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
March 6, 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 8:07 a.m. on Thursday, March 6, 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
Mr. Joshua B. Griffin
Ms. Sheila Leslie
Mr. John W. Marvel
Mr. Richard D. Perkins
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mark W. Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst
Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Michael J. Chapman, Program Analyst
James D. Earl, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Catherine Barcomb, Administrator, Commission for the Preservation of Wild Horses
Glenn Clemmer, Program Manager, Nevada Natural Heritage Program
Wayne R. Perock, Administrator, Division of State Parks, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Mike Nolan, Budget Analyst, Budget Division, Department of Administration
Allen Newberry, Chief of Operations and Maintenance, Division of State Parks, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Steve Weaver, Chief of Planning and Development, Division of State Parks, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Steve Robinson, State Forester Firewarden, Division of Forestry, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Andrew A. List, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties
Pete Anderson, Deputy State Forester, Division of Forestry, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Carol English, Administrative Services Officer, Division of Forestry, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Terry R. Crawforth, Administrator, Division of Wildlife, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Steve Bremmer, Chief, Administrative Services, Division of Wildlife, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Dr. Gerald A. Lent
STATE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES – OVERVIEW
Senator Rhoads:
We will come to order, and turn to the wild horse budget.
Heil Wild Horse Bequest– Budget Page CNR-14 (Volume 3)
Budget Account 607-4156
Catherine Barcomb, Administrator, Commission for the Preservation of Wild Horses:
This is a small status-quo budget. I will be glad to take questions.
Senator Rhoads:
What is the remaining fund balance?
Ms. Barcomb:
The balance is adjusted quarterly to reflect incoming interest and outgoing expenses. It is now just under $900,000. We committed $400,000 last session for the foundation, but we will retain that money in the trust as long as possible to let interest income accrue.
Senator Rhoads:
You have $900,000, which includes $400,000 plus interest?
Ms. Barcomb:
Last session $400,000 was committed for the foundation. To date, we have paid $206,000 to the foundation. The remaining $200,000 is being kept in the fund as long as possible, probably into the next fiscal year (FY). The money remaining in the account includes the remainder of the funds committed to the foundation.
Assemblyman Marvel:
What was the original bequest?
Ms. Barcomb:
The original bequest was about $485,000.
Michael J. Chapman, Program Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau:
My understanding is that about $485,000 was left to the State sometime in the early 1970s. The account was not set up until 1985. In the interim, interest had accrued to bring the fund to about $1.3 million by the time the commission was established.
Senator Rhoads:
How low can the fund balance decline?
Ms. Barcomb:
Prior to last session, we could not go below $900,000 without Legislative approval for emergency funding. Last session, the “emergency” requirement was deleted to allow the foundation to be funded. At present, the balance can decline to the original trust amount. There is a bill draft request (BDR) pending to allow us to go into the original trust funds.
Senator Rhoads:
Why is travel needed in light of reduction in the reserves?
Ms. Barcomb:
The Governor has requested travel curtailment. In previous years, we used teleconferencing. This limited input from rural communities. We have requested the same level of travel as in the past. We did not spend that amount in our base year.
Senator Rhoads:
Is anyone from Nevada on the national wild horse advisory board?
Ms. Barcomb:
Larry Johnson is a member.
Assemblyman Marvel:
What is the wild horse inventory now?
Ms. Barcomb:
The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has done very aggressive gathers the last 2 years because of the drought. The Nevada count is under 20,000.
Assemblyman Marvel:
What is the optimal number, the number the agencies want to attain?
Ms. Barcomb:
They still have not established the appropriate management level (AML) for Nevada. The current estimate is between 13,000 and 15,000.
Assemblyman Marvel:
If the drought continues, what will happen?
Ms. Barcomb:
BLM already is planning a number of gathers this summer.
Assemblyman Marvel:
Are you working at all with the prison programs?
Ms. Barcomb:
Yes. I was there yesterday. The foundation recently gave a $5000 grant to increase the panels. They would like to go to a 40-horse program.
Assemblyman Marvel:
Are the horses being adopted?
Ms. Barcomb:
The last adoption was held several weeks ago. The top horse was sold for just under $1000. The program may pay for itself.
Assemblyman Parks:
Would you explain the printing costs associated with your move?
Ms. Barcomb:
We moved almost 4 years ago. New stationary was printed at that time, in the fiscal year prior to the base year. I spent no money on stationary in the base year. While it has taken me more than 2 years, I will be out of stationary by the end of this year.
Nevada Natural Heritage – Budget Page CNR-27 (Volume 3)
Budget Account 101-4101
Glenn Clemmer, Program Manager, Nevada Natural Heritage Program:
We have an eight-person office. We serve as a clearinghouse for sensitive species. Our budget contains a two-position increase over the next biennium. The first is a biologist, the second a wetlands planner. Both positions are supported by federal grants. We also request replacement computers; this cost will also be covered by federal grants. Do you have questions?
Assemblyman Marvel:
Would you tell us a little about the pygmy rabbit?
Mr. Clemmer:
The pygmy rabbit is a sagebrush-obligate species, widespread in northern Nevada. It is a small, brown rabbit without the large tail of the cottontail rabbit. It is nocturnal and burrows. We actually know very little about it. It is not endangered, but some think it will be next to be identified as a species of concern. They are difficult to study. While they do show up as road kill, most studies are undertaken in the winter because tracks are left in the snow. They appear to be declining in numbers in peripheral habitat areas. There are specimens in the State museum and at the University of Nevada, Reno.
State Parks – Budget Page CNR-38 (Volume 3) Budget Account 101-4162
Wayne R. Perock, Administrator, Division of State Parks, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources:
The mission of the Division of State Parks, including administration of two federal grant programs, is detailed on page 1 of our handout (Exhibit C). Budget Account (B/A) 101-4162 is our primary operations and maintenance budget account as explained in the handout. The majority of the budget is flat; we are not requesting new programs.
Descriptions of our enhancement (E) items are found on pages 1 and 2 of the handout. I would like to incorporate them by reference and answer your questions.
Senator Rhoads:
Will there be an increase in user fees to support E-276?
Mr. Perock:
We do not anticipate raising fees for this purpose; we will be working to increase compliance.
Senator Rhoads:
Regarding E-377, how much money has been raised by the Tahoe license plate program?
Mike Nolan, Budget Analyst, Budget Division, Department of Administration:
During the peak year of 2001, that license plate raised about $400,000. There has been some decline, perhaps 5 to 8 percent annually, in the number of new plates purchased. However, the renewals seem steady.
There has been a budget amendment submitted. We received an offer we could not refuse. Through a series of accounting changes, license plate money that was going to be used to support a project at Sand Harbor will be available for other projects in the basin.
Senator Rhoads:
Is that the best selling license plate?
Mr. Nolan:
It far outstrips any other plate in circulation.
Assemblyman Parks:
Does the issuance of other plates diminish the income from sale of the Lake Tahoe plates?
Mr. Nolan:
One would assume so, but it is difficult to tell. When the Tahoe plates were first issued, they became a “must-have” item because of their striking colors. With time, the initial impact has diminished. It would be hard to quantify the effect of subsequent issues of new plates.
Senator Rhoads:
Why do you need the four repeater installations in E-712?
Mr. Perock:
We upgraded the radio system during the last biennium to take advantage of new technology and ensure compatibility.
Senator Rhoads:
Where are the sites located?
Allen Newberry, Chief of Operations and Maintenance, Division of State Parks, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources:
The repeater sites cover Lake Tahoe, Fallon, Panaca, and Las Vegas.
Senator Rhoads:
What is the condition of the equipment being replaced?
Mr. Newberry:
We are not replacing equipment. These are minor parts and repairs involving new coaxial cable and antennas.
Assemblyman Parks:
Does your system tie into other state emergency systems such as the Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP)?
Mr. Newberry:
We are tied into NHP and are working with them on dispatch services. We do use their repeaters.
Assemblyman Parks:
Do you need your own sites in addition to those of the NHP?
Mr. Newberry:
Yes. Our radios are multichannel, and we have repeaters for state parks, forestry and also deal with the NHP.
Assemblyman Parks:
I have a question that might be best directed to Legislative staff. There is a statute that has been in existence since 1967, NRS 349.294, Use of money received from issuance of state securities. It provides in part:
All moneys received from the issuance of any securities herein authorized shall be used solely for the purpose or purposes for which issued and to defray wholly or in part the costs of the project thereby delineated.
I have seen “left over” funds used to support staff positions. In light of this statute, is that use an appropriate one?
Steve Weaver, Chief of Planning and Development, Division of State Parks, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources:
Personnel are needed to implement the projects that are funded by bonds. Rather than hire consulting architects and engineers at $150 per hour, we usually hire staff at $38 per hour. Even were we to use consultants exclusively, we would still need personnel to perform a number of functions such as writing the requests for proposal (RFPs), to review plans and specifications, and to manage the projects. These people are directly related to the projects since the projects could not be done without them. This justifies expenditures on people and equipment.
Assemblyman Parks:
I would still like to have a legal review to ensure statutory compliance. Perhaps putting everything under the bond issue is not appropriate given that regular operations would include staff functions. I would like to ask staff to check this out further.
Assemblyman Marvel:
There seems to have been a shift towards increasing reliance on the General Fund. Has there been an increase in revenues from the room tax since the budget process began? I think we need to protect the General Fund as much as possible.
Mr. Perock:
I am not an expert in that area. It is my impression that room tax revenues have fallen, and, to maintain a level of services, more money is being drawn from the General Fund.
Assemblyman Marvel:
This budget has been under development for 6 months. Perhaps room tax revenues have increased over that period from the lows following 9/11.
Mr. Perock:
One thing to note: our visitation did not fall off in the aftermath of 9/11.
Mr. Nolan:
I do not know whether room tax revenue has increased recently. The decision to replace room tax funding in parts of the budget was made before December. An adjustment was made later to increase funding from room tax revenue in the FY 2005 budget and decrease General Fund monies accordingly. Last session, because room tax was in surplus, we took General Fund support away from support for parks. Now the room tax well has gone almost dry. We do think it will come back, as evidenced by our planning for the second year of this biennium.
Assemblyman Marvel:
Mr. Chairman, we probably should take a second look at this before we close the budgets.
Senator Rhoads:
Sure.
Mr. Weaver:
Discussion of park improvements is contained in the handout on pages 2 through 4 (Exhibit C). I incorporate that by reference. I will take your questions.
Senator Tiffany:
I visit the Belmont Courthouse area frequently. Last year we made sure there was a modest amount in the budget. What the heck does a “feasibility study” mean? You do not need to look at it to determine renovation is necessary. What needs to be done is pretty straightforward.
Mr. Weaver:
It is not that easy. The feasibility study goes to the stabilization and restoration of the historic structure itself. A large part of that study will determine costs. We have allocated $847,000 from Question 1 funds towards stabilization of the building. I am not sure that will be enough. The foundation is failing. We have to stabilize that and then retrofit it for seismic activity to make safe it for the public. There is a lot of engineering involved.
Senator Tiffany:
You do not know how silly this sounds to Belmont’s population of seven when I am sitting in Dirty Dick’s bar. When I tell them about $850,000 in seismic improvements, a local contractor dies laughing. He says he can do this for under $50,000. To get an historic architect and have a seismic interpretation done sounds absolutely absurd.
Mr. Weaver:
If it is absurd, that is what the feasibility study will tell us. We may drop the project if it ends up going to cost $1.5 million, which might be the case. Those prices, by the way, are based on the seismic retrofit costs on the State Museum here in Carson City.
Senator Tiffany:
You are missing my point. Doing a seismic study in Belmont, Nevada is crazy. Why do you have to do that? Why do you have to get a special architect? To those people, it is not getting done, you are blowing a heck of a lot of money, and you are not addressing the issue. It has been 4 years now. Do we have to do these things to comply with State law?
Mr. Weaver:
We want to bring the building up to code and allow the public to enter. We would like to restore the building completely. However, there is no sense in spending money on interior restoration unless the seismic retrofit is done first. Previous earthquakes have damaged the building. There are huge cracks. It is clearly not safe to enter the building. We should not allow the public to go in until the building is stabilized. There is no steel in the building whatsoever; it is a masonry building and very unsafe. If we have a large earthquake, that building is coming down. There is no question about it.
Senator Tiffany:
I am not sure it was earthquakes or wear and tear of 100 years. I cannot tell that. I do not know of any earthquake up there. Is the bottom line you have to do what you propose for liability reasons?
Mr. Weaver:
Yes. That area is seismic level III, the second highest earthquake level globally. We need to be cognizant of that.
Senator Tiffany:
So, is that what I should tell those people, the issue is State liability?
Mr. Weaver:
That is a large part of it.
Senator Tiffany:
That sure sounds absurd. Maybe we should just have Dirty Dick do it.
Mr. Weaver:
There is one other thing you should know. On my last visit I noticed that people were actually removing foundation stones from the building. That certainly is not helping either. There are gaps in the foundation caused by theft of foundation stones.
Senator Rhoads:
Tell us what is going on with the Floyd Lamb State Park. Is the county interested in taking it over? Are negotiations underway?
Mr. Perock:
I understand that a BDR is coming that would transfer the park to the city. I have talked to city officials to see if the park would be accepted as the gift the Governor intends it to be. The city council has not taken action. We provided information to city staff and they are crunching numbers regarding costs and revenues.
Senator Rhoads:
Why is it logical to transfer the park to the city?
Mr. Perock:
We conduct visitor surveys at all parks. One of the inquiries is the zip code of a visitor. Ninety percent of the visitors to Floyd Lamb State Park are local residents. This contrasts with many other State parks where local visitation is between 20 percent and 50 percent. City growth may spark interest in urban outdoor recreation, functions that the State normally does not provide.
Assemblyman Parks:
Do you know who will request the BDR?
Mr. Perock:
I have not seen it, but believe it will be coming from administration.
Assemblyman Parks:
I find myself in an ironic position. I was the budget director for the City of Las Vegas when the decision was made to give this park to the State. I opposed that transfer. Now, sitting here, I think it is the wrong decision to transfer the park back to the city.
Forestry – Budget Page CNR-109 (Volume 3) Budget Account 101-4195
Steve Robinson, State Forester Firewarden, Division of Forestry, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources:
The first several pages of our handout outline our division’s responsibilities and the federal grants we administer. (Exhibit D. Original is on file in the Research Library.) Pages 4 through 9 contain an overview of B/A 101-4195 and the following enhancements: E-277, E-377, and E-500. I would like to incorporate them by reference.
I would like to augment the information in the handout with regard to E-500 because this item has a rather tortured past. During the last session, administration proposed an increase in the amount we charge the counties for fire protection. Counties believed this unfair; they had not been consulted. There were considerable hard feelings. The provision was passed. Subsequently, the Governor considered increases as great as 300 percent to be charged to some counties and believed that to be unfair. He tasked me to get together with county officials and develop an allocation that was more acceptable. We did that in conjunction with the Nevada Association of Counties. The new formula involved lowering the administration fees although there was still about $50,000 that would have to be charged to the counties beyond what they had paid previously. The Governor asked whether budget funds could be found so as not to pass this cost on to the counties. The division had an unfilled position, and we have decided to keep it unfilled.
Senator Rhoads:
What is the bottom line on what you charge the counties now?
Mr. Robinson:
The formula includes various factors to reflect in-house costs of Division of Forestry.
Andrew A. List, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties:
I worked on these issues with Mr. Robinson and others. The formula reflects the value the counties derive from the program as well as the costs incurred by forestry in fighting fires in the relevant areas. One factor, for example, is whether the fire protection district is in an urban interface area. Firefighting is more difficult in these areas. Another factor is whether there is human activity in the area, because many fires are caused by human activity. The percentages of public and private land are also taken into account. The outcome enabled the Governor to keep his promise to the counties to lower their share of firefighting costs. We are happy with this proposal.
Mr. Robinson:
The considerations behind E-502, E-600, and E-712 are described on page 9 of our handout. Relevant to E-600 is the fact that we have been funded to give physical exams to everyone including most of our volunteers. We found that this had not been happening. We generally give exams once every 2 years, and volunteers do not always get exams. We reduced our request to more accurately reflect historical patterns.
Senator Rhoads:
Are there ten inactive fire departments today? If so, where are they?
Pete Anderson, Deputy State Forester, Division of Forestry, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources:
Some of the counties in western Nevada like Douglas and Storey have moved volunteer fire departments from forestry to county jurisdiction. They are no longer counted as part of our network.
Senator Rhoads:
How many volunteer fire departments are there in Nevada?
Mr. Anderson:
There are 23 in Elko County alone. There are about 12 in western Nevada; none in the southern region. Between Eureka and White Pine Counties, there are probably another six volunteer departments. Neither Winnemucca nor Lovelock are in our protection districts; they are independent and services are structured differently.
Senator Rhoads:
If there were a fire in Humboldt County, would forestry be involved?
Mr. Anderson:
We would provide assistance through mutual aid. This would mainly involve crews and supervisory positions. Federal agencies are typically responsible. Forestry only has eight protection districts covering about a third of the State.
Mr. Robinson:
We recently met with our federal partners. There was agreement that without volunteers we could not protect the State. We face severe challenges to replace volunteers, particularly in initial recruitment. If we fail, we will all be in a lot of trouble.
Senator Rhoads:
I am in a volunteer fire district. Several years ago, going uphill to get to a fire, several of us jumped on a forestry truck. They would not let us ride because we were not members of the Division of Forestry. Has that changed?
Mr. Robinson:
It certainly has changed in my experience.
Although not really an enhancement because no funds are involved, E-901 considerations are listed on page 10 of our handout.
Assemblyman Parks:
Are you comfortable with the audit findings, and have the discrepancies been resolved?
Mr. Robinson:
We are comfortable with the report. We have worked closely with staff. We accepted all the recommendations. We delivered our interim progress report yesterday. We have made good progress although I cannot tell you everything has been fixed. We will probably have to go through a fire season to see how well the system works.
Assemblyman Perkins:
There is a proposal to change the Division of Wildlife to the Department of Wildlife. Do you see any operational impact if that change is made?
Mr. Robinson:
I do not. We have already separated day-to-day operations from an administrative standpoint. However, we have also agreed with wildlife that we will help each other. In fact, we already have a plan in place. We will help wildlife on game surveys by using our pilots and airplanes. They will help us during fire season. We all work for the same government; this is how we will treat the issues regardless of whether wildlife is a division or a department. I see no functional difference.
Forest Fire Suppression – Budget Page CNR-120 (Volume 3)
Budget Account 101-4196
Mr. Robinson:
Considerations regarding this budget account are found on page 11 of our handout.
Assemblyman Marvel:
Will the honor camps close? If so, how would closure impact budgets, costs, and overall capability?
Mr. Robinson:
Closing honor camps would cripple initial attack capability, not only for the State but also for the federal government. I choose my words carefully. The honor camps are indispensable. If we had to replace those personnel with non‑inmate firefighters, our costs would certainly go up. This would probably impact both State and federal taxpayers.
Assemblyman Marvel:
What are the hourly wages?
Mr. Anderson:
Rates are adjusted annually by position. Entry-level firefighters earn about $8 an hour. Honor camp wages start at $1 an hour.
Assemblyman Marvel:
Are you aware that Congressman Gibbons plans to introduce a bill allowing use of National Guard aircraft for fire suppression?
Mr. Robinson:
I am aware of that. As you know, we frequently use National Guard aircraft. They are an integral part of our suppression activities.
Senator Coffin:
I have talked to General Vanderhoof. I understand the National Guard now has two kits for their C-130 aircraft. There are some maintenance problems. The chemicals are pretty corrosive, and the aircraft need quite a bit of work after use.
Have you been told that, if taxes are raised sufficiently, closure of the honor camps will be cancelled?
Forestry Honor Camps – Budget Page CNR-123 (Volume 3)
Budget Account 101-4198
Mr. Robinson:
There was serious talk within the administration of closing several honor camps this year as the budget was being built. The Governor made the decision not to close honor camps because of the major role the camps play as part of the infrastructure, particularly in the rural counties. But that was then, and now is now.
Senator Coffin:
It is important to me to get an idea of the benefits to be derived from voting for proposed tax increases. Will that additional money go to the right places? We may write the budget, but we do not control the spending or the freezes that may occur. Have you had any indication that you will be made whole if we vote for tax increases?
Mr. Robinson:
That is the way the budget is structured. The honor camps would continue if the recommendations are approved. Issues relevant to the honor account budget account are laid out on page 13 of the handout.
Senator Rhoads:
You may not be in a position to answer, but I can not help wonder why anyone would want to close an honor camp when the cost of maintaining a prisoner there is half, or less, of what it would cost at a medium security facility. I do not understand the logic.
Mr. Robinson:
Corrections could answer better than I. However, honor camps may offer some alternative for those prisoners with less than 18 months left to serve. Prisoners in that status may just be released early.
As most members are aware, there are about 1700 to 1800 inmates in the honor camps. Some projects not mentioned in the handout include building a school in Pioche, looking for space shuttle debris, caring for veteran cemeteries, and involvement in the chicken plague. Some of these projects are paid, many of them are not. State parks depend on honor camps for maintenance and building. The budget contains about $1.9 million revenue that is recommended we find through a combination of projects with Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) and others. Our crew supervisors constantly are searching for paying work in order to balance our paid and non-paid work. We have been pretty successful in meeting our revenue target.
Assemblyman Marvel:
Are you having difficulty getting crews for highway work?
Mr. Robinson:
We always struggle to find enough inmates. This is not the fault of the correction system. We need inmates ready and able for work. This corrections director has done more than was done in the past to try to fill the crews. There is also a variance among institutions. Some supply inmates regularly, others have problems. The supply of inmates is going up. Highway money is good income, and we expect to receive about $500,000 from NDOT. However, a lot of that money comes from tasks like picking up litter. This raises the question as to whether that job, or a job at Lake Tahoe working on a conservation project is the better use of crews. Both uses are worthy.
Assemblyman Marvel:
There are honor camps all over the State, so we do not have to worry too much about Lake Tahoe.
Mr. Robinson:
There are a lot of paid projects in the west we could take advantage of. We do have to commit to conservation projects that are not paid.
Senator Rhoads:
How did you determine which honor camp crews would be eliminated?
Mr. Robinson:
I believe the criteria used by corrections were to identify those camps with the least work, or those that generated the least revenue. Some are in rural areas. Even though they perform valuable services, they may not be generating revenue. There is also a question of getting free personnel to live there.
Senator Rhoads:
Again, I find the logic strange. Elimination of 48 prisoners at the larger prisons would save twice as much as eliminating 48 honor camp inmates. Elimination of honor camp inmates represents a cost to the General Fund.
Is there a problem of cost allocation involving the federal government?
Mr. Chapman:
During budget preparation, the determination was made not to include the cost allocation increase for the State wide cost allocation plan. The concern is whether this meets federal regulations for assessing costs equally across all the agencies.
Mr. Nolan:
The increase in the assessment was waived for the biennium. The State wide cost allocation plan rose over a number of years. The increase in fringe benefits and the adjustment in needed earned revenue from four crews could make things tight. If they meet their budget and exceed their revenue target, we will take the money. Otherwise, what is waived will roll into next biennium’s assessment.
Assemblyman Parks:
Have you expressed your views on elimination of these positions to the department of corrections?
Mr. Robinson:
I have, both with corrections and the budget office. I have expressed my concerns here regarding fire suppression. We have told those offices that there will be an obvious reduction in what we can do. A decision was made that we would live with the elimination of these positions, and we will.
CNR Forestry Inter-Governmental Agreements
Budget Page CNR-129 (Volume 3) Budget Account 101-4227
Mr. Robinson:
Budget Account 101-4227 deals with the agreements we have with fire districts throughout the State. Information begins at page 17 of the handout. We negotiate with the counties each year. The agreements change, dramatically in Storey County. A year ago Storey County wanted to assume a more traditional role in protecting the community. We think that was the right thing to do. The Governor’s policy is for local governments to assume traditional fire protection. We still provide seasonal protection for wild land fire. We did something similar with Douglas County last year. This was somewhat traumatic. We had to lay off personnel and try to get them rehired in the new department. However, assumption of a traditional role by communities is a trend.
Senator Rhoads:
I understand the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) paid for some positions assigned to Douglas County. Who pays for them now?
Mr. Chapman:
When the IFC approved the FY 2003 work program for this account, there were eight seasonal firefighters assigned to Douglas County. It is my understanding that they will be paid directly by the county. We are trying to determine if that is still the situation.
Carol English, Administrative Services Officer, Division of Forestry, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources:
The Douglas County budget approved by the IFC for this year only funds those eight positions for the upcoming fire season through May or June. The county paid for the position for the portion of last year’s fire season falling into FY 2002. That was not included in what was approved by the Legislature. Next fiscal year, when the new county budget comes in, the county plans on giving us more money to fund more seasonal positions.
Wildlife– Budget Page CNR-139 (Volume 3) Budget Account 101-4452
Terry R. Crawforth, Administrator, Division of Wildlife, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources:
The Division of Wildlife has 225 positions in the budget. The Governor’s budget preserves existing programs. I will not repeat the general presentation I made during our last session. However, I have distributed several slides from that PowerPoint presentation I believe will be helpful (Exhibit E.). Page 1 shows the revenue sources supporting the wildlife account. The main source of federal grants comes from a 13 percent excise tax on sporting equipment apportioned to the states by a formula. We use that money primarily to support fish and wildlife restoration programs. Fees and license revenue is a growing proportion of income. Transfers from the boating account goes mainly for salaries of involved employees.
Senator Rhoads:
How much of the 27 percent comes from gifts? What are some examples of gifts?
Mr. Crawforth:
Less than half of that portion of the pie chart comes from gifts. We get gifts from a number of sportsman organizations such as Nevada Bighorns Unlimited and Fraternity of the Desert Bighorn Sheep. They may relate to specific projects and vary from year-to-year. Many relate to wildlife water development or traffic and transplanting operations.
Page 2 shows our license revenue trends. For the last few years revenue has been relatively flat. Most states, countrywide, are experiencing significant downtrends in license sales. While Nevada users are becoming a smaller percentage of the population, the absolute number is pretty steady.
Senator Rhoads:
I know that our deer herd is decreasing. Are license issuances declining even where game populations are high?
Mr. Crawforth:
They are. Fishing licenses are sagging in all states. We expect our license numbers to remain fairly constant. Climate is the major impact on our licenses. Sales went down a fair amount in the last drought, and rebounded when the drought ended.
Page 3 shows the history of federal aid. Sales of sporting goods are expected to be relatively flat; this impacts on excise tax collections which impacts on our apportionment from federal authorities.
Page 4 shows our General Fund appropriations. The two spikes on the chart represent years when we were provided with a low-cost license reimbursement. We issue a number of licenses every year below the standard license fee. The difference in that revenue runs about $500,000 annually. On those two occasions, we have been provided with reimbursement for low-cost licenses in addition to the support of the non-game program, now called the wildlife diversity program.
Page 5 depicts our best guess as to what will occur to existing programs with existing revenues. The Legislature has been interested in the past in our reserve account. As a user-funded agency, we try to retain a significant reserve for two reasons. First, we use it to moderate our activities over a number of years, knowing that revenues will vary based on climate.
Senator Rhoads:
Are these projections based on the recommended increase in fees?
Mr. Crawforth:
No, the impact of that increase is on the next page. The second reason to maintain a reserve in the wildlife account is for cash flow. We sell the majority of our licenses in the spring and early summer. By late winter, the reserve is at its lowest before it starts building again as license year begins on March 1.
We have a significant across-the-board fee increase coming to you. We have not had a fee increase like this since 1996. The impact of the proposed fee increases is shown on page 6. We would be very tight next year; after that, the reserve would start to build.
Senator Rhoads:
Several game boards have supported the fee increase. Is support unanimous?
Mr. Crawforth:
We have heard from six or seven of the county wildlife boards supporting legislation for the fee increases. We have not heard from any county game boards in opposition. We have received support letters from a number of sportsman groups.
Senator Rhoads:
Are fees set by regulation or by statute?
Mr. Crawforth:
Most fees are set by statute. There are several instances where the wildlife commission has authority to set fees within certain limits.
Our budget recommends 3.5 fewer positions for the coming fiscal year.
Steve Bremmer, Chief, Administrative Services, Division of Wildlife, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources:
I would like to point out several things regarding B/A 101-4452. The General Fund appropriation was increased due to a decrease in the Governor’s recommended budget of the tourism transfer to zero because of the state of the tourism account. The $100,000 we have made historically from B/A 101-4454, the trout stamp management account, has been decreased to zero. Normally that transfer is made to B/A 101-4452 to help support the fisheries program. However, the administration felt it was important to retain funds in the hatcheries refurbishment program. Costs in FY 2004 and FY 2005 for the license automation system are intended to wrap up the start-up costs for that program. The Web-based boating registration program is already on-line and other parts are currently becoming available. We will be finishing the program in the next biennium, although many costs will relate to maintenance.
Maintenance unit (M) 100 relates to inflation in fish food. Fish food costs are climbing at twice the increase of inflation in the State. Enhancement (E) 275 relates to our on-going facilities renovation program. Several years ago our engineering staff undertook a feasibility study of all our facilities and is conducting an as-you-go rehabilitation program. E-375 deals with special one‑time projects. This is the agency’s lifeblood. Every biennium the agency undertakes projects to improve the status of wildlife. We do a series of projects through this enhancement module. As those projects are completed, they are backed out of our base budget. We then submit new projects identified through our consolidated management system (CMS) that funnels potential projects up from staff level. Decisions are made based on what the agency can afford and which projects best benefit wildlife. Enhancement unit E-600 is the agency’s 3 percent General Fund reduction. Enhancement unit E-601 is the reduction of 3.5 agency staff. Our account for equipment replacement focuses on vehicles. When our wardens have put 100,000 miles on a vehicle, it is generally used up. If we do not replace them then, the maintenance costs increase to the point where it is no longer worth retaining the vehicle. Our policy is to attempt to rotate vehicles out of the fleet at 100,000 miles. That anticipated lifetime is greater than that used for general State vehicles.
Senator Rhoads:
What is the need for the new Suburban in addition to the other 35 vehicles?
Mr. Bremmer:
I will have to get back to you. We have a number of vehicles like that.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
What happens to your old vehicles? What is the general retirement limit?
Mr. Bremmer:
They are sent to purchasing and sold at auction. We do not sell them ourselves. They are very much in demand. Generally state vehicles are retired at 80,000 miles, but we find we can do 100,000 miles. By the time a vehicle is actually sold, it averages about 114,000 miles. Sometimes we are lucky and find one that is still in pretty good shape. That vehicle is turned over for administrative, in-town use.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
When a vehicle is sold, do you get that money? If so, where is it accounted for?
Mr. Bremmer:
We get that money. It goes directly into B/A 101-4452 under “Miscellaneous Sales.”
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
How many vehicles did you get last biennium?
Mr. Bremmer:
I will have to get back to you with the exact number, but I would guess about 15 annually.
Senator Rhoads:
Are you going to address the fee increases?
Mr. Crawforth:
We just saw there is a BDR covering fee increases.
Senator Rhoads:
Without going into the matter in depth, are our fee increases in the same ballpark as those in other western states?
Mr. Crawforth:
We will always be a little above the median. We will not be the highest, seeking some safety in numbers. Where we might sell 40,000 hunting licenses and more than 100,000 fishing licenses, California might sell millions. As a result, our fees are a little on the high side. Our proposal does include a cost‑of‑living‑index trigger in the future. Our proposed increases are exactly in line with cost-of-living increases since 1996.
Senator Rhoads:
I see you have indicated a possible decrease in resident hunting license revenues, but an increase in out-of-state license revenues. Why is that?
Mr. Crawforth:
That is impacted by tag sales. Our deer population is not doing very well. Antelope, elk, and sheep are doing fairly well. Mule deer are not doing well in the western U.S. Tag sales tend to correlate with license sales.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I notice that Indian and disabled veteran licenses come into play in the next fiscal year.
Mr. Crawforth:
Currently Native Americans get free licenses. It costs us about $5 to issue one. I cannot recall the fee, if there is one, for disabled veterans. We are looking to recover our costs.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
You might want to change your computer program to say “Native American.”
Mr. Crawforth:
Actually, while I agree with you, “Indian” is the statutory term.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Have you always had no-fee authority for Native Americans?
Mr. Crawforth:
That license has been in existence since the agency has. They pay for tags, and participate in the tag drawing. Pursuant to statute, we issue Native Americans a license, but at no cost to them.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Have the various groups been notified of the proposed increases? Have you had feedback?
Mr. Crawforth:
We have talked to some members of every user group. As you might imagine, we have received mixed reception from some individuals. This is certainly understandable when license fees are impacted.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
How many Native Americans and disabled veterans currently get free licenses? Are you projecting a decrease correlated with the imposition of license fees?
Mr. Crawforth:
I think we will see a fair decrease in the number of Native American licenses. Many are issued to people who do not hunt and fish, but have simply obtained the license through an automatic renewal process. Once we begin charging, the numbers are likely to decrease. However, I do not think it will affect people who actually hunt and fish; I think it will affect people who have not participated other than to obtain a license.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Do I understand correctly that you automatically renew the license of any Native American who holds one?
Mr. Crawforth:
Yes, if the individual is from a resident Nevada tribe.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
How did you project your budget? What numbers did you use based on the assumption that some automatic renewals would drop out?
Mr. Crawforth:
We did a trend analysis based on the last 8 years to try to determine how many individuals would fall into what group. In FY 2002 there are 329 Native Americans holding licenses and 159 disabled veterans. It is very difficult to estimate the licenses in the future because of the type of change we anticipate.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, we could at least pursue that statutory name change when we do the budget change.
Senator Rhoads:
I agree.
Wildlife – Boating Program – Budget Page CNR-149 (Volume 3)
Budget Account 101-4456
Mr. Crawforth:
We are the boat agency in Nevada and run a five-point program. We title and register boats; we enforce boating safety; and we have a boating education program. We have a boating access program for construction and rehabilitation of boat ramps and associated facilities. We also maintain navigational aids on some of Nevada’s waters.
Revenues to support our boat activities come from title and registration fees, which pay for that program. We receive some federal aid through the U.S. Coast Guard from the aquatic resources trust fund, which is fed by excise taxes on boating equipment. We also receive sport fish restoration funds through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; these are largely directed at access facilities. We receive a portion of the State’s gasoline fuel tax based on recurrent usage studies determining the amount of fuel attributed to boating. We receive half of that annually.
As I mentioned earlier, we transfer a substantial amount of funds from the boating program to the wildlife program. Most of that goes to salaries of employees involved in boating work.
The BDR we have proposed from the Governor’s office includes some boat registration and title fee increases.
Senator Rhoads:
It seems everyone is raising fees and yet we are raising taxes by $1.4 billion. Where is that $1.4 billion going? You are still cutting your expenditures by 3 percent.
Mr. Crawforth:
We are a user-funded agency. We do get a few hundred thousand dollars from the General Fund for specific programs, but the outdoor recreational user funds our activity. This is the American funding model.
Senator Rhoads:
The demand has not grown with our population, has it?
Mr. Crawforth:
Over the long term, we will have to find other funding vehicles for wildlife conservation. I do not think license fees will be sufficient.
Senator Rhoads:
The State went from 300,000 people to over 2 million, yet our hunters did not increase that rapidly.
Mr. Crawforth:
That is correct; the number of hunters has remained static. We are fortunate that the numbers have remained constant; most states have seen decreases.
Senator Rhoads:
People just do not want to get outside. Even in states where deer populations cause problems, sport hunting is not increasing.
Mr. Crawforth:
The numbers of hunters are not going up. Particularly in the east and south-east where the number of white tailed deer cause problems in urban settings, there are fewer hunters. The result is more opportunities are given to individual hunters. In some states, a hunter can take as many as five or ten deer annually. Our hunters are fortunate to get a tag 1 year out of every 3.
Mr. Bremmer:
There are several items I want to mention in B/A 101-4456, definitely a base budget. The enhancements E-275 and E-375 are one-time projects. Every biennium we do new projects that are then backed out of the base budget once completed. We request new projects thereafter in E-275, facilities renovation having to do with boating access, and E-375, one-time projects. Maintenance M-300 represents the transfer to B/A 4452 for benefit changes incurred for personnel working in that budget account who do boating work. This might be boating safety, registration, or enforcement. Our fee increases are contained in E-501. Lastly, E-710 and E-720 are for new and replacement equipment associated with the boating account, primarily new boats and motors.
Senator Rhoads:
The boat costs $80,000? This is not a rowboat, is it?
Mr. Crawforth:
The boats we buy for search and rescue, particularly on Lakes Mead, Mohave, and Tahoe, are pretty expensive.
Wildlife Account – Trout Management – Budget Page CNR-155 (Volume 3)
Budget Account 101-4454
Mr. Crawforth:
This budget is relatively straightforward, and becoming more so. We sell $10 trout stamps to everyone who fishes for trout in Nevada. By statute those funds are used for management, propagation, and protection of trout and habitat.
Senator Rhoads:
When was that fee last raised?
Mr. Crawforth:
It was raised last session in conjunction with a hatchery refurbishment project. It was five dollars before, and was raised to the current ten. We are not recommending it be raised again.
We have four installations in the State. Our proposal is to refurbish all of them since they are literally falling down around our ears.
Senator Rhoads:
Do you have to buy fish out of State?
Mr. Crawforth:
We do buy some fish out of State, especially for urban ponds, because we do not raise catfish. During the hatchery refurbishment project, we will be buying trout out of State because we will have to shut a hatchery for about a year. We plan on using trout stamp funds and federal fish restoration aid during the next biennium to make bond payments on the hatchery refurbishment project.
Senator Rhoads:
I understand the Governor recommended $12.5 million in revenue bonds to be sold in the next biennium, why have only $1 million been sold to date?
Mr. Crawforth:
What we proposed, and what the Legislature has agreed, is a 6-year, $21 million program. We started last year, getting bond sales authority for $3 million. We used $1 million to do planning and design. We are ready to go to bid for shutdown and refurbishment of the hatchery at Lake Mead. That is almost an $8 million project, and we do not have sufficient bond authority. We need to obtain that authority from the Legislature this session. We hope to get sufficient bonding authority to carry us through the life of the project, and we would only call for sales as we needed them. The $2 million remaining authority will not get us where we need to go on the current project.
Senator Rhoads:
When you finish, will you be able to produce more fish than at present?
Mr. Crawforth:
We will be raising fish better, but will not raise a lot more.
Assemblyman Marvel:
What impact does the tremendous drop of water level in Lake Mead have? Will Gallagher be impacted by the drought?
Mr. Crawforth:
Our facility is located upstream from Saddle Island. We actually buy our water from the basic system in the area. Gallagher has not been impacted by past droughts; that facility is supported by several good springs. That hatchery was county-run for a number of years, and was initially located because of the water source. Maintaining water quality and disease-free water is more of a challenge than quantity at that facility. The facility near Baker has very good water. We pump all the water for the Mason Valley hatchery. Drought has not had much impact on any of our facilities.
Assemblyman Marvel:
Would you elaborate on the $100,000 transfer annually to the wildlife account?
Mr. Crawforth:
We provide varying amounts of funds from the trout account to the wildlife account for operations of the hatcheries over the years based on the health of the trout account. We have eliminated the $100,000 transfer to wildlife in the coming biennium because we project we will need all of the trout stamp revenue to repay bonds.
Senator Rhoads:
Why should all property owners pay for a portion of the hatchery refurbishment program that is approved to be paid by the purchasers of trout stamps, some $5 million?
Mr. Crawforth:
I think the majority are beneficiaries of our riparian and trout hatchery programs. We have tremendous visitation at the hatcheries; the refurbished hatcheries will have extensive educational programs. Healthy trout waters are good for all of us. I believe you are referring to the recently adopted Question 1 bond, when we participated in that effort, we explained what we wanted to use some of the funds for.
Assemblyman Parks:
Do you have a duplication of Question 1 bond dollars and trout stamp resources?
Mr. Crawforth:
No, as I mentioned, we believe we are undertaking a 6 year project to shut the hatcheries down in turn for refurbishment. This will cost about $21 million in total. The $5 million we would like to take from the Question 1 program is not duplicative; it is part of the $21 million, not an addition to that amount.
Mr. Bremmer:
In closing, I would like to thank Legislative staff and others, including budget office personnel, who have worked together with us in an important, dynamic process.
Wildlife Obligated Reserve – Budget Page CNR-158 (Volume 3)
Budget Account 101-4458
Mr. Crawforth:
This is a relatively new account. In the past these funds used to be in the wildlife account. It was difficult to distinguish our reserve from the obligated funds. With Legislative help several sessions ago, we created this account. Projects that have statutory restrictions associated with revenue, expenses, and gifts are in this interest-bearing account. This account contains the duck stamp program where funds are used to do wetlands and waterfowl-related projects. Those projects are presented annually to the board of wildlife commissioners before implementation. Our operation game thief program, which is funded by gifts and donations in addition to civil penalty funds, is essentially a secret witness program for wildlife violations. Each applicant for an elk tag is assessed an additional $5 fee, which goes into a special fund to pay for elk damage to private property or exclusionary fencing materials.
Senator Rhoads:
How much money is in that fund?
Mr. Crawforth:
I think it is about $741,000. We spend as much as $100,000 annually.
Senator Rhoads:
Do we grant elk tags to property owners who allow others to hunt elk on their property?
Mr. Crawforth:
We have two programs for elk, the compensation program and the incentive program. If a landowner wants to participate in our incentive tag program where they are part of the management of the elk in that geographic unit, they may get tags to resell based on the population of elk in that particular unit. There is a complex formula used to derive the number of tags.
Senator Rhoads:
What is the definition of an upland game bird?
Mr. Crawforth:
That group includes sage grouse, chucker, pheasant, and quail. Ducks are waterfowl and not included.
Senator Rhoads:
Are you raising the fee associated with those birds?
Mr. Crawforth:
We are asking that the duck stamp fee be raised from $5 to $10. We do not have an upland game stamp program. That would be a new fee. Most states have such a fee. We spend a lot of time on water developments and range rehabilitation for the benefit of upland game. Frankly, we are running out of funding resources.
Other parts of the obligated reserve include a special program for Carson Lake. We acquired almost $5 million worth of water, about 8000 acre-feet, using old Question 5 funds. That water is applied to the wetlands of Carson Lake. Our major expense is to pay operations and maintenance delivery costs on that water.
We also have an extensive water development program, the wildlife guzzler program, to develop facilities that catch rain and snow for storage to benefit a variety of wildlife.
There is also a permit and assessment fee applied to mining operations, largely gold mining, which have toxic ponds associated with their facilities. We have a program in B/A 101-4452, the wildlife account, which pays for staff to work with the mining industry. The excess of those fees are placed in this account to work with the mining industry to do habitat rehabilitation projects.
All of these elements in the heritage account are obligated for specific purposes.
Senator Rhoads:
Where does the $3 fee for predator control go? How much does it generate annually? Is it for a dedicated use?
Mr. Crawforth:
That is in the wildlife account. We get between $325,000 and $330,000 annually into that account from each tag application. It is a dedicated use for predators. We have one person on staff. The projects are presented to the board of wildlife commissioners for approval. Many are implemented for animal damage control.
Senator Rhoads:
I see you have some computers in this budget.
Mr. Bremmer:
This is a base budget, as in other accounts, there are some one-time projects in the budget that get backed out of the budget and new projects are added under E-375. As approved for FY 2002 and FY 2003, the biodiversity program has been moved from this account and placed in B/A 101-4452. Lastly, on budget page 160, the line “federal habitat project” has undergone a change. That had been the federal share of revenues from a land sale we had. Instead of paying these funds to the federal government, we performed projects as compensation. So, instead of writing a check and then requesting the return of those funds, we undertook projects.
Senator Rhoads:
Is there a BDR in the works for the proposed $3 habitat conservation fee and the $5 increase of the duck stamp? Are these in the Executive Budget?
Mr. Crawforth:
Yes, a BDR is coming. I think only parts of the fees are in the Executive Budget. That was our error. In developing our proposals with the sportsmen and the wildlife commission, we skipped a beat.
Mr. Bremmer:
The two missing items are habitat conservation fee and the additional duck stamp revenue. We have started to work with staff on that issue.
Senator Rhoads:
Is there input from the public?
Dr. Gerald A. Lent:
I represent the Nevada Hunter’s Association. We have great concerns as consumers and users. The fee increases are new taxes on sportsmen. The budgets you just heard are predicated on major fee increases. We are talking about $7.5 million in a two-year budget cycle. These are huge increases from the perspective of sportsmen. We are concerned about the cost-of-inflation kicker in the planned BDR. We feel this needs some type of fiscal oversight by Legislative committee. Putting an inflation kicker in an agency funding bill without oversight can cause problems. I do not think oversight is included in their proposal. The biggest complaint from hunters is that we do not see any improvement in game programs. Yet, these game programs generate most of the revenue. The deer herds are at record lows and we are very concerned. Hunters will drop out of the system because of increased fees and there is less game. I hear “I have quit hunting” all the time. You cannot tax sportsmen without some consequence. Here, you are going to cut your own throat. I have attended a number of commission meetings. I have heard comments like, “We will just close Lake Mead hatchery to save money.” That is not a solution. You want to grow game and fish programs because those generate income. The process seems backward in that we are hearing the budget before an increased fee budget is even drafted. It is unpopular to reopen budgets. So the budget seems predicated on these fee increases, which are not settling well with users.
Senator Rhoads:
I thought the board of wildlife was set up to provide oversight of the department. Additionally, all the county game boards are functioning. In the eight counties I represent, I do not know one game board that has disapproved these proposed fee increases. Most have approved.
I live in real deer country. When I moved there in the 1960s there were a lot of deer. The numbers have declined since. I blame it on predators, the drought, the
fires we have had wiping out winter ranges, and the wild horses. They have just killed winter country for deer. Until we solve these four problems, our deer herds will not increase. I do not blame the department of wildlife for the low deer herd.
We thank you for your comments and we will take them into consideration.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 am.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
James D. Earl,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Chairman
DATE:
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman David R. Parks, Chairman
DATE: