The Committee on Ways and Means was called to order at 3:40 p.m., on Tuesday, March 9, 1999. Chairman Morse Arberry Jr. presided in Room 3137 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman

Ms. Jan Evans, Vice Chair

Mr. Bob Beers

Mrs. Barbara Cegavske

Mrs. Vonne Chowning

Mrs. Marcia de Braga

Mr. Joseph Dini, Jr.

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani

Mr. David Goldwater

Mr. Lynn Hettrick

Mr. David Parks

Mr. Richard Perkins

Mr. Robert Price

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mr. John Marvel (Excused)

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Assemblyman Marcia de Braga said she represented Assembly District 35. She explained A.B. 300 requested $300,000 over the 1999-2001 biennium to help the Division of Agriculture continue the wonderful work of managing estray horses on the Virginia Range. During the 1997 Legislative Session, a very sensible plan was adopted with the help of Washoe County and various horse groups and individuals. The plan dealt with horses that were nuisances in the area, protected the public, and enhanced the adoption program by building a holding facility at the Northern Nevada Correctional Center. The project was extremely successful and vital to the future wellbeing of estray horses. However, the legislature did not allocate the funds necessary to pay for feed, veterinary care and supplies, and other related expenses for the program. The traditional feeding area of the horses would soon be reduced by several thousand acres, as private lands were fenced to keep out estray horses. That would affect the horses’ natural feed supply, even in good years.

Mrs. de Braga said another important factor to consider was that the horse population increased annually by as much as 20 to 25 percent. If estray horses were allowed to continue occupying those lands, an ongoing program needed to be established to allow for the management of the population, continuance of the adoption program, and assurance of the health and safety of the herd that remained on the range. That could not be done without cost.

Mrs. de Braga explained under the federal program, the cost to adopt a horse was $125. During the 25 years the federal adoption program had been in place, through 1996, the government seized 160,000 horses. The cost per horse was approximately $1,100. Assuming all horses were adopted, the government spent $176 million and collected $137,000 over 25 years. According to a University of Colorado study, 90 percent of those horses were sold for slaughter within 1 year of adoption. The federal program did not work well and was extremely costly.

Mrs. de Braga said Nevada’s horse adoption program was not as costly, but was still expensive. The horses were held for up to 60 days and needed to be fed during that time. If money was not appropriated and horses were still maintained on the range, the only other option was to sell the horses, which raised tremendous public outcry. A compromise was needed. A management plan was under development, which would sell unadoptable horses. A common failing of the federal program was that adoptable horses were sold and unadoptable horses were put back on the range where they starved or could not fend for themselves.

Chairman Arberry said he thought the 1997 Legislative Session had funded estray horses. Mrs. de Braga said $50,000 was requested for care of estray horses, but only $10,000 was received. That was a start, but it took more than $10,000 to feed and vaccinate horses while they were in the holding facility. Chairman Arberry asked how the program established it needed $90,000, as requested in A.B. 300.

Paul Iverson introduced himself as the Administrator of the Division of Agriculture. He explained Nevada had an unusual situation regarding estray horses. They were the only horses of their type in the country. The Division of Agriculture managed the 360,000 acres on which estray horses roamed. Estray horses belonged to the State of Nevada, through the Division of Agriculture. They were the only horses that legally belonged to the division and it was the division’s responsibility to care for the horses. Estray horses were free-roaming, not wild, and therefore were not protected by the Wild Horse and Burro Act.

Mr. Iverson said many estray horses had become city dwellers. People in Reno and Lyon County had been involved with the issue for a long time. Recently 33 horses were shot and everyone in the country saw what an outrage that created. Many estray horses had become very familiar with people, traffic, and highways. The horses would migrate to highways because people who meant well fed horses near highways, and horses were sometimes struck and killed by vehicles. People also fed horses in cities, thinking they were helping starving horses. That created human dependency because it was easier and more appealing to come to the cities and eat human food than it was to eat their normal diet of dried grass and sagebrush. It was illegal to feed estray horses, but the division had admittedly not ticketed a lot of people for doing so. The intent of the law was to protect estray horses, not put people in jail.

Mr. Iverson explained many residents in the area loved estray horses. They named them, documented them, and watched generations of horses grow. But many people hated estray horses because they ruined landscaping in residential areas. Some people fed and watered the horses, which the division discouraged because it posed health risks for horses, as well as people. Vehicles could hit the horses or a kicking horse could injure small children. Estray horses were wild animals and could kick hard enough to kill a person. Stud horses protected their ground and fought to do so, regardless of human presence.

Mr. Iverson explained there was more than just feeding involved in the care of estray horses. The division could not easily go into Hidden Valley and the foothills of Reno, set up a trap, and remove the horses. When that was done, letters were written to the Governor and the legislature. The division tried to work with residents to get them to understand why estray horses had to be removed. Salaries were paid, traps were put out, and horses were transported, fed, branded, vaccinated, and given a veterinary check. There was a cost associated with each of those activities.

Mr. Iverson said the Division of Agriculture had been very fortunate and had the most successful program in the country. Every horse brought into their facility had been adopted, due to the 60-day time limit. No one wanted to see the 60-day limit reached, because at that point the horse had to be sold. Interest groups were determined not to let that happen. Unfortunately, if a horse was kept for 60 days, it cost about $280.

The program had been very fortunate and was now managing by crisis, and therefore, the herd of 600 to 700 horses was being poorly managed. The program removed horses out of residential areas and off highways. If the facility presently took in 50 horses, 48 would be sold. Wounded animals had to be caught and put down, and Washoe County gave the program money to contact a veterinarian, if needed. The program only took in what it knew could be adopted, so it only took in nuisance animals. If a lot of animals were sold, it would create a huge political problem. Washoe County generously donated $35,000 to the program the previous year. The program used that money to build a $100,000 facility, with a lot of help from the prison, brand inspectors, and other donations.

Mr. Iverson explained the program asked for $90,000 after assessing its needs. A management plan was reviewed to determine what it would cost to put brand inspectors in the communities. The program had spent more than the $10,000 funded in the 1997 Legislative Session, thanks mainly to donations.

Mr. Iverson presented Exhibit C ("Information Packet for A.B. 300"), which itemized the $90,000 budget for the Virginia Range Estray Horse Program. The main cost was the herd management plan (shown on page 5) for the 600 to 700 horses that covered 360,000 acres. There would be 1,000 horses within the next few years. More horses on the range would mean more horses coming down into residential areas. Eventually, something would have to be done to remedy the situation. The program planned to develop a management plan based on food, water, and the number of animals the range could sustain. Then it could be determined how many horses needed to be removed, and hopefully the program could figure out where to put them.

Mr. Iverson said veterinary care cost the program approximately $5,000 annually. The main reason for the requested funding was for staff to provide that care. The program needed to feed and care for the horses, and it tried to recoup costs, but that did not work. The program was competing with The Bureau of Land Management (BLM). People would often rather buy a better-looking horse from BLM for $125 than pay $280 for one of the Virginia Range horses. The BLM would even geld the horse at no charge. The BLM would do anything to get rid of their horses and had millions of dollars with which to do that, but Nevada did not. There were three groups that would take the horses and adopt them out: the Virginia Range Wildlife Protection Association, Wild Horse Organized Assistance, Inc. (WHOA!), and the American Mustang and Burro Association, Inc. The State of Nevada could not sell estray horses; they had to be given to a group to adopt out.

Referring again to Exhibit C, Mr. Iverson said the major accomplishments of the Virginia Range Estray Horse Program were listed on page 2. The first accomplishment was the construction of a 30-horse holding and veterinary care facility at the Northern Nevada Correctional Facility in Carson City. The second accomplishment was the aerial survey and census of the Virginia Range herd in Fall of 1997 and Spring of 1998. For the first flight, the program used the Division of Wildlife, which cost $1,500. For the second flight, the program begged and borrowed and got someone to fly for them. Third, the program had an education program with nonprofit groups; and finally, the program provided coordination and expertise for the investigation of the 33 estray horses killed in the Lockwood area in December 1998.

Mr. Iverson said pages 3 and 4 of Exhibit C showed photos highlighting the program’s problems. Photo 1 was of Hidden Valley and most of those homes were new, costing $150,000 to $200,000. The band of horses shown in the photo frequented that area every evening, and that was only one band of horses. Last year, 105 horses frequented the area between Hidden Valley and the Reno foothills. There were currently seven problem horses in that area. The program had put up a catch pen, but horses disappeared out of the catch pens, so it was difficult to capture the horses.

Mr. Iverson explained Photo 2, which showed 21 horses, was taken in Moundhouse. He thought the committee was familiar with the horse problem in Moundhouse. It was very difficult to remove those horses. The program administrators attended a county advisory board meeting, and were finally able to remove the horses, which had all been subsequently adopted.

Mr. Iverson explained Photo 3 was taken from Highway 50 coming from Yerington. The photo showed three horses, but there were many more in the area. A horse had been put down the previous day because it had been hit by a vehicle and had a bone protruding from its leg.

Photo 4, Mr. Iverson continued, was a photograph of a trap. The program did not have the ability to round up the horses, so they had to be trapped. Hay was put in the trap and the program tried to get nearby residents to close the trap once a horse entered it.

Photos 5 through 8 were photographs of the holding facility, which could hold 30 horses. Photo 5 was looking directly at the facility and Photo 6 showed the runway. Photo 7 showed the hydraulic chute, which held the horses for treatment. The chute had been destroyed when purchased from the BLM for $50 and was rebuilt by inmates. It was now worth approximately $10,000. Photo 8 showed some of the horses held at the facility. The facility currently held five horses, one with a bad leg that was being treated. Fifty-two horses came through the facility that year and all had been adopted.

Don Henderson, Deputy Administrator for the Division of Agriculture, said he would speak on three points: how the division would administer the appropriation of A.B. 300, the number and distribution of estray horses in the Virginia Range, and how the division proposed to develop a comprehensive estray horse program for the Virginia Range. He directed attention to page 5 of Exhibit C, which showed the budget Mr. Iverson previously explained. A large portion of the requested $90,000 would go toward funding a person on a three-quarter-time basis to administer the Virginia Range Estray Horse Program. The administrator would survey horses, herd movement, habitat conditions, and coordinate roadway emergencies.

Mr. Henderson explained funding from A.B. 300 would also be used for the management of the holding facility, which included oversight of the prison feeding program and animal care, coordination of veterinary care, notification and coordination with adoption groups, and facility upkeep. The program would spend $5,000 of the $90,000 for veterinary care. He noted the cost of daily care and feed was paid for with fees charged for adoption, which is why none of the $90,000 would be used for that purpose.

Mr. Henderson directed attention to page 7 of Exhibit C, which showed the Virginia Range herd area. The herd encompassed the area from Interstate 80 to the Carson River and from Alternate Highway 95 in Silver Springs to U.S. Highway 395. That area was 350,000 acres. The green dots on the map showed where and how many horses were found in the 1998 census. At the bottom of the map, a footnote showed 568 horses were counted. All horses in the area were not counted, but most of them were, which was how the estimate of 600 to 700 horses was derived. The Division of Agriculture would be conducting another aerial census of the area in a few weeks.

Mr. Henderson explained page 8 of Exhibit C would be of particular interest to the committee and showed the need for A.B. 300. Page 8 was a model diagram, assuming there were approximately 600 horses in the area. If left unmanaged, the population of the horses would grow logarithmically. The population would double within 4 years, and 3½ years after that, the population would double again. The management plan attempted to address that issue.

Mr. Henderson said page 8 showed an outline of the process the Division of Agriculture proposed for the development of a comprehensive management plan. The plan needed to address three critical questions. The first question was "at what population level will this horse herd be managed?" From the Division of Agriculture’s position, the population level must be within the capabilities of the available habitat. Second, "what type of management will be applied to maintain a sustainable and adaptive horse population at the targeted level?" The division's contention was the level of applied management would be dependent on available funding. And third, "what mechanisms or protocols will be employed to address horse numbers that exceed the targeted horse population level?"

Mr. Henderson said he was sure the committee was aware there was a wide range of opinions Nevada residents would have on those three questions. Recognizing those opinion differences and trying to reach a consensus, the Division of Agriculture had taken steps to develop an estray horse management plan, shown at the bottom of page 8. The first phase was to conduct a forage habitat capability study. The study would identify land ownership and available range for the herd area, identify the service area of water sources located within the herd area, and estimate available forage resources and carrying capabilities for horses within the identified herd area. That was a typical process and was the same manner in which the livestock on federal land was administered. The division would like to have the first phase of the study completed before presenting the plan to the public. The $10,000 listed on page 6, under Task 5, Herd Area Management Plan, would help the division accomplish that. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) natural resource conservation service would assist. The USDA had cheap labor and expertise to complete the analysis, which would take quite a bit of time and effort. For that level of study, $10,000 was a good buy.

Mr. Henderson explained phase 2 would consist of public meetings and planning to formulate the horse management plan. Once the division achieved a reasonable consensus on the three questions previously mentioned, a written plan would be developed and presented to the public for review. The plan would be subject to adoption by the division and the legislature.

Mrs. Cegavske said southern Nevada had a similar dilemma with wild burros. She did not know how similar the problem in the Red Rock area was to the Virginia Range problem and asked for a comparison. She asked if a person were to be fined for feeding the horses, what would be the amount of the fine and whether that money would be used for the care of the horses. She said Mr. Iverson mentioned someone helped with education and asked him to elaborate on that. She asked if there were flyers or educational television in schools. Her final question was what the final cost to the state was when the 33 estray horses were killed.

Mrs. de Braga said she would like to answer the first question and let Mr. Iverson answer the rest of the questions. The difference between wild and free-roaming horses and burros and estray horses was geographical. Animals in designated horses management areas, which was everywhere except the Virginia Range foothills, were wild and therefore under federal jurisdiction. The Virginia Range horses were the state’s problem, as they were not in a recognized horse management area. Horses were estray for a variety of reasons. The horses could have escaped, been turned out by their owners, or migrated from a horse management area

Mr. Iverson said he appreciated Mrs. Cegavske’s questions. The Division of Agriculture had not yet totaled what had been spent on the investigation of the shot horses. The division would be doing so, as the prosecutors in the case would be seeking restitution. Dr. David Thain, the State Veterinarian, spent hundreds and hundreds of hours performing autopsies on every horse, about eight times over, attempting to remove bullets from the horses. Brand inspectors had to identify each horse, which took a lot of time. The cost had been compiled and submitted to the District Attorney’s office.

Mr. Iverson explained the division’s education program was primarily focused on interest groups and neighborhoods. One of the problems with the education was half the people loved the horses and half the people hated them. Many people felt the state was not doing the right thing by removing estray horses and they should have the opportunity to roam since the horses were there first. However, the horses were not there first.

Mrs. Cegavske said she only meant education about feeding the horses. Mr. Iverson said they had no one to educate people about feeding horses, other than brand inspectors and there was no money in the brand inspection program. Most of the education was done by volunteers. Interest groups agreed the horses should not be fed by humans. Most of the division’s education was directed toward interest groups to explain that the division’s actions were appropriate. The division was not interested in removing every horse from the range.

Regarding the burros, Mr. Iverson explained the BLM adopted them out, as they were protected under the Wild Horse and Burro Act. Mrs. Cegavske asked if the burros had the same population problem as the horses. Mr. Iverson said there were some problems with burros as well, but the burros were only near highways, not in residential areas.

Arnold Etcheberry introduced himself as a Hidden Valley resident. He had volunteered his services in the past to the state brand inspectors to assist in the controlling of nuisance horses that roam in the Hidden Valley housing areas and public streets. He represented many Hidden Valley residents who could not be present. He agreed with Mr. Iverson’s previous testimony. He then read a prepared written statement:

Mr. Etchemedy read a written statement from Duncan A. and Claudia Monroe, residents of Hidden Valley who could not be present:

With no further questions or comments, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on A.B. 300 closed.

Richard Wagner introduced himself as a District Judge for the Sixth Judicial District. Two years ago he came before the committee and asked for money, which was generously provided, to help build a regional juvenile facility in the tri-county area of Humboldt, Pershing, and Lander Counties. He stated he was present to report what had occurred since that time and to request additional funding for the Sixth Judicial District’s juvenile program. Fernando Serrano, one of the foremost people in juvenile justice in the state, was also present.

Judge Wagner explained matching funds provided by the committee were used with funds from the three previously-mentioned counties, land donated by Humboldt County, and assistance regarding the facility’s sewage from the city of Winnemucca. The project went to bid 6 months previously. The architects who designed the Lovelock Correctional Center were selected for the juvenile facility. Three bids for the facility were received and the low bid was in excess of $2 million. It was anticipated the facility would cost $150 per square foot, but it was bid at $213 per square foot. All the bids were rejected. Due to the new table of prevailing wages, an extra $200,000 was anticipated from additional labor costs. Bidding for the facility was scheduled to reopen in approximately 90 days. He was diligently trying to get the facility constructed and believed he had the finest staff and programs. The Sixth Judicial District had been assisting other communities with the ideas developed in the district. The district’s programs had been exported to other communities, particularly rural communities.

Judge Wagner said the district’s philosophy was that juvenile delinquents had to be treated, as well as the juvenile’s parents. That was not always the case, but many times, when dealing with juveniles, the court wanted to treat them at home, and had been very successful in doing so. The family was brought in to deal with the issues. As Mr. Serrano would explain, the district had tried to take care of their own problems because they felt it was more successful on a home base. The district’s philosophy was not to exchange government for families. There were many families in need of help, and the district wanted to create a family resource along with the juvenile facility. An alternative education program was provided in conjunction with the high school, and was very successful.

Judge Wagner stated he was present to request an additional $200,000 to finish the construction of the facility. With $300,000, the district hoped to build a family resource center, which would house the alternative education program. He thanked the committee for its time and acknowledged it was as concerned with juvenile matters as the district. At one time it was in dispute as to whom was responsible. He said, by law, the legislature put him in charge in the Sixth Judicial District. Judges believed they had a partnership with the state, in that the legislature recognized the state had a serious problem that needed to be addressed. He acknowledged the state’s financial situation and believed the funds requested in A.B. 89 were appropriate.

Fernando Serrano introduced himself as the Chief Juvenile Probation Officer for Humboldt, Lander, and Pershing Counties. He would be presenting information from the Sixth Judicial District’s statement on Assembly Bill 89 (Exhibit D). He thanked Vice Chair Evans for her help with ACR 57. He had the privilege of working with her as President of the Nevada Association of Chief Juvenile Probation Officers. Mr. Serrano said he was very excited about what was happening with juvenile justice in the state.

As stated in Exhibit D, Mr. Serrano said the Sixth Judicial District historically had one of the lowest commitment rates to state institutions, due to intensive community based and local detention programming. There had been a lot of discussion about treating the family, not just the minor. In most cases, there was not a delinquent problem, but a family problem. His belief was the best method to treat the problem was within the community, because that was where the minor lived and where continued treatment was available after the minor left an institution. While good work was being done at state institutions, the reintegration process often posed problems. Ideally, it was best to treat early, treat in the community, and treat the family as a unit.

Mr. Serrano said the district’s dedication to local programming had been a financial asset to the state in the form of its reduced commitments to state institutions. In any given year, the Sixth Judicial District committed from 3 to 6 youths, while other rural areas may commit 20 to 30. During the last 13 fiscal years, the Sixth Judicial District had averaged 2 commitments to the Nevada Youth Training Center. During the last 10 years, the district averaged 1 commitment to the Caliente Youth Center. That was due primarily to the district’s programming. The district had received an award a few years prior for its juvenile programming and was recognized as one of the best 35 departments in the country. The district’s emphasis on local remedies took the burden off state facilities and treated juveniles within the community, which was far more successful in the long run.

Mr. Serrano said while the programming kept the district’s commitment rate to a minimum, it had also been used to assist other jurisdictions. As shown in Exhibit D, the majority of referrals to the district’s Adolescent Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) were from Humboldt, Lander, and Pershing Counties, but referrals were made from various other counties, including Washoe and Douglas. The district assisted counterparts in Elko County, which would soon launch an ASAP patterned after the Sixth Judicial District’s.

Mr. Serrano explained the Sixth Judicial District’s alternative education program was a key component of A.B. 89. The district worked with Elko County to help launch its alternative education program, which was patterned after the Sixth Judicial District’s program. He felt rural Nevada had to pool its resources together, and northeastern and central Nevada had made a commitment to do so. For example, the probation office in Elko asked for an overview of the Sixth Judicial District’s alternative education program. He felt it would have been more effective to send the district’s teachers to Elko to explain the program. In addition, staff had been sent to Hawthorne. The district had also discussed at length, programming for the Silver Springs facility.

Mr. Serrano said A.B. 89 would fulfill a commitment to the 1997 Legislature, regarding A.B. 203, which provided $750,000 in matching funds for a new juvenile detention center. The Sixth Judicial District was committed to assisting youth throughout northeastern and central Nevada. The district was receiving more and more referrals from Washoe, and would have received even more referrals if there had been room in the last two substance abuse classes.

Mr. Serrano said the district’s alternative education program could be modeled throughout the state, and had been in many aspects. The program was unique because it was not located on the high school’s campus, as were many alternative education programs. The program felt it would be more effective to teach the youth off-campus. Therefore, the program was housed on the district’s juvenile court complex. For a number of reasons, students had not performed well in a traditional high school setting. A lot of pressures and social issues were alleviated by conducting the program off-campus. The program worked closely with the school district, Job Opportunities in Nevada (JOIN), and counselors from public and private sectors.

Mr. Serrano said the program was designed to help youths who had fallen behind in school. Second- and third-year high school students who had fallen far behind their class began to lose hope, and that was when dropouts and delinquencies occurred. A number of social issues surfaced when a minor lost hope for his of her future. During the 1996-1997 school year, 57 students enrolled in the alternative education program and 22 graduated with high school diplomas. The significance was that most of those students would have dropped out of high school, and many had already dropped out prior to enrollment in the program. The multi-agency effort significantly assisted the alternative education program. He felt the program was a practical application, in that when the juvenile court became aware of minors in the court system who had dropped out, the program was used to get minors back into school. The JOIN program worked with a lot of students who had, or were about to, drop out of school. The highest risk students in the school district were also referred to the alternative education program.

Mr. Serrano said during the 1996-1997 school year, a night program was added, which enabled more students to attend, particularly teenage mothers. The previous school year, there were approximately 21 teenage mothers enrolled in the alternative education program in Winnemucca, so the district added night classes to assist those mothers in raising their children responsibly while completing their education. During the 1997-1998 school year, 77 students enrolled in the alternative education program, 31 of whom graduated. A.B. 89 would be beneficial for the alternative education program, which had the staffing and operating budget to expand the program. However, space limitations within the deteriorating Quonset huts, built by the U.S. Air Force in the early 1950’s, would not allow it.

Mr. Serrano explained another benefit of A.B. 89 would be parent education and counseling rooms. During ACR 57 hearings, the option of courts having more jurisdiction over parents and families was discussed at length. He was surprised to learn that at that time, the Sixth Judicial District was the first district to court order parents into parent education classes. Since the inception of the law that gave the juvenile court more jurisdiction over parents, 134 parents had attended parent education classes and 90 percent were court ordered. He said the most important thing to remember was that the crime for which a minor was referred to the department was often overshadowed by a host of stress factors in the home that must be addressed if there was to be a positive change. Stress factors included financial, educational, or substance abuse.

Mr. Serrano explained in rural Nevada, local juvenile courts tended to be the information and referral source for families in need. Rural areas tended to fulfill that function more so than Washoe or Clark Counties. Programs to be housed in the center would be intermediate sanctions that took place from a minor’s first referral until it became necessary to commit the minor to a state institution. As the department’s record showed, those services alleviated much of the need to access a state juvenile facility.

Mr. Serrano said, in summary, the department had been successful in addressing the needs of referred youth, as evidenced in its low commitment rate, the number of high school diplomas received, and substance abuse services within the juvenile detention center. The district had assisted other rural judicial districts and would continue to do so. He made that commitment in 1997 and would continue that commitment. For example, 2 weeks prior, he received a request regarding software programs from the Fifth Judicial District. Instead of providing an overview as requested, he sent the department’s computer programmer and a member of the detention staff to show how programs operated and how they were implemented.

Mr. Serrano said A.B. 89 would allow the department to take the program another step forward by adequately housing community-based services. The issues in juvenile court were becoming more complex and the last thing the state could afford was to stagnate.

Mr. Serrano stressed, in closing, the staffing and operating budget for the programs was already in place and no operating expenses or funding mechanism would ever be requested.

Mr. Serrano directed attention to page 4 of Exhibit D, which was an overview of the detention facility and the alternative education building, which would replace the 47-year-old Quonset huts.

Vice Chair Evans said in A.B. 203 of the 1997 Legislative Session, $750,000 was appropriated and the present request was for $500,000. She asked for the total cost of the facility. Mr. Serrano replied the total cost would be $2 million, comprised of $750,000 from the 1997 Legislative Session, $500,000 presently requested, and $750,000 provided by Humboldt, Lander, and Pershing Counties. The operating budget was $1.25 million. The money requested from the state matched the commitment from local government.

Vice Chair Evans said she asked about construction costs, not operating expenses. She asked for the square footage of the facility. Mr. Serrano replied it was approximately 9,000 square feet for the first phase, and the alternative education facility would be 3,500 square feet.

Vice Chair Evans reminded Judge Wagner of the tight budget and asked what he would do as an alternative if the state was not able to fund the $500,000 request. Judge Wagner said the architects were required to redesign the facility, at the architects’ expense, and were currently doing so. The department originally told the architects they wanted a no-frills building and thought they had that, until the project was put out to bid. He said a local contractor was brought in and explained the facility was $800,000 over the lowest bid. The department would continue to cut back until a facility the department could afford could be built. The current design was different than the original design. The facility was originally designed with the possibility of two wings, but now the department was building what it could afford.

Vice Chair Evans said construction was not her area of expertise, but the cost per square foot seemed very high. Judge Wagner agreed. Vice Chair Evans asked for the annual operating cost for the present facility, because she understood the projected operating cost for the new facility was $500,000 annually. Mr. Serrano explained the $500,000 operating cost was for Leighton Hall Juvenile Detention Facility. Vice Chair Evans asked what the operating cost would be for the new facility. Mr. Serrano said the operating cost for the new facility would be within $500,000. The alternative education program, for example, was a joint effort, and those teachers were paid by the Humboldt County School District, so there would be no fiscal impact. There were grants for teaching aides and counseling services, so there would be no additional operating cost for the new facility.

Vice Chair Evans asked Mr. Ghiggeri if he knew the cost per square foot for the new maximum-security prison being built in Clark County, as a comparison. Mr. Ghiggeri replied he did not know off-hand. Judge Wagner said the average cost for residential housing in the Las Vegas area was approximately $75 per square foot. In the Reno area, the cost was approximately $95 per square foot. Those figures were from trade magazines. The department thought it ought to cost about $150 per square foot for the new facility, as did the architects and engineers. The problem was that local contractors would not bid government jobs because it was too much of a hassle. The architects called the problem "the Winnemucca factor." Vice Chair Evans said she could see what the department was facing and the committee would look into the matter further.

Mrs. de Braga commended Mr. Serrano for his approach to juvenile justice, thanked him for participating in the juvenile justice community meetings, and noted he was a big help. She asked if the facility was already under construction and whether the facility was planned for increased capacity needs. Judge Wagner replied the facility was not yet under construction, and currently soil was being worked on at the facility’s site. The bids would reopen in 90 days. Mr. Serrano added the new facility would have a capacity of 28 youths, instead of the current facility’s 16 youths. The department planned to use all 12 beds for post-disposition programming, primarily substance abuse programs. Approximately 40 percent of students who participated in the program came from outside the Sixth Judicial District, primarily from the Reno, Carson City, and Minden areas.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the site could be changed so the cost differential would be different. Judge Wagner said Humboldt County contributed a little more than 3 acres of property for the facility. The property was located next to the jail, which was done so the jail’s state-of-the-art kitchen could be used by the juvenile facility. The two facilities would share numerous functions. The department had tried to cut every corner they could in planning the facility.

Ms. Giunchigliani said she appreciated that, but did not want to see what happened within the prison system, which had "the Lovelock factor" and "the Ely factor." The problem was location. It was difficult to get materials and employees to remote locations. She was fearful the same thing would happen with the juvenile detention facility as well. Judge Wagner commented the district’s idea was to treat the youths locally and had taken in youths from other counties that lacked facilities and programs. As other counties implemented their own programs, the counties would be able to treat their own juveniles. The district took the approach that juvenile delinquency was the state’s collective problem and tried to help other counties as much as possible. Ms. Giunchigliani said she was not being critical of the program and thought it was progressive, but there was still a great deal to be done in the area of juvenile justice. The committee was currently concerned with the facility’s financial impact. She noted the facility’s problems were similar to the prison system’s problems.

With no further questions of comments, Vice Chair Evans declared the hearing on A.B. 89 closed.

Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst, said Chairman Arberry requested he discuss the genesis of A.B. 289. Chairman Arberry asked staff to request the Legal Division to draft A.B. 289 to allow the legislature to debate the policy issue that would result from the day’s discussion. In the late 1980’s the Department of Prisons (DOP) sought exemption from operating vending machines through the Blind Business Enterprise program. At that time, DOP indicated it had been the practice, and was DOP’s desire, to deposit profits from the vending machines into the inmate welfare fund.

Subsequently, there was a change in that vending machine profits at the Department of Prisons were no longer being used for that purpose. Rather, the funds were used to benefit DOP employees. When the matter was called to staff’s attention, staff asked for, and had received, information from DOP. It was a policy decision whether the employee fund was an appropriate use of vending machine profits, or whether the profits should be deposited into the inmate welfare fund, as DOP originally requested.

Mr. Giunchigliani said the issue had come up in subcommittee hearings, as well. Despite the need for which the employees groups would argue, she did not think the employee fund was an appropriate use of those funds. The diversion from the account had made a huge impact and the issue was a policy matter that had been changed without legislative authority.

Vice Chair Evans asked if anyone present wished to speak in favor of
A.B. 289. With no one wishing to speak in favor of the bill, she asked if anyone present wished to speak in opposition to the bill.

Samuel Covelli introduced himself as an employee of the Department of Prisons at Southern Nevada Correctional Center (SNCC). He was present to represent SNCC employees, Southern Desert Correctional Center (SDCC) employees, the administrative offices on Maryland Parkway in Las Vegas, the honor camp and restitution center in Las Vegas, and the boot camp in southern Nevada. Four years ago, when Administrative Regulation (AR) 213 was passed, secret ballot elections were held to form committees, and officers were elected within those committees. Wendell Waite, an accountant, was hired to determine how the vending machine profits could be used, with respect to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Mr. Waite explained there were numerous ways the money could be used, under 501a of the IRS code.

Mr. Covelli explained the uses for the vending machine profits. Plaques were purchased for employees who retired, flowers were provided when officers or officers’ family members died, and achievement plaques were provided for awards such as Officer of the Year. In addition, an annual Christmas party was provided where awards were presented, a children’s Christmas party was provided for the children of DOP employees in southern Nevada, an annual picnic was funded, and funding was provided to local charities. The most important use of vending machine profits was to provide small refrigerators and microwave ovens for employees who were stationed at a fixed post for 8 hours without breaks. The committee purchased small refrigerators and microwave ovens for all fixed posts in southern Nevada. Some officers were often stationed in prison towers for 16 hours at a time and would otherwise have no access to cold drinks.

Speaking on behalf of those employees, Mr. Covelli said DOP was opposed to A.B. 289. Many DOP employees thought it would be a great injustice if A.B. 289 was passed, as DOP employees used the vending machines more than visitors who came to visit inmates. Visitors were at prisons 6 hours per day, five days per week, but employees were there 24-hours-a-day, 7-days-a-week. Employees used the machines on their way into work to purchase something to take to their fixed posts. He reiterated DOP employees worked without breaks and felt the employee fund was very important. The annual Christmas parties in southern Nevada had promoted camaraderie among employees who worked apart. It was approximately 120 miles from Indian Springs Conservation Camp to Jean Conservation Camp and Christmas parties brought together many people who had previously only spoken by telephone.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked Mr. Covelli to explain AR 213. Mr. Covelli said he did not have a copy of AR 213, but explained it was a DOP administrative regulation that authorized the employee fund. Ms. Giunchigliani said the change was made internally, not statutorily. Mr. Covelli said he was not sure how the regulation came about, but knew it was an existing regulation within the department.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked what DOP did for the types of activities previously mentioned before the employee fund was established. Mr. Covelli said there were previously no refrigerators and microwaves if the employee did not provide them. Ms. Giunchigliani said those items should be paid for by the administration and that issue needed to be addressed. She asked how plaques and parties were paid for before the employee fund was established. Mr. Covelli replied the functions were held on a much lower level. He recalled his first DOP Christmas party in southern Nevada was held at a seedy nightclub in Las Vegas, and was a run-down affair. Ms. Giunchigliani said she appreciated DOP doing what it could for employee morale and that was an issue the legislature needed to address, especially concerning the proposed medical privatization. She thought DOP might explore having its unions pay for those functions, as her union provided some of those services. She did not know whether A.B. 289 would pass, but cautioned DOP needed a backup plan, as the committee had to decide which were priority issues.

Mrs. Cegavske asked where the vending machines were located within the prisons and who were the primary users of those machines. Mr. Covelli replied vending machines were located in muster room areas and in visiting rooms. The machines were not owned by DOP or its employees. DOP put out bids to vending companies in Las Vegas, per AR 213. The current vending company was Southwest Vending, formerly known as Wilmax. DOP was bidding month to month with Southwest Vending. He added DOP was not receiving all profits from the machines, as Southwest Vending owned the machines. There were two groups of people who used the machines: DOP employees and people who came to visit inmates.

Vice Chair Evans asked how much money the vending machines raised for the employee fund. Mr. Covelli replied he did not have figures for the entire department, but the Southern Desert Correctional Center took in $26,000 in the first year and spent almost $26,000. Vice Chair Evans said the committee needed to know exactly how much money all the vending machines raised. Accountability was an issue, and she was not sure the committee had received a full accounting of those funds. Mr. Covelli said the SDCC employee fund had retained the accountant for that purpose. He would appreciate it if the fund would be audited, and assured the committee SDCC went to great lengths to assure the money was spent in accordance with the IRS code and AR 213.

Mr. Goldwater said he thought the state was entitled to a portion of DOP’s vending machine profits, as the machines were on state property. He thought a reasonable compromise might be for the state, the vending company, and the employee fund to each receive a portion of the profit. Mr. Covelli said he spoke to Mike Wilson, who had been a part owner of Wilmax, and said the profit could be divided. A portion could go to the offenders’ fund and a portion could go to the employee fund. He said it was hard to describe how important the employee fund was to DOP employees. Mr. Goldwater said he appreciated that, but the state deserved compensation, at least for leasing space for the machines. Mr. Covelli agreed there was a way to compromise.

Dale Fuller introduced himself as a northern Nevada DOP employee. He was present to represent the employees of Northern Nevada Correctional Center, Nevada State Prison, Warm Springs Correctional Center, Northern Nevada Restitution Center, Humboldt Conservation Camp, and Silver Springs Conservation Camp. He reiterated Mr. Covelli’s testimony and stated the employee fund was extremely important to DOP employees. It was the only thing the state or the department had done to help raise morale for DOP employees. The employee fund created a sense of teamwork and camaraderie among all DOP employees. It would be unfortunate to eliminate the employee fund because, as the committee members stated, morale was already lacking in several DOP institutions. It was difficult for DOP to hire people, due to prison locations and what people had heard about DOP. The department was trying to change that, but could not if things were taken from it, without some form of compensation.

Vice Chair Evans said there were several issues regarding the use of vending machine profits. First, the use of that money was not originally granted to the employee fund. Mr. Fuller said he understood and had just been informed of that. Vice Chair Evans said second, it was a stand-alone system, as no other department in state government had a similar system. Mr. Fuller asked Vice Chair Evans if she thought other departments should have the same system as DOP. She replied that was not the issue being discussed. The question before the committee was whether the state should allow every department to operate an employee fund with vending machine profits or not allow any department to do so.

Ms. Giunchigliani said the committee sympathized and empathized with DOP employees regarding the need to improve morale. The committee’s dilemma was that the vending machine profits originally went to the store offender account. If those dollars were lost in the current session, it reduced the dollars available to give state employees salary increases. She worked at a school were employees had to buy their own microwaves and it should not be that way. There were certain working conditions that ought to be granted, but, unfortunately, that was not always the case. In the future, the committee may look at what could be done with administrative accounts, but the committee was currently concerned with how to recover money within The Executive Budget.

Mr. Fuller said approximately $55,000 was spent from the employee fund in DOP’s Northern and Southern Districts. If the money was taken away from the employee fund, it would not be used for salary increases or step increases, but would go to the inmate welfare fund to help supplement inmates’ medical costs. Ms. Giunchigliani said that was correct. The money would not go directly toward salary increases, but if the deficit from the welfare inmate fund was not recovered, then the money for salary increases could never be found. By not privatizing prison medical care, the committee had to find $4 million before salary increases could be addressed. While $55,000 was not a lot of money, every penny counted if the committee planned on giving salary increases to DOP employees, who were underpaid.

Mr. Beers said, to restate what Ms. Giunchigliani said, when the inmate welfare fund fell short, which it would do, money had to be taken from the salary pool to cover that cost.

Mr. Covelli submitted a petition against A.B. 289 from DOP’s Southern Division (Exhibit E). Vice Chair Evans said the committee would be pleased to have it.

With no further questions or comments, Vice Chair Evans declared the hearing on A.B. 289 closed.

Danny Thompson introduced himself as the Political Director for the Nevada State AFL-CIO, which supported A.B. 320. Sam Folio was present from the Musician’s Local 368 in Reno and Thom Pastor, the head of the Musician’s Local 369 in Las Vegas.

Sam Folio stated he was present to support the State of Nevada Grant (SONG) bill, which the committee had supported in the past several years. The program had been keeping records as best it could, as it was a free program. Citizens from 44 cities in Nevada had taken advantage of the program in the previous year. The program had performed cultural and theatre programs for various schools. A casino had donated a room for a performance so children were able to see live theatre with a live orchestra. Over 200 children acted in the performances. Last year the program performed Winnie the Pooh: A Christmas Tail, which was seen by 1,700 children. That would not have happened without the support of the SONG program. In addition, approximately 8,000 fifth and sixth grade children from several northern Nevada counties were able to see live symphony performances by the Reno Philharmonic. Again, had it not been for the support of the SONG program, that would not have been possible.

Mr. Folio said the program also made performances possible in several rural counties. At Sand Harbor, 24,000 people saw Celtic groups and Shakespearean musicians perform in the park area, prior to the Shakespeare performances. Many people were able to see those performances because they were after 5:00 p.m., when there was no admission fee to enter the park. Over the previous 2 years, over 40,000 people saw the Celtic groups and Shakespearean musicians.

Mr. Folio said in addition to the funds provided by the state, there were matching monies from co-sponsors and the recording industry, through the Music Performance Trust Funds (MPTF), which administered the program. The recording industry was based in New York and became the employer of the program’s performers and paid worker’s compensation, unemployment insurance, and accepted full liability. In a park performance in Reno, one of the musicians was hit on the head with a wine bottle and was seriously hurt. All costs related to the incident were paid by the employer and neither the state nor the co-sponsor were held responsible.

Mr. Folio said The National Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences, Inc. (NARAS), which sponsored the Grammy Awards, donated an extra $10,000 to support school programs. Because of that program, Mr. Folio had been able to attract two musicians who had won Grammies that had gone to schools and parks and played various jazz festivals. The musical director for one of the program’s groups was the musical director for Sting and Elton John at the rainforest special at Carnegie Hall. He came to Nevada especially for the program because he enjoyed performing for children. The previous year, Ray Charles’ bass player flew in from Paris to perform in the program. Obviously, the money the program paid performers was not what they could make elsewhere, but the performers did it because they felt they were making a difference by giving back.

Thom Pastor introduced himself as the Secretary/Treasurer of the Musicians Union of Las Vegas. He directed attention to page 2 of the information packet he provided to the committee (Exhibit F), which was a letter from Nancy Houssels, Chairman of the Nevada Ballet Theatre. She wrote about a performance of The Nutcracker for disadvantaged children and families, which the SONG program funded. During that evening, Childhaven and Shade Tree mothers and children where bussed to the performance. To illustrate the program’s benefits, he said he attended that performance and saw a young girl smiling as tears rolled down her face. During the intermission he asked her if she was enjoying the performance and she said it was so beautiful.

Mr. Pastor said in addition, there had been programs that provided bands and made a party atmosphere in order to fingerprint and take photos of children to help the police in cases of abductions. It made a somber situation lighthearted for the children.

Mr. Pastor explained the SONG program had no overheard. There was no office space or utility bill. The program was run by MPTF. As an administrator of the program, he made sure the "green sheets" were signed and had proper addresses. He also ensured the program did not get too many project requests from one area. The program had done projects for Cinco de Mayo, Black History Month, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Birthday. The program had arranged for symphonies and operas in parks and jazz and blues festivals. The program had gone beyond the boundaries of music and had performed mime and puppetry shows. All the program’s performances were free and open to the public.

Mr. Pastor said the program was receptive when approached by new groups that would like to participate in the program. Representatives from the program watched the group’s performance to make sure it had educational value. Because concert tickets were usually expensive, many children did not have the opportunity to hear great music. He felt it was important to continue the program in order to add culture to young people, as well as the elderly. The program went to convalescent homes and it was wonderful to see people who, in many ways, had been forgotten by their families. The program’s performances brought back memories for many elderly people and the program was invaluable to many people.

Mrs. Chowning thanked the SONG program administrators for all the program did for the elderly and children. The program sparked hope in underprivileged children and in doing so, changed many more lives than they realized. She said school districts often did not have the funding to pay for field trips, and asked who paid for bus service to performances. Mr. Folio said school districts paid for the bussing and money was raised for that. The program solicited additional funding for at risk schools. The previous year, the program received almost $4,000 from various casinos by passing out comic books, which were actually programs to SONG performances. Advertisements were sold in the comic book programs and all money paid for those advertisements was used to defray the cost of bussing children from at risk schools. Each theatre performance cost $80,000 to $90,000, due to the cost of costumes and rights to the story.

Al Shay introduced himself as a musician band leader and said he had been with the SONG program since its inception in 1986. His band had done three tours and played all outlying areas, including Owyhee, Stewart, and McDermott Indian Reservations. People were amazed to see a big band come to their area, because no big band had ever been to those areas. He was very proud of the program. A teacher who was 45 to 50 years old approached him in Tonopah and told him she had never seen a big band. It was inspiring to be able to go to those areas and give community and school concerts. His band had performed in Tonopah, Winnemucca, Battle Mountain, Elko, and many other rural areas in the state. He said the program’s goal was to teach a child to blow a horn, not a safe.

Mr. Slay said, on a personal note, he was recently elected to the World of Entertainers Hall of Fame, which was quite an honor. He was very humbled to be in the company of musicians such as Bill Harrah, Louis Armstrong, Ella Fitzgerald, George Burns, Elvis Presley, Marilyn Monroe, Sammy Davis, Jr., and other great names in the music field. He was proud to be a musician and a member of an organization that took music to schools, institutions, homes, and even the Nevada State Prison.

With no further questions or comments, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on A.B.320 closed.

There being no further business before the committee, Chairman Arberry adjourned the meeting at 5:25 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Christina Alfonso,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman

DATE: