The Joint Subcommittee on Public Safety/Natural Resources/Transportation of the Senate Committee on Finance and the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means was called to order by Chairman Chris Giunchigliani, at 8:15 a.m., on Wednesday, April 14, 1999, in Room 2134 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen, Chairman

Senator William R. O’Donnell

Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Chairman

Mrs. Vonne Chowning

Mr. John Marvel

Mr. Richard Perkins

Mr. Robert (Bob) E. Price

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Millard Clark, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

John Drew, Acting Director, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety

DEPARTMENT OF PRISONS

Restitution Center-South – Budget Page PRISONS-67 (Volume 3)

Budget Account 101-3737

Gary Ghiggeri, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), said this budget is similar to the Restitution Center-North budget and there are a few adjustments for maintenance contracts. Mr. Ghiggeri said this budget has a staff-recommended increase for the rent cost. He said the current lease will expire June 30, 1999, and there has historically been a 3 percent increase in rent each biennium. He noted there is also a reduction in the price of washers and dryers and staff is recommending the 15-passenger van be deleted because two mini-vans were funded by the 1997 Legislature. Additionally, Mr. Ghiggeri said, this budget includes a request to pay unpaid room and board cost for inmates who were returned to institutions based on various infractions. He noted the unpaid room and board cost would be paid from the Inmate Welfare Fund. He stated the Nevada Department of Prisons (DOP) indicates that if this practice is to be continued the department will need legislation. Mr. Ghiggeri said that the budget as requested by the DOP and recommended by the Governor includes about $5,700 each year in this budget and about $4,959 each year in the budget for the Northern Nevada Restitution Center.

Mr. Ghiggeri noted there was a recommended reduction in the inmate population by one inmate in Fiscal Year (FY) 2000. He said this is predicated on the department’s most current model for housing inmates over the 1999-2001 biennium. He commented that the reduction of one inmate results in a change in the cost of about $1,147. He said whatever model or housing plan the subcommittee comes up with will require some adjustment to the inmate-driven cost between the various institutions.

Stewart Conservation Camp – Budget Page PRISONS-71 (Volume 3)

Budget Account 101-3722

Mr. Ghiggeri said the adjustments in this account are technical in nature. He noted there are deletions of some base budget items, and there is also an alignment of maintenance contracts as well as charging of telephone equipment.

Pioche Conservation Camp – Budget Page PRISONS-75 (Volume 3)

Budget Account 101-3723

Mr. Ghiggeri said the only adjustments to this budget were technical adjustments to align maintenance contracts with current activity levels and to charge telephone costs to the inmate welfare/store fund for the operation of the inmate store.

Indian Springs Conservation Camp – Budget Page PRISONS-79 (Volume 3)

Budget Account 101-3725

Mr. Ghiggeri said this budget includes some adjustments for insurance costs that had been paid for the culinary and the office at this facility from the Southern Desert Correctional Center. This adjustment is made to align the budget with the facility that paid the cost; there will be a corresponding reduction shown in the budget for Southern Desert Correction Center. He noted there was also an alignment of maintenance contracts and an adjustment of prices for a washer and dryer.

Destitute Prisoners’ Account – Budget Page PRISONS-124 (Volume 3)

Budget Account 660-3730

DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND PUBLIC SAFETY

DMV, Hazardous Materials – Budget Page DMV-128 (Volume 3)

Budget Account 201-4728

Debbra J. King, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, LCB, said the only adjustments made to this budget is the adjustment of prices for the equipment recommended in decision unit E-710. She said decision unit E-375 authorizes the division to conduct reviews and investigations of radioactive waste carriers. She noted this decision unit adds revenues and costs to separate categories. She said to actually implement this decision unit, Senate Bill (S.B.) 167, as introduced, will need to be approved. However, she said, the budget can be closed without approving that bill because if the bill does not pass the division cannot collect the revenue or spend the funds.

Mr. Marvel asked the status of S.B. 167. Dan Miles, Senate Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, LCB, replied that the bill was referred to the Senate floor with an amend and do pass recommendation and the Senate is waiting for an amendment.

DMV, Criminal History Repository – Budget Page DMV-132 (Volume 3)

Budget Account 101-4709

Ms. King said the largest adjustment to this budget is shown in the base decision unit where court assessments were increased to fund additional public safety information technology cost allocations that were increased. She said The Executive Budget did not allocate all court assessments, and the reprojection of court assessment fees increased the amount projected to be received. She noted there were some additional technical adjustments made by staff.

Senator O'Donnell asked Ms. King, "When you said there have been some technical adjustments made by staff, are they major or minor?" He said he wanted to know about any adjustments over $1,000. Ms. King replied decision unit M-200 was adjusted to reflect the projected population increases. She pointed out the recommended level of travel was reduced to reflect the additional position recommended for southern Nevada and to eliminate travel funded in the base budget. She noted that with the position authorized for southern Nevada, the amount of travel required of the staff in Carson City should be reduced. She said the operating costs in decision unit M-200 were adjusted to reflect the worker-driven costs recommended in the base budget. The operating cost projection was determined by dividing the actual FY 98 cost by 57 positions.

Ms. King noted the furniture category was reduced to fund furniture for one position instead of the two shown in The Executive Budget. She said the payments to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for fingerprints was reduced to match the projected increase of the fingerprint revenue. She explained that the cost of computer software was adjusted to reflect the cost identified in the March 9, 1999, memo from the Purchasing Division. She said decision units E-710 and E-720, equipment and furniture approved by the IFC in September 1998, were eliminated. The agency processed a work program to move to a nonstate facility in September 1998. This work program included new furniture for most of the staff. Ms. King said the hardware prices included in decision unit E-710, category 26, were adjusted to the amount shown in the March 9, 1999, memo from the Purchasing Division.

Senator O'Donnell asked why the equipment was eliminated. Ms. Giunchigliani replied it was eliminated because it was approved by the IFC and requested again in the budget request, so the budget request was reduced.

DMV, Division of Investigations – Budget Page DMV-159 (Volume 3)

Budget Account 101-3743

Ms. King said the technical corrections recommended by LCB staff are primarily related to budget modifications received from the Budget Division. She noted that LCB staff has made three additional technical corrections: to increase the cost of the Mesquite janitorial contract, to increase the Public Safety Information Technology Cost Allocation, and to adjust the cost of the computer pricing. She mentioned that subsequent to the preparation of the closing documents, the division identified an error; $5,452 should be added back to the cost of computer equipment to cover needed upgrades.

Ms. King pointed out that decision unit E-900 transfers three highway-funded positions back to the Registration Division of the department. She said the department has previously testified they would like to retain these three positions and the Budget Division has indicated that they do not disagree with the request.

Ms. King said decision units E-910 and E-920 are transfers of costs between the Byrne grant-funded operations and the general-funded grant operations. She said these modules will make specific task force operation either 100 percent Byrne grant-funded or 100 percent general funded. This was done to specifically identify task forces that would be eliminated in the event the Byrne grant was eliminated. Then the costs from the Byrne grant were moved into this account, and placed in a separate category. Ms. King stated these costs should be placed in the general operating category for this account to be consistent with the accounting categories used in General Fund accounts.

Ms. King said decision unit E-930 recommends transferring one Criminal Investigator III and related costs to the proposed new Training Division.

Senator Neal asked whether this budget includes the Vehicle Investigations Project for Enforcement and Recovery (VIPER) program. Ms. King replied the VIPER program was eliminated by the Governor in The Executive Budget. She said the Budget Division and the department has indicated it is not necessary to amend the Nevada Revised Statutes to eliminate the responsibilities of the division as it relates to the VIPER program.

Senator O'Donnell said he was curious to find out why leaving the VIPER program out of this budget was not mentioned to him earlier. He commented he received a memo from Ms. King dated April 9, 1999, which did not mention the VIPER program. Ms. King replied the three Bureau of Enforcement positions shown in The Executive Budget as being transferred to the Registration Division are the three positions the division has testified they want left in this budget. She said the VIPER program was eliminated from The Executive Budget. She said she will identify the cost of the VIPER program that was eliminated and send the information to Senator O'Donnell.

Mrs. Chowning said the Assembly Committee on Transportation was considering a "chop shop" bill, which generated a lot of testimony. She said she heard testimony from southern Nevada law enforcement agencies that said the VIPER program was extremely helpful and they did not want the investigators to be moved. She stated:

Ms. Giunchigliani said the three positions are for the "chop shop" problem and the recommendation is not to take them away but to leave them in the Investigations Division and not move them to the Registration Division. She said, "The positions keep getting confused between the three positions in the Investigations Division that investigate the chop shops versus who does stolen cars." She said her understanding of the VIPER program is that it was created to locate stolen cars.

Senator Neal asked whether these issues are related. Ms. Giunchigliani replied it is her understanding they are separate "from the budget perspective."

Mrs. Chowning said the chop shop is the recovery of stolen vehicles, "that is what they do." She said that frequently the chop shops are hidden in agricultural areas. She said, "If the work is going to be continued then I need to know where it is going to be in the budget. I do not want this good work that has been done to go away."

Ms. Giunchigliani said, "This is what we are trying to get a clarification on." She said her understanding is that the three individuals who were in the Registration Division of the Bureau of Enforcement had been moved by the last Legislature to the Investigations Division. She said The Executive Budget recommendation was to move the individuals back to the Registration Division, but this committee is saying they should be left where they are now, in the Investigations Division.

John Drew, Acting Director, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, said the three Bureau of Enforcement positions were moved from the Registration Division to the Investigations Division by the 1995 Legislature. This was done in an effort to consolidate criminal investigations and they were to investigate those criminal activities that arose out of the Bureau of Enforcement "on the Registration side." He said this would include used car dealers and salvage operations. He remarked this is tied with the automobile theft or the VIPER program but is an entirely separate program. Mr. Drew said he has asked that the three Bureau of Enforcement positions remain at the Investigations Division while the Governor’s Office looks at what consolidations or reorganizations he may wish to do in the future. He stated these positions are totally separate from the automobile theft program. He said that while the Bureau of Enforcement may perform some investigations in conjunction with automobile theft, this is not their primary function. Mr. Drew said the primary function of the Bureau of Enforcement is to conduct criminal investigations that arise out of the Registration Division as it pertains to the automobile industry.

Senator Neal asked whether the job of investigating an automobile theft ends when the automobile moves into a chop shop. Mr. Drew replied, "No, it does not; there is a lot of cooperation because of the chop shops, the salvage wreckers, and the junkyards." He noted there is some crossover; an investigation does not stop because the automobile is moved into a chop shop. The various law enforcement agencies will assist each other but their primary missions are somewhat different.

Mrs. Chowning asked whether the investigator positions for the recovery of stolen vehicles are "going away." Mr. Drew replied, "That is correct. In this budget the automobile theft side, not the Bureau of Enforcement but the VIPER program, is eliminated in this current budget." Mrs. Chowning asked whether these positions were being moved to a different budget or were being eliminated entirely. Mr. Drew replied, "Eliminated entirely." Ms. Giunchigliani added, "At the state level." She said there would still be automobile theft investigation at the local level. She stated the VIPER program was implemented by the 1997 Legislature to create a task force for automobile theft investigation.

Mrs. Chowning said the local law enforcement agencies told the Assembly Committee on Transportation they did not want the VIPER program to go away. She said, "Yes, this function will fall to the local level, but they don’t have enough manpower to handle the problem."

Senator O'Donnell remarked, "Kidnapping is a local problem. Using that logic we would not need the FBI." He said the analogy is that when a vehicle is stolen, the vehicle does not just stay in the local area it was stolen from. He commented that when the vehicle is stolen it is usually transported to a different area.

Carol English, Principal Budget Analyst, Budget Division, Department of Administration, said VIPER was a new program authorized by the 1997 Legislature. Ms. English said it was the feeling that because of the state’s financial condition this program could be eliminated. She said if the Legislature chose to support the VIPER program it was hoped the local participation would be greater than it is at this time. Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether the local participation desired was "individuals or funding." Ms. English replied that the additional local participation desired is the local government providing more funding for the task force program.

Senator O'Donnell said, "So what you are telling us is that the budget was crafted based on feelings." Ms. English replied the budget was crafted based upon the fact that financially the Budget Division was looking for budget savings which would have the least impact on the state as a whole and would save General Fund dollars. Senator O'Donnell noted the budget was not crafted based upon results, just savings. Ms. English replied that because the VIPER program was new it was hoped the impact of ending the program would be less than it would have been in other areas of the state budget.

Mr. Price said it seems that if the VIPER program is ended and the work is shifted to the local law enforcement, some of the counties which are already having financial problems will have to consider raising taxes to help them fund the additional work. He said he did not see the benefit of eliminating the VIPER program.

Senator Neal asked whether the Governor’s Office or the Budget Division considered the cross-jurisdictional nature of "this particular crime." He said automobile theft is not situated in just one county; multiple counties could be involved. Ms. English replied, "Yes, I believe the Budget Division did understand that." Senator Neal commented, "They did understand that and still cut the program?" Ms. English replied yes. Senator Neal said when two sheriff departments or two police departments are involved there is a problem with notification and communications. He said that in some cases the investigation may be jeopardized if more than one agency is tracking the crime from county to county and developing information as they go. He said he sees a need for the VIPER program, but apparently the Governor’s Office was more concerned about saving money than solving the problem. Ms. English replied that because of the shortage of General Fund dollars some difficult decisions had to be made, which were not necessarily decisions that would have been made if more funding were available. She said it was not possible to please everybody. Senator Neal asked whether it could now be said that the Governor is soft on crime. Ms. English replied she would not say that.

Mr. Marvel asked whether there were performance indicators for the VIPER program because it is such a new program. Mr. Drew said the performance information for the VIPER program has been provided to LCB staff.

Mr. Price said that since the inception of the VIPER program in October 1997, the program has disrupted the operations of 29 organized vehicle theft rings responsible for the theft of approximately 1,200 vehicles a year in southern Nevada alone. He said the VIPER unit is investigating 11 organized theft rings responsible for the theft of 371 vehicles in southern Nevada. Mr. Price said that since October 1997 the VIPER has recovered 150 stolen vehicles worth about $2,325,908 and has arrested 64 thieves.

Mr. Perkins said the vehicle theft task force in southern Nevada is "the most needed thing we have had for law enforcement for a long time." He said the task force was composed of state, local, and federal officers. He noted most of the vehicles stolen in southern Nevada are moved to Mexico or southern California, and because of this the state’s help was not as important as the FBI’s help. He said he directly supervised a member of the task force from the Henderson Police Department. Mr. Perkins said the task force had many concerns about the VIPER program, which he asserted was not working like it was planned and was not structured properly to be successful. He said the supervisor of the VIPER program in southern Nevada did not have the experience in law enforcement that was needed and there were many disagreements about exactly what the law is. He said the VIPER program tended to put new officers into a program where undercover operations were conducted on a routine basis. Mr. Perkins said he did not feel this was appropriate.

Mr. Perkins said there were far more local officers on the task force than state officers. He said that at one time it was suggested all of the local officers stop participating in the VIPER program and form their own task force. He stated there was not much state funding for the undercover operations. Most of the state money was spent on personnel and computer equipment, "but not to purchase cars from thieves or to put bait cars out." He said the task force was discouraged by a report about the recoveries and arrests giving credit to the VIPER program when local law enforcement agencies were primarily responsible for the activity.

Mr. Perkins said the VIPER task force is a much-needed task force for southern Nevada, it just needs to be run better. He said the stolen-automobile task force will continue without the state’s participation and the FBI and local law enforcement agencies will continue to work together in a task force situation. He stated that vehicle thefts are a very important issue in southern Nevada which need to be addressed in a multijurisdictional task force arena.

Senator Neal said he thinks the problem may be one of who is getting the credit for the activities rather that the activities actually being performed. He said, "We should consider whether or not the job has been accomplished, not who gets credit for the job." The senator said the VIPER program has done an excellent job of locating stolen vehicles, and "we should keep the program."

Mr. Perkins said both the state and local law enforcement agencies participated in the VIPER task force activities and "who got the credit" for the activities was not an issue, "but when a newly formed task force is justified by inflating the statistics of recovery it causes concern." He said he agrees that the VIPER task force is very important but "it just cannot be run like it has been during the past 15 months." He said the experience and knowledge of the state officers assigned to the task force is a concern to him.

Mr. Marvel asked what the fiscal impact would be to restore the VIPER program. Ms. Giunchigliani said the cost to restore the VIPER program would be $296,122 for the first year of the biennium and $296,655 for the second year.

Senator O'Donnell said this committee should put the VIPER program on a priority list so if the state identifies additional revenue the program can be added back into the budget.

Ms. Giunchigliani said the issue this committee needs to deal with is, Is there some way to ensure the VIPER program is working as intended? Mr. Marvel asked whether the VIPER program could be revamped and then allowed to return to the IFC for funding.

Senator O'Donnell said the program should be added to the priority list.

Ms. Giunchigliani recapped Mr. Marvel’s motion to close the budget as recommended by staff leaving the three people in the Investigations Division for the chop shop activities and send a Letter of Intent to allow the VIPER program to return to the IFC for additional funding.

Senator O'Donnell said he would oppose that because "if you wait until you return to the IFC the VIPER program will not continue." He suggested putting the VIPER program on the "add back" list. Ms. Giunchigliani asked what the add-back list is. Mr. Miles explained the Senate Committee on Finance has requested that LCB staff maintain a priority add-back list. He said that through motions the Senate committee is placing items onto this list and there are currently three or four items on the list. He noted the priority add-back list includes an increase to health aid for counties and restoration of the Aging Services Division grants to the rural aging centers. Ms. Giunchigliani said there is no guarantee the items on the priority add-back list will be funded and Mr. Marvel’s motion will at least give the program an opportunity to be restored rather than just placed on a wish list which may not be funded.

Senator O'Donnell said he would like to ask that this budget be closed but included on the add-back list.

Mr. Perkins said that even without the VIPER program, vehicle theft investigations would not go away. He said that without the VIPER program there would be no state participation unless the Legislature can find funds to add the program back into the budget.

DMV, Director’s Office-DMV – Budget Page DMV-173 (Volume 3)

Budget Account 201-4706

Ms. King said all of the closing sheets she prepares are sent to the department for review before being presented to this subcommittee. She said she received the department’s response for this account after the closing sheets had been finalized and prepared for presentation.

Ms. King said the base budget for the director’s office was adjusted to reduce the vacancy savings. She said there was a significant vacancy savings budget in The Executive Budget; however, The Executive Budget also eliminated a position which generated the vacancy savings, so LCB staff reduced the vacancy savings.

Ms. King said a grant-funded trip was eliminated from the base budget along with the SIIS (State Industrial Insurance System) deductible which is not a budgeted item. She noted that a data entry error was corrected to properly report the funding for training that had previously been shown as an increase in reserve as opposed to showing as training.

Ms. King pointed out that inflation on insurance charged per employee was eliminated because insurance is paid in the Administrative Services account. She noted the inflation on the laboratory payments was reduced in accordance with a letter from the department dated December 6, 1998.

Ms. King said decision unit E-125, The Executive Budget recommends a variety of general enhancements to the director’s office budget. She said LCB staff has made technical corrections to this decision unit to adjust airfare to $500 for East Coast conferences and $250 for West Coast conferences, to eliminate unidentified conference costs and costs funded in the base budget or in other budget accounts, and to reflect changes identified in the department’s February 22, 1999, response to questions from the LCB Fiscal Analysis Division.

Ms. King discussed the specific enhancements recommended in The Executive Budget shown on page 18, decision unit E-125 of Exhibit C, original is on file in the Research Library, a 66-page document titled "Budget Closing Action Detail Report."

Ms. King suggested the subcommittee consider funding one national conference each year for the director and the deputy directors and funding attendance of one public information officer each year at the International Association of Motor Vehicles Administrators Public Affairs workshop. She said this would decrease the additional funding needed to $2,862 in FY 2000 and $1,492 in FY 2001.

Ms. King said the in-state travel was reduced by $3,463 in each year of the biennium to reflect the movement of the director from Las Vegas, where he was stationed during FY 1998, to Carson City. She said The Executive Budget also recommends additional travel for the directors and deputy directors to travel to the rural areas and travel for the internal auditors. She commented the department had reviewed the trips it wanted to fund, subtracted the funding budgeted from the total of these trips, and identified the additional funds needed. She asked whether the joint subcommittee wished to approve the additional funding for travel.

Ms. King said The Executive Budget recommended $30,296 in FY 2000 and $27,889 in FY 2001 in enhancements to the operating costs. She said LCB staff has reduced this amount by the quarterly newsletter cost of $3,640 each year of the biennium because a newsletter is already published and was included in the base budget.

Ms. King said the department has requested that $1,000 of the $2,000 eliminated from the budget be reinstated because the director’s office is responsible for developing specific regulations. She noted the LCB staff agrees with the department’s request to restore the $1,000.

Ms. King briefly discussed the additional items shown in decision unit E-125, paragraph 3, on page 19 of Exhibit C.

Ms. King said the adjustments for decision unit E-125, the operating category, totals about $14,000 in FY 2000 and about $11,000 in FY 2001.

Ms. King discussed decision unit E-126, on page 20 of Exhibit C, the Planning and Research Unit.

Ms. King said decision unit E-197 recommends $1,760 in overtime be removed from the base budget. She said that traditionally overtime has not been budgeted for this account. She stated decision unit E710 recommends that a replacement vehicle be purchased and noted the vehicle being replaced was driven 3,607 miles in FY 1998. Ms. King said the subcommittee may wish to consider providing additional funding for in-state travel in each year of the biennium in lieu of the purchase of the replacement vehicle.

Ms. King said decision unit E-720 includes a request for a new vehicle. She said The Executive Budget included the cost of a full-sized sedan. She said LCB staff reduced the request to a two-door four-passenger vehicle. She noted the current vehicle was driven 3,602 miles in a year. Ms. King said a scanner and a camera were erroneously left out of the budget, so about $1,500 should be added back into the budget to cover these items.

Ms. King said decision unit E-900 and E-910 formally established the Internal Affairs Unit. She said this unit was authorized by the IFC a few years ago. She suggested the subcommittee consider establishing the Internal Affairs Unit as a separate budget account. This would make cost allocation in future years much easier because the cost would only be allocated based upon sworn staff.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether the subcommittee wished to consider one national conference each year for the director and the deputy directors. She said LCB staff was not able to get sufficient justification for the in-state travel and asked what was causing the increase. She commented there were some technical changes to the operating category of about $10,000 for the first year of the biennium and about $9,000 for the second year. She said Mr. Marvel and Senator Jacobsen wanted to make sure the display cases included in decision unit E-125 were purchased from Prison Industries.

Raymond L. Sparks, Deputy Director, Public Safety, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, said that when the budget request was prepared for the in-state travel the director was living in Las Vegas. Mr. Sparks said the methodology used to prepare the in-state travel budget was to estimate the number of trips that would be taken by members of the director’s office staff from Carson City to Las Vegas and other areas in the state. He said these are a "best guess" estimate because it is impossible to predict all of the events, meetings, and occurrences that require travel. He said using historical information and the projected trips, the department came up with an estimate for in-state travel.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked, "If the in-state travel estimate was based on historical spending, why is there such an increase?" She wondered whether there was something new or different that the department is doing which would need an increase in travel. Mr. Sparks replied there was nothing new that would increase the in-state travel. He said the current estimate is the department’s best estimate of the total travel budget needed. Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether the department would object to LCB staff identifying the historical travel expense and funding that amount for the current in-state travel budget rather than using the original department estimates.

Senator Neal asked what type of cost is included in the in-state travel budget. Mr. Sparks replied that the budget for in-state travel includes air fare and per diem. Senator Neal asked whether there was any reimbursement for mileage included in this line item. Mr. Sparks replied that if the acting director or the deputy director traveled to Las Vegas, someone from one of the divisions would pick up the individual from the airport. He commented that when the internal auditor travels, he will usually get a motor pool car. Mr. Sparks said the public information officer stationed in Las Vegas did not have a vehicle available to him, so there is some personal mileage charged to the account for his travel.

Senator Neal asked who checks on the units that are on the road. Mr. Sparks said the chiefs of the respective divisions do this. Senator Neal asked whether there would be any occasion for the director to be on the road to verify certain activity. Mr. Sparks replied there are times that the director and the deputy director travel by vehicle so they can stop at the rural stations and observe what is going on in the various areas that they do not get out to very often.

Ms. Giunchigliani said the department has requested a 50 percent increase for the in-state travel budget. She asked what caused the 50 percent increase. Mr. Sparks replied it was the department’s best guess for travel that would occur. Ms. Giunchigliani said, "If we went back to your historical average, would that take care of the travel needs?" Mr. Sparks said the department can live with that amount.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether the requested in-state travel was increased to show travel previously charged to other budget accounts in this budget account. Mr. Sparks replied no.

Senator Neal asked about making the Internal Affairs Unit a separate budget account. Ms. Giunchigliani said this is a decision the subcommittee needs to make and suggested a separate budget account would be a good way to handle the problem.

Ms. Giunchigliani said the subcommittee must decide whether to select option 1, 2, or 3 on page 20 of Exhibit C, for decision unit E-126, the Planning and Research Unit. She stated decision unit E-197 on page 20 of Exhibit C will be deleted. She said decision unit E-710 on page 20 of Exhibit C contains a request for a new car even though the vehicle being replaced was driven only 3,607 miles in FY 1998. She noted the suggestion by LCB staff is to consider using a motor pool vehicle rather than purchasing a new vehicle. Ms. Giunchigliani said decision units E-900 and E-910 include a suggestion to create a separate budget account for the Internal Affairs Unit and to add back $1,500 that LCB staff omitted for a scanner and a camera.

Ms. Giunchigliani said it is necessary to select the option desired for decision unit E-126. Mr. Marvel suggested that option 3 for decision unit E-126 on page 20 in Exhibit C be selected. Ms. Giunchigliani the department will be able to purchase two full-sized automobiles for the director and the deputy director as discussed in decision unit E-125, paragraph 4, pages 19 and 20 of Exhibit C.

DMV, Administrative Services – Budget Page DMV-189 (Volume 3)

Budget Account 201-4714

Ms. King said an accounting position was transferred and overtime was reduced to reflect full staffing of the division. She said that during FY 1998, there were continual vacancies within the division and overtime was required to complete the work. She said that with full staffing, the level of overtime should be reduced. If full staffing is not maintained, the overtime can be funded from vacancy savings. Ms. King commented the subcommittee should know that the department does not agree with this adjustment.

Ms. King said rent was adjusted in the base budget to agree to the December 3, 1998, schedule of state-owned building rents produced by the Building and Grounds Division.

Ms. King said the department indicates that transferring the accounting position back to the Division of Emergency Management will exacerbate a bad situation by requiring the Administrative Services Division to do more work with less staff. This budget request includes the request for an additional $38,000 in FY 2000 and $49,000 in FY 2001 to hire an additional Accountant Technician III.

Ms. King said there are a number of adjustments for decision unit E-800. She said these adjustments are in accordance with the Letter of Intent issued by the 1997 Legislature which requested the department to direct-charge costs wherever possible. She said the department did provide information on direct-charging rent, insurance, and postage.

Ms. King said the department has also indicated it does not have the accounting expertise to develop a full cost allocation module and has requested an additional $45,000 in highway funds for a contract to fund the development of a cost allocation. She said if the subcommittee wishes to provide the additional funding, they may wish to provide a Letter of Intent to have the department report the results of the study to the IFC in June 2000. She said this would ensure the study was completed in sufficient time to allow the department to use the results in developing the FY 2002-03 biennial budget.

Ms. Giunchigliani said the motion would be to close the budget as recommended by LCB staff, not to add an additional Accountant Technician III position, approve the request for the additional $45,000 in highway funds to contract for the development of a cost allocation system, and send a Letter of Intent instructing the department to report the results of the cost allocation results to the IFC in June 2000 so it can be incorporated into their FY 2002-03 biennial budget request.

Mrs. Chowning asked whether the motion included not adding the Accountant Technician III position. Ms. Giunchigliani replied that is the motion and noted that during the initial hearing the department argued for not transferring the Accountant Technician III and Accounting Clerk back to the Division of Emergency Management and for an additional Accountant Technician III position. It was decided to let the department keep the current Accounting Clerk position and not transfer it back to the Emergency Management Division but to not approve the request for the additional Accounting Technician III position. Ms. Giunchigliani said the motion is to not give the department a second position.

Mrs. Chowning asked whether this subcommittee believes the department’s comments that transferring the Accountant Technician III back to the emergency management division will exacerbate a bad situation by requiring the Administrative Services Division to do more work with less staff are valid. Ms. Giunchigliani replied, "No, we don’t believe it and we did not believe it in the original hearing either; that is why we did not transfer the position back to the Division of Emergency Management but did not approve the additional position requested."

Ms. King replied there were two grant accounting positions which were initially transferred into this budget account that were no longer performing the grant accounting work they were funded to perform. She said one of these positions was moved back to the Division of Emergency Management and one was left with the Administrative Services Division.

DMV, Capitol Police – Budget Page DMV-194 (Volume 3)

Budget Account 710-4727

Ms. King said the only technical adjustment to this budget was to establish a separate uniform category in accordance with the rest of the budgets within the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS). She said decision unit E-197 recommends prorated costs of the DMV&PS evidence locker, rechargeable batteries for the new radios, increased duty ammunition, drug and psychological testing for an average of two turnover positions each year, and hepatitis B vaccines for all southern Nevada officers in FY 2000 and for two replacement officers in FY 2001.

DMV, Police Officers Standards & Training – Budget Page DMV-198 (Volume 3)

Budget Account 101-3774

Ms. King said LCB staff adjusted the food costs included in the base budget decision unit to reflect the average number of non-Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP) cadets in training. She said decision unit E-391 adjusts food costs to provide funds for 35 category I cadets and 21 category II cadets. She said vehicle operating costs were reduced to reflect the reduction in the number of cadets receiving Emergency Vehicle Operators Council training and the inflation on utilities was transferred to the Training Division.

Ms. King discussed the various options suggested by LCB staff for the subcommittee to select from. These options are shown in the technical adjustment section on page 40 of Exhibit C.

Senator O'Donnell asked whether LCB staff had discussed the various options and associated costs with DMV&PS. Ms. King replied that DMV&PS provided the cost information associated with the various options. She said the cost of the various options would be supported by court assessments, not General Fund dollars.

Senator O'Donnell said he liked option C on page 40 of Exhibit C. Ms. Giunchigliani said she also thought option C was the best approach.

DMV, Training Division – Budget Page DMV-204 (Volume 3)

Budget Account 101-3775

Ms. King said The Executive Budget transferred a Word Processing Operator position from the Division of Parole and Probation. The Division of Parole and Probation has indicated its intention to request this position be replaced in the FY 2002-03 biennium. She said the costs that were transferred to this budget account were placed in the same categories in this account as they were in the transferring account. She asked whether the subcommittee would like LCB staff to work with the Training Division and put this information into a "regular budget format."

SPECIAL PURPOSE AGENCIES

Military – Budget Page MILITARY-1 (Volume 3)

Budget Account 101-3650

Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether the subcommittee wished to retain two engineering positions approved by the IFC on December 14, 1999. These positions were approved to assist the Nevada National Guard with the Air Guard’s planned relocation to the southwest end of the Reno airport.

Jim Rodriguez, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, LCB, said two technical adjustments were made to this budget. He said an oversight in the review of the base budget request missed a onetime reduction for other contract services of $1,190 for each year in the biennium.

Mr. Rodriguez said the agency has an internal personnel problem within its maintenance group. He said the Senior Building Custodian of the Las Vegas site is performing supervisory duties for the maintenance group and has indicated that he is no longer willing to accept those responsibilities. However, he is willing to take a voluntary demotion to a Building Custodian position. He said the Maintenance Repair Specialist in Clark County will assume all unit supervisory duties and will be reclassified as a Facility Supervisor I. He said that in addition the unit will be centralized and operate out of the Clark County facility.

Mr. Price said existing employees should not have to step down to a lower grade. Mr. Rodriguez replied this would be a voluntary demotion. The person is a Senior Building Custodian currently and performing all of the supervisory work. He said that while this employee was willing to take a lesser role his salary will not be decreased. Mr. Rodriguez said the person would step down to a grade 23 step 9 salary level, which maintains current his salary level. He remarked the person is "just relieving himself of the supervisory role." Mr. Rodriguez said the Maintenance Repair Specialist position would be moved one grade up, which is a 5 percent increase for assuming the supervisory responsibilities.

Senator Jacobsen said the two engineering positions are very necessary and the Guard has needed these positions for a long time. Senator O'Donnell said he agreed it is imperative the engineers be retained.

Senator Neal asked why the Senior Building Custodian is willing to take a voluntary demotion. Mr. Rodriguez replied the Senior Building Custodian has indicated he cannot handle the stress and pressure of being in a supervisory role and handling his maintenance requirements and the paperwork for the supervisory requirements. Mr. Rodriguez said the person has indicated he would like to step down and take a lesser role.

Ms. Giunchigliani said the motion would be to close the budget in accordance with LCB staff recommendations, retain the two engineering positions approved by the December 14, 1999 IFC, prepare a Letter of Intent directing the agency not to hire the three maintenance/custodial positions until the agency has moved into the facility and place a restriction on the use of the funding for the three maintenance/custodial positions only, and allow the Senior building Custodian to take the voluntary demotion.

Mr. Price disclosed that his wife is a member of the Air National Guard in Fresno, California.

National Guard Benefits – Budget Page MILITARY-10 (Volume 3)

Budget Account 101-3653

Mr. Price reiterated that his wife is a member of the Air National Guard in Fresno, California.

MIL, Commissioner for Veterans Affairs – Budget Page MILITARY-11 (Volume 3)

Budget Account 101-2560

Mr. Rodriguez said the staff recommends this budget be closed as recommended by the Governor.

MIL, Veterans Home Account – Budget Page MILITARY-16 (Volume 3)

Budget Account 101-2561

Mr. Rodriguez said one of the major concerns of the Nevada Veterans’ Service Commission’s proposal for the Veterans Home was that the proposed salaries for the Administrator, Deputy Administrator, and Chief Financial Officer appeared low. He said LCB staff recommends increasing the salaries upward to be more in line with the average salaries of the respective positions at other state-run veterans homes. He said these adjustments are illustrated in the technical adjustment explanation on page 65 of Exhibit C.

Mr. Rodriguez said it is also requested that the Computer Network Specialist I position’s salary be increased. He said it is requested that the hire date for the Computer Network Specialist position be moved from July 1, 2000 to April 2000. This adjustment is made so the position will be able to coordinate the network installation and develop personal computer network policies, procedures, and security requirements 2 months before the home is operating.

Mr. Rodriguez said there are two main issues for this budget. One is the issue whether the Veterans Home is to be a state-run facility or a private-care facility and the other is the quality or level of care planned for the home.

Senator O'Donnell said he would like to have a good quality privatized care facility.

Senator Jacobsen said he is not in favor of privatization "mostly because these veterans are honorable people, not inmates, that gave their all to protect our rights and our life style." He said he did not want to transfer that jurisdiction to private enterprise or a third party to let them make the decisions. The senator said, "If we cannot take care of that ourselves, something is wrong with us." He said if the facility is privatized the state could lose control. He commented that "Nevada has been known for its ability to volunteer" and privatization would eliminate some future volunteer projects. Senator Jacobsen said it is imperative that private enterprise not run the facility. He said all the veterans groups throughout Nevada that he has heard from oppose having the facility be privatized.

Senator Jacobsen stated, "We owe it to the veterans to run the facility ourselves and not privatize it."

Senator O'Donnell said that when the facility is run by state personnel, the state must provide for retirement and a benefits package that is second to none and staff the facility with people that will cost more while the level of service provided to the veteran will be less. He stated:

Senator Neal said he agrees with Senator Jacobsen.

Mr. Marvel said he likes privatization but the veterans groups want this to be a state-run facility. He said if later it is determined that privatization can provide a better quality of service "we can privatize the facility at that time." He said it is more practical to start the facility as a state-run facility.

Senator O'Donnell said, "Public housing, public bathrooms, public veterans home."

Mr. Price said he agrees with Mr. Marvel and supports keeping the facility state-run at the current time.

Ms. Giunchigliani said there is a question about the quality of care as well as whether or not to privatize the facility. She said there is a legitimate concern regarding privatization and whether or not the same quality of care would be provided. She stated, "The further issue is making sure that our veterans who have served this country are treated with dignity." She said there is some concern that perhaps a private firm would not be as inclined to provide the quality of service desired.

Ms. Giunchigliani said there is a question about when to hire an administrator and what the qualifications for the administrator should be, what the eligibility for the veterans will be, and what the level of care for the Veterans Home will provide. She asked, "By taking the motion to not privatize the facility, do we need to decide now what the eligibility of the veteran to be in the facility will be, what the level of care of the facility will be, and how the facility will be administered?"

Charles G. Abbott, Executive Director, Office of Executive Director for Veteran Affairs, Office of the Military, said that in regard to the eligibility requirements, "our position has always been that the home would be open to honorably separated veterans with an other-than-honorable discharge. He said this is the same criteria used by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to determine benefits." Mr. Abbott said individuals in the home must be certified by proper medical authority as needing skilled nursing home care. He said that priority should be given to Nevada veterans, and to veterans who have had wartime service.

Mr. Abbott said there are three levels of intermediate level of care for nursing home patients. These are intermediate level of care 1, 2, and 3. Mr. Abbott noted the need for services increases "as you move from 1 to 3." He said there is also a requirement of skilled nursing home care level 1, 2 and 3 which also increases with the severity of the need for care. He commented that a skilled nursing care level 3 is a person who needs a very significant amount of time. He said an intermediate-level care person will likely need a minimal amount of time, perhaps 1 to 2 hours of care each day.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether the level 3 care would be "someone that would be there on a temporary basis because the facility may not be able to handle this level of service on a long-term basis." Mr. Abbott replied he does not think the state can afford to provide the services needed for level 3 care. He said that could require more acute medical services than the long-term care facility can provide. Ms. Giunchigliani said, "Then we want to focus on level 1 and 2. Mr. Abbott said there may be patients today who are a level 2 care that may have temporary problems that move them to level 3 for short periods of time. He said if the level 3 need is for a long term, the patient will be better served in a different facility.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked about the type of administrator the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) requires. Mr. Abbott replied the VA requires that a state employee be on site at the home. He said if the facility is a state-run facility there will be no problem; the administrator will serve in that position. He said if the services for the facility are contracted for, someone will need to be at the facility to administrate the contract. He recommended having someone with a nursing license to administrate or monitor the activity.

Ms. Giunchigliani said the budget allows for a state-run facility and could be closed pending determination of the eligibility and the level of care, and the administration decisions.

Senator Neal said some direction about when the director will be hired is needed.

Mike Nolan, Principal Budget Analyst, Budget Division, Department of Administration, said it was anticipated the administrator for the Veterans Home would start in January or February of 1999. Mr. Nolan said there were some classification problems with the Department of Personnel because of the move from a classified Administrative Services Officer IV to an unclassified position. He said that for the better part of a decade, the state has hired prison wardens about 18 months before the prison opens to establish procedures and become familiar with the facility. The prisons do not require licensure by the state or certification by the VA or Medicaid.

Ms. Giunchigliani said the budget can be closed with the recommendation the Veterans Home be state-run pending development of the eligibility of the veterans admitted and the level of care to be provided, and deferring to the IFC the hiring of the staff to administrate the start-up of the facility.

Mr. Nolan said the budget authorized the hiring of the administrator July 1, 2000. He said the funding to initiate the administrative position was from the special license plate sales and noted there are no General Fund dollars in this budget.

Senator Jacobsen said this matter should be included on the agenda for the next IFC meeting. Ms. Giunchigliani asked that Mr. Nolan make sure this is on the next IFC agenda.

Mr. Rodriguez said the budget as proposed will let the Veterans Home be run as a state-run facility. He said the money is in the budget whether the facility is state-run or privatized. Ms. Giunchigliani said if it were privatized, a budget adjustment would be necessary.

Ms. Giunchigliani adjourned the meeting at 10:25 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Millard Clark

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Chairman

DATE:

Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen, Chairman

DATE: