The Assembly Ways and Means and Senate Finance Joint Subcommittee on Public Safety, Natural Resources and Transportation was called to order at 8:20 a.m., on Thursday, April 29, 1999. Chairwoman Chris Giunchigliani presided in Room 2134 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All Exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

ASSEMBLY SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman

Mrs. Vonne Chowning

Mr. John Marvel

Senator Lawrence Jacobsen, Chairman

Senator Joseph Neal

Senator William O’Donnell

SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mr. Richard Perkins (Excused)

Mr. Robert Price (Excused)

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Chairwoman Giunchigliani announced the subcommittee would hear Budget Account 4490, the Colorado River Commission first.

Jim Rodriguez, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, reported Budget Account 4490 was the primary account for the Colorado River Commission. The proposed budget had very few changes.

One change was in decision unit E-720 that made a downward adjustment to the computer, software, and warranty costs reflecting the most recent price quotes from the Purchasing Division.

The commission had made two personnel change request. The first was a request to shift from the classified to unclassified field of service for the division heads for power and water and their Administrative Services Officer IV. The second request was a request to add a part-time Administrative Aide position to help with office overload.

Assemblyman Marvel asked for the justification for the positions to be moved from classified to unclassified employees. Mr. Rodriguez replied the commission wanted to realign their three divisions and make them all equal. Making the positions unclassified would give the commission a little more control over their salaries and duties. Assemblyman Marvel responded the legislature controlled the salaries and Mr. Rodriguez noted the proposed salaries were just recommendations and would ultimately be set in the Unclassified Pay bill.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked why the subcommittee had responsibility for that particular budget. Perry Comeaux, Director, Department of Administration replied the Colorado River Commission was before the subcommittee for the same reason the other boards and commissions came before the subcommittee. He commented they were not subject to the same scrutiny all the other budgets were but the revenues that were derived from the users deserved a level of review in the process.

Mr. Comeaux stated the users who paid into the fund probably spent a lot more time than the legislature did in a budget review process.

The Chair asked said the subcommittee was concerned with the size of requested salary increases. In addition, "it seemed like the commission got so much money, lets see how we can spend it." Mr. Comeaux stated the commission’s justifications to change division heads to the unclassified service made some sense. Having the division heads at equal salaries also made some sense. He explained the type of work product expected of the division heads did not make the $90,000 salaries seem unreasonable. He conceded it was a large jump from current salaries. He added that amount would be set as a maximum in the unclassified pay bill, but that was probably where the salaries would go to immediately.

Senator O’Donnell asked what happened if the salary and classification provisions were not changed. Mr. Comeaux replied, then things would stay as they were. The Executive Director of the Colorado River Commission had specifically requested that if the salary levels of the division heads were not approved the Administrative Services Officer IV should not be placed in the unclassified service.

Senator O’Donnell commented the request seemed unusual in a time when none of the government officials, the teachers, or state employees were getting a raise. In addition the legislators had just heard that the Federal Government Job Index and wages were flat. He added legislators would like to give someone a raise for a job well done but the current financial picture did not support such a request. Mr. Comeaux stated he understood and the commission did as well, but the commission had wanted to be in a position to successfully recruit for the positions. Chairwoman Giunchigliani noted the water division position was not filled.

Senator Jacobsen agreed with Senator O’Donnell that they could not justify such an increase in salaries.

The Chair asked if the commission desired the division head to be unclassified regardless of the salary packages. Mr. Comeaux stated that was correct except they did not want the Administrative Services Officer IV placed in the unclassified service. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated the subcommittee could entertain a motion to place the division head positions in the unclassified service with no recommendation for a salary increase. Mr. Comeaux stated that would work.

Assemblywoman Chowning asked if the motion would leave the Administrative Services Officer IV at the $67,500 salary. The Chair stated it was her understanding that was part of the motion. Assemblywoman Chowning asked if the motion would include the funding requests for E-400 and E402. The Chair stated that was correct.

Debbra King, Program Analyst addressed the numbers shown in the closing packet. Staff had reduced the budget account by approximately $2 million over the biennium. She stated the closing information had been sent to the Highway Patrol and their comments were incorporated into the closing sheets.

The adjustments in decision unit E-377 reflected a major initiative of the patrol during the legislative session to develop a staffing formula. The agency proposed two staffing formulas; one for the urban and commercial areas and one for the rural areas of the state.

The results of the formula for the current biennium in the urban and rural areas were not unreasonable. However, there was a problem with the data being reported to develop the staffing equation. Ms. King gave the following example. The data indicated that it took a Southern Command trooper an average of 27 hours to handle a fatal accident and that it took a Northern Command trooper an average of 70 hours to handle the same type of accident. While some difference could be expected, the hours given contained quite a large gap.

The Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV) had indicated their agreement that there were problems with the data and although results of the formula in the current session were not unreasonable, staff recommended the subcommittee not approve the actual staffing formula itself until the computer-aided dispatch (CAD) center was operational. That would allow "real-time" reporting of trooper activities.

The staff suggested a technical correction to E-377 where the Budget Division applied the formula for the commercial areas and it resulted in an indication of overstaffing in the northeast and northwest portions of the state. The Budget Division had not taken into consideration the overstaffing in development of their full recommendation. A total of three trooper positions were eliminated.

The rural staffing formula was based upon miles driven, speed, and frequency of patrol. If the subcommittee adopted the rural staffing formula there would be no new troopers for the rural areas after this biennium unless more roads were built or the speed limits changed.

Assemblyman Marvel asked if the rural areas were still getting two troopers in each year of the biennium as discussed at an earlier hearing. Ms. King agreed.

Assemblyman Marvel asked why there was such a discrepancy in reporting between the north and the south with regard to fatal accidents. Colonel Mike Hood, Chief, Nevada Highway Patrol replied there had been problems with documentation and reporting in the past. The inspection team authorized by the 1997 Legislature had been used to perform an audit and completed a new system for reporting that should help.

He reiterated the Highway Patrol (NHP) agreed with the problems and was waiting to get the computer-aided dispatch for more accurate reporting. However, since November 1998 reporting had been done consistently on a statewide basis. In the past two months reports had been just about in line.

Assemblyman Marvel asked if the discrepancy between the north and south was beginning to shrink. Colonel Hood replied it was. The last statistics he had reviewed showed the south had come up in documented time for fatal accidents while the north had come down. The discrepancy had gone from 35 hours to 2 hours.

Assemblyman Marvel explained he was trying to determine why the discrepancies had occurred. Colonel Hood stated the discrepancies had occurred through reporting problems, line supervision, mid-management and the different activities that counted toward the investigation time. He noted the south might count in an arrest and the time going to the jail while the north would place it in a different block of time. He stated that was one minor example of the problems.

Senator Jacobsen stated he would like to review a fatal report from the rural and urban areas to make a comparison and get a better idea of how data was reported. Colonel Hood replied he could provide the information in the afternoon. The Chair asked if the reports would cover certain specific roadways or whether it would only identify totals. Colonel Hood replied the report would identify total reporting times, and activities but it would not identify specific roadways.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if NHP worked with the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) in fatality tracking. Colonel Hood replied some of the information they used came from NDOT. The Chair asked how the information could be corrected. She explained she had dealt with the Mount Charleston issue regarding expanding a business up there and in the process had looked at fatalities and the volunteers felt the numbers were not accurate. She explained a death occurred off Harris Springs road, not actually on the highway so they weren’t sure if the information had been counted or not. Colonel Hood stated a fatality that was counted originally might be listed as a suicide at a later date or some other type of event that would create discrepancies. The agency was working toward being more consistent in their statistics. The Chair asked if someone felt the numbers were not accurate whom should they contact and Colonel Hood replied they could contact NHP. The agency could do a hand search of the fatalities and accurately retrace them. The Chair asked if a murder victim found just off the roadway would be counted. Colonel Hood replied murder did not count as a fatal accident.

Senator Jacobsen stated he realized staffing patterns changed depending on demands but he had noted on the previous weekend when a building was being moved down the highway, he had counted 11 patrol cars. Colonel Hood replied those type of services were provided under contract services. Such companies hired off-duty officers and the need was determined by them. He added in that particular instance the large number had been needed for traffic control and moving power lines.

Senator Jacobsen asked how NHP determined the day-to-day patrolling patterns. Colonel Hood stated staff looked at accident patterns, calls for service, and violations and basically "attacked" certain areas and there were some areas where the troopers "wolf-packed." Colonel Hood stated he did not like the term but NHP would go in mass numbers and hit an area for three or four days and then pull out. Northwestern University studies indicated that tactic to be an effective method of traffic enforcement. A goal of traffic laws was to obtain voluntary compliance.

Senator O’Donnell asked how many new troopers were included in the proposed budget. Colonel Hood replied the budget included 23 troopers. Senator O’Donnell followed by asking how many were being placed in various locations. Colonel Hood responded the current plan included nine going to Las Vegas and the remainder would be spread out between the rurals, the east, and the north.

Senator O’Donnell noted staff had mentioned a formula used to determine the additional NHP employees needed. Ms. King explained in the urban and commercial areas a factor of unobligated time was used. The formula attempted to identify all the things that took a trooper off the road including accidents, arrests, reporting, and court. Those figures were projected forward based on population growth. The factors were applied regionally and computed by 25 minutes of each hour spent on proactive patrol or unobligated patrol time. That produced total man-hours and was divided by the number of hours available per trooper, per year, adjusted for training, breaks, and vacation among others.

Rural calculations were done using mile-markers. The agency identified the type of road such as two-lane, interstate, single access or controlled access road. The interval of patrol was calculated, speed, and how often it was desired to have a trooper pass a particular mark. That was projected forward through a formula on how frequently patrol was desired and patrol hours needed, divided by the hours of available trooper time.

Colonel Hood referred to the earlier question and stated new troopers would be sent to Reno, Hawthorne, Mesquite, Fernley, Tonopah, and the Las Vegas area.

Assemblyman Marvel asked how the NHP aircraft were used. Colonel Hood replied traffic laws were enforced through the two aircraft, one in the North and one in the South. Assemblyman Marvel asked if the northern aircraft was broken down. Colonel Hood replied it was apparently serving other areas than where Assemblyman Marvel happened to be.

Senator Jacobsen stated he had recently learned that a Sheriff’s officer could not go onto school grounds without a search warrant. He asked what authority the NHP troopers had in that area. Colonel Hood replied NHP troopers had full police powers.

Staff reported major issues in Budget Account 4713 beginning with decision unit E-383, which recommended funding to allow the NHP to rent and equip a second facility in the Las Vegas urban area to provide a short-term solution for overcrowding. Those members on the Capital Improvements Subcommittee might remember there was an item reviewed in that subcommittee to provide a new Public Safety building for the NHP in Las Vegas. The department had indicated they would be able to operate 2 years in the current facility without too much difficulty, but if the new building would not be ready for 4 years they would need additional space before its completion. The project was scheduled for completion in 2.5 years. The subcommittee might wish to consider not funding the additional facility.

Unit E-710 recommended replacement equipment. The Executive Budget recommended the amounts requested by the department. In review of the department’s requests, equipment costs were reduced to the amount currently paid by the department as evidenced by invoices provided by the department. Staff gave an example that NHP had requested $2,700 for each radar unit to be replaced but invoices showed actual cost to be $1,243. The radar units alone resulted in a budget reduction of $81,000. Staff also reduced the quantities of items ordered to reflect the department’s replacement schedule. Those budget reductions were reflected in E-710 and E-720.

E-379 recommended one position in the personnel unit in response to increases in staffing.

The cost of the T-1 line needed to implement the CAD System was included in E-381.

E-390 reflected training division cuts. It was adjusted to reflect the subcommittee closing of the Peace Officers and Standards Training (POST) to be a stand-alone entity. The fiscal note for Senate Bill 68 had already been incorporated into the POST, NHP and the Director’s Office closings.

E-800 contained a cost allocation from the Public Safety Information Technology account, which decreased the funding required. The two Storekeeper positions were returned from the Administrative Services account in E-900. Two positions were moved to the Internal Affairs unit in decision unit
E-910.

Senator O’Donnell asked if the department agreed with staff recommendations. Colonel Hood replied the agency agreed with the proposed budget and recommendations. His one concern was that with the required salary savings, a large number of trooper positions would need to be held vacant to achieve that amount. He stated he understood why the salary savings requirement was so high because in the first year of a budget cycle, by the time the agency received approval to hire through State Personnel, and recruiting and hiring was completed, five or six months had passed. That generated a certain amount of savings and that figure was added onto with each vacant position. Currently, it had worked its way back up to required salary savings of $1.6 million. The Chair noted the subcommittee had not set the salary savings requirement, those figures had come from the Budget Division.

Senator O’Donnell asked if those requirements were in the Governor’s budget. The Chair stated they were.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if a site had been selected for the new NHP facility. Colonel Hood replied the agency was trying to partner with NDOT and they were considering a site right behind the Bradley Building but they were still looking at sites in hope of finding something cheaper and more accessible. The Chair asked if somewhere the budget contained a provision to restore the money never paid to the school land’s trust. Colonel Hood stated he thought the amount was approximately $2 million and the agency was working on that. The agency was looking for a cheaper site for that reason and also a site that would be more accessible to some of the freeways. Sahara and St. Louis Avenues had become a very populated area, which made it very difficult for officers running to emergency calls.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if the agency was comfortable with Public Works projected construction dates for the new facility. Colonel Hood replied affirmatively.

Assemblyman Marvel asked if he was correct that NHP would not need a second building in the interim. Colonel Hood replied that was correct although it would be very close.

Senator O’Donnell asked what the agency could "live with" concerning vacancy savings requirements. He asked if the agency could "live with" $600,000 in each year of the biennium. Colonel Hood replied he could "live with" any reduction because any reduction would allow a corresponding number of new troopers to be hired.

Senator Jacobsen stated he was concerned about the Las Vegas facility after he had toured it. He asked where prisoners were taken. Colonel Hood replied an arrested person was taken to the county or city of jurisdiction. He commented it did not work out too badly because state law provided that a county must take NHP prisoners and helped form partnerships. Colonel Hood stated for the record that NHP was a team player and understood that those kinds of issues took time and were willing to wait the 2 years if the construction schedule stayed on track.

Carol English, Budget Division commented the vacancy savings had been calculated using a straight computation based on vacancy history and as a compensation point there were other issues that went on with that budget. The NHP positions were budgeted at full trooper levels but were actually brought in at trainee levels for several months and then not promoted to full trooper levels immediately. Thus vacancy levels were probably not hurting them that much. Colonel Hood stated he agreed with Ms. English and that was why salary savings were not out of line. He added the problem lay within NHP but they had implemented continuous recruiting and training to produce a hiring list that would reduce some of the formula. In the past NHP had tested and recruited only twice a year and maintained no active list. The NHP also planned to have on open list and offer continuous training.

Senator O’Donnell stated the subcommittee had to be very careful how they proceeded on the issue. They could be saving a nickel and spending a dollar. When troopers were working, the courts depended upon the funds produced by traffic tickets and so did the school districts. If officer positions were held vacant they would cut off their nose to spite their face. He suggested the salary savings requirement be reduced to a livable level.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if it was correct that salary savings was set at $839,396 in the first year and $839,302 in the second year based on
2.5 percent or 16 troopers. Ms. English replied she did not have the work papers in front of her but it sounded correct. The Chair asked how the 2.5 percent or 16 troopers were calculated. Ms. English stated reports came from the payroll center that indicated average number of vacancy days in each budget account from which a percentage was calculated. The Budget Division looked at the last 2 years, in this case FY 1997 and FY 1998, took the lowest year and calculated 75 percent.

Senator O’Donnell stated the Budget Office was predicating vacancy savings on historical data but the fact of the matter was, using national data, Nevada had the lowest unemployment rate ever, and when there were low unemployment rates and recruiting was opened for troopers, not as many applications were received. In addition aggressive advertising and recruiting could also turn the situation around. Senator O’Donnell stated he would be comfortable cutting the vacancy savings in half.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated $800,000 in each year of the biennium was built into the budget. Assemblyman Marvel stated the one thing that bothered him was the oversimplification of the issue. It did however, sound like the salary savings formula compounded itself. The Chair stated she thought Senator O’Donnell had proposed a $100,000 reduction in each year and that might be acceptable. Senator O’Donnell stated his proposal was to cut the required salary savings in half or $400,000 in each year. Colonel Hood stated the Chair’s estimates were correct and half of that amount would be wonderful. The Chair confirmed NHP had no vacancy savings in 1997. Colonel Hood agreed with the Chair and added Mr. Marvel was correct that the issue had a pyramid affect. He explained more salary savings would be held during the first year of the biennium and the budget would reflect that and then the required salary savings would be increased again because new projections were calculated on the base year.

Senator Jacobsen stated he realized communication was number one, but he questioned the need for a snow cat when most microwave sites had several agencies sharing a mountaintop and some of the agencies had snow cats already. He recognized that sometimes emergencies did arise but he hated to see an expensive piece of equipment sitting around for 9 months doing nothing. Colonel Hood agreed and added the NHP tried to partner with other agencies when possible. He added policy would need to be set to identify requirement for use and priorities.

The Chair asked if the snow cat could be cut from the budget and Colonel Hood agreed.

Senator Neal asked if the Highway Patrol agreed with the motion and Colonel Hood replied the agency agreed.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked Senator Jacobsen to assume the Chair. when she was required to leave.

Chairman Jacobsen announced the subcommittee would not hear the DMV-Parole and Probation budget due to some new information that had been received and must first be reviewed.

Debbra King stated staff recommended one technical adjustment in Budget Account 3800 to perform the cost allocation in accordance with the budget modification and the subcommittee’s closing of the Public Safety Information Technology Budget.

Decision M-200 recommended increased travel funding for the commissioners and contract costs for caseload growth. Those funds would be necessary whether Southern Nevada Correctional Center remained open or not.

E-800 contained the Public Safety Information Technology cost allocation.

E-710 funded some replacement computers. Assemblywoman Chowning noted in many other budgets the cost for replacement computers had been reduced and asked if that had been reviewed by staff. Ms. King replied the replacement costs in E-710 were for a file server and the adjusted costs the members had seen in other budgets were for stand-alone computers. She offered to review the pricing and report it to the subcommittee.

Chairman Jacobsen asked representatives from the Parole Board to recap the current status of the Parole Board and indicate how the facilities were functioning at the different prisons.

David Smith, Management Analyst, Parole Board, reported everything was going very smoothly for the Parole Board. The hearings being conducted in the institutions were going well. The Department of Prisons had been very accommodating concerning the hearing rooms.

The board had changed in the last year to save some travel funds. Once the video-conferencing was established at the Nevada State Prison and the Ely State Prison, the board used that equipment to save one commissioner travel to Ely and have the other commissioners view the hearing from the Nevada State Prison. That had worked out well. It would be difficult if all the people holding the hearing were interviewing over the closed circuit television.

Assemblyman Marvel asked how the teleconferencing was working for the people not present at the location of the inmate. He asked if commissioners felt they were seeing all the body language and were able to make a good adjudication of the case. Mr. Smith stated that was one point the commissioners had stressed that they would be uncomfortable with video conferencing if they were all viewing the inmate from a remote location.

Ms. King stated the adjustments recommended by staff for Budget Account 4660 were to reallocate the cost of the Washington Office according to
The Executive Budget, Amendment Number 91. The budget amendment reduced the total funding for the Washington Office by $3,500 in FY 2000 and $4,700 in FY 2001. The costs were being reallocated between the Commission on Economic Development, Commission on Tourism and Nevada Department of Transportation. The Commission on Economic Development would no longer provide funding and the other two agencies would pick up the difference.

Senator Jacobsen noted there had not been a quorum present for the vote on Budget Account 3800 and commented the subcommittee would continue to hear testimony regarding budget closings.

Ms. King stated budget modification number 91 also added the Integrated Financial System (IFS) costs. The costs in Budget Account 4660 were the net costs not already included elsewhere in The Executive Budget.

M-200 recommended 50 full-time equivalent positions with necessary equipment to respond to increasing workload.

Decision Units M-501, M-630, and M-631 provided authority to implement programs and activities mandated by the new Federal Highway Administration and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21).

Conversion of computer programs to become Y2K compliant was recommended in M-825. Funding in the second year of the biennium was recommended to integrate the personal computers being replaced in FY 2000 into the department’s Local Area and Wide Area Networks.

The $86.4 million recommended in decision unit E-375 reflected the funding for the "heart and soul" of NDOT, which was the construction and maintenance of roads. It is recommended to implement the State Annual Transportation Improvement Program.

The state’s commitment to Lake Tahoe was evidenced in E-410. That decision unit provided funding for two staff and contract costs for erosion control, water quality, and scenic retrofit of the highways in the Lake Tahoe Basin. The department had requested by letter that the land and building portion of the decision unit be removed. That would have reduced the decision unit by $832,000 in FY 2000 and $3.6 million in FY 2001. Staff did not make the adjustment because it would only have taken the funding out of decision unit E-410 and added it back into E-375 because all the funding would still remain in the capital improvement category for maintenance costs.

E-710 recommended a new color copier lease and E-720 recommended $12.5 million in FY 2000 and $10.1 million in FY 2001 to meet equipment requirements of the department.

Maintenance and construction of the department’s 300 buildings statewide were in decision unit E-730. E-735 reflected the operating costs of two aircraft and E-800 included $400,000 for nuclear projects.

Assemblywoman Chowning asked staff to provide the actual breakout of funding from each state agency for the Washington Office. Ms. King listed the funding breakouts for FY 2000:

• NDOT - $126,250;
• Commission on Tourism - $106,250; and
• Commission on Economic Development - $20,000.

She commented there was a slight increase in the second year of the biennium. NDOT would be $129,650 and Tourism would be $109,650 in FY 2001.

Assemblywoman Chowning noted that testimony at one time made it appear as though NDOT was the primary department using the Washington Office and yet it was conveyed to legislators that all three were receiving benefit from the Washington Office so the suggested funding appeared a little fairer.

Assemblywoman Chowning asked where funding for the Freeway Service Patrol in the Las Vegas area was located in the budget and whether it was due to be increased. She noted since the implementation of the program it had been a tremendous help for stranded motorists. The current plan required the program to shut down at 7 p.m. Roger Grable, Assistant Director, Department of Administrative Services, NDOT responded the freeway patrol was still in the budget and had been expanded slightly. He offered to provide the figures to the subcommittee.

Assemblyman Marvel asked if NDOT had found the Washington Office to be helpful to the department for acquiring highway funds. Mr. Grable stated the department benefited greatly from the Washington Office and it was a resource he had used himself several times for a wide variety of leads on where to go for information in Washington. He added the Director used the office for higher-level budget processes and lobbying. Assemblyman Marvel noted the standing committee on public lands had an excellent relationship with the Washington Office as well.

Chairman Jacobsen asked the Budget Division to update the subcommittee on the status of the Washington Office. Perry Comeaux, Director, Department of Administration replied he was not sure, Mr. Leo Penne was still there but he thought the plan was to replace him around July 1, 1999. The Chair noted anyone traveling to Washington, D.C. should make contact with the office. He was amazed when he had learned the Washington Office had no contact with the Nevada Congressional Delegation although they were very helpful with making appointments and doing research.

Assemblywoman Chowning stated she was a former member of the National Conference of State Legislators on the Tourism Subcommittee. Mr. Penne had given several presentations to the subcommittee regarding Nevada, which was very helpful to promote Nevada.

Chairman Jacobsen turned the meeting back to Chairwoman Giunchigliani. Chairwoman Giunchigliani suggested subcommittee members discuss the Prisons budget. Senator Jacobsen stated staff might also provide some clarification on what had happened with the Parole and Probation budget.

Gary Ghiggeri, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst, LCB stated the previous day the subcommittee received a presentation from the prison administration on their latest plan for housing inmates within the Department of Prisons for the next
2 fiscal years. That plan would result in not having to send female inmates out-of-state in FY 2000, thus saving approximately $2 million. Additionally, the revised plan provided for the deletion of the expansion of the Correctional Corporation of America (CCA) facility as was envisioned in The Executive Budget when it was presented.

The revised plan still recommended closure of the Southern Nevada Correctional Center at the end of August 1999, instead of the end of June as recommended in the The Executive Budget. The Governor was still recommending sole sourcing of Phase II of the Cold Creek State Prison. That prison would provide for housing approximately 1,890 inmates in September of 2000.

The subcommittee needed to make a number of decisions to facilitate staff closure of the budget. The first decision needed was whether or not the medical services should be privatized department-wide. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated it was her understanding that medical privatization was no longer a life or death issue but staff needed some direction on the subcommittee’s wishes. She personally did not feel the prison medical services needed to be privatized.

Perry Comeaux asked if what the subcommittee was looking for was a comment regarding the Governor’s position on the issue of privatization. He stated the Governor still felt privatization was a good idea because quality service could be provided at a lesser cost. The Governor had taken a position that the proposal had been made and even though bids had to be kept confidential until a contract was actually awarded, it had been indicated to him that the savings would at least match the budget estimate and probably a little more. That did not include a cap on cost per inmate. If the legislature did not agree to privatize prison medical sources, the Governor would not veto the budget as a result.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if the subcommittee wished to direct staff to move in a direction of not privatizing the prison medical services. Senator Jacobsen stated he agreed with the Chair. He had done extensive research on both sides of the issue, but he was reluctant to go with what appeared to be a third-party arrangement. He noted he could see some advantages for inmates but not much for the state and the issue needed to be looked at from both sides.

Senator Neal agreed with the comments of the Chair and Senator Jacobsen.

Assemblyman Marvel stated for the record he would be in favor of privatization at the present time, but if it went the other way, he would not object. He stated Dr. D’Amico was probably doing a pretty fair job.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated regardless, there had been a "wake up call" within that department and they had shown some leadership. It was time for the employees to show they could be competitive. She noted people had a discomfort where there was a potential shortfall in the budget. With the presentation the previous day, not doing the women’s prison expansion, and not shipping women inmates out-of-state the savings would cover any potential shortfall.

The Chair noted they could talk about policy changes because the Governor wanted to look at some diversion programs and she would continue to work to ascertain in what direction that issue was heading.

Mr. Ghiggeri stated he needed to know the subcommittee’s feeling regarding the regional warden concept that would result in the reclassification of the Ely State Prison Warden and at the Nevada State Prison Warden to Regional Wardens. The Ely warden would oversee the southern area institutions and the Nevada State Prison warden would oversee the northern area institutions. One item not included in the budget that would cause a ripple effect was that of the existing Assistant Directors for the department. Their salaries would also be "bumped" because of the compaction factor.

Assemblyman Marvel asked what the director’s job was. Staff deferred to the subcommittee. Mr. Marvel stated the concept was pretty new and he was not yet convinced it was necessary and commented every prison was a little bit different. The Chair noted she had spoken to the director and part of the concept came about because there was some frustration with one or two wardens. She had told the director that was his job to handle administratively. Assemblyman Marvel quoted former President Harry S. Truman, "If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

Senator Jacobsen stated not approving the concept of regional wardens and holding the director responsible administratively was a reasonable approach for the legislature. He stated he would like to think the legislative letters of intent meant something.

Senator Jacobsen agreed with the Chair concerning holding department staff responsible to show what they could accomplish in another manner, referring to privatization of prison medical services.

Assemblywoman Chowning referred to the regional warden issue and stated whenever she had a request to deal with an inmate problem she had gone through the director’s office and then through the warden at the various facilities. She felt that was the way it should stay. Under a regional concept, then one person did not have the responsibility, the authority, or the communication for their own facility.

The Chair commented there appeared to be a subcommittee consensus to not adopt the regional warden concept.

Gary Ghiggeri stated another relatively simple item would be for the subcommittee to decide what type of incentive program they wanted to implement to recruit and retain Correctional Officers at the Ely State Prison and the Lovelock Correctional Center. The Governor sent over a budget revision to provide for a 5 percent salary differential for all custodial officers at the Ely State Prison. That included Correctional Officers, Sergeants, Lieutenants, the Associate Warden of Operations and the Warden. The amendment for Lovelock was somewhat different. That amendment provided a $6 per day remote area differential for all employees at the Lovelock Correctional Center. The subcommittee needed to decide if they wanted to go with a similar program or the plan as presented by the Governor.

The Chair asked if any remote area differential was currently provided for Lovelock. Staff replied none was currently provided. The only facilities currently receiving remote area differential were the Southern Desert Correctional Center, the Southern Nevada Correctional Center and the Indian Springs/Jean Conservation Camp, which was at $6 per day. That differential was set in statute so there would have to be legislation to change the current funding mechanism.

Perry Comeaux stated the Administration’s intention in making the proposal was to try and do something to reduce the horrible vacancy rates at those institutions. He commented the turnover in the Department of Prisons was higher than the overall state average anyway, but at those two institutions it was really terrible. He commented Assemblyman Marvel had told him he had contact with some staff at Lovelock who were upset or disappointed about a travel allowance for them instead of a boost in salary and had asked, "What about the officers who actually lived in Lovelock." He was sorry Mr. Marvel had left and added the intention was to help the situation, not hurt it. If the committee believed it would be more effective to go with the same type of program at Ely and Lovelock or something else that was fine.

The Chair commented Assemblyman Marvel’s concern had been that the two should be compensated in the same manner and that the 5 percent salary differential was probably better because the rural area differential had not gone over well in public hearings concerning the need for incentives.

Senator Jacobsen stated communications at local levels had been lost over the years. There were a couple of meetings years ago before the prisons were built, but follow up had not been done with further meetings to cement the relations. Chairman Jacobsen noted he had proposed a bill draft to create a joint standing committee of Assembly and Senate that in the interim would go from town to town talking to the employees and townspeople to see what the problems were. He said he had spoken with employees from Lovelock who indicated the town had never responded to the need for living accommodations.

Senator Jacobsen said the state was inviting disaster if the prison facilities were not fully staffed and of course after an incident occurred it would be too late.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani commented as a policy issue, in the future prisons should not be located in rural areas. Besides recruitment of minorities, housing was the second most criticized issue. Another concern was that of employment opportunities for spouses. Equalizing the pay issues would be a beginning.

The Chair stated she sensed the subcommittee consensus was for a 5 percent differential for custody officers only in both Lovelock and Ely.

Mr. Ghiggeri asked the subcommittee’s intent concerning the privatization of medical services. He stated he needed to know if the intent was to continue privatization of medical services at the Ely facility, but not privatize the services at any other prison facility. The Chair replied that was correct adding the removal of the cap and stated Director Bayer had agreed they would re-negotiate in the next session.

Mr. Ghiggeri stated another issue that was in the Governor’s budget recommended funding to implement a program to drug test existing employees and to conduct pre-employment drug testing for all employees of the department. The subcommittee needed to determine whether to accept the recommendation. The Chair asked if random testing was currently being done. Staff added there was no funding currently provided to perform random drug testing of prison employees.

Senator O’Donnell asked if the recommendation was for random testing or testing "for cause." Mr. Ghiggeri stated the budget recommendation was for random testing.

Senator Jacobsen commented his opinion was that drug testing should be mandatory. He commented over the years in his private business of delivering gas and oil he had delivered many times to prison employees and could not count the number of times he had received offers that if there was anything he wanted the prison employee could get it for him. He was amazed at the kinds of contraband that wandered into prisons then and even currently did not understand how those things got there. He added it was a necessity in the current times to have mandatory testing.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if funding was placed in the budget for drug testing. Staff replied the budget had some funding. It did not appear the budget provided any funding for tests of newly hired staff at the Cold Creek facility. The Governor’s recommendation was for $17,281 each year of the biennium. Commercial driver’s license physicals was set at $180 per year, and $6,492 per year would provide for random drug testing of all department employees. $9,488 per year was built in for pre-employment drug testing based on an institutional turnover of 330 employees per year.

Senator Jacobsen asked what the average cost was for a drug test. Staff replied it was built into the budget at $28.75 per test. Based on recent information, that figure could drop to approximately $20 per test.

Assemblywoman Chowning asked what the random drug testing policy was in local entities. She understood a drug test was required to be a "21" dealer. Drug testing was becoming much more commonplace in the current employment atmosphere. People were becoming more comfortable with the idea of the need for drug tests and while it did not make much sense in some casino positions, it made a lot of sense in some of the transportation areas. It also made sense for those responsible for securing of prisoners. Staff stated he did not know what local policy was for jailers. He added the 1997 Legislature provided funding for drug testing; random, "for cause," and another series of blanket drug testing of inmates. That was a condition to continue receiving federal funds for construction of prison facilities. Recently, the Legislative Counsel Bureau had been provided reports showing results of the drug tests performed. It was interesting to see what institutions were having problems with inmates.

Assemblyman Perkins stated all local law enforcement correctional facilities conducted pre-employment tests. He could not speak to random or "for cause" testing in North Las Vegas and the Clark County jail. The Henderson detention center would test their employees only "for cause." Local jails were a much different environment than a prison setting. That difference would give him some comfort for random testing in a prison setting.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani wondered whether the Nevada Division of Investigation was given drug tests. She asked if there was a consensus to drug test for pre-employment. The subcommittee concurred. The Chair asked if there was consensus for implementation of drug testing for existing employees. The subcommittee concurred. The Chair asked for consensus of drug testing for random or "for cause." The consensus was for random testing. She stated personally, she was in favor of "for cause" testing but she would go with the will of the subcommittee.

Senator Neal asked for what classifications the subcommittee was recommending pre-employment drug tests. The Chair replied the budget recommendation and consensus of the committee was for pre-employment drug tests for employees of the prison system as part of the hiring procedure.

Staff stated as part of the plan currently before the subcommittee the Governor’s recommendation was that when the Cold Creek State Prison opened, a limited number of female inmates would be moved from the CCA facility to the Jean camp. That would involve about 130 female inmates. The Jean camp had a capacity of holding 240 inmates. The Director of Prisons wanted to leave the CCA facility at 500 inmates and he did not know whether the subcommittee wanted to reduce CCA to 400 inmates and fill up the Jean camp. Operationally it would be cheaper to do, and that was a decision for the subcommittee. The director had indicated the plan would not be possible because there were not enough inmates, however, when Mr. Ghiggeri had returned to his office the previous day, he had received a memo from the director stating Department of Prisons (DOP) would like to continue the same crews out of the CCA facility after the Jean camp was opened. Thus, the system would still be housing minimum-security inmates at the CCA facility at a cost of about $43 per day versus about $4,000 to $5,000 annually per inmate at the Jean facility. Staff cautioned as long as the classification worked out and a sufficient number of inmates could be housed at the Jean facility the plan could be recommended.

Assemblywoman Chowning asked if the minimum-security female inmates were housed at Jean, would they still be able to take advantage of the programs that were available for the other inmates who were physically housed in North Las Vegas. Mr. Ghiggeri replied they would not be able to participate in the programs offered by the CCA facility. However, they would be eligible to receive educational services from the Clark County School District. The school district currently provided educational services to the CCA facility. That service was provided to the CCA facility at no cost because it was part of the Adult Diploma Program. The Jean inmates would still be able to receive that and any other programs the DOP offered would be available to them.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani clarified, Mr. Ghiggeri’s recommendation was to increase the number of female minimum security inmates at the Jean Conservation Camp to 240, reduce the CCA population to 400, and ask the director to empower CCA to go out-of-state and bring inmates in to offset those costs. Subcommittee members concurred.

Mr. Ghiggeri asked if the subcommittee wished to continue the operation of the Jean prison or close it as the Governor recommended when the Cold Creek State Prison opened. Cold Creek State Prison was currently scheduled to open September 1, 2000 and would provide 1,890 beds. The Southern Nevada Correctional Center provided 613 beds and was slated to be closed upon the opening of Cold Creek. The DOP would be operating with a male population at 665 beds over emergency capacity when Cold Creek was opened, the Jean camp would be converted to female usage, 22 beds at the Southern Nevada Restitution Center would be converted to male usage, and 224 beds at the Nevada State Prison would be closed for 2 months to facilitate a 1995 Capital Improvement Project (CIP) dealing with utilities in the "sagebrush" area at the institution. If that plan was approved by the subcommittee, the funding for the CIP project was slated for reversion at the end of the current fiscal year. Legislation would have to be enacted to extend the reversion.

Once Phase I and II of the Cold Creek facility were open, the DOP would open all beds in those phases except for half of unit 8. The prison system would operate below emergency capacity based on current projections until May of 2001. The department’s plan envisioned re-opening of the Jean facility (Southern Nevada Correctional Center) in July 2004.

Senator O’Donnell stated he understood the Governor and the administrator of the Department of Corrections had come up with a plan to privatize the Jean facility. Staff responded there had been discussion of leasing the Jean facility out, but there had been no firm information provided as to whether a plan was in place to do so. The proposed program was a possibility. Senator O’Donnell stated he felt privatization of the Jean facility was the way to go.

Senator Neal stated he did not believe the Jean prison should be closed.

Senator Jacobsen stated he agreed with Senator Neal. He felt it was foolish to close the facility if the overall plan was to reopen it again, whether as a privatized facility or for additional prison space later. Cold Creek was still in the future. He was in favor of converting Jean to a female facility as long as the honor camp was retained and everything else remained intact.

Assemblywoman Chowning asked for a briefing as to the dollar figures for both scenarios. Staff stated in the last fiscal year excluding medical costs, the cost to operate the Southern Nevada Correctional Center was approximately
$8.1 million. They housed 605 inmates at a cost per inmate of $13,404.

The proposal as put forth by the Governor suggested mothballing Jean in June 2000 and keeping 2 maintenance individuals at that facility. Staff had "tweaked" the Governor’s recommendation and arrived at an additional saving above what was included in The Executive Budget based on some different ideas.

On the previous day, the Governor had estimated the saving at $10 million to close the facility. If the subcommittee desired to keep the Jean facility operational they would have to find $10 million to operate that facility.
Mr. Ghiggeri noted he was not sure if the $10 million included medical costs because part of the medical staff currently working at Jean were slated to transfer to the Cold Creek State Prison when it opened.

Senator Neal stated he did not feel it was an economic consideration driving the desire to close the Jean facility. He reminded subcommittee members that first the prison was built at Jean, then a hotel was built. He stated he felt there was pressure to close the prison for the sake of the hotel and opined that the prison was there before the hotel.

Perry Comeaux, Director, Department of Administration stated the thing that made closing the Jean prison facility such a very good idea was the efficiency with which the Cold Creek facility could be operated. The new institution would ultimately house 3,000 inmates. The way it was constructed, a core staff could be provided to man the dining room and other central facilities. In the Governor’s plan, Jean was scheduled to be mothballed when Cold Creek became available. Thus, instead of operating two institutions that required two core facility staffs, the state could house the same number of inmates in one institution and save a lot of money while doing so.

The Governor’s plan proposed to bring Jean back on line in 4 years. Hopefully, the facility could be leased during the 4-year period to save mothball costs. He did not believe any formal proposals had been solicited until it was known what the legislative decision would be. The Jean prison would ultimately be re-opened at the custodial level it was designed for, which was minimum custody. One of the ongoing problems with the Jean facility had been that it was designed to house minimum and light-medium custody inmates and from day one it was filled with medium custody inmates. Mr. Comeaux stated the decision was an economic one and made perfect sense to him.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated she felt Senator Neal’s comment was valid but the real driving point on closing Jean had not emerged until the Cold Creek facility did not open on time. Had Cold Creek opened as originally scheduled the issue would be moot. She added there had been a full-year delay.

Senator Jacobsen asked if Jean was not closed and converted to a women’s prison would it provide enough space to open some prison industries.
Mr. Ghiggeri replied if Jean was converted to a women’s prison there would be no inmates to place there. Currently the CCA facility housed the female inmates in the south and if they were all moved, there was a clause in the contract that would require the state to buy the CCA facility. The Chair directed staff to pursue leaving the Jean facility open.

Senator O’Donnell asked what the cost would be if Jean was not closed.
Mr. Ghiggeri replied the Governor had indicated the additional cost would be approximately $10 million. He stated he was not sure the number included medical costs or some other ancillary costs that flowed through the prison budget. He added, based upon what had been done so far in the DOP budgets he believed there would be no additional costs to the prison budget as presented to "unprivatize" the medical services.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani noted in the State of the State message presented by the Governor, he had mentioned he wanted to try house inmates in Nevada from other places. The subcommittee had been looking at local governments as one possible interested entity. She asked what had occurred to date on that proposal. Mr. Comeaux responded he did not believe anything had been done along those lines and the Chair asked if the possibilities could be researched within the next 2 or 3 days. Mr. Comeaux stated he would speak to the director for some hard figures.

Assemblyman Perkins stated although it was not known if medical services were going to be privatized, a formal contract bidding process had been started. It was certainly not known yet whether the Jean facility would be closed and asked if it would hurt to enter a contract bidding process. If so, then could rental income be built into the budget for the upcoming biennium. Mr. Comeaux responded it would not hurt to seek proposals and in his discussions with Director Bayer he had indicated there were a number of states that had bed shortages so there would seem to be a market for the space. He did not feel it would be unreasonable to build some rental income into the budget. The Chair asked how quickly that could be arranged. Mr. Comeaux stated he would talk to the director at the completion of the current hearing.

Senator Jacobsen asked if anyone had a reasonable idea of what rental income for the Jean facility would be. Mr. Comeaux responded the "going rate" for beds for females was $50 or $55 per day. Mr. Ghiggeri stated the state housed a number of federal inmates at the old Nevada State Prison. Sixteen to twenty beds had been reserved and $400,000 to $500,000 annually was received from the rental income. Mr. Comeaux stated the amount of revenue received would depend on how the plan was set up. The $50 to $55 per day was for a fully staffed institution where the payee simply provided an inmate.

The Executive Branch had in mind leasing the whole facility to some entity that would come in and run it and place inmates there. The Chair acknowledged that was the original proposal but asked the Budget Office to look at a per inmate rental housing revenue. She added the subcommittee would prefer looking at a plan that did not provide medical services.

The Chair referred to the 1995 CIP project for the Nevada State Prison remodel and confirmed that the funding would revert at the end of the current fiscal year. Mr. Comeaux replied there was a provision of law that funding reverted after 4 years unless the project was re-authorized. The Nevada State Prison project meant the difference in keeping the facility in use. The Public Works Board had not been able to complete the project because the inmates could not be moved due to lack of space so that the project work could go forward. The Chair stated her concern had been that perhaps there was a design problem. Mr. Comeaux stated the window of opportunity to move inmates and complete the project would happen when the Cold Creek facility opened. Chairwoman Giunchigliani confirmed the reversion date would simply need to be extended. The subcommittee members concurred.

Seeing no further business before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Cindy Clampitt,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman

DATE: