MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY, NATURAL RESOURCES AND TRANSPORTATION ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS AND SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE Sixty-eighth Session March 2, 1995 The meeting of the joint subcommittee on Public Safety, Natural Resources and Transportation of the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance was called to order at 7:38 a.m., on Thursday, March 2, 1995, Chairman Larry L. Spitler presiding in Room 321 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Larry L. Spitler, Chairman Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr. Mr. John W. Marvel Mr. Jack D. Close Mr. Thomas A. Fettic Ms. Chris Giunchigliani SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen Senator William R. O'Donnell Senator Bernice Mathews STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Jeanne L. Botts, Program Analyst Dan Miles, Senate Fiscal Analyst Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst Chairman Spitler welcomed those people who attended the joint subcommittee meeting. He stated this was the first time joint subcommittees had been held and hoped this would speed the legislative process. He indicated three chairpersons would be handling the meetings and there would be a rotation schedule among Assemblyman Fettic, Senator Jacobsen and himself. When prisons and the inmate store fund were addressed, Chairman Spitler disclosed he was an employee of Sprint Central Telephone Company, who had, in fact, bid on issues for telecommunication services and would not be participating or voting in those areas. Chairman Spitler announced several budgets would be heard which were not heard before as a full committee, those being the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Waste Management and Federal Facilities, Nevada Natural Heritage, Mining Cooperative Fund, Nevada Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, State Climatologist, and the Heil Wild Horse Bequest. The remaining budgets on the agenda were budgets which had been heard previously, and the joint subcommittee would be looking at broader policy issues, those being Natural Resources Administration, High Level Nuclear Waste, Environmental Protection Administration, Air Quality, Water and Mining, Division of Conservation Districts, State Lands, Carey Act, Water Resources, Water Planning, Water Planning Capital Improvements, State Parks, and Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. Chairman Spitler requested Mr. Turnipseed address the budget on Water Resources on page 1955 in the budget books, which had been heard previously, and pages 3 and 36 of the highlights. WATER RESOURCES - PAGE 1955 R. Michael Turnipseed, State Engineer, explained he had presented the Water Resources budget to the full committees a couple of weeks previously and went through the base budget, the maintenance budget and the enhanced budget. Since that time he had received a memorandum from Jeanne Botts, Program Analyst, requesting information, and he was prepared to address those issues. Question number one was, "In addition to the seven positions requested in the enhanced portion of the budget, what would the division need to eliminate the backlog in processing water right applications and hearing protested applications?" In response, Mr. Turnipseed distributed to the joint subcommittee members a copy of the Water Resources organizational chart (Exhibit C). The bottom shaded section and those sections to the left and above, including the three clerical staff, worked in the water rights branch, which was headed by the Deputy State Engineer in charge of water rights. Staff in the water rights branch spent their entire work effort processing applications, including title work and any other investigations needed in order to approve or deny the application. Mr. Turnipseed explained the water rights section had 26 staff members. If the section continued to review 1,200 applications per year, a total of 6,000 applications would be reviewed over a five-year period. The backlog was slightly in excess of 4,000 applications, resulting in 10,000 applications needing processing over the next five years in order to reduce the backlog. In 1994 905 applications were processed, which should increase as staff received training. In order to process 10,000 applications over five years, staff would need to be doubled. Seven positions were requested in the enhanced portion of the budget, five of which would be working in the water rights processing section. It was estimated 40% of staff time was spent waiting on the public, entering applications into the computer, and working on the map table, and 60% of their time was actually spent moving the applications along. Five positions out of the seven requested in the enhanced budget were subtracted from the double-staff figure, multiplied by 60%, which resulted in 13 new positions needed to reduce the backlog over the next five years. Chairman Spitler inquired if state law required water applications be processed within one year. Mr. Turnipseed responded affirmatively. Chairman Spitler inquired of the number which had not been completed within the one-year time frame. Mr. Turnipseed indicated approximately 4,500 applications were ready for action, of which approximately 3,900 were over a year old. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired if five positions were requested in decision unit E-805 but not approved. Mr. Turnipseed responded affirmatively. Ms. Giunchigliani asked what was included in decision unit E-450. Mr. Turnipseed stated there were no expenses for personnel, but it did include out-of-state travel and additional space. Ms. Giunchigliani asked what caused the increase in the permit requests. Mr. Turnipseed indicated the increase was due partly to growth and the emphasis on water. Many stockmen in the state were encouraged to make their water rights current and file applications on springs or stock water wells being used in the 1970's. A report filed by the Legislative Counsel Bureau during the 1981 legislative session recommended Water Resources hire 12 new staff because of the backlog. In fact, the 12 new staff were not hired, resulting in a larger backlog. The backlog started in the late 1970's and early 1980's, and Water Resources had been acting on approximately 50% of the applications since that time. Ms. Giunchigliani requested a breakdown by county of the applications received at Water Resources. Mr. Turnipseed noted because of the large backlog, Water Resources had a lot of latitude in acting on applications. Many of the protested applications were on the bottom of the list. Many of the backlog files related to whether the United States or stockmen own water rights. An effort was made to keep current mining applications and municipal changes by the Las Vegas Valley Water District, WestPac, the city of Ely, the city of Minden or the city of Gardnerville because they obviously had a higher public benefit. When Ms. Giunchigliani asked if there were enough hearing officers for the protested applications, Mr. Turnipseed responded no. Ms. Giunchigliani again requested a breakdown by county on the applications received by Water Resources. Mr. Marvel inquired how many applications were received from the Las Vegas Valley Water District. Mr. Turnipseed responded 146 applications were filed by the district, of which 21 had been withdrawn, 3 pertaining to the Virgin River had been acted upon, and the remainder were in the backlog category. Mr. Marvel asked if any of the applications had been filed under protest. Mr. Turnipseed indicated 3,612 protests had been filed against the applications. All applications had been protested. Mr. Turnipseed continued his response to the issues raised by Jeanne Botts. Question number two asked: "Would more fees be collected if more staff were added?" He responded more fees would be collected. It would be difficult to estimate the increase in fees collected because the backlog figure included 1,500 to 1,700 protested applications which likely would be denied. He estimated if 25% of the applications were subject to rejection, an average of $150 to $200 per application might be collected which would provide an additional $375,000 per year. Mr. Fettic inquired what the effect on the state would be if the law required applications be acted upon within one year. Mr. Turnipseed commented the state was in an awkward position, and he supposed the law was being violated daily. Mr. Fettic asked if that put Mr. Turnipseed or the state in a tenable position. Mr. Turnipseed responded yes. There had been a couple of legal actions as a result of protested applications which were over one year old, and they were acted upon. Chairman Spitler requested a breakdown be provided to the joint subcommittee members of the 20 new positions being requested along with the operating expenses associated with the positions, including space and computer requirements. Mr. Turnipseed distributed copies of a document entitled Division of Water Resources Addition to Enhancement Request (Exhibit D) to the joint subcommittee members. He pointed out the handout figures, which had been prepared the previous evening, did add up properly; however, when the categories for positions, salaries, benefits, operating, travel, training, equipment, space, and computers were added, those expenses for training and travel were forced to agree with the numbers. Chairman Spitler inquired why the handout was prepared last evening when it should have been submitted with the original budget. Mr. Turnipseed noted the question he responded to was how many additional people would be needed to reduce the backlog in addition to the seven new positions requested in the budget. The seven positions were itemized in the budget. Mr. Close expressed concern over comments made by Mr. Turnipseed regarding Water Resources violating the law every day. He stated it set a bad example for the state to have an employee make such a comment, even though in jest. Unless the legislature authorized the additional staff, Water Resources was caught in a "Catch 22" situation, but the rectification of the situation should have been a high priority. Mr. Close asked if it would take five years to reduce the backlog to zero with the addition of the requested staff. Mr. Turnipseed responded that was correct. Mr. Close inquired if the addition of 13 people would be "sunset" after five years. Mr. Turnipseed indicated Water Resources had a fairly high turnover rate, and the additional staff could be sunset. He pointed out, though, the backlog included more than the processing of water permits. Mr. Turnipseed explained the adjudication effort was begun with an administrative process to bring up to date all old "prestatutory" water rights. The administrative procedure was followed by a judicial procedure, and the final result was a decree identifying the ownership, points of diversion, flow rates, place of use, and volume of water the parties were entitled to. When new industry entered the state, the best water right was identified which was available for purchase. There were approximately 50 adjudications pending. During the 1991-93 biennium, adjudications were not handled due to a lack of staff. The two staff members who worked in the adjudication section had retired, and only one was replaced after the 1993 legislative session. Mr. Close requested a written rationale for retaining the additional staff beyond the five years and after the backlog has been eliminated. Mr. Marvel commented Water Resources was one of the agencies which was severely impacted during the budget cuts and actually had staff taken away during that period, which had created the backlog situation. Ms. Giunchigliani asked the Budget Division why nothing was recommended in the enhancements. Mike Nolan, Budget Division, explained he was to address a hold-the-line budget, deal with serious problems, and adhere to the priority list provided by the director of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Those positions were not within the cut line on the priority list of positions provided by the Department. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired if position staffing was a priority. Peter G. Morros, Director, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, responded the positions were low on the priority list because the state engineer's office had received significant attention in the previous two sessions at the expense of personnel in other divisions within the department. It was a matter of where problem areas would develop, which was the state engineer's office, and they had been there for a long time. Mr. Morros stated Mr. Turnipseed had missed the point of Mr. Close's question in terms of sunsetting the positions. The reason for the backlog was because Water Resources had not had the positions to perform the work. If the backlog were addressed, the staff could be reduced, but it should be kept from happening again. Some of the staff would need to be retained if the workload remained as it is now. Ms. Giunchigliani stated she would need to look at many budgets to see how many were hold-the-line budgets based on cuts, precuts or after the cuts and whether or not certain enhancements came in or if it was just a "false freeze" and full funding levels had never been achieved for growth in the previous biennium. Mr. Morros commented there was a provision in the law granting the State Engineer a delay of the one-year requirement on pending applications provided studies were being conducted in the area or on the source of water where the appropriation was sought or where there was litigation pending, and there was plenty of pending litigation statewide. Chairman Spitler asked what percentage of the backlog had approved delays beyond the one-year requirement. Mr. Morros stated he did not know but guessed in the area of 50%. Chairman Spitler requested Mr. Turnipseed provide the information to the joint subcommittee. Chairman Spitler called for public testimony on the Water Resources budget. Ande Engleman of the Nevada Press Association commented in the Water Resources budget there was a $50 fee for publication of notification when someone had filed for water rights. While policy stated the publication should run once for four weeks, the water department's attorney interpreted that to mean five times. The $50 fee had been in force since 1989. Newspapers had no choice but to accept the $50 fee since it was governed by statute. However, the actual cost to newspapers ranged from $143 for a five-time insertion at the Reno Gazette Journal down to the actual $50 for the Lincoln County Record. It was originally proposed to the Senate Natural Resources Committee there be a two-tiered fee in the amount of $100 for those newspapers with circulation of 15,000 or less and $150 for those newspapers with a circulation over 15,000. Mr. Morros had requested Ms. Engleman to appear before the money committees to explain the fee structure. Newspapers were faced with a 40% increase in newsprint costs, which for some papers would mean refusing to run the water notifications at the $50 fee. Mr. Turnipseed commented ways were being explored to reduce the number of lines in the legal notice. Chairman Spitler remarked it was interesting that the state required publication by statute at a specified rate. He asked what would happen if the publisher said they were not compensated for the publication of the notice. Mr. Turnipseed noted the legislature in 1989 had increased the fee from $25 to $50, and as a result the application fee was increased by that amount. Ms. Giunchigliani remarked the fee had increased 300% since 1989. She asked who placed the publication requirement in the statute. Mr. Turnipseed indicated Water Resources had been publishing five times since 1913. The language actually stated notification should run for four consecutive weeks, but it had been changed approximately 20 years prior. Ms. Giunchigliani wondered if the process needed to be revisited as to its effectiveness. Mr. Morros explained the concept of requiring the applications be published was developed in 1913. It was felt at that time requirements of a legal notice must be met, and the legislature embraced that concept and set the statutory requirement for the publication. All the fees collected by the State Engineer with the exception of the payments made to the newspaper and the groundwater recharge program went to the General Fund. Mr. Morros commented it would cause significant problems if newspapers refused to publish the notices. Ms. Giunchigliani suggested a review be made of the best way to provide notification to the public. Ms. Engleman commented legal notices were covered under Chapter 238 of NRS. Chairman Spitler called for further public testimony. There being none, he closed the hearing on budget account 4171 and opened the hearing on budget account 3187. WASTE MANAGEMENT AND FEDERAL FACILITIES - PAGE 1899 Verne Rosse, Deputy Administrator for waste programs within the Division of Environmental Protection, explained budget account 3187 covered the bureaus of Corrective Action, Federal Facilities and Waste Management. The authority for the programs was found in Chapters 444, 444a, 459, and 590 of NRS; the Federal Resource Recovery Act; the Superfund Act; and Nevada Administrative Code adopted by the Nevada State Environmental Commission. The Bureau of Corrective Action operates programs which oversee the clean up and remediation of waste-contaminated sites. The program includes consultant certification, underground storage tanks, leaking underground storage tanks, petroleum claims, remedial action and the Superfund. The programs were developed with extensive cooperation of the regulated communities and were known to be some of the best in the western United States. Programs operated by the Bureau of Federal Facilities included the Department of Defense facility restoration and the Department of Energy facility restoration and regulation. The Bureau of Waste Management programs regulated the handling of large quantities of highly hazardous chemicals, hazardous wastes, and the management of solid waste. Programs included chemical accident prevention, hazardous waste management and solid waste management. Mr. Rosse called attention to the new performance indicators on page 1899 of the Executive Budget. During the previous budget cycle the agency had been limited to only 4 indicator categories for 11 programs. The new indicators were more descriptive and included measurements for federal grant purposes. There was no General Fund money supporting the programs. Support came from grants from the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy and fees. Fees collected from the treatment, storage or disposal of hazardous wastes are used for the regulation of highly hazardous chemicals; fees collected from the sale of new tires are used for the regulation of solid waste; and fees from the sale of petroleum products are used for the regulation and cleanup of leaking underground tanks. Chairman Spitler commented to all members of the audience that the committees had experienced many problems with performance indicators as the agency budgets had been heard. The committees were looking at results of the work performed by the agencies. He remarked the agencies would be asked to revisit their performance indicators and provide to the committees an indication of how agencies did their work and how well the work was being accomplished, such as, had the threat of catastrophic accidents involving hazardous chemicals, in fact, been reduced. Chairman Spitler complimented Mr. Rosse on his performance indicators. Mr. Close agreed with the comments made by Chairman Spitler. He requested the performance indicators for the recycling program be revisited. Mr. Rosse explained there were four new positions being requested in decision unit M-200. Within the Bureau of Corrective Action a request was made for an Environmental Management Specialist III for the Leaking Underground Tank Program and a Management Assistant I for the Petroleum Claims Program. Within the Waste Management Bureau a request was made for another Environmental Management Specialist III for the Las Vegas office and a Staff Engineer III for the Hazardous Waste Program. The position for the Leaking Underground Tank Program would be supported by a Federal Environmental Protection Agency grant and would assist with the oversight and cleanup of 250 active sights which had been contaminated by leaking underground tanks. The Management Assistant I position would be supported by the Petroleum Claims Fund and would support staff in preparing correspondence, filing receipts for fees, record keeping, data entry, transcription of minutes, setting up board meetings, and public outreach support. The position for Hazardous Waste would be supported by the Hazardous Waste Management Fund and would provide supervision of the Hazardous Waste staff in Las Vegas and assist with the increase in complaints concerning hazardous waste and the growth in regulated businesses in the Las Vegas area, which had increased 11% during the past year. The Staff Engineer III position for Hazardous Waste would be supported by the Hazardous Waste Management Fund and would assist with permitting activities, corrective action, technology reviews, recycling facilities for hazardous waste, permit renewals, and monitoring permitted facilities. Engineering feasibility was reviewed for each corrective action conducted on the 17 permitted facilities. Mr. Rosse noted the expenditures in decision unit M-200 had been annualized for 11.5 FTE's which were vacant in 1994 and the 4 new positions. The out-of-state travel budget was increased to allow participation by the three bureaus with the Federal Environmental Protection Agency, national and western states organizations. In-state travel was required for inspections, investigations, and to provide technical assistance to the regulated community. Forty thousand dollars of the operating budget was for general operating expenses, and the remainder of the budget dealt with contracts and professional services. Chairman Spitler asked why the clerical position requested in decision unit M-200 would begin three months earlier than the professional position. Don Hataway, Chief Assistant Budget Administrator, Budget Division, explained that decision was made by the Budget Division. The clerical position was not tied to the professional position. Mr. Hataway felt it would take longer to recruit for the professional position and would not be necessary to budget the position for July 1. The cost of living adjustments were also taken into consideration when the decision was made. Chairman Spitler inquired if vacancy savings were being generated by this decision. Mr. Hataway responded any changes made were balanced to reserve in anticipation of additional costs being impacted on budget account 3187. The Legislative Counsel Bureau staff had been promised that once basic decisions regarding all the Environmental Protection budgets had been made, Waste Management would provide the final numbers through a fairly complicated cost allocation process. Chairman Spitler requested Mr. Rosse provide to the joint subcommittee information regarding when the professional person would be needed. Chairman Spitler noted three employees were recommended for transfer to the Department of Information Services. He asked if the employees were actually being lost to the Department of Information Services. Lew Dodgion, Administrator, Division of Environmental Protection, explained it was his understanding the three positions would remain housed with the Division of Environmental Protection throughout the next biennium, after which time they would be relocated to the Department of Information Services. Chairman Spitler inquired if ancillary duties not directly related to information services would impact the agency during the current biennium. Mr. Dodgion responded it was his understanding they would not. Chairman Spitler inquired who would know the answer to the question. Mr. Dodgion stated he posed the same question to Karen Kavanau and that was her response. He expressed concern that the positions going to the Department of Information Services could be assigned duties outside of servicing the Division of Environmental Protection for which the division would pay a fee, which could cause a problem with federal grant accounting. Chairman Spitler requested staff to contact Karen Kavanau to find out the status of the three positions being transferred to the Department of Information Services. Mr. Hataway stated it was his understanding the positions would stay with the budgets for the remainder of the biennium. Chairman Spitler inquired why the transfer was being made. Mr. Hataway responded this was a Department of Information Services issue, and they felt more productivity could be obtained at a lesser cost out of the total group of people assigned as systems analysts. Chairman Spitler asked where he would go to find out if, in fact, that was a reality. Mr. Hataway replied, the Department of Information Services and the Budget Director. Chairman Spitler requested staff to ask the question. The same issue had been raised in several other budgets. While Chairman Spitler agreed with the concept of the Department of Information Services doing this, he felt it had a very profound effect on the operation of a department because those employees were not doing exclusively Department of Information Services functions but other tasks were performed for the various departments where they were located. Chairman Spitler turned the joint subcommittee's attention to landfills and inquired what Waste Management had done for rural counties regarding landfills, how many landfills had been closed, and had smaller landfills been given extensions for complying with yet another federal mandate cast upon the state which was, according to Chairman Spitler's understanding, breaking the budgets of some counties. Mr. Rosse responded Waste Management had received authorization from the Federal Environmental Protection Agency for the Nevada waste management program. The authorization provided flexibility to establish requirements on landfills within the state. The flexibility allowed discretion in the use of liners if it could be shown groundwater was naturally protected, thereby reducing the requirements on groundwater monitoring. Staff at the agency was working with all the counties but particularly rural counties where there was a significant financial impact as a result of the new regulations. Historically, rural counties had used other funds to manage their solid waste activities. Federal law now required counties to generate resources to manage solid waste. Chairman Spitler inquired how many landfills had been closed. Mr. Rosse estimated there were 100 landfill sites in the state, 90 of which were the size that should be closed if they could not be managed properly. The cost of managing the 90 landfills would be prohibitive for the rural counties. If the resources were available, rural counties could manage the sites properly. The alternative would be consolidation of landfills. The agency had been verbally notified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency that a one-year extension on implementation of the requirement had been granted to rural landfills. Mr. Marvel inquired if there were alternative plans regarding the federal requirements. Mr. Rosse indicated the agency would continue to work with rural counties. It was not the intent of the agency to bring enforcement action against rural counties. Mr. Marvel asked what recommendations Waste Management would make to rural counties. Mr. Rosse stated that was a difficult question. Rural counties needed resources. Mr. Marvel asked what type of site preparations needed to be made to address landfill problems. Mr. Rosse explained some rural areas could reduce the number of days landfills were open. Mr. Dodgion indicated Waste Management was in a difficult situation because if the rural counties did not come into compliance, there was a state law to enforce compliance. It was contemplated enforcement would include the issuance of a finding of violation and an order and then development of a compliance schedule, which would be enforceable within the order, to enable the county to come into compliance without facing enforcement action. If compliance was not met, the law allowed for citizen lawsuits. It was anticipated the compliance schedule negotiated in an enforcement action would provide protection against citizen lawsuits. If the federal government were to find the state was not enforcing the waste management program, state delegation could be removed and enforcement given to the federal Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. Marvel inquired what action the federal Environmental Protection Agency might take. Mr. Dodgion indicated the federal government had the ability to assess penalties as much as ten times greater than the state penalty provision. The state statute provided for a penalty of $5,000 per day, which was the minimum required by the federal government. The federal law allowed for up to $50,000 per day. Mr. Marvel inquired if sanctions other than fines could be assessed. Mr. Dodgion stated a federal judge would probably have to deal with that problem. Mr. Marvel noted he represented five counties where this issue was a serious problem. Mr. Dodgion agreed the problem was serious and commented his staff was small and engineering resources were not available to help provide design work for rural counties, except in limited circumstances. Chairman Spitler noted decision unit E-720 included $84,541 in the first year of the biennium and $50,000 in the second year of the biennium to upgrade the two existing local area networks. He inquired if the Department of Information Services required the agency to complete a Business Process Re-engineering (BPR) study before purchasing additional hardware and software. Mr. Rosse indicated a request to perform a BPR study had been made. The agency was down on the list and could proceed as long as steps were being taken to perform the BPR. Mr. Fettic inquired if progress had been made in the Ely landfill situation. Mr. Dodgion noted an attempt had been made by the county commissioners to assess a fee, which had been repealed through the ballot process by residents. The city of Ely was operating the landfill and collection service without the benefit of even the fees which had previously been collected before the ballot measure. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired if what was going on was the result of additional regulations or new regulations being added to current Environmental Protection Agency regulations. Mr. Dodgion explained these were new federal regulations dealing with municipal landfills. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the regulations dealt with eliminating trash. Mr. Dodgion stated the regulations addressed landfill management for municipal garbage or solid waste. Ms. Giunchigliani questioned how 90 landfills were derived from 17 counties. Mr. Dodgion noted the landfills were located in small communities. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the issue was whether the landfill would potentially affect groundwater. Mr. Dodgion explained the intent of the federal regulations was to protect public health and to prevent groundwater contamination. Different dates for communities of different size had been established for compliance. Smaller communities had until October 1993 to come into compliance and then were granted a two-year extension to October 1995, which was driving the compliance issue presently. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired what efforts had been made by small communities to come into compliance between 1991 and 1993. Mr. Rosse commented those were for large communities like Las Vegas. Ms. Giunchigliani remarked the small communities would know something was coming up, the effort was not made, and then there were more extensions. Mr. Dodgion explained when something like this comes along, compliance is not sought until close to the mandatory date for compliance. Ms. Giunchigliani noted for six years communities were aware that something was going to come down as far as compliance. Mr. Dodgion emphasized many rural counties had struggled with the issue and were attempting to deal with their planning and financing problems. Mr. Fettic noted many of the problems revolved around how much money it would cost the small counties to come into compliance. He asked if it was Elko City or Elko County that did come into compliance, which cost 25% of their general fund revenue to stay in compliance. Mr. Dodgion suggested it was Lander County. Mr. Fettic pointed out this was not a small expense for these counties. Senator Mathews inquired if the Balanced Budget Act resulted in a cut to the Waste Management budget. Mr. Rosse indicated approximately 50% of the agency's funding came from federal grants, and a majority of the money was used for contracts. Contracts would be cut if the grants were reduced. Senator Mathews expressed concern regarding the agency's ability to continue with its investigative function if funding were cut. Mr. Rosse did not feel the investigating aspect would be affected initially, but it would depend on how deep the cuts were. If all funding were cut, remediation and cleanup would be slower. Chairman Spitler called for public testimony on the Waste Management and Federal Facilities budget. There being none, he closed the hearing on budget account 3187 and opened the hearing on budget account 4101. NEVADA NATURAL HERITAGE - PAGE 1987 Glenn Clemmer, Program Manager, Nevada Natural Heritage, stated this was a three-person agency within the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Although Nevada Natural Heritage had been in the state for approximately nine years, the program became a state agency approximately four years ago. The agency was charged with maintaining a comprehensive