State of Wisconsin DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 2017-2019 BIENNIAL BUDGET PROPOSAL Recommended by: Cathy L. Stepp, Secretary To the Natural Resources Board September 2016 State of Wisconsin September I S, 20] 6 TO: Natural Resources Board FROM: Cathy L. Stepp, Secretary Department of Natural Reso 'ees SUBJECT: Proposed 201749 Department of Natural Resources State Budget Enclosed for your review and action are my recommendations for the Department of Natural Resources 2017-19 Biennial State Budget. This is a restrained budget package, re?ecting our desire to operate the Department within available resources and the Department ofhdministratiorfs policy guidance. The proposed two-year DNR operating budget is $550.? million for 2017-18 and $550.3 million for 201849. In total, the two-year budget includes a 2 year decrease of about $23.4 million compared to the 2015-]? Biennial Budget. $25.8 million of this two year decrease represents standard budget adjustments as de?ned by DOA, which are primarily composed of the difference in amounts budgeted for salaries versus actual salary costs and reducing onevtime ?nancing items from the previous budget. This budget in total reflects a 2.1% decrease compared to the 20 I 6- 7 base. There are no GPR increases included in the budget. Increases that are included are primarily Conservation Fund ?nanced. These increases will be used to maintain Park and Forest operations. This budget includes a decrease of 9.5 FTE to the Department?s base staf?ng, bringing overall staf?ng to 2,539.60. I look forward to presenting these proposals and discussing them with you at your September meeting. 2017-19 DNR BIENNIAL BUDGET (in millions of $) (Subtotals may vary slightly due to rounding) Secretary’s Recommendations General Purpose Revenues DNR 2016-17 Base Doubled Cost to Continue Requests Beyond Base 20.0% 491.3 -3.0% 44.6% -2.9 129.5 -2.2% 11.8% 4.3 -0.1 4.2 -2.3% 0.4% 22.2 -0.1 22.1 -0.5% 2.0% 2.1 0.0% 0.2% Conservation Fund 506.8 -17.9 Environmental Fund 132.5 Dry Cleaner Environmental Response Fund Program Revenue Tribal Gaming Agreement Revenue Federal Revenues Total % of Total Budget -0.7% -$1.5 PECFA-SEG % Change to Base $220.0 $221.5 Clean Water Fund 2017-19 TOTAL Budget Request $2.5 2.1 68.6 -2.3 66.3 -3.4% 6.0% 3.1 -0.1 3.1 -3.2% 0.3% 163.3 -0.8 162.4 -0.5% 14.8% $1,124.4 -$25.8 $1,101.1 -2.1% 100.0% ii $2.5 Department of Natural Resource Staffing by Funding Source Secretary’s Recommendations General Purpose Revenues DNR 2016-17 Base (FTE) Changes to Base (FTE) % of Total Budget 230.02 9.1% 1,413.30 55.7% 121.60 121.60 4.8% Clean Water Fund 15.00 15.00 0.6% PECFA-SEG 41.45 41.45 1.6% 3.00 3.00 0.1% 230.89 9.1% 12.00 0.5% Conservation Fund Environmental Fund Dry Cleaner Environmental Response Fund Program Revenue Tribal Gaming Agreement Revenue Federal Revenues Total 230.02 2018-19 TOTAL Budget Request (FTE) 1,414.30 231.89 (1.00) (1.00) 12.00 479.84 (7.50) 472.34 18.6% 2,642.04 (9.50) 2,539.60 100.0% iii Department of Natural Resources 2017-19 Biennial Budget Request FY 2017-18 $$$ FY 2018-19 $$$ FTE 1 2016-17 Adjusted Base Budget 562,214,000 562,214,000 2,549.10 2 Standard Budget Adjustments -12,773,200 -13,066,200 -9.50 2017-19 DNR Funding Requests Wildlife Management Forestry Operations Parks Operations CAFO Staffing Reallocation (4.0 FTE) 2017-18 2018-19 1 2 3 4 Bong Recreational Area Fees Firefighter Radio Operations Funding Firefighter Safety Equipment Forest Fire Aerial Detection Supplement $100,000 $434,200 $152,500 $119,000 $100,000 $434,200 $125,000 $119,000 5 6 7 8 9 10 Inter-Agency Type 2 Incident Management Team Master Lease-Forestry Field Data Recorders Master Lease-Forestry Law Enforcement Computers Tractor Plower Operator Training Forestry New Facilities Operations Master Lease-Parks Law Enforcement Computers $161,900 $76,900 $30,000 $100,000 $78,500 $47,400 $63,000 $76,900 $30,000 $100,000 $78,500 $47,400 11 CAFO Program Improvements-Staffing $1,300,400 $1,174,000 Total Request for New Funding iv Department of Natural Resources 2017-19 Biennial Budget Request--Table of Contents DEPARTMENTWIDE Standard budget adjustments (cost to continue)............................................1 FISH, WILDLIFE & PARKS 5140 Master Lease—Parks Law Enforcement Computers ...........................2 5110 Bong Recreational Area Fees ..............................................................3 FORESTRY 5120 5121 5122 5123 5124 5125 5126 5127 Firefighter Radio Operations Funding ..................................................5 Firefighter Safety Equipment ...............................................................7 Forest Fire Aerial Detection Supplement .............................................9 Inter-Agency Incident Management Team ...........................................10 Master Lease—Forestry Field Data Recorders ....................................12 Master Lease—Forestry Law Enforcement Computers .......................13 Tractor Plower Operator Training ........................................................14 Forestry New Facilities Operations ......................................................16 EXTERNAL SERVICES 5400 CAFO Program Improvements-Staffing ...............................................17 STATUTORY LANGUAGE PROPOSALS............................................................. Timber Sale Reporting Requirements............................................................18 Timber Direct Sale Limit Increase..................................................................18 Timber Sale Advertising Requirements .........................................................18 Fire Suppression Billing .................................................................................19 OTHER ITEMS 2015 Act 55 Report on Relocation of Forestry Headquarters .................................20 Purpose ................................................................................................................................. 21 Terminology used in the report .............................................................................................. 21 Role of Forestry headquarters ............................................................................................... 21 Background and current status of Forestry headquarters ..................................................... 22 Relocation options ................................................................................................................. 24 Forestry headquarter positions .............................................................................................. 26 Costs of relocation ................................................................................................................. 28 Implementation and timeline.................................................................................................. 31 Summary of public comments ............................................................................................... 33 v 2015 Act 201 Budget Reduction Summary.............................................................35 Environmental Improvement Fund—Biennial Finance Plan....................................36 Capital Development 2017-19 Budget Summary....................................................37 Waste Management Fund ......................................................................................41 vi PROGRAM: DEPARTMENTWIDE DECISION ITEM 3001-3010: STANDARD BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS (COST TO CONTINUE) Decision Item # 3001 3002 3003 3007 3010 FY 2018 Title Turnover Reduction Remove Non-Continuing Elements Full Funding Salary and Fringe Overtime Full Funding of Lease and Directed Moves TOTAL $ (3,205,100) (6,136,600) FY 2019 FTE (1.75) (6,820,500) 3,194,500 194,500 (12,773,200) $ (3,205,100) (6,629,400) FTE (9.50) (6,820,500) 3,194,500 394,300 (1.75) (13,066,200) (9.50) 3001 – Turnover Reduction A reduction of 3 percent must be taken on adjusted base permanent salaries for all alpha appropriations funding more than 50.0 FTE permanent (classified and unclassified) positions. 3002 – Removal of Non-continuing Elements from the Base Dollars or positions previously approved on a one-time basis which are in an agency's adjusted base, and which are to terminate, must be removed with this decision item in the appropriate year. 3003 – Full Funding of Continuing Position Salaries and Fringe Benefits The purpose of this decision item is to provide the funding adjustment needed to bring the salary levels for base level (decision item 2000) permanent and project positions to salary levels as of July of the even-numbered year (only). The calculation is made by comparing the base salary level to that of the actual salary level. The adjustment may be up or down. 3007 – Overtime Funds for overtime and premium pay on holidays which are budgeted in the adjusted base will be automatically removed in the full funding of salaries calculation. These same dollar amounts only may be restored with this decision item. 3010 – Full Funding of Lease and Directed Moves Actual rent increases approved in the first year of the current biennium, for which additional funds are needed to fully cover these increases on an annualized (12 month) basis, are requested in this decision item. 1 PROGRAM: FISH, WILDLIFE & PARKS BUREAU: PARKS AND RECREATION DECISION ITEM: 5140-Parks Equipment—Master Lease FUNDING SOURCE Forestry SEG Parks SEG TOTAL FY 2018 $ FTE 11,900 0.0 35,500 0.0 $47,400 0.0 FY 2019 $ FTE 11,900 0.0 35,500 0.0 $47,400 0.0 The Department requests one-time funding of $47,400 SEG per year in FY 2018 and 2019 for years three and four of a 4-year master lease to purchase 37 Mobile Data Computers (MDCs), IP Mobile-Net radios, and associated equipment for Parks system staff. 2 DIVISION: FISH, WILDLIFE & PARKS BUREAU: WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT DECISION ITEM: 5110-Bong Recreational Area FUNDING SOURCE Conservation SEG FY 2018 $ FTE $100,000 FY 2019 $ FTE $100,000 The Department requests an increase of $100,000 annually in its pheasant stamp stocking and propagation appropriation [s. 20.370 (1)(hw)], which would allow the Bureau of Wildlife Management to utilize increased revenue from hunting fees to cover the managed pheasant hunting program in the Richard Bong State Recreation Area. In addition, the Department requests to expand the statutory language in the appropriation to include all property-specific pheasant hunting fees that have been approved under administrative code NR 45. Increased pheasant stocking intensity in response to public demand has led to higher operational costs on Bong Recreation Area, and program spending authority has not been adjusted to account for increased revenue from the property-specific hunting fee. The primary user group benefitting from this service is the hunting community in the heavily populated area surrounding Bong Recreation Area. Approval of this proposal to increase spending authority would allow revenue from hunting fees to be utilized to cover pheasant stocking operations on Bong Recreation Area, as they were intended. Denial of this proposal could result in continued use of general Fish & Wildlife funds to cover operational costs of this limited user-fee supported program at the expense of other statewide wildlife program priorities. Background Pheasant hunting fees collected at Richard Bong Recreation Area in Kenosha County were raised in 2013 as a result of rule change (see “Background” for more information). The origin of this rule change was a public desire to make the program fiscally sustainable, and to increase the number of stocking days and the number of pheasants stocked on the property. Increased revenue has been collected since 2014 (see “Background” for more information), and staff has increased stocking intensity on Bong Recreation Area in response to public demand. Since the fee increase occurred outside of the biennial budget process, no adjustments were made to increase spending authority to cover the higher costs of pheasant rearing and stocking. The 2015 cost estimates for operating the stocking and managed hunting program at Bong Recreation Area are as follows: Cost Parks Staff (permit sales and public information) Wildlife Staff (LTEs, feed, printing, pen maintenance, habitat management) Poynette Game Farm (pheasant production) Total $5,000 $20,000 $104,000 $129,000 Annual revenue collected prior to the 2013 rule change was insufficient to cover program cost, warranting the rule change to increase the hunting fee on Bong Recreation Area. Revenue from hunting fees was $101,181 in 2014 and $97,335 in 2015. The number of birds stocked on the property from 2013-15 has increased by an average of 2,900 birds per year compared to what was stocked in the three 3 years prior to the fee change. Program expenditures exceeded available revenue and resulted in a reallocation general operations F&W account funding [from 20.370 (1)(mu)] to cover this limited user feesupported program. Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total Revenue $26,703 $27,396 $27,463 $28,995 $28,888 $101,181 $97,335 The fee increase was vetted through the public during the 2013 Conservation Congress spring hearings: QUESTION: Do you favor increasing the daily pheasant hunting fee at Bong State Recreation Area in Kenosha County from $3.00 to $12.00 ($5.00 if stocking did not occur that day) because the current fee is not sufficient to cover the cost of this stocking program? At Richard Bong Recreation Area hunters pay a daily hunting fee of $3.00 to hunt stocked pheasants with a daily bag limit of two birds after opening weekend. This fee has not been updated since being established in 1982. An increase to $12.00 ($5.00 if stocking did not occur that day) will allow the fees collected from the managed pheasant hunt program to more closely meet the expense of the stocking program. This recreation area is the only property that is stocked daily for much of the season, including weekends. The intensive stocking allows the Department to provide a high quality hunt even with some of the most significant hunting pressure of any Department-managed property. Staff at the property receive periodical shipments of birds from the state game farm, hold them in flight pens on the property, and then catch, crate and distribute them daily. Additional check-in procedures, facility maintenance, and regular stocking are labor intensive with expenses that significantly exceed the revenue generated by the daily $3.00 fee. A fee increase will help support this very popular hunting opportunity in an area of the state where there is significant demand for quality public hunting opportunities. Statewide voting results were 2,440 in favor of the fee increase and 719 opposed. The county breakdown was 69 in favor, 2 opposed, and 1 tie. Kenosha and Racine Counties supported the fee increase by votes of 45 to 31 and 46 to 34, respectively. Public input on the hunting fee increase was also gathered through a survey of Bong Recreation Area pheasant hunters. Eighty-seven percent of respondents stated they would be willing to pay an increased hunting fee above the $3 fee that was being charged at the time. 4 PROGRAM: FORESTRY SUBPROGRAM: FOREST PROTECTION DECISION ITEM: 5120—Firefighter radio operations funding FUNDING SOURCE Conservation SEG FY 2018 $ FTE $434,200 FY 2019 $ FTE $434,200 The Department requests annual, ongoing funding of $434,200 to cover P-150 compliant mobile and portable radio replacements, replacement of dispatch equipment and maintenance and replacement of Forestry radio tower repeater sites. Ongoing funding will enable the Division of Forestry to provide efficient, effective and reliable communications for safety of the public and division firefighters, and would be consistent with the ongoing funding that was approved for the Department’s law enforcement computers in the 2015-17 budget. Since 2007-2009, the Division has relied on Master Lease funding to manage radio purchases. While it has provided for the operational need of the Division of Forestry, the on-going nature of change in the radio communications world has continued to pose operational challenges. For instance, an inventory of radios with the same purchase date creates vulnerabilities to global failure and software issues. This occurs as local systems are updated and the technology inside the radio no longer supports the updating. Creating on-going funding rather than using continuous Master Lease funding will allow the division to develop radio, dispatch and repeater replacement schedules that are better suited to the unique local solutions needed to interface with particular county systems, local fire department systems and the State Patrol. This will allow the Division to more actively manage more than 800 radios in our inventory and will avoid large simultaneous failures by having all makes and models of the same vintage date. It is expected that if this initiative is funded, equipment will be updated on predictable cycles and reliability will remain high. An inventory of 250 mobile radios, 350 portable radios, 14 aircraft radios, 11 tower sites, 20 repeater sites and 9 dispatch centers will be managed in a replacement cycle with this funding. Along with this 150-200 FCC licenses will be maintained and non-licensed communication towers will also be brought into compliance with FCC regulations. Background In today’s world, a radio is no longer a radio as it was once known. Gone are the days of transistors capacitors and receivers. Today a radio is a computer with a built in microphone and speaker. Inside the radio is hardware consisting of circuit boards and microchips. Voice is translated into digital code and broadcast via digital networks and microwave paths. Like any personal computer, there are frequent software upgrades to be able to operate on the many networks radios must interface with. Just like PC’s, radios reach the point where there is no further ability to update the software as the hardware will no longer support it. Radio users and the Division of Forestry must ensure that they are operating with public safety standard equipment. The majority of the Division’s current radios were purchased in 2009. Industry standard recommends that radios be replaced on a regular basis to ensure proper performance in the field. The radio program specialist team will begin with the replacement of the mobile radios across the state, then move on to the portable radios. This will enable the Department to have a regulated cycle of radio 5 replacement. Older model radios that are still in working order will be cascaded down to non-critical, non-public safety use to support other Department programs. This request is for spending authority to purchase public safety radios which are compliant with Federal Communications Commission mandates and federal Homeland Security Administration directives and standards. The Division of Forestry has primary responsibility for wildland fire suppression across the state and continually works with other agencies and departments to meet that responsibility. The equipment this request would pay for technology communication abilities with those other agencies and departments. Project 25 (P25) defines a suite of standards for a digital wireless radio communications system to be used by the emergency response community. Project 25 (P25) is focused on developing standards that allow radios and other components to interoperate regardless of manufacturer—enabling emergency responders to exchange critical communications. The goal of P25 is to specify formal standards for interfaces between the various components of a land mobile radio (LMR) system—commonly used by emergency responders in portable handheld and mobile vehicle-mounted devices. There is currently no process in place that confirms that equipment advertised as P25-compliant actually meets all aspects of the P25 standards. The P25 digital radio is the standard for all risk response, for which DNR Forestry is heavily tasked. Currently 14 Wisconsin Counties are fully P25 digital or P25 digital capable. Additionally, many state agencies and local governments make use of the Wisconsin Interoperable System for Communications (WISCOM). This purchase will enable the department to purchase radios that will work on these systems as well. 6 PROGRAM: FORESTRY SUBPROGRAM: FOREST PROTECTION DECISION ITEM: 5121—Replace Firefighter Safety Equipment FUNDING SOURCE Conservation SEG FY 2018 $ FTE $152,500 FY 2019 $ FTE $125,000 The Department requests one-time funding of $152,500 in FY 2018 and $125,000 in FY 2019 to replace 500 fire shelters mandated for use by the Division of Forestry and to replace 250 drip torches to comply with Federal DOT requirements for transporting flammable liquids. Item USFS 5100-614A Drip Torch Fire Shelter, Large Unit Cost $110 Quantity 250 Total Cost $27,500 $500 500 $250,000 Background The fire shelter is a mandatory item of personal protective equipment for all Division of Forestry wildland firefighters and must be carried on the fireline by every Forestry employee on wildland fires. The fire shelter has been required equipment for Federal wildland firefighters since 1977 and required by the Division since 2008. The new generation fire shelter protects primarily by reflecting radiant heat and trapping breathable air. The new shelter has two layers. The outer layer is aluminum foil bonded to woven silica cloth. The foil reflects radiant heat and the silica material slows the passage of heat to the inside of the shelter. An inner layer of aluminum foil laminated to fiberglass prevents heat from reradiating to the person inside the shelter. When these layers are sewn together, the air gap between them offers further insulation. The outer layer of foil reflects about 95 percent of the radiant heat that reaches it. Because only 5 percent is absorbed into the shelter materials, the temperature of the material rises slowly. Unlike radiant heat, convective heat (from flames and hot gases) is easily absorbed by the fire shelter, allowing the temperature of the material to rise rapidly. When the material reaches about 500 °F, the glue that bon ds the layers begins to break down. The layers can separate, allowing the foil to be torn by turbulent winds. Without the foil, the shelter loses much of its ability to reflect radiant heat. The silica material will slow heat transfer, but offers significantly less protection without the foil. This request would be sufficient to replace 500 fire shelters. Fire shelters were last purchased and replaced in 2006 when the “next generation” fire shelter was released. Fire shelters are designed to be used one time. In their storage case with proper care and inspections it is expected that they have a reliable life span of 10-12 years before the material that comprises the fire shelter begins to degrade. It is estimated shelters will cost $500 each on a large purchase contract. A drip torch is a tool used in wildfire suppression, controlled burning, and other forestry applications to intentionally ignite fires. The drip torch consists of a canister for holding fuel with a handle attached to the side, a spout with a loop to prevent fire from entering the fuel canister, a breather valve to allow air into the canister while fuel is exiting through the spout, and a wick from which flaming fuel is dropped to the ground. The wick is ignited and allows the fire to be directed as needed. The spout and wick can be secured upside down inside the canister for storage or transport. Typically the fuel used is a mixture of 7 gasoline and diesel with a ratio of 30% to 70% respectively, although, the amounts may need to be adjusted according to fuel and weather conditions. Drip torches are a vital component of wildland fire suppression for the Department. They are used to create safe fireline during fireline construction by controlling the burning out of the existing vegetation between where the fireline is constructed and the wildfire. Without this tool and this practice, there is no safe way to construct fireline and a situation is likely to occur where personnel would be overrun by fire and then would need to deploy a fire shelter. 8 PROGRAM: FORESTRY SUBPROGRAM: FOREST PROTECTION DECISION ITEM: 5122—Forest Fire Aerial Detection Supplement FUNDING SOURCE Conservation SEG FY 2018 $ FTE $119,000 FY 2019 $ FTE $119,000 The Department requests annual funding of $119,000 to supplement aerial forest fire detection efforts. In 2016 the Division of Forestry decommissioned its Forest fire lookout towers in response to concerns about their structural integrity. This request will be for supplemental funding to increase forest fire aerial detection hours. It is expected that the conversion from fire towers to fixed wing aerial detection will increase the Department’s total flight hours needed by approximately 1000 hours. Shifting funding from towers to aerial detection will cover approximately 300 hours of that total need. Since a large portion of the overall cost of utilizing tower detection is funded from capital development sources for maintenance and repair, funding cannot be transferred to cover the flight hours. Therefore, this funding request will cover the remaining cost, and the 700 hours needed for aerial detection at an average of $170/flight hour. 9 PROGRAM: FORESTRY SUBPROGRAM: DIVISION-WIDE DECISION ITEM: 5123—Interagency Incident Management Team FUNDING SOURCE Conservation SEG FY 2018 $ FTE $161,900 FY 2019 $ FTE $63,000 The Department requests Forestry Account funding of $161,900 in FY 2018 and $63,000 in FY 2019 to provide equipment for the Type 2 Incident Management Team (IMT) that would be deployed to large, complex, all-hazard incidents statewide. The request consists of the following: • • • $98,900 in onetime IMT equipment costs $13,000 annually for IMT availability compensation (est. 360 hours x $36/hr.) $50,000 annually for IMT maintenance and administration ($25,000 in LTE compensation plus $25,000 in equipment and supplies, maintenance, travel) Background In 2013, an initiative was approved through the Governor’s Homeland Security Council to move towards the creation and implementation of inter-agency Type 2 Incident Management Team (IMT) that would be able to be deployed to large, complex, all-hazard incidents within the state. Membership of the IMT would come from any state, federal, tribal or local agency. For DNR, this initiative is a Department-wide supported effort. There are currently 49 members on the team: 29 DNR members and 14 LTE’s, comprised of staff from the Office of Communications, Division of Enforcement and Science, Division of Water and Division of Forestry as well as 6 members from other state agency and local municipality personnel. No funding was allocated at the agency or Division level to support this initiative. All-hazard incident responses occur regularly in the State of Wisconsin. Many of these incidents can be handled by the local, initial response resources. However, the complexity of some of the incidents taxes those same initial response resources. The Incident Command System (ICS) allows for the expansion and contraction of the organization needed to manage incidents. The more complex incidents begin to require an organized Incident Management Team (IMT) to respond and manage the incident resources. Incident complexity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a Type 5 incident being the least complex, and a Type 1 incident being the most complex. The type 2 IMT was formed in 2013 in recognition of the gap needed to be able to address the most complex incidents that may occur in the state. These would be large scale natural disasters, forest fires, train derailments and human and animal health pandemics. Historical incidents that reached a Type 2 incident complexity, and had, or could have used, an IMT response include: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 1992 – Nemadji train derailment w/ Benzine leak (No IMT response) 1996 – Weyauwega train derailment w/ HAZMAT (No IMT response) 2001 - Siren Tornado (DNR IMT response) 2002 – Ladysmith Tornado (DNR IMT response) 2004 – Easton Tornado (DNR IMT response) 2005 – Stoughton Tornado (DNR IMT response) 2008 – Southern Wisconsin Flooding (DNR IMT response only in Sauk County) 10 8. 2011 – Capital Protests (SW Region Type 4 IMT response, supplemented with DNR IMT members) 9. 2013 – Germann Road Fire (DNR IMT response) The IMT currently has no dedicated funding. It is supported in part through a Department-wide internal chargeback. In FY 15, the chargeback provided $69,000 of funding to support the team. The remainder was reallocated from Forestry to cover additional training expenses. This proposal consists of both ongoing and one-time funding for continuity and continuance of the team. A. IMT Equipment Purchase - $98,900 one-time funding Each IMT member would be provided a laptop with an air card to utilize as their primary work computer, as well as for IMT response. These laptops would be maintained and follow the normal replacement schedule of the agency/department where the IMT member works. The IMT would maintain a trailer full of office supplies (i.e. pens, paper, forms, etc.) as well as office equipment such as printers, copiers, fax machines, terra stations (to create a local network) and 2 laptops dedicated to the IMTs. It would also maintain a communications trailer with radios and mobile antenna to establish remote communications for field response as well as inter team communication. B. IMT Availability - $13,000 annual ongoing funding The team will have personnel available for a 2 week period of time. Team members will only be placed on standby for forecasted severe weather events or any planned event where the team may be needed to respond. Should an unexpected event occur (i.e. hazardous material response), the team as available would be expected to respond without any standby compensation. It is estimated that, on average, there would be approximately 15 days (360 hours) per year that team members would be placed on standby. If a 16 position Team were put on standby for 360 hours, the cost would be estimated at $13,000. Overtime compensation during an IMT deployment would be based on the current compensation plan. C. IMT Maintenance and Administration - $50,000 ongoing funding A dedicated LTE employee would be needed for the administration of the IMT program. The administration duties would be to maintain the active duty roster for the IMT, maintain supplies for the IMT, etc. The total cost for maintaining the Type 2 IMT (including LTE salary) is estimated at up to $50,000 per year depending on IMT use. LTE Salary - $25,000 Equipment & Supplies Maintenance - $25,000 11 PROGRAM: FORESTRY SUBPROGRAM: FOREST BUSINESS SERVICES DECISION ITEM: 5124—Master Lease—Forestry Field Data Recorders FUNDING SOURCE Conservation SEG FY 2018 $ FTE $76,900 FY 2019 $ FTE $76,900 The Department requests one-time funding of $76,900 in both FY 2018 and FY 2019 to support the third and fourth payments of a 4-year master lease for the purchase of 165 Apple iPad Mini 4 units, outfitted with GIS and timber measurement applications at a cost of $1,865 each. Prior to the purchase of the field data recorders, forestry staff used methods that ranged from paper and pencil, to cell phone, GPS unit, all the way to a higher end field data recording unit (ruggedized handheld computer) to collect field data. This poses several challenges including user training (a single forester may use multiple devices for different needs), user and application support, and storage of the data being collected by staff. Without field data recorders, information needed to be re-entered into a computer back in the office, creating inefficiencies, redundant work, and errors. Having the ability to collect data in the field reduces time for staff to re-enter data into computer systems back in the office, thus allowing them to re-invest their time on other high priority work for the Division. 12 PROGRAM: FORESTRY SUBPROGRAM: DIVISION-WIDE DECISION ITEM: 5125—Master Lease—Forestry Law Enforcement Computers FUNDING SOURCE Conservation SEG FY 2018 $ FTE $30,000 FY 2019 $ FTE $30,000 The Department requests one-time funding of $30,000 in both FY 2018 and FY 2019 to support the third and fourth payments of a 4-year master lease for the purchase of 27 ruggedized law enforcement computers at a cost of $4,200 each. These computers are an important lifeline for Forestry law enforcement officers and the law enforcement community, and they provide access to data and files that are essential from an investigative and safety standpoint. Examples include: • • • • • • • • • • • Driver’s license files (all states); Vehicle registrations (all states); Wisconsin hunting, fishing, trapping licenses and permits; Boat, snowmobile and ATV registrations (all states); Warrants and wanted persons; Stolen guns and equipment; Criminal histories (state and FBI national files); Wisconsin conservation and natural resources arrests; Mapping software which creates efficiencies in planning; Soon-to-be-introduced AVL (Automated Vehicle Locator) system allowing the investigation of where a warden is while on duty, thus aiding not only DNR, but other agencies during disasters and emergencies; TraCS – Automated citation issuance system; 13 PROGRAM: FORESTRY SUBPROGRAM: DIVISION-WIDE DECISION ITEM: 5126— Firefighter Equipment Training-Tractor Plow Operations FUNDING SOURCE Conservation SEG FY 2018 $ FTE $100,000 FY 2019 $ FTE $100,000 The Department requests $100,000 annually to provide technical training to staff for the operation of heavy machinery (specifically a tracked bulldozer) and commercial vehicle operation license (CDL) training. Equipment is becoming more and more complex and the Division lacks the expertise or time available to provide very specific technical training. Forester operators and Forestry technicians are assigned a Type 4 engine and tractor plow and are expected to be able to operate this equipment legally and safely. Training is not only advantageous from a safety perspective, it will enable staff to be more aggressively attack a fire which will lower property loss and create other efficiencies. The request of $100,000 would be sufficient to send 10 staff annually to a specialized training center to receive technical training in commercial vehicle operations and obtain the necessary CDL. Staff would also receive technical training in the basic mechanics of the tracked dozer, proper loading and unloading and transport and operations. Training would be expected to last for about three weeks. Background The Division of Forestry employs a fleet of customized tractor plows (dozers) built specifically for firefighting. Upgrades from standard industry machines include increased horsepower, faster walking speeds, wider tracks, water tanks, brush and tree guards and climate controlled cabs to mitigate smoke and toxins from forest fires. The tractor plow is the primary piece of fire suppression equipment used by the Division. There are currently 77 tractor plows distributed throughout the areas of the state under protection. Familiarization and proficiency in the operation of the machine is imperative. Without competence in the operation of the machine, there is little utility in operating in the fire environment. As new machines are replaced, they are becoming much more technologically complex. Computers are now controlling transmissions, hydraulics and speed. This increased complexity and advances from a strictly mechanical machine to a more complex machine have made it challenging to provide the training necessary for new operators to gain the proficiency needed to operate safely from a self-teaching and limited mentorship that the division has relied on in the past. Currently there are a few steps that need to be undertaken to qualify a new operator: o First they must obtain a commercial driver’s license (CDL). o Next step is the operator has to become proficient in the loading and unloading of the tractor plow. o Lastly the operator has to gain proficiency in the operation of the machine in a non-fire environment. The Forestry Division has no formal curriculum or structure to obtain these skills. It is primarily an onthe-job/learn as you go methodology. Achievement of these skills is relied upon from other employees in 14 the area. There is no one that has been certified from an industry standard to teach these skills to new operators, and it takes nearly a year for an operator to obtain proficiency in this construct. The desire of this initiative is to create funding to send operators to a specialized training school for obtaining a CDL and familiarization and basic operation skills on the tractor plow. It is intended that this funding would support an approximate three week course. Candidates would spend approximately one week obtaining the skills and license for the CDL and two weeks with the machine learning basic mechanics and maintenance and operation of the machine. By providing a structured curriculum with a private vendor, candidates will get consistent delivery of skills in a controlled setting focusing on the necessary elements to create proficiency in operation. The instruction would be a combination of classroom and field session. The objective is for the employee to be able to produce constructive work in a much shorter time frame and be able to learn the fire skills necessary to pair to the operation of the machine. This should lead to increased confidence by fire managers in the abilities of staff to transport and operate the machine in a safe efficient manner. An “ala carte” analysis of costs provided by technical training centers is identified below. Item Commercial Driver’s License training (1 wk) Basic Dozer mechanics ( 1 wk) Basic Dozer operation (1wk) Lodging (3 wks) Meals Mileage (est 300 miles/wk) (3 wks) Total per employee 15 Cost $1,500 $2,700 $2,700 $1,250 $600 $1,300 $10,050 PROGRAM: FORESTRY SUBPROGRAM: DIVISION-WIDE DECISION ITEM: 5127—Forestry New Facilities Operations FUNDING SOURCE Conservation SEG FY 2018 $ FTE $78,500 FY 2019 $ FTE $78,500 The Department requests $78,500 annually to support operational cost increases related to new facilities. Current operational budgets are not sufficient to cover the added expenditures for utilities that occur after construction of a new, larger office building (i.e., ranger station or state forest headquarters), and after construction of heated storage garages that replace previous cold storage garages. Ensuring the Department physical properties are maintained and in good working order are critical to providing long-term services. The funds requested in this initiative are directly tied to field level operational budgets where field staff (i.e., foresters and technicians) performs core forestry work at the local level to implement the mission of the Department of Natural Resources and the Division of Forestry. Facility Ranger Stations Warm Storage Nurseries State Forest Properties Prentice, Tomah, Plover, Oconto Falls, Medford Barnes, Black River State Forest (3 buildings), Necedah, Waupaca, Poynette, Boscobel, Bruel, Wausaukee, Friendship Wilson Nursery storage Flambeau River HQ, Peshtigo River HQ Total 16 Total Cost $25,000 $26,000 $2,500 $25,000 $78,500 PROGRAM: EXTERNAL SERVICES SUBPROGRAM: WATERSHED MANAGEMENT DECISION ITEM: 5400—CAFO* Program Improvements—Staffing The Department requests to reallocate 4.0 FTE to increase its CAFO program staff. This proposal provides improved responsiveness to public concerns about health and water quality impacts and improves the Department’s permit-to-staff ratio. The CAFO program has grown significantly in the last ten years and continues to increase annually. In 1995 there were a total of 40 CAFOs. Today there are approximately 285 permitted CAFO operations, with the largest concentration in Northeast Wisconsin. The primary goals of this budget initiative are as follows: • • • • • * Address the growing workload associated with CAFOs by improving the Department’s permitto-staff ratio (see table below). Assure the public DNR has adequate staffing to review and evaluate CAFO permit applications, permit reissuances, nutrient management plans, and CAFO compliance monitoring. Increase the ability of DNR to conduct targeted education and outreach efforts. # of Permits # of FTE in CAFO Program Regional CAFO Staff Permits to Regional Staff Ratio February 279 17 10.5 27 to 1 July 282 19 12.5 23 to 1 Budget Action 285 21 14.5 20 to 1 Regional staff assume primary responsibility for CAFO permitting action, whether new permits, permit modifications or permit reissuance. The permit-to-staff ratio is isolated to regional staff and does not include central office staff. Central Office staff are responsible for ensuring consistent processes and includes activities such as permit intake, nutrient management plan review, plan and specification review, inspection coordination and policy coordination. Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation 17 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Statutory Language Proposals 1. Timber Sale Reporting Requirements The Department requests modification of s. 28.11 of the statutes related to submitting a report of merchantable wood products cut on a county forest. The current requirement is that a report be submitted within 90 days of completion, but no more than two years after filing the cutting notice. The Department proposes to require transmission of a report within 90 days of completion, but no more than five years after filing the cutting notice. A change from two years to five years for filing the cutting notice more closely reflects currently accepted timber sale contract lengths and reduces unnecessary county and Department workload. The intent of the statute is to require county forests to report harvested merchantable timber in a timely fashion and to ensure timely repayment of any outstanding county forest loans. Timber sale contracts are most often written to cover a period of approximately two years, although the length of time varies based on specific circumstances including volume of timber to be harvested and seasonal restrictions. In addition to the original contract period, contracts may be extended multiple times at the discretion of the county forestry committee. Department guidance recommends that total contract length should not exceed four years. 2. Timber Direct Sale Limit Increase The Department requests modification of s.28.05, 28.11 and 28.22 of the statutes to increase the direct sale—sales without a competitive bidding process--amount for timber sales on public lands from $3,000 to $10,000 to better align them with current price structure and to allow state, county and community forests to more efficiently and effectively sell small timber sales, which can be difficult to complete. The direct sales limit was last revised in 1999. The intent for these three statutes is to mandate that an open and fair competitive bidding process be applied to public land timber sales. The direct sale limit, currently $3,000 of appraised value, allows managers to sell smaller amounts of timber directly to a contractor without advertising. In certain instances, being able to quickly work with a contractor is advantageous. They may have the availability or type of equipment that is a perfect match for a smaller timber sale, allowing timber to be sold when in other circumstances it may be less possible. 3. Timber Sale Advertising Requirements The Department requests modification of ss.28.05, 28.11 and 28.22, Wis. Stats. to eliminate the requirement for publishing notice of timber sales in an official newspaper. The revised statutes would offer an option to post on an official website or publish in a newspaper. The intent for these three statutes is to mandate that an open and fair competitive bidding process be applied on public land timber sales. In doing so, the statutes require publication of a classified advertisement in a newspaper having general circulation in the county in which the timber is sold. Solely relying on newspaper advertising to reach prospective bidders may be missing some potential contractors who are becoming more attuned to searching for opportunities on the web. This change also has the potential to eliminate redundant advertising spending. For example, many of the Department’s properties span multiple counties. It is common practice that as timber sales are established and ready to be sold, they are all offered for sale at one time as a “package” whereby contractors bid on individual sales in that package. It is not uncommon that in these packages, sales 18 are bundled that originated from more than one county. To execute the law, the same advertisement for that package is published in County A, County B and even County C and then repeated a second time to meet the law of publishing twice. This essentially triples the cost of advertising for the same event. 4. Fire Suppression Billing The Department requests to modify s. 26.14 to exempt counties from the requirement to pay onehalf of fire suppression expenses for instances when a 3rd party has been deemed to be responsible for a forest fire, and as prescribed under s. 26.14(9)(b), has already reimbursed the Department for 100% of the fire suppression expenses. Suggested language is as follows: 26.14(3)(a) “No county shall be billed under sub 4 for any amount due to the Department under sub 4 if the Department has previously collected the amounts under sub 9b.” 19 Wisconsin DNR Division of Forestry Headquarters Relocation Proposal Final report submitted September 2016 20 Purpose The 2015-2017 Wisconsin state budget (2015 WI Act 55, Section 9132, page 642) directed the Department of Natural Resources to develop a proposal to move the headquarters of the Division of Forestry (FR HQ) to a northern location. This proposal is being submitted with the department’s 2017-19 biennial budget requests. As directed by Act 55, the final proposal provides details on the costs of relocating the headquarters, a timeline for implementing a relocation, and preferred locations for a northern headquarters. As part of the analysis, the department assessed a range of northern options for the location of the FR HQ and the positions that would be included in the FR HQ relocation. For the purposes of this proposal, the department considered any interested municipality north of U.S. Highway 10. Terminology used in this report Department of Natural Resources (DNR) DNR Headquarters (DNR HQ) – located in the State Natural Resources Building (previously called GEF 2) in Madison. The DNR HQ houses the leadership and program management for all of the divisions in the DNR. Division of Forestry (FR) Forestry Headquarters (FR HQ) – The current FR HQ is located in the DNR HQ. Department of Administration (DOA) Full time equivalent (FTE) – unit to describe the workload of a position Role of Forestry headquarters The role of the Forestry headquarters is to: - Develop policy and coordinate implementation of forestry programs across the state - Manage and coordinate statewide forest fire program, including command center operations - Work in partnership with other divisions to develop statewide coordination of programs - Participate in decision making on department management and operations teams (e.g., Department Leadership Team and Operations Management Team) - Respond to and support state initiatives and partnerships with other government functions (e.g., Governor’s office, Legislature, other state agencies) - Work with partners and stakeholders to develop and guide implementation of forestry programs across the state The department believes that the following principles are critical to a successful headquarters, no matter its location. The department used these to guide the analysis and development of the report on relocating the headquarters to a northern location. 21 A successful FR HQ will: - Facilitate effective and efficient management and leadership of the division. - Maintain the ability to foster “One DNR” though effective collaboration with other parts of the agency. - Sustain and promote strong partnerships with current and future stakeholders throughout the state. - Support staff in accomplishing their work. - Be efficient and effective in working with customers and partners. - Make best use of limited fiscal and human resources. Background and Current Status Distribution & Responsibilities of Forestry Staff The Division of Forestry currently has 454 full time equivalent (FTE) positons located around the state. There are 56.5 FTE division positons located with the other department programs in the DNR HQ building in Madison. These positions have statewide responsibilities. There are an additional 33.5 FTE division positons with statewide responsibility located outside of the headquarters. Generally, we consider the positions with statewide responsibilities to be part of the FR HQ. The division has 364 FTE positions located throughout the state due to their geographic (a subset of the state such as county or region) responsibilities. Table 1 shows the current distribution of division FTE by DNR’s forestry districts. Figure 1 shows the location of division FTE positions by county. Table 1: Current distribution of DNR Forestry FTEs by District Forestry FTE with Statewide Responsibility Location Headquarters (Madison) Forestry FTE with Geographic Responsibility Forestry FTE by District 56.5 56.5 7 65 72 3.5 87 90.5 Northwest District 2 103 105 Northeast District 21 109 130 90 364 454 Southern District West Central District Total As the division fills vacant positions, it is standard practice to evaluate where positions are located based on responsibilities and the need to work with internal and/or external partners. Often a position will be advertised for multiple location options based on responsibilities and attracting a wide pool of qualified candidates. 22 Figure 1: Current Distribution of Division of Forestry FTEs by County. Current Division of Forestry Position Looetions Northwest .II District 5' IJT Southern DistriEi I3: Ete? with Geographic 3: Staff w1'1h Sue-wide- Reeponsatti?ry humid-e Pttl'a-o'ioot'tj HD: Staff tit-i111 Statewide Responsibility (Headquarters? nut represHiHEda?tr?u?ng Beanies. 23 Forestry Headquarters Programs (Bureaus) The Division of Forestry headquarters houses four broad program areas: Administration, Forest Management, Forest Protection, and Forest Business Services. Employees in each of the three bureaus, as well as those assigned to the Division Administrator, are stationed at the headquarters office and in other locations around the state. Below is a general description of the functions and responsibilities for each of the headquarters’ programs. Headquarters staff work closely with other divisions and programs within the DNR HQ as part of the agency’s “One DNR” approach to efficiently and effectively achieving the department’s mission. Having a department headquarters that encompasses all divisions is the typical arrangement across state government agencies. Forestry Administration is responsible for the overall direction and leadership of the Forestry Division as well as communicating with internal and external decision makers about the Forestry mission. The administration consists of the Division Administrator (Chief State Forester), the Deputy Administrator and 3 staff FTEs. Forestry Administration also includes 3 bureau directors stationed at headquarters and 4 district forestry leaders with geographic responsibility stationed within their districts all under the supervision of the Deputy Administrator. The Forest Management Bureau consists of two sections and provides guidance and expertise on issues related to public and private forest management statewide. The Public & Private Forestry Section includes coordination of state and county forests, forest certification, as well as the Private Forestry Team and the Urban Forestry Team. The Forest Sciences Section includes division expertise in silviculture, economics, hydrology, ecology, socioeconomic analysis, reforestation, and forest health. The majority of staff in the Reforestation Program and the Forest Health Team are stationed outside of the headquarters office. The Forest Protection Bureau provides statewide direction for the forestry fire and law enforcement functions. The Forest Protection bureau includes the Aeronautics Team, the Forest Fire & Law Enforcement Section, and the Equipment Research & Development Team. The majority of staff in the Forest Protection Bureau are stationed at the LeMay Center in Tomahawk or at other locations around the state. The Forestry Business Services Bureau is responsible for many of the internal processes necessary to effectively implement division programs, as well as serving external customer needs. The bureau includes the forestry budget management team as well as two sections. The Technology Services Section includes GIS functions, web and Information Technology development, and technology support. The Staff and Partner Services Section includes hiring and training coordination, education and outreach, partnership coordination, and forestry planning services, as well as the Forest Products Services Team, which supports forest industries throughout the state. The vast majority of “field” staff, those with a specific geographic assignment (e.g., foresters and forestry technicians), are supervised by the applicable District Forestry Leader (DFL). DFLs are located across the state in their geographic area of responsibility, and will remain in their current locations to oversee the implementation of forestry programs. There are no DFLs located at DNR headquarters. (See Figure 1 for location of staff with geographic responsibilities.) Relocation Options Potential FR HQ locations were identified through a Request for Information (RFI) process in which municipalities expressed interest in hosting the FR HQ. All locations expressing interest in the FR HQ through the RFI process as well as communities that shared their interest prior to the RFI were considered. 24 Table 2: Communities expressing interest in the FR HQ Communities expressing interest in the FR HQ Antigo Ashland Barron Bayfield County Boulder Junction Bruce Burnett County Crandon Cumberland Dunbar Eau Claire Florence County Forest County Gresham Hayward Iron County Kronenwetter Ladysmith Lena Mason Mellen Merrill Minocqua Neillsville New Auburn New Richmond Oneida County Owen Park Falls Phelps Phillips Portage County Prentice Rhinelander Rib Lake Rib Mountain Rice Lake Rothschild Schofield Spooner Tomahawk Wausau Weston After assessing the array of interested communities, the department has selected as preferred location options (in alphabetical order): Hayward, Rhinelander, and Wausau. In order to select preferred locations for a northern headquarters, the department evaluated submissions from interested municipalities, sought input from the Council on Forestry on important aspects of a location, and considered attributes that would support the needs of a Forestry headquarters separated from the department headquarters. Aspects that were found to be important to a Forestry headquarters include, but are not limited to, proximity to external customers including forestry professionals and forestry related organizations; proximity to department decision makers; access to other agency decision makers (federal and state); access to the legislature and other external decision makers; opportunities to interact and share resources with other DNR programs and staff; centrally located for cost effective travel by staff; accessibility to customers, and; availability of an adequate communication/technology infrastructure and established systems (e.g., bandwidth). Positions and work functions associated with the FR HQ deal with policy and decision making for forestry programs at a statewide level. These positions work closely with program managers across all divisions, have multiple partners, customers, and stakeholders across the state, and are involved with both rural and urban forests and communities. The majority are not associated with a specific geographic area of the state. Because of these broad responsibilities, it is most efficient and effective if they are located where they can access a variety of locations, including frequent travel to Madison. Hayward, Rhinelander, and Wausau were selected because they are communities that are home to a variety of forestry professionals, organizations, other agencies and colleagues that FR HQ staff currently work with. The DNR has offices in all three locations which would provide some opportunity for divisions to work together and share resources. The Chequamegon–Nicolet National Forest (CNNF) Headquarters and USFS Northern Research Station are located in Rhinelander as well as Lumberjack RC&D, a USDA NRCS office, Great Lakes Timber Professionals Association, Wisconsin County Forest Association, and several forest products and related companies. Locations that provided easy access and shortest distances to other staff and partners were preferred. Wausau would provide the best location for FR HQ staff to access all areas of the state in roughly the same amount of time and 25 would be the most cost effective location for the frequent travel that will be needed to Madison and the DNR HQ. Wausau is located close to partners at other state agencies, forest products companies, and a USDA NRCS office, and is close to UW-Stevens Point which has the nation’s largest natural resources school. Hayward is home to several forest products companies, is in close proximity to the CNNF and has a DNR forestry property with available space (state nursery). All three locations are in counties with designated County Forests and have active programs for private land management. More thorough evaluation of communication infrastructure would be undertaken if a decision is made to relocate. Communication infrastructure can be highly variable even within a city. The size and amenities of these three communities, when compared to a number of the other communities that expressed interest, would also provide a breadth of opportunities that are attractive to current and future employees. Forestry Headquarter Positions The division analyzed where positions with statewide responsibilities would most appropriately be located if the headquarters were relocated to a northern community. A number of positions have been identified as most appropriately being located in the FR HQ. Other positions’ “best fit” would be to remain in the DNR HQ given the work they do, while a set of additional positons could be located either in the DNR HQ or a northern FR HQ. Another group of employees are tied to a specific location outside either HQ. Table 3 shows the preferred location of positions with statewide responsibilities if a FR HQ is created in a northern location. The positions listed for the FR HQ (northern location) are critical to division decision making and should be close to the other forestry decision makers. They have primary and direct impact on division-wide policy making. The positions listed for the DNR HQ have key internal customers and partners that are in the DNR HQ and have regular interactions (often face to face needed) with those partners. Also, some of these positions have special technological requirements associated with them and require the infrastructure provided in DNR HQ/Madison. The positions that are listed under the “multiple location option” have both regular interaction with both DNR HQ staff and staff listed under FR HQ. Their key external customers are statewide and in a variety of locations depending on the position. The functions of many of these positions can be performed in a variety of locations. For some positions, it is beneficial to be closer to external customer groups, other field staff, or other internal partners that are distributed throughout the state. The list of positions under the “other” section are those that must be located at a facility they manage (e.g., nursery) or are located with a key partner (e.g., Forest Products Lab). Table 3: Preferred location for Forestry positions with statewide responsibilities if a northern FR HQ is created. FR HQ (northern location) • Division Administrator • • Deputy Administrator • • Forestry Business Services Bureau Director Forest Management Bureau Director Forest Protection Bureau • • • • • Staff and Partner Services Section Chief Forest Products Services Team Leader Forest Fire and Law Enforcement Section Chief Forest Fire Operations Specialist Organization Development 26 • • Public and Private Forestry Section Chief Sciences Section Chief • Silviculturist/ Ecologist • County & Public Forest Specialist Executive Staff Assistant • • • • • • Director Policy Advisor Consultant Radio Communications Specialist Aeronautics Team Leader • DNR HQ (GEF 2) GIS Program Manager • Forestry IT Project Manager • Forest Conservation Easement Specialist Web Developer • Forestry GIS Developer • • IT Coordinator • • Internet Manager/E-Business Liaison Technology Services Section Chief GIS Specialist IT Development Program Manager Multiple location options (FR HQ – northern, DNR HQ, other) • Forest Economist • • State Forests Coordinator • • Certification Coordinator • • • • Forest Socio-Economic Analyst Forest Management and Ecology Analyst Silviculturist/ Ecologist (2) • Forest Hydrologist • • Forest Geneticist • • • • • • • • Private Forestry Team Leader Private Forestry & Easement Monitoring Specialist Private Forestry Specialist • Forest Tax Operations Specialist Forest Tax Enforcement & Operations Forest Tax Law Specialist • • • Forest Tax Law Administration Specialist (2) Forest Tax Field Manager Fire Department Liaison Fire Suppression Specialist • • Forest Tax Field Specialist Forest Health Team Leader • • Forestry Law Enforcement Specialist (2) Forest Fire Prevention Specialist Wildland Urban Interface Specialist • Gypsy Moth & Invasive Forest Pest Coordinator Invasive Plant Coordinator • Reforestation Team Leader/Nursery Superintendent Regeneration Specialist • • • • • • • • • Hiring and Training Coordinator Forestry Planner Budget and Grants Specialist (2) Budget Manager Rural and Urban Forest Inventory Analyst Resource Management Partnership Coordinator Learning Manager Education and Outreach Specialist Urban Forestry Team Leader Urban Forestry Financing Specialist Urban Forestry Partnership Specialist Forestry Field IT/GIS Support Coordinator Other (assigned to specific facility or partner) • Forest Health Pathologist • Forest Products Services Statewide Specialist 27 Cost of Forestry HQ Relocation To assess the cost of relocating the FR HQ, we analyzed the cost of new construction, cost of leasing office space, and the cost of moving staff to a new location. We recognize that real estate leases and building costs change or increase rapidly. If a decision is made to move the FR HQ, a new cost analysis will need to be conducted in order to obtain accurate expenses. As well, every possible FR HQ location will have different costs. In order to analyze the cost of office space, we used standard state office building specifications to estimate that the FR HQ requires 14,100 square feet of space. We estimated space for 45 staff. We also assessed the communication and IT infrastructure needed for the FR HQ. The main need as far as communication infrastructure is availability of sufficient network bandwidth (either through the BCN (BadgerNet Converged Network) contract or a secondary DSL contract put in place in 2014). Lack of bandwidth is a major problem at many DNR field offices and service centers. Staff in the State Natural Resources Office (DNR HQ) tend to be the major consumers of network resources such as shared drives, SharePoint, Skype conference calls, GIS processing, development servers for both web and applications, and other technology applications. These staff require a level of network bandwidth far and above what field staff typically require. Since DNR HQ has a near unlimited amount of bandwidth (shared by all Divisions and Bureaus at the DNR HQ), this level of usage is never a problem. However, if all FR HQ staff were to move to any of our existing BCN field locations, they would not be able to all conduct their usual business concurrently due to insufficient bandwidth. A new FR HQ location would need a minimum of a 200Mb/s circuit, in order to provide the bandwidth to handle the demand of FR HQ staff. Charter DSL service, which many northern DNR locations rely on, offers a respectable download speed, but a very insufficient level of upload speed, which is the flow of network traffic that is more important for the work many FR HQ staff does. All of the functions listed above are dependent on upload speed rather than download speed. For the emergency situations the Forestry Command Center handles, it requires a guaranteed level of upload speed to receive the information in a timely manner. If an existing building were leased for the FR HQ that did not previously act as a DNR location, DOA would likely need to bury fiber for the network circuit which generally costs around $25,000. If the potential site was too far from the existing network infrastructure, this could be an issue. A third communication criterion is a strong cell signal, since many staff rely on their DNR cell phones to conduct business. Most sites around the state have an acceptable signal from one carrier or another, but there are exceptions in the northeast part of the state and some areas near Brule, where no cell carrier has a strong signal. Cost of new construction The cost of new construction was estimated based on the Department’s capital development procedures and was reviewed with the Division of Facilities Development at DOA. The cost analysis estimates in Table 4 below are for the construction of a new FR HQ building in Wausau. Costs for constructing a new FR HQ in Rhinelander or Hayward are comparable and for both cities are estimated to be ten percent higher than in Wausau. The cost for these cities is higher due to the greater distance to transport building materials and access to available bidders. Separate detailed cost analyses are not included for those locations but include the same components. 28 Table 4: Estimate of new construction costs in Wausau for 45 staff Initial Costs Estimate Total Estimated Capital Project Budget (includes construction, fees, furnishings, command center infrastructure, and IT needs) Purchase 1-2 acres for building site *(Depending on location, building on an existing state property would be investigated, eliminating this expense.) Moving expenses Total: first year cost $5,396,900 $250,000 $337,500 $5,984,400 Additional Annual Costs (for 20 years) Annual debt service on the project Estimate $431,760 Annual operations and maintenance of building (includes annual IT/communication costs) Total: annual costs for 20 years $110,550 $10,846,200 Cost of leasing office space If the department elected to pursue a lease for a new FR HQ, the two most likely options would be to modify an existing building to meet the FR HQ needs or to find a property that could be built-to-suit and then leased to the Department. It is difficult to perform a cost analysis for these options as it would depend heavily on local markets at the time the search takes place. However, DNR Facilities and Lands specialists advised that although these lease options would most likely represent less up front cost, if the FR HQ is permanently relocated then construction of a new Department-owned facility is more economical over the long-term. Based on an analysis of comparable properties in the Wausau area (August 2016), it is estimated that the rental rate for a building, if one exists at the time of implementation, will be in the range of $23.50 - $27.35 per square feet in today’s market and then inflated 2.5% annually. Estimated annual costs for a twenty year lease are $362,652 with 2.5% annual increases. Total costs for a twenty year lease excluding additional first year costs can be found in Table 6. In addition, leased properties will need significant improvements to complete the room requirements necessary for the FR HQ. These improvements will add cost to the leasing process and will vary depending on what buildings are available for lease at the time of implementation. 29 Table 5: Estimate of costs for leasing office in Wausau for 45 staff Initial Costs Estimate Fit out costs of space (includes furnishings, command center infrastructure, and IT needs) Moving expenses Total: first year cost $746,400 $337,500 $1,083,900 Summary of leasing costs (for 20 years) Lease (total 20 year lease) Annual IT and communication costs Estimate $9,263,821 $4,800 Total: annual costs for 20 years $9,355,021 Table 6: Total estimated costs for a 20 year lease based on current availability in Wausau, WI. Year Estimated Annual Leasing Costs (based on 2.5% annual increase)* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Total cost of 20 year lease 362,652.00 371,718.30 381,011.26 390,536.54 400,299.95 410,307.45 420,565.14 431,079.27 441,856.25 452,902.65 464,225.22 475,830.85 487,726.62 499,919.79 512,417.78 525,228.23 538,358.93 551,817.91 565,613.35 579,753.69 $9,263,821.17 *Additional 1st year costs from Table 5 are not included. 30 Current DNR Facilities There are DNR facilities in all three communities. However, there is not space available to incorporate those employees who would be relocating to a northern FR HQ. Consideration might be given to consolidating other DNR staff with a FR HQ, however, that is beyond the scope of this effort and the costs have not been calculated. Cost of current space in DNR HQ: There will be some Forestry staff that remains in the DNR HQ in Madison. Forestry uses a relatively small percentage of space in the DNR HQ and, as a result, there is not sufficient space freed up to assess use by another agency. As a result, the department will continue to be responsible for the entire cost of rent for the space, though other accounts (e.g., Fish &Wildlife Account, Parks Account, etc) might be required to pick up a higher percentage of the overall costs. Duplication of Command Center Resources The Division of Forestry is responsible for managing and maintaining an all risk -incident command center within the DNR HQ. The current command center and its infrastructure are a Department asset and would need to remain in the DNR HQ in its entirety as this shared resource is also utilized by Dam Safety, Law Enforcement, and Wildlife as well as building security for managing building issues and restrictions. It also serves as a back-up facility for the State Capitol Police. If the FR HQ were to be relocated, another DNR program would need to take over primary management and maintenance responsibility for the current command center. In a northern move, FR HQ would include a new primary command center with complete communications infrastructure, including radios, dispatch capabilities, antennae towers, PC’s, video capabilities, phone lines, network capabilities, and supporting office furniture needs. The new command center would need at least 2400 ft2 of space and would require items such as high speed internet capabilities, antennae towers, dispatch equipment. If Forestry fire suppression staff for the particular Fire Response Unit associated with the location of the new HQ were to be co-located with the HQ, this would add another $1.0 million for the need to have heated storage of equipment. For example, if Wausau was selected as a FR HQ, the Forestry staff and fire suppression equipment currently located in the Wausau area could be moved to co-locate with the FR HQ. The same could apply to Hayward and Rhinelander. Cost of staff travel For purposes of this assessment, we have assumed that the cost of travel for Forestry employees would remain the same. Although it would be variable by employee, generally, time currently spent traveling north from Madison will be spent traveling south to Madison from a northern location, reflecting the fact that the DNR HQ will remain in Madison. Implementation and Timeline Below are estimated timelines for the implementation of a relocation of the FR HQ to a northern location. Since there are costs and benefits associated with leasing an existing building or construction of a new FR HQ building both timelines are presented. It is important to note that these are estimated timelines and that a variety of circumstances can alter the timeline. 31 The typical timeline for DNR capital development projects, including the construction of new buildings or significant refurbishment or expansion of existing facilities, is 6 years. This accounts for the development of a project proposal, the adoption of that project as part of the Department budget request, approval of the state budget including the development project, and the design and construction of the project. The timeline developed for the construction of a new northern FR HQ was developed with the assumption that if the move is approved for immediate implementation, and if new construction or expansion of existing facilities is the best option, that the necessary funding for the project would also be made available and as a result the typical 6 year timeline would be significantly shortened. The following timeline for new construction is based on information provided in the ‘Capital Budget Instructions’ for the 2017-2019 biennial budget. These instructions provide direction to state agencies for developing their capital budget project requests including anticipated project schedules. NEW CONSTRUCTION TIMELINE Actions: Approximate Timeline: State Budget is signed by the Governor Develop program statement/paperwork for FR HQ Capital Development Project and develop implementation plan for moving FR HQ Search, appraisal and acquisition of site for new FRHQ (if necessary) Architect/Engineer services Develop/review budget Develop preliminary plans Complete/review design report Complete bid documents Review bid documents Bid posting Complete construction Implement move of staff and equipment Move in Date (approximate): Start 1 month 2 months 5 months 3 months 3 months 2 months 3 months 2 months 5 months 18-26 months 1 month 45 - 53 months The timeline for leasing a new headquarters building is based on DOA’s required timeline for obtaining new space through a leasing process. The actual timeline could be longer or shorter based on the size of the space needed and the extent of any modifications. 32 LEASING TIMELINE Actions: Approximate Timeline: Start State Budget is signed by the Governor Develop DOA space request; develop implementation plan for moving FR HQ 1 month DOA receives budget approval; space request reviewed and approved by DOA 1 month DOA Leasing schedules and meets with DNR to determine location requirements and construction specifications < 1 month Prepare RFP, advertise, send proposal to prospective lessors, and evaluate RFP responses 3-4 months DOA Leasing identifies possible spaces, reviews sites, and identifies needed improvements; develops floor plans/cabling 1-2 months DOA Leasing negotiates terms and finalizes lease terms and floor plans 1 month Approval by State Building Commission for leases with a term of >5 years or > 10,000 square feet Approval from Governor for leases over $25.00/square foot 1-2 months Sign lease Modification/build out of space Implement move of staff and equipment < 1 month 2-3 months 1 month Move in Date (approximate): < 1 month 14-18 months Summary of Public Comments The Division received 44 comments in response to the July 14, 2016 release of the draft proposal for the relocation of the FR HQ to a northern location. Comments were varied in their support for or concern about the proposal. Many commenters expressed merits of a specific city but did not provide opinions on the proposal itself; there was particular support among commenters for moving the HQ to Rhinelander with some letters of support for Wausau as well. No suggestions were made to change the draft proposal. (The draft proposal was revised to include the costs of relocation and the timeline.) Some of the main reasons for supporting the proposal expressed by commenters included: • • • • The location of the US Forest Service headquarters. The location of WCFA and GLTPA headquarters and proximity to forest industry. The rich logging history and access to all the recreational opportunities in northern Wisconsin. Large concentrations of forestland in northern Wisconsin. 33 • • Improvement in efficiency and results when forestry professionals are located at the point of their responsibility. Northern Wisconsin needs more support from state government. Several commenters expressed concerns or had questions about the proposal. Concerns expressed by commenters included: • • • • • • Cost and wise use of taxpayer dollars; what are the costs vs. the benefits of HQ relocation. Potential decline in opportunities for communication between FR administrators, the Legislature, and other state agencies as forest management policies are developed. Moving FR HQ is in opposition to the “One DNR” concept used to define a successful FR headquarters in the proposal. If communication between FR administration and individual partner organizations is a problem, find simpler and more cost-effective solutions than headquarters relocation. Evaluation of proper position placement is already a component of FR’s staffing/hiring process. Concerns about whether there will be additional opportunities for public input once a more full assessment of fiscal, logistical, and other impacts is complete. Conclusion This proposal was developed as directed by the 2015-2017 Wisconsin state budget (2015 WI Act 55, Section 9132, page 642). The plan provides details on the costs of relocating the Division of Forestry headquarters, a timeline for implementing relocation, and preferred locations for a northern headquarters, and will be submitted for the Governor’s consideration with the department’s 2017-19 biennial budget requests. 34 2015 Act 201 Budget Reduction Summary As required by 2015 Wisconsin Act 201, the Department is required to prepare a plan for how it would respond to a 5% reduction in state operations funding. The reduction does not apply to federal or debt service funding, nor does it apply to standard budget adjustments. A summary of the Department’s 5% plan is as follows: # 1 2 3 4 5 ITEM Realign spending authority with current revenue/expenditure levels Internal Services/Administration program reductions Fish, Wildlife & Parks program reductions Forestry program reductions Environmental Management program reductions TOTAL Program Revenue 3,810,400 Total Reduction 3,810,400 815,200 209,500 1,024,700 1,815,300 2,344,700 15,000 4,175,000 50,000 2,353,700 2,601,000 $1,865,300 $8,114,600 GPR 35 SEG 2,353,700 2,651,000 $4,034,900 $14,014,800 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 2017-2019 BIENNIAL FINANCE PLAN September 13, 2016 The Environmental Improvement Fund (EIF) is jointly administered by the Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Administration. The EIF comprises the Clean Water Fund Program and the Safe Drinking Water Loan Program. These programs provide low-interest rate loans to municipalities to construct wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects. The EIF is budgeted as a separate agency. Therefore, any debt authorization for the EIF does not appear within the Department’s budget. The statute requires the two agencies to jointly prepare a Biennial Finance Plan detailing the amount of general obligation bonding authority and revenue bonding authority needed for each of the loan programs. The Biennial Finance Plan is submitted to the Joint Finance Committee, the standing environmental committees of the Legislature, and the Building Commission. The legislative committees make recommendations to the Building Commission, which ultimately either approves, modifies or denies the requested authorizations. The following table provides the authorizations for each of the loan programs which will be requested in the Biennial Finance Plan. The requests total $8.4 million of general obligation borrowing authority and no new revenue bonding authority. PROPOSED FUNDING LEVELS FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (EIF) 2017-2019 Biennium BONDING AUTHORITY (in millions of dollars) A. CLEAN WATER FUND PROGRAM General Obligation Bonding Revenue Bonding CHANGE IN AMOUNT CUMULATIVE $0* $0 $686.7 $2,526.7 Clean Water Funds are expected to be sufficient to meet all of the estimated requests. B. SAFE DRINKING WATER LOAN PROGRAM General Obligation Bonding $8.4* $74.0 Notes: * For the 2017-19 biennium, it is estimated that the Clean Water Fund Program and the Safe Drinking Water Loan Program will together require $8.4 million of new general obligation bonding authority to fund $860.2 million in new projects expected to apply during that period. The new authority requested, along with amounts expected to carry over from previous biennia, will provide amounts sufficient to fund the subsidies, reserves, federal capitalization grant matching amounts, and hardship grants for the biennium. The proposed funding levels of general obligation bonding and revenue bonding authority are based on estimates of future needs for funding. These estimates, and the associated funding levels, may change as more data becomes available and as the budget development process proceeds. 36 OF NATURAL RESOURCES CAPITAL mum BUDGET . 1011-10 Put-g 50.1: 2015-17 F-d Can-d: 5mm Rm Dutchman! 51500900 37.500000 Kalli: mm: Spring Fish Hunky 19.600300 0 536 T0131 Emma In 2013-15: Ens-1mg Wm Annuity 5,000,030 Emu-Irina (imam; Sun?sh]: Land in?nity. 13.04111 GPSB) 3,041,700 0 All Agency (Minors) 0 6.059.000 Fish Comm Segreglld Bands 0 1.366.711) W?dh? Caua'rl?m 5w Bands 0 0 Pastry Communal Segregated Emil: 1.050.500 3.5mm F??nfm?nwy Cum WM T541000 6.567300 SOC Purchase. In soc. Contingency BMW Semi] Bands 15.300 982.700 Ell?m Toll] Boning $0,950,500 Gill 1.145300 Sis 365.800 303.000 Mum-Prom Ada-'11 Fac?jxy 138.300 358.000 Total CIR $1,013,000 $1,100,600 Fish Se; 222.540 225.000 FaunySeg 1,333,105 1.546200100100053.?me Wildlife Se; 222.548 2.15.000 0.000.000 ammunn-m Rods (DNB. lands} - For Se: 2.666.067 3.066.660 R000 Aids (?at 1.0001 Gum R0005) For Sq 1.333.333 1.833.334 50g Facilities 744.300 757.000 Opua?nns (ATV. M) 330.800 319.000 LE Boa: - Sun 200,000 200.000 Bmeu??an?3& 775] 554,400 000,000 Ran-1.0m: 360,000 360,000 Riv: 115.400 15.000 rm! II 0? DER $14,083,001 $9,867,200 - DER F.0d 552,841,101 $01,051,? Tm: 545,0?,000 PM Grinding 5m. FR. But REF. LE Bolt 4.069.400 2.000.900 Fed. MWCON) 0:05 Guns 0 1.9551!? Tau! Fed 0M Non-m 14,00,100 DEW $60,011,501 $03,855,700 37 DNR 2017-19 Biennial Capital Budget September 14. 2016 Major Projects 1 $760 I Priority Property Project Fmdinn Project Cost AI PATTISON RANGER STATION RADIO TOWER FORESTRY, SEG $1,241,700 BONDING BI PENINSULA STATE PARK SOUTH NICOLET BAY CAMPGROUND 300's STEWARDSHIP 5839.300 TOILETISHOWER BUILDING REPLACEMENT BI SCR FISHERIES OPERATIONS NEVIN CONSOLIDATED FISHERIES AND WATER ENVIRON SEG 32.840400 QUALITY OPERATIONS CENTER BONDING, SEG BONDING BI GRESHAM RANGER STATION CONSTRUCT JOINT REPLACEMENT RANGER FORESTRY, SEG 52.153100 STATION AT GRESHAM BONDING BI RIVER FALLS SERVICE CENTER BRF JOINT FOREST FIRE OPERATIONS SEG BONDING 82.086.81.10 CONSOLIDATED FACILITY BI RHINELANDER SERVICE CENTER RHINELANDER STORAGE BUILDING SEG BONDING $761,900 REPLACEMENT BI CORNELL RANGER STATION CORNELL RANGER STATION REPLACEMENT SEG BONDING SI.964.500 BI GRANTSBURG RANGER STATION REPLACEICONSOLIDATE EQUIPMENT SEG BONDING 51.158200 MAINTENANCE SHOP BI SCIENCES OPERATIONS CENTER PURCHASE THE SCIENCE OPERATIONS CENTER SEG BONDING 54.805300 (SOC) 3. CW0 LAB ADDITION DI HIGH CLIFF STATE PARK FAMILY CAMPGROUND EXPANSION STEWARDSHIP $341,700 D1 PENINSULA STATE PARK RECONSTRUCT EAGLE TOWER GIFTS AND 31.771100 GRANTS Total: 520.474.1013 38 Priority Property PENINSULA STATE PARK COPPER FALLS STATE PARK PENINSULA STATE PARK PRINCETON LOCK AND DAM PENINSULA STATE PARK GOVERNOR DODGE STATE PARK PENINSULA STATE PARK BRULE RIVER STATE FOREST ELROY-SPARTA STATE TRAIL GOVERNOR DODGE STATE PARK HIGH CLIFF STATE PARK KOHLER ANDRAE STATE PARK LAKE WISSOTA STATE PARK MERRICK STATE PARK NORTHERN HIGHLAND AMERICAN LEGION STATE FOREST PENINSULA STATE PARK PERROT STATE PARK POTAWATOMI STATE PARK RICHARD BONG STATE RECREATION AREA DNR 2017-19 Biennial Capital Budget Minor Prolocts I 8760 and Project WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT REPAIRS WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY REPAIRS WATERLINE REPLACEMENTS IN CAMPGROUNDS PRINCETON DAM RENOVATION SUNSET BIKE TRAIL REPAIRS ABANOON HALVERSON DAM FLUSH TOILET Eu SHOWER BUILDINGS REPAIRS RESURFACE ROADS AND LOTS HISTORIC TRAIL TUNNEL PORTAL REPAIRS TWIN VALLEY BOAT LAUNCH RENOVATION BOAT LAUNCH RELOCATION DAY USE AREAS PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS REPLACE ASPHALT ON MAIN ROADS AND HIGH- USE AREAS UPPER BOAT LAUNCH PARKING EXPANSION EXPAND LAUNCH a PARKING LOT AT STACKS BAY BOAT LANDING WEBORG SHELTER UPGRADES 8: ASBESTOS ABATEMENT PULVERIZE AND REPAVE PARK MAIN ROAD - PHASE 2 REPLACE ADA FISHING PIER ROAD REPAIRS - ENTRANCE ROAD LOT TO SUNSET CAMPGROUND 39 Flaming ALL AGENCY ALL AGENCY ALL AGENCY ALL AGENCY STEWARDSHIP, RECREATION STEWARDSHIP STEWARDSHIP ROADS - SEG RECREATION TRAILS - D. BOAT SFR. STEWARDSHIP BOAT RBF, STEWARDSHIP ROADS SEG ROADS - SEG RIVERS. STEWARDSHIP BOAT 775. STEWARDSHIP STEWARDSHIP ROADS - SEG GIFTS AND GRANTS. SFR FISH, ROADS - SEG September 14, 2016 Ptoject Cost 5838.300 5643.400 3729.300 31 .700 .500 $239,200 $296 .200 $861 .100 $234,100 $287,500 521 9.?00 8545 .600 5333.300 $549 .900 $266,800 $341 .600 $329 .700 5581 .500 3312.900 $680 .500 DNR 2017-19 Biennial Capital Budget Minor Prokcts I 3760. and I Property SAND LAKE PUBLIC ACCESS YELLOWSTONE LAKE STATE PARK BARRONIPOLK COUNTIES WILDLIFE AREAS BIG FOOT BEACH STATE PARK BLUE MOUND STATE PARK GOVERNOR DODGE STATE PARK NORTHERN HIGHLAND AMERICAN LEGION STATE FOREST WYALUSING STATE PARK ARMY LAKE PUBLIC ACCESS LOWER WISCONSIN STATE RIVERWAY Progect SAND LAKE BOAT LAUNCH RENOVATION REPLACE PARK ELECTRICAL INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEM SWEENEY POND DAM - PRINCIPAL SPILLWAY RENOVATION REPLACE VAULT TOILETS IN CAMPGROUND - PHASE REPLACE VAULT TOILETS IN CAMPGROUND REPLACE VAULT TOILETS PHASE 2 REPLACE VAULT TOILETS - FIREFLY CAMPGROUND REPLACE VAULT TOILETS AT TRAILHEADS AND CAMPGROUND - PHASE 3 CONSTRUCT ARMY LAKE BOAT LAUNCH DEVELOP MAZOMANIE WEST DAY USE AREA AND CANOE ACCESS 40 Funding BOAT 775. STEWARDSHIP ALL AGENCY STEWARDSHIP ALL AGENCY ALL AGENCY ALL AGENCY ALL AGENCY ALL AGENCY BOAT T73, BOAT SFR STEWARDSHIP Total: September 14, 2016 Project Cost 53872900 $337,600 $235500 5135300 5292.800 3448.600 5400.000 5331 .400 5214.600 $220 .800 $13,097,600 WASTE MANAGEMENT FUND Wisconsin State Statutes, 289.68(7) requires the Natural Resource Board to submit with the biennial budget a report on the fiscal status of the Waste Management Fund. The Waste Management Fund was established by the Legislature to provide for the long-term care and environmental repair of “approved” solid or hazardous waste disposal facilities after the owner's financial responsibility period has terminated. As authorized, revenues to the fund were obtained through a tipping fee collected from owners or operators of approved sites licensed for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. This tipping fee has not been in effect since 1989. The only steady source of revenue to the Waste Management Fund now is interest generated by the Fund. Revenue from judgments/legal actions is infrequent and unpredictable. The Department cannot anticipate what specific expenditures will be made from the Fund in future years, other than to say they would be necessary to repair or provide long-term care for an approved solid waste disposal facility. The following table summarizes fund activity in Fiscal Year 2016: Fiscal Status of the Waste Management Fund Cash Balance, 07/01/2015 $7,476,482.59 Fiscal Year 2016 Revenue $60,313.43 Fiscal Year 2016 Expenditures $65,716.41 Cash Balance, 06/30/2016 $7,471,079.61 41