-63 (Volume 3)
Budget Account 101-3186
E-900 Transfer In – From B/A 3216 Env Lab Cert Program – Page CNR-75
This decision unit requests a transfer of the Environmental Certification Lab from the Health Division to Division of Environmental Protection (DEP) for consolidation of water quality testing and licensing efforts with DEP’s testing, permitting, and licensing program. The lab program is responsible for the certification of laboratories that analyze drinking water, and other non-potable water, for various regulatory agencies to ensure public health. Two health facilities surveyor positions and related costs are part of the transfer. Funds in the amount of $341,302 in FY 2003-2004, and $361,839 in FY 2004-2005 are requested.
Historically the DEP has contracted out this function to the Health Division, but we believe, along with the Health Division, that it is appropriate for the program be transferred to DEP in its entirety. There is also a proposal to bring hazardous waste into this laboratory certification program.
Assemblyman Marvel:
Are you taking over the State lab?
Mr. Biaggi:
No, this is not the State lab. This is a certification program for certifying laboratories, such as the State lab, private, and governmental labs to ensure they have the proper procedures in place to produce good high-quality data.
Assemblyman Marvel:
What lab did you use when you contracted out the function?
Mr. Biaggi:
We have used Alpha Analytical, Sierra Environmental Monitoring, labs of the USEPA, and the State health lab.
Assemblyman Marvel:
Where are the USEPA labs located?
Mr. Biaggi:
We have used the one in Richmond, California, and in Las Vegas. The USEPA labs are located all over the country.
Senator Rhoads:
Why do the new stormwater program regulations justify another position?
Mr. Biaggi:
The USEPA came out with some new regulations effective late last year that dramatically increase the scope of the stormwater program. The intent of the program is to control runoff in urban streets and construction sites. The stormwater program brought in a whole new set of criteria the regulated community must meet.
In order to conduct the necessary inspections and enforcement, one more position is required to complete the work.
Senator Rhoads:
Is any federal money available to pay for the position?
Mr. Biaggi:
This program is funded by a federal grant.
Assemblyman Marvel:
Are you involved in controlling the pollution caused by erosion runoff from fire areas?
Mr. Biaggi:
Yes, we are. We monitor throughout the State the impact of erosion from fires, and coordinate the information with the federal land managers on how to control runoff and erosion.
Assemblyman Marvel:
Do you have any money for mitigation?
Mr. Biaggi:
Yes, we do. The federal government provides us with 319 grant funds, which can be used for erosion control. We have also provided money for reseeding and other activities to control erosion.
Assemblyman Marvel:
Have you been involved in any projects?
Mr. Biaggi:
Yes, we have.
Senator Rhoads:
Are you using the water permit fees to fund the new position for the stormwater program?
Mr. Biaggi:
That is correct.
Senator Rhoads:
How do you justify using permit fees?
Mr. Biaggi:
There is a general permit fee for obtaining a storm water permit for individuals and companies. We have approximately 1533 new storm water permitees coming into this program.
Senator Rhoads:
You had initially indicated you were using federal funds for the program.
Mr. Biaggi:
I was confusing the program with the nonpoint source program. I apologize.
Senator Rhoads:
Would you comment on your reserve-funding request for additional out-of-state travel?
E-375 Environmental Policies & Programs – Page CNR-66
The request for$36,178 in FY 2003-2004, and $33,178 in FY 2004-2005 is a transfer of funds to this decision unit from M-150 of the agency’s adjusted base request. The additional out-of-state travel funds will be used to attend national storm water seminars to enhance outreach efforts to the new permitees. It will also be used for in-state travel for storm water activities including workshops, inspections, and enforcement. Some operating supplies and office equipment are also included.
Senator Rhoads:
Can you provide a detailed list of those activities?
Ms. Johnson:
Yes, I can.
Senator Rhoads:
How is your reserve funding going to be utilized to replace reductions in the General Fund appropriation?
Mr. Biaggi:
The General Fund appropriation was made possible by the shifting of employees from the General Fund to federal grants, fees, or other funding sources. The reserve is used as a balancing mechanism to provide the budget with the ability to balance the budget when changes occur in revenue sources.
DEP Water Quality Planning – Budget Page CNR-74 (Volume 3)
Budget Account 101-3193
This account is the split of budget account 3186 into two separate components.
E-920 Transfer In – From B/A 3186 (Enhancement E720) – Page CNR-77
This decision unit establishes the new account for the Bureau of Water Quality Planning.
DEP Waste Mgmt and Federal Facilities – Budget Page CNR-79 (Volume 3)
Budget Account 101-3187
This is the largest budget account in the agency in both staffing and expenditures. It is a very complicated budget with 19 revenue sources from federal grants, permit fees, and tire-recycling fees. No General Funds are appropriated to this account. In order to simplify accounting and enhance accountability, this account is being split into two components parts. The Bureau of Federal Facilities is moving to budget account 3198.
E-900 Base Transfer to BA 3198 – Page CNR-85
This decision unit transfers base expenditures for 13 FTEs in the Bureau of Federal Facilities to BA 3198
E-500 Accessible, Flexible, Cost-Efficient Government – Page CNR-82
This decision unit includes a new bureau chief position to manage the Bureau of Federal Facilities. A federal employee under contract through an interpersonal agreement previously performed this function. Additional contract authority is included to enable confirmatory sampling at Department of Energy and Department of Defense facilities. An environmental scientist position is in this decision unit to provide compliance inspections of underground storage tanks statewide, including Clark and Washoe Counties, to reduce the number of claims. The Petroleum Fund is the source of revenue to support this additional work. The request is for $384,110 in FY 2003-2004, and $435,798 in FY 2004-2005.
E-805 Major Reclassifications – Page CNR-85
This decision unit includes a request to reclassify an existing administrative assistant (AA) II position to an AA III position. The request is necessary to reflect additional administrative responsibilities that will be assigned to this position in the Bureau of Corrective Action. Fees and federal grants fund this position. The request is for $3604 in FY 2003-2004, and $3743 in FY 2004‑2005.
E-950 Transfer Position #360 to BA 3173 – Page CNR-87
This decision unit transfers a bureau chief position to serve in the division’s Office of Information Management and Planning. This position was recently reclassified and was formerly funded by the Hazardous Waste Fund. Base revenue has been adjusted, though it is not being transferred to BA 3173 since the position will be paid by IDC assessment. This account will be reduced by $106,417 in FY 2003-2004, and $79,375 in FY 2004-2005.
Senator Rhoads:
Do you need both positions and additional contracts to be funded by the Petroleum Trust Fund?
Mr. Biaggi:
We already contract with Clark and Washoe Counties to provide underground storage tank assistance activities. It is necessary to “beef up” the programs of the two largest counties in an effort to reduce the number of claims being made to the Petroleum Trust fund.
Senator Rhoads:
Are the replacement phones in this budget duplicating the replacement phones in the administrative budget?
Mr. Biaggi:
Yes, that is correct.
Bureau – Federal Facilities – Budget Page CNR-90 (Volume 3)
Budget Account 101-3198
Mr. Biaggi:
The work program approved by the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) on November 21, 2002, is for the One-Stop Grant program. The grant is a $500,000 3-year program to develop a comprehensive plan to reform DEP’s reporting requirements and information data management to reduce the burdens placed on the regulated community. One new FTE position was also approved by the IFC.
Senator Rhoads:
How do you obtain grant funding?
Mr. Biaggi:
Ms. Johnson spent a great deal of time, effort, and work on the application to obtain the grant. The State is one of the largest recipients of the grant award.
Senator Rhoads:
Do we have one division in the State government that seeks grants or is there one person in each agency?
Mr. Biaggi:
There are a variety of ways we learn about grants. The director’s office reviews the federal register and notifies us of potential grant opportunities. The actual grant application is completed in-house.
Senator Rhoads:
Is this a yearly or one-shot grant?
Ms. Johnson:
This is a one-time $500,000 grant to be used over a 3-year period. The National Environmental Exchange Network is the federal program supporting this grant. There are additional steps in the program to obtain more grants, and presumably funding will be provided for many more years.
Senator Rhoads:
Have you recruited for this new position?
Ms. Johnson:
We are in the process of hiring someone to fill this position.
DEP Mining Regulation/Reclamation – Budget Page CNR-96 (Volume 3)
Budget Account 101-3188
Mr. Biaggi:
This is a “hold-the-line” budget since fees assessed on the regulated community exclusively fund it.
E-710 Replacement Equipment – Page CNR-99
This decision is for replacement equipment, including a 4x4 vehicle, phone, chair, and four computers in FY 2004 for a reduction of $7205. A digital camera and five computers for a reduction of $6293 is requested in FY 2005.
Mr. Biaggi:
There is a need to increase fees, and we are working with the mining industry on a schedule for future increases.
Senator Rhoads:
I understand the Phoenix Mine in Battle Mountain is considering reopening, and two other possibilities are in Winnemucca and Boulder Valley.
Mr. Biaggi:
There are “rumblings” within the industry about possible reopenings. There also seems to be a lot of new exploration starting up.
Senator Rhoads:
Is bonding a big problem in possible reopenings?
Mr. Biaggi:
Bonding is a problem along with current economic uncertainties.
Senator Rhoads:
Is there anything the State can do through regulation or statute to help relieve the bonding problem?
Mr. Biaggi:
I believe there is, and our Mining Bonding Forum has identified some potential areas we can look at. Captive insurance pools and increasing the existing State bonding pool have been suggested.
Senator Rhoads:
Are there any bills being submitted for mine bonding?
Mr. Biaggi:
In may be premature to anticipate legislation at this time. It is a very complex issue balancing the economic viability of the mine site versus the environmental and public health protection factors.
Senator Rhoads:
Do you predict that in the future mining will continue at its current level? How will a war affect mining’s prospects?
Mr. Biaggi:
It is very difficult to predict because of the volatility of precious metal prices.
Assemblywoman Leslie:
Did you say there are some new regulations that will increase mining fees?
Mr. Biaggi:
No increase in fees is anticipated until the end of the biennium, and they would be to meet existing needs fueled by inflationary forces. We are looking at all our programs to put a cost-of-living-adjustment in place as part of the regulatory structure. The regulated community can then anticipate and plan for increases over time rather than have one-time significant increases.
Assemblywoman Leslie:
Is this the budget account where I would find the money that companies put up for corporate guarantees?
Mr. Biaggi:
Yes, this is the correct account. The corporate guarantees are held jointly by the federal land managers and the State as letters of credit.
Assemblywoman Leslie:
Do they have to put up any money to have your division look at their accounting books?
Mr. Biaggi:
Some of them have done so, and the funds would be in this budget account.
Water Planning Cap Improvement – Budget Page CNR-101 (Volume 3)
Budget Account 101-4155
Mr. Biaggi:
This account provides financial assistance enabling small communities to comply with State and federal drinking water regulations. The total budget is $199,000 and it includes 1.5 FTE positions. The primary expenditures in this account are for staffing and staff travel. There are no General Fund appropriations to this account.
E-720 New Equipment – Page CNR-103
This decision unit provides for a new laptop computer for presentations, meetings, and inspections. The total requested is $2200 in FY 2004.
Senator Rhoads:
Can you give us a list of the projects pending and funded by this account?
Mr. Biaggi:
I will get that list for you. There is a need for additional bonding capacity in this program because we anticipate all available funds will be allocated.
Senator Rhoads:
Was it A.B. 549 of the 71st Session that increased this account? Was the increase from $50 million to $69 million? Is that amount adequate?
Mr. Biaggi:
Yes, that is correct. The amount at this time is no longer adequate. We are considering asking for an additional $17 million. There was a request made in this session for an additional $4 million for Spanish Springs to provide wastewater infrastructure.
Senator Rhoads:
Are many of these water projects federally funded?
Mr. Biaggi:
I can get that information for you.
The meeting is adjourned at 9:49 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Judy Coolbaugh,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Chairman
DATE:
_____________________________________________
Assemblyman David R. Parks, Chairman
DATE:_______________________________________