data base of sensitive species in the state of Nevada. This was a large task in that Nevada was among the top ten states with the most sensitive species. Mr. Clemmer wanted to review the Nevada Natural Heritage history and also provide an update on what had been accomplished by the agency. Funding for the agency was originally initiated from the Nature Conservancy. Since then, $100,000 had been received in each of 4 years from the Question 5 bond issue, but that source of revenue will not be available after 1995. The funding made possible the assimilation of statewide data on sensitive species. There were approximately 3,000 data entries on a myriad of species. Mr. Clemmer provided a handout to the joint subcommittee depicting the highest priority conservation sites in the state of Nevada (Exhibit E). It was important to maintain and track data, as biological data changed annually. Most biological studies were one-time events. Nevada Natural Heritage assimilated all the biological studies into a continuing process to update the information on sensitive species throughout the state. Mr. Clemmer noted one of the best performance indicators was the number of data requests answered, which primarily went to developers and the mining industry who were interested in knowing if there were sensitive species in the area. Chairman Spitler inquired if projections in the performance indicators were based on five staff members. Mr. Clemmer responded yes, but in the past year staff was reduced to three. Nevada Natural Heritage had received some funding from the Fish and Wildlife Service for one year, which was reflected in the base budget. One person had been hired and another person had been interviewed, which would hopefully reduce the backlog. As more time was spent answering data requests, less time was spent updating the data base. Since the Question 5 funding would end in 1995, a request was being made through an enhancement decision unit for funding from the General Fund for the next biennium. Mr. Close inquired what would happen if money from the General Fund were not approved. Mr. Clemmer indicated the agency would cut back and try to maintain an assemblage of what the agency was doing. The credibility of the data base would be in question. Mr. Close asked if any federal funding was tied to money provided by the state. Mr. Clemmer indicated federal money was not matched by the state. Chairman Spitler noted the Department of Transportation worked with the Nevada Natural Heritage. He inquired of the possibility of increasing work performed for the Department of Transportation or other agencies, including federal agencies or private sector, which could be revenue generators for the Nevada Natural Heritage program. Mr. Clemmer stated that would be a possibility. The Department of Transportation agreed the services provided by Nevada Natural Heritage were a good value at $40,000 per year. Otherwise, they would need to contract for those services. The majority of the services provided were to the Department of Transportation, State Parks, Forestry, and the Division of Wildlife. Chairman Spitler inquired if services could be provided to builders. Mr. Clemmer indicated services were provided to builders for a small fee. A computer search cost $35. When Chairman Spitler inquired if that fee covered the cost of the service, Mr. Clemmer replied not at all. If fees were raised, smaller organizations balked at the price because of lack of funds. Mr. Clemmer mentioned there were approximately 300 sensitive species in the state, ranked from 1 to 5 based on their rarity, vulnerability and the level of management needed to protect them. As a result of the ranking, there were approximately 12 sites which were considered the most vulnerable, and emphasis had been concentrated at those sites in order to stay ahead of potential conflict. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired where private sector would go for information if they did not go to the Nevada Natural Heritage. Mr. Clemmer replied libraries had information available; however, the only data base and information listing for plants was with the Nevada Natural Heritage. The Division of Wildlife and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service had information on animals, but it was not as comprehensive as the state agency data base and did not cover the entire state. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if other agencies charged a fee for providing information. Mr. Clemmer said he did not think they did. Ms. Giunchigliani suggested the information be combined into a single data base so efforts would not be duplicated. Mr. Clemmer commented other agencies had some information, but the data base at the Nevada Natural Heritage was comprehensive and not duplicative. Ms. Giunchigliani remarked the Division of Wildlife needed to be asked why they were not charging a fee for services. Mr. Clemmer commented the $35 fee charged by the Nevada Natural Heritage was a base fee and was increased 50 cents per record for larger orders. Mr. Close requested information be provided to the joint subcommittee members regarding the agency's Biodiversity Project in terms of what was hoped to be accomplished and how long it was anticipated the project would last. Mr. Clemmer indicated funding came from a one-time grant from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to help build the data base. He agreed to provide the requested information. Senator Mathews inquired which protected species were found at Steamboat Hot Springs. Mr. Clemmer responded there was a federally listed plant called Steamboat Buckwheat which occurred only at that location. Chairman Spitler called for public testimony on the Nevada Natural Heritage. There being none, he closed the hearing on budget account 4101 and opened the hearing on budget account 5000. MINING COOPERATIVE FUND - PAGE 2003 Jonathan G. Price, Ph.D., Director and State Geologist, Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, and Administrator, Mining Cooperative Fund, provided a handout to the joint subcommittee (Exhibit F) and explained the Mining Cooperative Fund financed special resource topographic mapping and environmental and engineering geology projects carried out through cooperative agreements between the United States Geological Survey and the Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology. According to Nevada statutes, the United States Geological Survey must match the state appropriated funds at least dollar-for-dollar. The projects were designed and initiated by the Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology and were not mandated by the federal government. Dr. Price noted the maps and geologic reports completed through the program provided basic information used by a broad spectrum of individuals, including construction engineers, environmentalists, exploration geologists, highway planners, urban planners, students, tourists and residents of Nevada for the enjoyment of outdoor recreation. The projects covered by the fund addressed such critical issues as economic development, protection of the environment, and reducing risks from natural hazards. The attachments to Exhibit F explained some of the specific projects supported by the fund. Dr. Price commented the fund had been and would continue to be an excellent investment for Nevada. It was estimated the value of undiscovered mineral resources in Nevada was likely to be between $120 billion and $1.2 trillion. The Mining Cooperative Fund helped to provide broad regional data needed to find the resources. Without the fund, certain geologic hazards would be more devastating to the health, safety, and welfare of Nevadans and tourists than would otherwise happen. Chairman Spitler inquired if NRS 514.060 should be amended since state funding for the program was no longer provided by means of a General Fund appropriation. Dr. Price stated it probably should be amended. The original statute called for the funding to be provided through the General Fund. Other funding sources came through fees from mine reclamation. During the budget reductions of the prior biennium, General Fund money was removed, and the agency was left with only the mine reclamation fees to support the Mining Cooperative Fund. Chairman Spitler asked if there was movement by the Budget Division or the Mining Cooperative Fund to request a bill draft to accomplish the amendment. Dr. Price replied a bill draft had not been requested. Chairman Spitler inquired if the Budget Division was planning to request such a bill draft. Mike Nolan, Budget Division, said there had been no initiative or action proposed. Chairman Spitler asked if there were plans the Mining Cooperative Fund would receive General Fund money in the future. Mr. Nolan stated he was not aware of such a plan. Chairman Spitler requested staff to determine whether a bill draft request was needed. Mr. Marvel queried whether the closing of the United States Bureau of Mines would have an effect on the Mining Cooperative Fund. Dr. Price replied the closing of the Reno office of the United States Bureau of Mines would not have an immediate impact on the program. Part of the original Republican "Contract With America" called for the elimination of the United States Geological Survey, which would have an impact on the program. However, Dr. Price heard the United States Geological Survey had been removed from the list of agencies set for elimination. There were concerns regarding what parts of the United States Geological Survey would continue to operate. The staff at the Mining Cooperative Fund felt it was important that geological mapping, mineral resource, and hazards related programs continue to be maintained. Mr. Close requested the performance indicators expand the accomplishments of the Mining Cooperative Fund. Dr. Price stated the handout (Exhibit F) provided that type of information. The performance indicators were basically the publications produced by the Mining Cooperative Fund and the United States Geological Survey, including reports, geologic maps covering many parts of the state, and a quarterly newsletter which provided updates on the activities of the agency. Mr. Close expressed his appreciation for the importance of mining to the state of Nevada and felt the Mining Cooperative Fund needed to publicize its activities more. Ms. Giunchigliani asked why the Mining Cooperative Fund was a state agency, because there were no state funds supporting the agency. She stated it would more properly belong with the University of Nevada School of Mining. Dr. Price noted the fund itself was the broader picture of geological and mining-related activity. Funds were provided to the Mining Cooperative Fund through university funding, and the Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology was administered through the university system. When Ms. Giunchigliani inquired if General Fund money given to the University of Nevada went to the Mining Cooperative Fund, Dr. Price responded affirmatively. Ms. Giunchigliani asked how she would find out what that amount of money was. Dr. Price stated the funding was part of the statewide program budget for the University of Nevada. Ms. Giunchigliani remarked since the Mining Cooperative Fund was funded through education, maybe it more naturally belonged in the education budget. She requested the Budget Division provide the dollar amount of General Fund money supporting the Mining Cooperative Fund. Chairman Spitler called for public testimony regarding the Mining Cooperative Fund. There being none, he closed the hearing on budget account 5000 and opened the hearing on budget account 4166. NEVADA TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY - PAGE 2009 Pamela Wilcox, Administrator, Division of State Lands, and Executive Officer, Nevada Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, introduced Kay Bennett, Chairman, Nevada Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Board. Ms. Wilcox explained the jurisdiction of the Nevada Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (NTRPA) was formed during the compact revision negotiations of 1979 and 1980. The future of gaming at that time in the Tahoe basin was a critical issue. Part of the compromise which made up the compact was that gaming could continue to exist on the Nevada side of the Tahoe basin but would be essentially "frozen in time". Formulas were set up, and NTRPA was given the jurisdiction to ensure that gaming in the basin continued to operate in accordance with the compact. NTRPA kept files for all structures housing gaming in the Tahoe basin and reviewed all plans for modifications to those properties. The NTRPA Board consists of the seven Nevada members of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Board, which usually met at least quarterly. The board was formerly served by an independent contractor, with a budget of approximately $10,000 yearly. During the 1993 legislative session, the budget was transferred to the Division of State Lands. The actual expenditures for 1994 were $678 from General Fund money. In addition to the General Fund appropriation, there was a pass-through expense for engineering services. Occasionally the agency would need an outside engineering contractor to perform work. The fee charged by the contractor would be passed through to the gaming operation. Ms. Wilcox noted the work of the NTRPA was sporadic. The board may have very little work for several months and then need to have a series of meetings. A budget enhancement was requested from the General Fund in the amount of $1,836 to enable the board to meet independently from the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. In the past NTRPA met with the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency who picked up the travel costs for NTRPA. Chairman Spitler inquired how the transfer of responsibility from the independent contractor to the Division of State Lands had worked. Ms. Wilcox stated she felt the transfer had worked well. Since she did not see anyone from the gaming industry at the hearing, she assumed they also were satisfied. Chairman Spitler asked how many casinos were located in the Tahoe basin. Ms. Wilcox estimated there were ten casinos in the Tahoe basin. Chairman Spitler queried whether there should be a performance indicator for the level of compliance found in plan reviews performed by the NTRPA. Ms. Wilcox explained the level of compliance had to be 100%. There was no variation allowed. The casinos knew the ground rules. The only time a request was made which was not permissible under the compact was when a new property manager who did not know the ground rules would come in. Most of the plans were reviewed and approved. There were judgment calls occasionally which needed to be sent to the board for review. Ms. Giunchigliani asked what the board members' per diem was. Ms. Wilcox indicated the board members were not paid a salary and were paid the standard state per diem rate of $64. When Ms. Giunchigliani inquired how many members were on the board, Ms. Wilcox responded seven. Ms. Giunchigliani noted the budget was originally $10,000, and when the Division of State Lands took over NTRPA the budget was $678. She asked how many meetings were covered in that budget. Ms. Wilcox explained $678 was for four meetings but included no board travel. NTRPA met during the lunch break at the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency meeting, which did not work well. NTRPA then met the afternoon prior to the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency meeting, but there were scheduling problems. Chairman Spitler called for public testimony regarding the Nevada Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. There being none, he closed the hearing on budget account 4166 and opened the hearing on budget account 3005. STATE CLIMATOLOGIST - PAGE 2013 John W. James, State Climatologist, distributed a handout to the members of the joint subcommittee (Exhibit G) and explained he was a 25%-time State Climatologist. He had a 38%-time assistant, who had been cut from 50% during the budget cuts. The duties of the State Climatologist were to collect and archive climate data for the state and disseminate information to the public through various means, including a monthly climate summary for the state. Mr. James stated he started the summary approximately 12 years ago, and it had been well received by the public. He stated he had produced climatological summaries for over 70 long-term climate stations and precipitation maps for the state. Page 2 of Exhibit G represented sample phone calls received by the State Climatologist. Page 3 of Exhibit G represented weather stations placed throughout the state which were maintained by volunteer weather observers, and without these volunteers, there would be no climate program. The state of Nevada had approximately 400 data points, ten of which had paid National Weather Service observers. The map on page 3 also showed the location of evaporation pans. Because water deficit was very important to the state of Nevada, the agency was trying to install more pans to measure evaporation. Mr. James explained it had been suggested that he look at obtaining a similar contract to the State Demographer's contract with the University of Nevada system. The State Demographer received $116,000 per year, which was approximately four times the budget of the State Climatologist. The State Demographer paid 26% to 44% in overhead expenses, while the State Climatologist paid no overhead. Mr. James stated he had been told he would be charged rent if he were on contract. Because of the expenses involved with the contract, Mr. James indicated he would like the budget of the State Climatologist to stay with the Department of Conservation. Chairman Spitler asked the Budget Division to explain the overhead assessed to the State Demographer. Mike Nolan, Budget Division, indicated the controller and the vice president of the University of Nevada system confirmed the State Demographer was not charged overhead, although the indirect cost assessment was 44.3%. Mr. Nolan stated the University of Nevada system would also waive any assessment on a contract for the State Climatologist because they felt it would streamline their operation as well as the state's. Mr. James stressed he had talked to the contract office February 23, 1995, and he had no information the contract cost would be waived. The University of Nevada system did not deal with the State Climatologist, only in that he used space there because he was a faculty member, which would not streamline the University of Nevada operation. Mr. James stated he needed help in maintaining the network of weather stations, which in the past he had paid for out of his own pocket. He was requesting a field technician to work approximately 40 hours per week, 4 weeks per year during the summertime. At $9 per hour, the salary expense would be $1440, plus per diem expense of $800 for the 4 weeks, making a total request of $2,240. The person Mr. James had in mind was a retired Lockheed engineer who had been performing this work on a part-time basis for the last couple of summers. One of the reasons the State Climatologist was able to operate on such a small budget was that the National Weather Service donated their broken equipment to the agency. The equipment was repaired and returned to the field as part of the weather network. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired if the State Climatologist would be the office a person would call if they wanted to find the number of sunny days. Mr. James stated people did call his office for that type of information. His agency had information on the average number of hours of sunshine for approximately ten different locations in Nevada. Ms. Giunchigliani asked how many volunteers worked for the weather network. Mr. James responded his office was responsible for 75 volunteers. The National Weather Services had an additional 125 volunteers. Chairman Spitler inquired if the field technician had been paid out of Mr. James' pocket or from the University of Nevada system. Mr. James answered the field technician was paid out of his own pocket. The habit of picking up expenses had started when Governor Bryan appointed Mr. James. Senator Jacobsen asked if there was a relationship between weather conditions and seismic activity in Nevada. Mr. James responded that correlation had been made in the past because earthquakes seemed to happen in the spring more so than in the fall; however, he did not feel there was a connection between seismology and climatology or meteorology. Mr. Close inquired if the request for $6,263 in decision unit E- 450 included the expenses for the field technician. Mr. James responded affirmatively. Chairman Spitler inquired if Mr. James had any closing remarks. Mr. James stated he was considering retirement in two to four years and would not have a connection to the University of Nevada system in the future, but he had no plans to stop being the State Climatologist because he enjoyed the work. Chairman Spitler called for public testimony regarding the State Climatologist. There being none, he closed the hearing on budget account 3005 and opened the hearing on budget account 4156. HEIL WILD HORSE BEQUEST - PAGE 2017 Catherine A. Barcomb, Executive Director, Commission for the Preservation of Wild Horses, distributed a handout to the joint subcommittee members (Exhibit H) and explained the primary duty of the commission was to preserve the wild horses of Nevada and to identify programs to maintain the herds in a thriving ecological balance. The commission, by law, was concerned with the welfare of the herds and protection of the habitat for wildlife, wild horses and livestock. The commission operated solely from interest earned on the Heil Wild Horse Bequest. Chairman Spitler stated the performance indicators for the Commission for the Preservation of Wild Horses should supply more information on the work performed by the commission and asked specifically how the activities of the commission had benefitted wild horses. Ms. Barcomb indicated the commission had sponsored a National Wild Horse and Burro Forum, was involved with the National Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board, National Wild Horse and Burro Show, Senate Appropriations Subcommittee in Washington, D.C., the National Forage Allocation Review Team, provided reward money for programs affecting wild horses, and had sponsored a project selling belt buckles which helped in the development of water sources for wildlife. Mr. Marvel inquired how closely the commission worked with the Division of Wildlife, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Forest Service in getting an accurate inventory of wild horses and burros and whether they were remaining in their original habitat. Ms. Barcomb responded the wild horses and burros were in herd management areas. If they wandered outside the herd management areas, the strays were gathered and removed. In order for the land use plans to be beneficial to the habitat, accurate data needed to be available. The Bureau of Land Management budget allowed for one flight per year over management areas, although the commission would like to see flights each season. Mr. Marvel asked if the Commission for the Preservation of Wild Horses became involved when a federal agency announced a gathering plan and a wild horse advocate instituted a restraining order. Ms. Barcomb replied the commission had been involved in the past. She remarked there were groups that did not understand the public land issues in Nevada and advocated more horses and less of everything else. When these groups were told each time they filed an appeal the commission would show the affects of starvation on wild horses, they became less involved in the state of Nevada. When Mr. Marvel inquired what the inventory of wild horses and burros was, Ms. Barcomb replied approximately 20,000. Senator Mathews asked if the Commission for the Preservation of Wild Horses was involved with the wild horses in Hidden Valley. Ms. Barcomb explained the horses in Hidden Valley were called estrays, were not by law wild horses, and were under the control of the Department of Agriculture. Senator Mathews inquired why the horses in Hidden Valley were not considered wild horses. Ms. Barcomb explained the horses were wild, but in 1971 when the wild horse and burro act was passed, the federal government drew 110 circles on a map in Nevada which did not include the Virginia Range where the Hidden Valley horses ranged. Senator Jacobsen inquired if information was available for the number of deaths or injuries caused on public highways by wild horses. Ms. Barcomb stated she was not aware of such numbers being kept. Senator Jacobsen asked if counties had private funds available for the protection of wild horses. Ms. Barcomb indicated she was not aware of that type of fund. Mr. Close asked who managed the commission's $900,000 fund. Ms. Barcomb replied five commissioners appointed by the Governor who served for three years managed the fund. Mr. Close inquired why 95% of the commission's budget was placed in reserve. Jeanne L. Botts, Program Analyst, explained state law required the balance never to drop below $900,000. Presumably the law could be changed, but in the past the agency had operated only from interest earned on the fund. When Mr. Close asked if the high reserve was maintained so interest could pay for the expenses of the agency, Ms. Botts replied yes. Mr. Close requested information be provided to the joint subcommittee members as to why the treasurer did not get a 5% return on the money which would have provided funding for programs. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired if Ms. Barcomb was involved with fund raising. Ms. Barcomb explained she was a one-person agency responsible for the entire state of Nevada, but she participated in fund raising as time allowed. When Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the agency had any type of clerical support, Ms. Barcomb responded no. Ms. Giunchigliani queried if arbitrary slaughtering of wild horses was still occurring within the state. Ms. Barcomb explained there was a federal grand jury investigation in Texas regarding the entire federal program; however, in the last year only 11 horses had been found shot in the state of Nevada. Five people had been arrested, but because of a lack of evidence there had been no convictions. Chairman Spitler called for public testimony regarding the Heil Wild Horse Bequest. There being none, he closed the hearing on budget account 4156 and opened the hearing on budget account 4150. NATURAL RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION - PAGE 1879 Chairman Spitler commented the budget of the director's office of the Department of Natural Resources had been addressed previously in committee meetings, and the budget would not be reviewed again except for specific questions or for the presentation of new information. Peter G. Morros, Director, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, commented the budget had been covered well in the initial presentation and offered to answer questions from the committee. Chairman Spitler inquired if all of the department's accounting and budgeting functions should be supervised by the administrative services officer in the director's office. Mr. Morros explained the present system in the Division of Environmental protection was working well. He pointed out there were problems with the Division of Forestry, and as a result, responsibility for managing Forestry's budget and finances would come under the direct supervision of the director's office and his administrative services chief. The Division of Wildlife seemed to be running well. The Audit Division was completing audits of the Division of Environmental Protection and the Division of State Parks and would be initiating an audit of the Division of State Lands. The staff in the director's office, which consists of the chief of Administrative Services and another accounting position, were providing all of the accounting services to several smaller divisions including the State Engineer's office. An additional position in the director's office had been recommended as a result of the increased workload, particularly in the State Engineer's office. Mr. Morros pointed out the director's office had eight positions, including two assistant directors, in 1979. The department had an annual budget of approximately $14 million, with a staff of approximately 221. The department presently has a budget of approximately $75 million and a staff of approximately 700, with four positions, excluding the land planner position, in the director's office. He commented after 18 years the workload had caught up with the department and they needed some relief. Chairman Spitler asked if an upgrade of the administrative services officer II position would be warranted in assuming responsibility for supervision of additional staff. Mr. Morros responded he would look at that possibility. Senator Jacobsen inquired if Mr. Morros felt he could handle the workload placed on him as a result of the reorganization. Mr. Morros responded he was blessed with an experienced set of division administrators. He stated he had delegated a great deal of responsibility to the administrators of the Wildlife, Environmental Protection and Water Resources divisions and did not see the need of adding two assistant directors to the staff. Problems had developed, as with the Division of Forestry, which were being corrected. The chief of administrative services was doing the work of personnel officer, particularly for smaller divisions and the State Engineer's office. Mr. Morros indicated he would like to request a personnel officer during the next biennium so that the chief of administrative services could return to her fiscal oversight responsibilities. Chairman Spitler inquired if the land use planner should be transferred to the Division of Water Planning. Mr. Morros replied he would not like to transfer the position at the present time. He wanted the flexibility of looking at the water plan and the natural resources plan in case the position could be utilized more efficiently in another division. Chairman Spitler welcomed Mr. Randall Capurro, former legislator, who was present to give support to the Natural Resources Advisory Board. HIGH LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE - PAGE 1893 Chairman Spitler commented Robert Loux, Executive Director of the Agency for Nuclear Projects, would not be present as he was in Washington and asked if Ms. Fredella S. Breyer, accountant for the Agency for Nuclear Projects, could speak to policy issues for High Level Nuclear Waste. Ms. Breyer replied she could not. Mr. Marvel commented questions could be asked regarding High Level Nuclear Waste during bill hearings. Senator O'Donnell requested an explanation of A.B. 130. Jeanne L. Botts, Program Analyst, explained A.B. 130 was a bill requested by the Committee on Ways and Means to transfer the appointing authority for the executive director of the Agency for Nuclear Projects from the Governor to the director of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. In other words, Mr. Loux would be appointed and supervised directly by Pete Morros as opposed to the current arrangement where the Commission on Nuclear Projects submitted three names from which the Governor selected the Executive Director who serves at the pleasure of the commission. A.B. 130 would transfer the appointing authority to the director of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Senator O'Donnell stated he had a letter from the office of Mr. Morros, which read as follows: "Further is an example of my concerns. I recently requested from Mr. Loux a copy of the contracts of those personnel in his agency that are under his contract. I received copies of these contracts with certain information blacked out on the contracts for reasons I do not know. Perhaps you can provide me an explanation." Senator O'Donnell asked why the contracts were given to Mr. Morros with portions blacked out. Ms. Breyer explained she had blacked out portions of the contracts. There were five contract employees, and two or three of the contracts were the same or similar in content with the exception of the contractors' names, addresses and dollar amounts for services. When copies were provided to Mr. Morros' office, it was explained the names had been blacked out, but the blacked out information would be provided if it was needed. It was not intended that something be hidden. Senator O'Donnell remarked nothing was hidden because the name was left on the contract. Ms. Breyer stated she thought she had blacked out all names and addresses. Senator O'Donnell inquired if there were duplicate contracts. Ms. Breyer noted there were duplicate forms in contracts. Jeanne L. Botts inquired if Ms. Breyer was saying that rather than send all five contracts, three examples were sent, and the names were blacked out because she was sending examples of contracts. Ms. Breyer responded affirmatively. Senator O'Donnell inquired if the contracts went to Mr. Morros. Ms. Breyer indicated Mr. Morros was not in the office when she delivered the contracts, and they were given to Linda Marty. Mr. Marvel pointed out another purpose of A.B. 130 was to define precisely the duties of the director in regard to the agency. Senator O'Donnell stated there was a primary flaw because all these issues were decided during the reorganization. Then one agency said it did not belong where it was and was not going to participate. He commented he did not know why another bill was needed to tell the agency it should do what it should have done two years previously. Chairman Spitler noted several areas were not addressed during the reorganization. During the transfer of the Agency for Nuclear Projects the appointing authority was not changed. A.B. 130 made an attempt to deal with some of the problems created during reorganization. Senator Jacobsen inquired if an audit was planned for High Level Nuclear Waste. Ms. Breyer replied the agency was being audited at the present time. Chairman Spitler requested the Budget Division to examine once again the opinion of the Attorney General and perhaps meet with representatives of the Attorney General's office to follow up on their opinion regarding continued employment of contract employees. Mike Nolan, Budget Division, agreed to supply the requested information. Mr. Marvel inquired if there were two opinions from the Attorney General regarding contract employment, one superseding the other. Ms. Botts explained as a result of very distinct tests applied by the Internal Revenue Service to determine whether a person was a contractor or an employee, the Attorney General put out a major opinion and instructions to agencies in 1991, which was followed almost immediately with changes in the State Administrative Manual by former Budget Director Judy Matteucci doing away with the concept of contract employees. There were not conflicting opinions, but one opinion and a letter from a chief deputy attorney general. Chairman Spitler called for public testimony regarding the High Level Nuclear Waste budget. There being none, he closed the hearing on budget account 1005 and opened the hearing on budget accounts 3173, 3185 and 3186. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ADMINISTRATION - PAGE 1883 AIR QUALITY - PAGE 1889 WATER AND MINING - PAGE 1905 Chairman Spitler inquired if the Ombudsman for the Small Business Assistance program, which was approved by the Interim Finance Committee in September 1994, should be transferred to Environmental Protection's administrative budget account. Lew Dodgion, Administrator, Division of Environmental Protection, said it was proposed the Ombudsman and the Small Business Assistance program both be transferred to this budget so they could report to the administrator rather than a bureau chief. Since an Ombudsman investigated complaints, it would be better to have a separation from the bureau being investigated and the investigator. The Ombudsman would also be given the stature of the administrator's office and backing of the administrator. Chairman Spitler commented it was his understanding the Ombudsman was to help the rural counties understand the federal mandates placed on them as a result of the Clean Air Act. Mr. Dodgion remarked ombudsman by definition was one who investigated complaints, but the function of the ombudsman would be much broader than investigation. He would provide assistance to small businesses throughout the state. Another reason for transferring the position to budget account 3173 was the function would then be supported through an indirect cost assessment applied to all programs and federal grants and not be borne by just one program. Washoe and Clark Counties had jurisdiction for air quality. The Environmental Protection Administration had jurisdiction for water pollution, hazardous waste, and underground storage tanks statewide and would provide small businesses in Washoe and Clark Counties assistance in those areas as well. Chairman Spitler asked if the Ombudsman would provide assistance to the rural counties which could not go through volumes of federal mandates. Mr. Dodgion stated the Ombudsman would provide assistance to small businesses in rural areas as well as Clark and Washoe Counties, even to the point of helping them do a self audit for environmental compliance. Chairman Spitler expressed confusion regarding the function of the Ombudsman because he thought the Ombudsman would assist rural counties with compliance as opposed to investigating complaints. Mr. Dodgion explained the Ombudsman was a person within the agency who would become an advocate for small businesses. There was an overlap among technical assistance, small business assistance and complaint investigation. It was not expected the Ombudsman would be sitting in an office reading manuscripts, but would be putting together seminars and workshops, particularly in rural areas, on regulations, how to achieve environmental compliance, how to understand regulations and how to work within regulations. The technical assistance program would go even further by actually assisting the small businessman in putting together applications for permits. The Ombudsman would go to a business upon request to perform an environmental audit on an amnesty basis. Chairman Spitler called for public testimony regarding the Environmental Protection Administration. There being none, he closed the hearing on budget accounts 3173, 3185, 3186 and opened the hearing on budget accounts 4161 and 4155. WATER PLANNING - PAGE 1991 WATER PLANNING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - PAGE 1997 Chairman Spitler asked for information on the request by the division for additional space requirements. Naomi Duerr, Administrator, Division of Water Planning, explained when the agency moved to a new building approximately three years prior, space was sufficient for four people plus library and storage space. The division maintained the library for the entire Department of Water Resources, and the library had almost doubled in size. The division had added a grant program which required the addition of many files and space for meeting with applicants and for spreading out maps. The division had added Project WET (Water Education for Teachers) which utilized four to five file cabinets. Three additional positions were added, which were paid by grant funds. A request had been made for additional equipment and storage space for files, books, materials, staff and trunks. Chairman Spitler called for public testimony regarding Water Planning. Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau Federation, read from written testimony which was provided to the joint subcommittee (Exhibit I). Mr. Marvel inquired if Mr. Busselman had seen the proposed water plans. Mr. Busselman commented over the prior nine months the Nevada Farm Bureau Federation had been involved with the Water Planning office in various public meetings and seminars where proposed state water policy was being developed. It was Mr. Busselman's understanding in the future there would be a proposal for a state water plan based on expanded water policies. Mr. Marvel asked if Mr. Busselman had determined there was something in the plan which might adversely impact present and existing water rights. Mr. Busselman stated there were several areas which caused concern. The federation would like to see in the final plan recognition of existing water rights and how new policies would link with the right to own and use water beneficially in Nevada. Mr. Marvel commented this might be water policy which could not supersede NRS. Mr. Busselman agreed policy would not supersede statutes, but policy and agency practice on occasion did not give people as much of a right as they thought they had. Mr. Marvel inquired how official the water plan would be. Ms. Duerr responded the state water policy was being developed and had gone through an extensive public information and public involvement process. In two weeks the advisory board on water planning and development would be having a formal public workshop on the state water policy, and hearings would be held around the state. Mr. Busselman had been assured on a number of occasions the state water policy was grounded firmly in state water law. There was no intent to abrogate existing water rights. In fact, much of the policy reinforced the fact that any future water developments or plans must be premised on an acceptance and recognition of existing water rights. Mr. Marvel pointed out one of the members of the advisory board had made public pronouncements that agriculture was archaic, and he expressed the same concerns as Mr. Busselman. Ms. Duerr agreed there were a variety of opinions regarding water. She assured Mr. Marvel neither the state water planner nor the state water policy considered farming, agriculture or ranching to be archaic, since they were in fact the primary water users in Nevada. Chairman Spitler called for further public testimony regarding Water Planning. There being none, he closed the hearing on budget accounts 4161 and 4155 and opened the hearing on budget accounts 4173 and 4172. STATE LANDS - PAGE 1919 CAREY ACT - STATE LANDS - PAGE 1925 Chairman Spitler inquired if the Division of State Lands should be partially fee funded or entirely supported by the General Fund. Pamela Wilcox, Administrator, Division of State Lands, responded until the 1993-95 legislative session the division was primarily funded by state General Fund dollars. During budget reductions the division would have lost two positions. To avoid the loss, it was proposed fees be charged for some services which had been previously provided without charge. When the proposal was approved during the 1993-95 legislative session, it was estimated to bring in approximately $126,000 per year. Rather than adding the money to the General Fund and increasing State Lands appropriation a corresponding amount, the fees were put into the State Lands budget. The actual amount collected in the first year was $178,000. Because the money was not received until March, there was a severe cash flow problem. This session, the agency requested that fees collected be deposited directly into the General Fund, and in return a General Fund appropriation be provided so the agency would not experience a cash flow problem. The request was not approved by the Budget Division. Later, the Budget Division submitted a bill draft request which would allow the division to borrow from the General Fund if there was a cash flow difficulty. Chairman Spitler asked what the impact of fee changes would be on fee collections. Ms. Wilcox stated since the fees were set up, the division had promised to monitor the program carefully and to request changes in fees as necessary. The changes in fees would make the program more equitable, especially in terms of attending to the needs of the northern and southern parts of the state. There would be a slight decrease so projections to the state would be depressed by approximately $50,000 per year. There would be no impact regarding the way the agency collected funds or in terms of programs. Senator Jacobsen remarked he had received many complaints from users in the Lake Tahoe area. He had proposed a bill abolishing fees completely, which was not the answer either. Ms. Wilcox pointed out the agency would revise the fee schedule if the legislature requested the fees be reduced. She felt it was reasonable for people who use state land to pay some fees. Mr. Close expressed concern regarding the Carey Act where the federal government provided funding for a function, the funding stopped, and the state then continued with the function. He stated he needed to be convinced the function should continue as opposed to being allowed to sunset. Ms. Wilcox pointed out the Carey Act was not a federally funded program. The Carey Act had been funded out of the Carey Act trust fund. The funding came from application and other fees associated with the program. The program was started many decades ago and experienced a resurgence in popularity in the late 1970's with a great many applicants. The program would have had the state as the intermediary in placing federal land into the hands of farmers who would raise crops. There were many problems, including lack of adequate water, poor soils, and the economic situation became bad for agriculture. At present, there were only approximately 60 applications pending. Ms. Wilcox stated she was not sure any of the applications would be approved. However, since the applicants had invested time and money pursuing the applications, it was right for the General Fund to pick up the minimal costs associated with continuing the process to see if the applicants could make the program work. Chairman Spitler called for public testimony regarding the budget accounts 4173 and 4172. There being none, he closed the hearing on budget accounts 4173 and 4172 and opened the hearing on budget account 4151. DIVISION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS - PAGE 1913 Pamela Wilcox, Acting Administrator, Division of Conservation Districts, commented the budget for the agency had been presented during earlier hearings, supplemental information had been provided, and she would be pleased to answer questions regarding the budget. Chairman Spitler asked Ms. Wilcox to address the volunteer furlough of an employee and the subsequent request to increase the hours of the employee to a full-time position. Ms. Wilcox explained the request was made for the increase but was not approved as part of the Governor's budget. There were two positions in the agency, one clerical and one professional. Ms. Wilcox pointed out she was acting administrator but her salary was not charged against the budget. When the budget cuts were made in 1992 and 1993, the budget had no place to cut, and the employee voluntarily took a 40% furlough. The cut was subsequently made permanent, and a request was made to restore the position to full time. Chairman Spitler inquired what work was being foregone as a result of the furlough. Ms. Wilcox replied the biggest item was the informational newsletter for the conservation district supervisors around the state. Small items would include the fact no one was in the office when the professional was out in the field and the regular clerical work was not completed because no one was there 40% of the time. The telephones calls would ring to the State Lands office, where there was not the technical background to answer questions. Mike Nolan, Budget Division, commented he had reviewed the request for the position. Unfortunately, the position was not listed in the priority list provided to the Budget Division by the department. Therefore, in adhering to the director's priorities, there was no way the position could be included in the budget. Chairman Spitler called for public testimony on the Division of Conservation Districts. Frank Soares, Chairman of the Nevada Association of Conservation Districts, thanked the joint subcommittee members for their support and hoped they would continue with their support in the future. Chairman Spitler called for further public testimony on the Division of Conservation Districts. There being none, he closed the hearing on budget account 4151 and opened the hearing on budget account 4162. STATE PARKS - PAGE 1979 Wayne Perock, Acting Administrator, Division of State Parks, stated he would answer questions regarding operations and maintenance. He introduced Steve Weaver, Chief of Planning and Development, who would answer questions regarding capital improvements. Chairman Spitler inquired if estimated completion dates were available for new or expanded parks. Mr. Weaver responded the completion dates were in the January quarterly report. He remarked one figure might change in the future. Chairman Spitler requested information regarding completion dates be provided to the joint subcommittee members. He asked if the report included areas which might be closed as a result of lack of staff or for safety or health reasons. Mr. Perock stated several parks had been developed or renovated, but there was no staff or equipment funded in the Executive Budget to allow the parks to be opened to the general public. Mr. Marvel inquired if separate accounts would be kept on each park to enable more accurate tracking of revenue and expenditures. Mr. Perock noted separate accounts were kept internally. Mr. Marvel asked if some parks were operating with a deficit. Mr. Perock responded if a park was having a problem, State Parks would provide help. Some parks actually supplemented others. For example, Lake Tahoe generated 40% of the system's income, whereas smaller parks may generate only $10,000 to $15,000. Mr. Marvel inquired what effect the lack of honor camp workers would have on park maintenance schedules. Mr. Perock explained honor camp workers were used for labor intensive projects. For example, the adobe ruins at Fort Churchill required continual maintenance, and the honor camp crews made the adobe bricks. The crews had not been available for two seasons, which had caused a setback for the program. Mr. Marvel inquired if there had been setbacks in maintenance or cleanup at other state parks. Mr. Perock indicated the work performed for parks at Wild Horse and South Fork was limited, district rangers had expressed a need for more help, and the firewood sales supply had been pretty much depleted in Lincoln County because of the lack of honor camp crews. When Mr. Marvel asked if honor camp crews played a significant role in the upkeep of state parks, Mr. Perock replied yes, they worked on labor intensive projects. Mr. Close requested written documentation be provided to the joint subcommittee members regarding how State Parks maintained accountability for expenditures and the history of hiring seasonal employees. Mr. Perock commented when there had been a shortfall in revenue and because there was a low rate of personnel turnover, generally State Parks would reduce some of the services. Mr. Close expressed concern over eliminating free admission for seniors. He requested information be provided to the joint subcommittee on how much the state really would benefit by charging seniors versus the benefit of allowing them to use the parks free. Ms. Botts stated she had received a breakdown of the amount of fees State Parks would expect to generate if seniors were charged a fee and said she would provide the information to the committee members. Senator Jacobsen inquired if anything had been done to improve the arrest and citation process in state parks. Mr. Perock explained all park rangers were commissioned peace officers, but many of the incidents at parks required mandatory arrest, for instance, DUI and domestic violence. It was the practice of park rangers to educate, warn or cite for an incident where possible, rather than make an arrest. When an arrest was made, the park ranger would be taken away from his duties for approximately six hours, leaving many parks without supervision. Some parks were also left without supervision when the park ranger would be on vacation or on sick leave. Senator Jacobsen asked if local law enforcement people could be utilized. Mr. Perock replied State Parks did cooperate with local law enforcement. During the Memorial Day weekend, State Parks would contract with the Lyon County Sheriff's Department to hire off- duty deputies to help with enforcement at Lake Lahonton. Ms. Botts pointed out in 1994, 41 arrests had been made and 444 citations had been written, mostly at Lake Lahonton, Lake Tahoe and Valley of Fire. Most of the arrests were at Lake Lahonton and most of the citations were at Valley of Fire. Mr. Weaver pointed out the estimated construction completion dates on the January quarterly IFC report were accurate. The Lake Tahoe project date of October 1996 should be corrected to 1995. So as not to hold up the Big Bend project in Laughlin, the $300,000 boat launch facility was incorporated into the much larger Question 5 bond project. Authorization was needed from the legislature to accept the federal funds for the agreement which was signed and approved. Chairman Spitler inquired why legislative approval was needed if the agreement was already signed and approved. Mike Nolan, Budget Division, explained the agreement was to provide funding for FY 1996. It was felt to be more appropriate to bring the matter up before the legislature rather than IFC since the funding would be provided during FY 1996. Chairman Spitler called for public testimony on the State Parks budget. There being none, he closed the hearing on budget account 4162 and opened the hearing on budget account 4204. TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY - PAGE 2005 James W. Baetge, Executive Director, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, noted the budget for the agency had been presented to the committees, and he would answer questions, particularly regarding the performance indicators. Chairman Spitler inquired if information regarding the performance indicators had been provided to the committee members. Jim Dana, Financial Director, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), stated the threshold evaluation indicators had been provided to the committee reviewing the activities of TRPA. Chairman Spitler asked if California had been asked to fund the partnership approach for FY 1995-96. Mr. Baetge replied TRPA was instructed there were to be no new requests for funding in FY 1996 in California. Senator O'Donnell asked if California was abrogating its responsibility for TRPA to Nevada. Mr. Baetge stressed that was clearly not the impression he had. Senator O'Donnell remarked according to the dollars Nevada was receiving from California, that was the picture he was getting. Mr. Baetge commented it was not his intent to defend the California budget process, but the funding issue was not aimed at Lake Tahoe in any form. The instruction of no new authorizations was to all agencies. He stressed California's support for TRPA was there, but there was a budget problem. Senator O'Donnell suggested a letter from one of the committees to the California legislature would be appropriate. He said the issue was not a budget item. It was like an electric bill which needed to be paid. If it was not paid, it would not go away. Mr. Baetge agreed with Senator O'Donnell's comments. Perhaps a letter from the committees to the California legislature would be appropriate because budget hearings would be coming up soon. Senator O'Donnell stressed he was not interested in providing any more funding to TRPA until California stepped up to the plate, and he would write a letter to that effect. Mr. Fettic agreed with Senator O'Donnell's comments. Senator Mathews emphasized Lake Tahoe was very important to Nevada and they should not pull out of TRPA simply because California did not pay their share. Mr. Baetge stated it was not the intent of California to pull away from the TRPA obligation. The problem was a budget issue with California. They were addressing a little element above and beyond what was normally done in the baseline budget, which was the partnership approach. Chairman Spitler requested staff to work with TRPA in terms of a study of the salary range difference. Chairman Spitler called for public testimony on the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. There being none, Chairman Spitler adjourned the hearing at 10:55 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Jonnie Sue Hansen, Committee Secretary Joint Subcommittee on Public Safety, Natural Resources and Transportation Assembly Committee on Ways and Means Senate Committee on Finance March 2, 1995 Page