The Committee on Ways and Means was called to order at 3:30 p.m., on Tuesday, March 16, 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

Mrs. 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

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mr. John Marvel (Excused)

Mr. Robert Price (Excused)

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Chairman Arberry informed the committee the bills would be heard out of order, beginning with S.B. 158.

Luther Mack, Nevada Athletic Commission, appeared before the committee and stated S.B. 158 would allow the Nevada Athletic Commission to collect monies in advance. He remarked the commission expended $18,000 for the two Mike Tyson hearings, and was unable to recover that expense. Funds in the amount of $18,000 were requested from the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) to finance the cost of those hearings before the Athletic Commission.

There being no further testimony, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on S.B. 158 closed.

Vice Chair Jan Evans, Assembly District 30, stated A.B. 181 was a bill that expanded residential outpatient detoxification, evaluation, and transitional housing services for children with substance abuse problems. The bill would provide better coordination between substance abuse treatment and the treatment of mental illness. Vice Chair Evans explained the bill would also establish three pilot-projects at family resource centers to provide low-level drug abuse intervention programs. It would also allow for the transfer of the Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse from the Department of Employment, Training, and Rehabilitation (DETR) to the Department of Human Resources. Vice Chair Evans stated A.B. 181 would require the Nevada Drug Commission to produce a standard substance abuse report card published annually.

Vice Chair Evans articulated A.B. 181 was a very timely piece of legislation. Within the interim committee that studied juvenile justice there was a great deal of comment and testimony on Nevada’s programs regarding education, prevention, intervention, and treatment of substance abuse among the state’s youth. At the same time, she stated, there was dissatisfaction expressed on the use of the funds, the effectiveness of the programs, and the state’s ability to touch on the problem. A.B. 181 was a step towards better programming for youth.

Vice Chair Evans introduced Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie who presented the highlights of the legislation. Ms. Leslie was a member of a statewide task force that conducted the research that brought the components of A.B. 181 together. Vice Chair Evans remarked when Ms. Leslie had presented the substance of the bill, she would provide the committee with comments relative to the funding of A.B. 181.

Sheila Leslie, District 27, noted A.B. 181 emerged from an extensive study conducted throughout Nevada. Ms. Leslie thanked Vice Chair Evans and the legislature for the work done on ACR 57, which was the interim study on juvenile justice. Much of the research done was corroborated by the study, as well as other studies published by the Department of Education, including the Nevada Youth Risk Behavior Study. According to Ms. Leslie, five thousand households in Nevada were surveyed by telephone to establish what was needed for Nevada’s youth in terms of substance abuse treatment. The data from the survey revealed that 12 percent of adolescents in Clark County needed treatment, 15.7 percent of adolescents in Washoe County needed treatment, and 12 percent of adolescents in the balance of the state were also in need of some form of substance abuse prevention, intervention, or treatment.

Ms. Leslie said those statistics were among the highest in the nation. In 1997, a study conducted by the Department of Education revealed 32 percent of adolescents in Nevada had five or more drinks within the 30 days before the study, while 25 percent self-reported using marijuana during the 30 days prior to the survey. Ms. Leslie reported related statistics developed by the Center for Substance Abuse Research at the University of Maryland determined 51 percent of female adolescents at the time of arrest tested positive for drugs. A similar study conducted by the United States Department of Justice determined 53 percent of male adolescents tested positive for drugs at the time of their arrest.

Ms. Leslie explained the Nevada study laid the groundwork for the tremendous need for action by what those persons working with substance abusers over the years had seen anecdotally. Forty-two percent of adolescents in Nevada juvenile detention facilities had some kind of drug problem; the same could be seen in the adult facilities. She stated it was a well-accepted fact that Nevada had a tremendous problem with substance abuse among youth.

Ms. Leslie advised the bill attempted to take a realistic approach. Even though statistics showed 12 percent of Clark County youth, 12 percent balance of state youth, and 15.7 percent of Washoe County youth were documented in need of treatment, A.B. 181 would simply request funding to serve 5 percent of the need. She indicated that was a start, and absolutely necessary. While there were many persons in the field who were unhappy that the bill only asked for 5 percent funding, as committee members were aware, the budget was tight over the next biennium. Ms. Leslie emphasized the funding requested in the bill would only meet a fraction of the need, albeit, an important fraction certainly for those youth who could actually receive substance abuse treatment. Ms. Leslie called attention to the strong correlation between mental illness and substance abuse, termed "dual diagnosis." The data received revealed that 60 to 80 percent of those having substance abuse problems also were determined to have mental health problems.

Ms. Leslie outlined the major components of A.B. 181:

• $2,700,000 to address 5 percent of the need;

• The installation of an internal state board to more effectively coordinate between mental health and substance abuse;

• The transfer of the Bureau of Drug and Alcohol Abuse from the Department of Employment, Training, and Rehabilitation to the Department of Human Resources, which would redefine substance abuse as a human service issue;

• Establishment of three pilot projects and family resource centers, which were needed for early intervention; and ,

• Require the Drug Commission to establish a standard report card for tracking purposes and publicize of indicators for accountability.

Ms. Leslie indicated her final comment on the study was that it was a year-long process involving people throughout the state including persons who worked in the field of substance abuse, parents, youth, and community providers. Ms. Leslie remarked on the fact that a great many questions were asked to determine the statistics, and that was the consensus of the statewide study to assess the needs of Nevada’s adolescents.

Mrs. de Braga asked if the statistical information had been compiled on a county-by-county basis, to which Ms. Leslie responded the information she had was for Washoe County, Clark County, and the balance of the state only. She did not believe the information was on a county-by-county basis.

Vice Chair Evans indicated to put A.B. 181 into effect would cost approximately $3 million, and added she knew support from the General Fund would not provide that amount even in a good year. She requested permission from the committee to put A.B. 181 into a subcommittee to work with the agency, then provide the committee with revised figures. She added other sources of funding were being reviewed.

Chairman Arberry remarked that was an excellent recommendation and he would put A.B. 181 into subcommittee.

Mr. Goldwater said he wanted to ensure, as other sources of revenue were being reviewed, that the commission would not be prohibited from general solicitation or private fundraising. Vice Chair Evans remarked that was a good point and said projects such as proposed by A.B. 181 would on occasion gather the attention of private foundations, and the use of private sources of income would not be precluded, but welcomed.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if specialists and counselors would be placed at a school site based on the mental health needs of a student. Ms. Leslie responded in the affirmative, and added in northern Nevada many family resource centers were co-located at school sites.

Ms. Giunchigliani remarked the interim committee that reviewed special education and student discipline also reviewed the mental health component that she felt was lacking in many Nevada schools. The intent of the bill was a perfect first step in accessing that mental health component, and she was pleased the program would offer additional services to youth who were not currently receiving help.

Gerald Canning, Vice President, Sierra Pacific Power Company, and Chairman of Join Together Northern Nevada (JTNN) made the following remarks:

Vice Chair Evans remarked that she would ensure the information received was part of the amendment.

Vil Paskevicius, Program Administrator, Economic Opportunity Board of Clark County Treatment Center, President, Nevada Association of Alcohol and Drug abuse Programs (NASADAP), and Secretary, Nevada Association for Addiction Counselors (NAAC), could not be in attendance at the hearing, however, wanted his testimony placed on record, as follows:

There being no further testimony, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on A.B. 181 closed, and opened the hearing on A.B. 235.

Bob Gagnier, Executive Director, State Of Nevada Employees’ Association (SNEA), said he supplied each committee member with a folder of information addressing A.B. 235, and added some of the statistics in the information also addressed A.B. 273.

Mr. Gagnier urged the adoption of A.B. 235 and A.B. 273 on behalf of the 700 SNEA Correctional Members within the Department of Prisons and the Forensic Specialist and Correctional Officer Members at Lake’s Crossing. He prepared statistical information for the committee to utilize while considering the measures, including salaries for select positions covered by A.B. 235 (Exhibit D). Mr. Gagnier indicated page 1 represented the monthly salaries currently in effect for some of the classifications covered. The salaries were for those in the so-called "employer-paid" retirement salary schedule. Page 2 of the exhibit represented results from a 1998 salary survey pertaining to corrections, conducted and distributed by the Department of Corrections. According to Mr. Gagnier, there were 16 jurisdictions responding to the survey within the western states, and local government entities within Nevada. He called attention to the correctional officer category, which indicated that at the entry level for those surveyed facilities employing correctional officers, Nevada’s correctional officer salary was 12.89 percent lower at entry level, 16.82 at the mid-point, and 17.17 percent lower for tenured workers. The study also included information from some of the low-paying western states.

Continuing, Mr. Gagnier referred to page 3, Exhibit D, which contained a similar study of hourly rates conducted in 1996-97 for counties within the state of Nevada. He stated the difference for correctional officers at the entry level was 50.3 percent and at the top pay grade level, the difference was 51.6 percent. He indicated that was how much less Nevada’s government paid its correctional officers.

Mr. Gagnier called attention to page 4, Exhibit D, which was a more recent study conducted in 1998-99 that revealed some improvement in the hourly wages paid to correctional officers. The state was currently behind 49.1 percent at the entry level and 53 percent at the top-level pay grade. The hourly wages paid for a correctional sergeant were worse at 80.2 percent behind at the entry level and 66.3 percent at the top of the pay grade.

Mr. Gagnier pointed out the statistics were not getting any better; in fact, they were getting worse and he referred to page 5 of the exhibit, which represented the avoidable turnover statistics for three particular classifications: Correctional officer, Correctional Officer Specialist I, and Forensic Specialist II. The overall turnover rate for correctional officer was 17.3 percent. Not included in the turnover numbers was retirement, promotions, or death. For the Correctional Officer Specialist I the avoidable turnover rate was 29.7 percent, and for the Forensic Specialist III, 16.12 percent. During the same period of time, the same study conducted by the Department of Personnel indicated the overall state avoidable turnover rate was 9.98 percent. He stated those statistics were for a 1 fiscal year period and might not be indicative of the trend.

Mr. Gagnier indicated he had also included in the packet an article written by former Governor Mike O’Callaghan published in the Las Vegas Sun, for committee member’s perusal.

Mr. Gagnier concluded by saying A.B. 235 would add two pay grades to the salary of all correctional officers, specialists, and forensic specialists working for both the Department of Prisons and Lake’s Crossing. He could not find fault with the fiscal note attached to the bill.

Richard Harjo, Supervisory Forensic Specialist, currently employed at Lake’s Crossing, stated he had 20 years of services with 10 years at the supervisory level as a forensic specialist. It was common knowledge among employees that Lake’s Crossing Center had been one of the major training centers for other municipalities for Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) Certified Employees.

Mr. Harjo indicated the Lake’s Crossing Center Maximum Security Facility was unique in that employees conducted their own custody and forensics work, which resulted in the forensic specialist and correctional officers being trained in two specialized areas. The facility had always taken a great deal of time and effort to meticulously hire and specifically train its employees in custodial, as well as clinical mental health issues, both of which required certification due to legislative mandates. It was the experience of Lake’s Crossing Center that the center could not retain employees due to the higher compensation offered by other state and county agencies. The following was a salary comparison of Lake’s Crossing employees with Washoe County Jail employees, and the associated annual compensation.

• Forensic Specialist I and II (entry level at facility): $21,592-$31,342

(Non-POST certified employees)

Washoe County jail Deputy Recruit: $28,787-$38,875

• Forensic Specialist III (after 2 years): $25,398-$34,151

(POST certified employees)

Washoe County Jail Deputy: $33,529-$45,968

(POST certified employees)

• Supervising Forensic Specialist: $27,601-$37,269

Washoe County Jail Sergeant: $50,606-$58,572

Mr. Harjo stated currently Lake’s Crossing employed 32 people that fell under the Forensic Specialist and Correctional Officer category, and currently there was a vacancy in 5 positions, which represented 25 percent of the staff that had left for financial reasons.

Bill Stanley, Sergeant, Nevada State Prison (NSP), said he recently conducted a 2-day survey at NSP, which revealed there were seven officers working at the facility who were also reserves with various local law enforcement agencies. Of the seven officers, six indicated intentions of leaving NSP that year; five for financial reasons, because every law enforcement agency in the area paid far more than NSP. He stressed the fact that unless the state corrected the situation, NSP would become the training ground for every other law enforcement agency in the state.

Steve Barr, Nevada Corrections Association, voiced the organization’s support for A.B. 235, and said he believed it would aid in improving some of the current problems the Department of Corrections experienced.

Vice Chair Evans remarked that the Capital Improvements Subcommittee discussed proposed new prison facilities in the state. An issue was raised was the number of vacant beds in the state. She noted it was costly to build a new prison, and it was the legislature’s job to determine whether or not a new facility was needed. The subcommittee was informed that the problem with the vacant beds was due to staffing, or the lack thereof. Vice Chair Evans asked hypothetically how the state would hire, train, and retain qualified employees. She believed on one end of the spectrum the high turnover was due to salary levels, but on the other hand she wondered if it might be due to how those employees were treated, and if those employees received proper orientation and training regarding the position.

Vice Chair Evans said the situation had to be addressed and requested that Mr. Barr comment from his perspective. Mr. Barr replied the problem was threefold. Currently, the vacancy rate of officers within the state was approximately 200, with an attrition rate of approximately 192. At the current hiring rate, by the time Phase I of Cold Creek was due to come online, vacancies would increase to 300. Mr. Barr advised the initial problem was Phase I of Cold Creek would require 240 officers, and the assumption was made that the officers from Jean would be moved after that facility closed. Just to open Phase I, explained Mr. Barr, would require 110 additional officers after those officers were transferred from Jean. Mr. Barr said Indian Springs had 20 vacancies that could not be filled, and his question was how would the prison hire 110 additional officers for Phase I at Cold Creek.

Mr. Barr referenced the statistics presented by Mr. Gagnier, and advised an entry level correctional officer trainee, who had a family, qualified for public assistance; he felt there was something seriously wrong with that scenario. Mr. Barr stated there was an approximate disparity between similar correctional officer positions of 26 percent in northern Nevada and 51 percent in southern Nevada. He remarked obviously the state could not compete with Clark County, which had been hiring officers away, and he added many officers currently were seriously looking into what would be determined by the legislature regarding benefits, salaries, and training. Anything that would improve the profession would be a signal from the legislature that those representatives did care. Mr. Barr concluded by stating the legislature could be in a situation likened to Lovelock with regard to Cold Creek Phases I and II, and added there were units not only at Lovelock Correctional Center, but in Carson City, that could not be opened because of a staffing shortage.

Mrs. de Braga commented that she met with a number of prison employees in White Pine County to discuss what they perceived to be the basic problems. It was indicated that not only was increased compensation required as an incentive for persons who work in remote areas, but also a larger staff was needed to avoid having to work continuous overtime. Inadequate training and morale were also problems. In response, Mr. Barr said with regard to Ely State Prison, because of the turnover and vacancy rates, staff was required to work mandatory overtime, and added much of the overtime and burnout, and costs to the state could be alleviated by alternate shifts. It was also true that a person, after being hired by the prison, would go to work without any training at all. The old adage in corrections was that when a new officer came on duty to relieve a veteran officer, and asked what he was to do, the veteran officer replied, "Just ask an inmate." Mr. Barr emphasized that situation should never occur, and never should an inmate be consulted regarding how to provide for the security of the public.

There being no further testimony, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on A.B. 235 closed.

Marcia de Braga, Assemblyman District 35, advised A.B. 273 would provide three separate, but connected, economic issues for employees of the Department of Prisons. Section 1 would create a special pay incentive for those employees of Ely State Prison and Lovelock Correctional Center. The proposal for Ely was a $200 per month stipend for all employees of the prison, which was not out of line for maximum security prisons that often had special pay provisions. The proposal for Lovelock Correctional Center was a $100 per month stipend to recognize the difficulty in recruitment and retention. Mrs. de Braga stated Lovelock Correctional Center had the highest turnover rate.

Continuing, Mrs. de Braga said section 2 provided for the increase of the remote area differential for employees of the southern Nevada prisons. The current amount was $6 per day, which upon passage of A.B. 273, would increase the amount to $7.50 per day for travel purposes. It was understood the administration was proposing a $100 stipend for Ely State Prison, and proposing to bring Lovelock Correctional Center into the remote area differential statute. Mrs. de Braga did not believe the former was sufficient, nor would the latter proposal address the problem in Lovelock. Remote Area Differential (RAD) only applied to employees who reside 25 miles or more from the prison, and to apply that to the employees at Lovelock would discourage people from living in the community. Mrs. de Braga concluded by stating the $6 per day of RAD had never been increased since it was first established in the late 1970s, or early 1980s.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked what was the Governor’s recommendation regarding RAD, to which Gary Ghiggeri, Deputy Fiscal Analyst, responded he thought it was $6 per day for Lovelock and a five percent differential for Ely employees.

Mr. Beers asked Mr. Gagnier if the remote area differential was taxable income. Mr. Gagnier replied there were differing opinions on that issue. Those employees that commuted could deduct the mileage and claim the amount to offset income.

Mr. Beers commented at $6, or even $7.50 per day for commuting employees, it equated to the mileage rate times the miles driven. Mr. Gagnier replied it was considerably less. The current mileage rate was $.31 per mile times the miles driven.

Mr. Beers remarked there might be a way to structure the issue that if the legislature could come up with more money there would be a way to develop a tax advantage to benefit the commuter. There was a disadvantage to deducting mileage and taking that as income because of Medicare deductions and charges on the remote area differential. Mr. Gagnier replied he would research the issue of whether the Department of Prisons withheld taxes, and would provide that information to the committee.

Continuing, Mr. Gagnier called the committee’s attention to page 5, Exhibit D, regarding the turnover rates in the rural area and the avoidable turnover rates of Ely and Lovelock, which A.B. 273 addressed, were 18.9 percent compared with the southern division of 11.75 percent and northern division of 11.71 percent. With regard a statement by Mrs. de Braga in her testimony, Mr. Gagnier said if the state understood the administration’s proposal for Lovelock, RAD would only be provided to those employees residing 25 miles or more away from Lovelock, and those employees who resided in Lovelock would not receive RAD. The RAD law, NRS 209.183 discouraged employees of Lovelock Correctional Center from living or moving to Lovelock because they were not entitled to RAD. He believed all employees should be entitled to RAD regardless of where they resided. Mr. Barr advised the committee he would echo the sentiments expressed by Mr. Gagnier.

There being no further testimony, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on A.B. 273 closed.

Chairman Arberry advised that committee introduction was necessary for the following Bill Draft Requests:

• BDR 28-1669 revises provisions regarding public works project. (A.B. 598)

* * * * *

• BDR S-1683 makes appropriation to City of Sparks for remodeling and

* * * * *

• BDR 34-1574 revises provisions regarding school facilities. (A.B. 597)

* * * * *

• BDR S-1369 authorizes supreme court of Nevada to enter into long-term lease for office space in Clark County which extends in duration beyond current biennium. (A.B. 595)

* * * * *

There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Arberry adjourned the hearing at 4:40 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Carol Thomsen,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman

DATE: