MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION’S BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE

 

Seventy-First Session

February 1, 2001

 

 

The Legislative Commission’s Budget Subcommitteewas called to order at 8:55 a.m., on Thursday, February 1, 2001.  Chairman Morse Arberry Jr. presided in Room 4100 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 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mr.    Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman

Ms.   Chris Giunchigliani, Vice Chairwoman

Mr.    Bob Beers

Mrs.  Barbara Cegavske

Mrs.  Vonne Chowning

Mrs.  Marcia de Braga

Mr.    Joseph Dini, Jr.

Mr.    David Goldwater

Mr.    Lynn Hettrick

Ms.   Sheila Leslie

Mr.    John Marvel

Mr.    David Parks

Mr.    Richard D. Perkins

Ms.   Sandra Tiffany

 

SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

            Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman

            Senator Bob Coffin

            Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen

            Senator Bernice Mathews

            Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.

            Senator William R. O’Donnell

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

Senator Raymond Rawson

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst (Assembly)

Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst (Assembly)

Gary Ghiggeri, Fiscal Analyst (Senate)

Robert Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst (Senate)

Brian Burke, Senior Program Analyst

Bob Atkinson, Program Analyst

Michael Chapman, Program Analyst

Mark Krmpotic, Program Analyst

Carla Watson, Program Analyst

Carol Thomsen, Committee Secretary

Chairman Arberry invited Jackie Crawford, Director, Nevada Department of Prisons (NDOP), to commence with her budget overview. 

 

DEPARTMENT OF PRISONS – BUDGET PAGE PRISONS 1-222

 

Ms. Crawford introduced NDOP support staff members to the subcommittee.  According to Ms. Crawford, the NDOP presently housed 10,000 inmates, growing in the last 20 years from a small, central department in Carson City into a large, decentralized organization of approximately 2,500 employees.     Ms. Crawford indicated she was extremely proud of the accomplishments of NDOP employees, and explained the loss of employees to higher paying jobs was viewed as a problem area.  Ms. Crawford emphasized that salaries were the number one priority of the NDOP in preparation of its budget.

 

The present organization consisted of five divisions: Administration, Operations, Support Services, Prison Industries, and the Medical Division.  Ms. Crawford pointed out that the NDOP budget was based on guidelines as set forth by Governor Guinn, which mandated that the department evaluate and prioritize its needs.  The budget submitted by the NDOP was based on resources necessary to house and service the expected inmate population, and funds needed to complete the construction of housing, industry, and recreation buildings at High Desert State Prison (HDSP).  Once completed, Ms. Crawford felt HDSP would provide sufficient beds to house those inmates requiring close and medium custody status.  Ms. Crawford stated upon completion of HDSP, the department would not be seeking further funding for “hard beds,” or close custody housing.  While only 20 to 25 percent of the inmate population required “hard bed” housing at the current time, as the population expanded, Ms. Crawford felt the additional “hard beds” at HDSP would be filled. 

 

According to Ms. Crawford, in preparation of the budget, staff felt the NDOP needed a new direction, and that new vision would bring a more balanced approach to the prison system.  It would be accomplished by creating an environment that was staff-friendly, and one that supported career-oriented employees.  The NDOP would also provide an effective organizational structure that met the mandates and challenges anticipated by population growth.       Ms. Crawford indicated the budget would provide the various institutions with resources needed for operation, and would also provide offenders with the opportunity to address problems in preparation for eventual release to the community.   According to Ms. Crawford, 75 percent of the inmates released would return to the community setting, and how they would function in the community was felt to be part of the NDOP’s responsibility.  The department’s vision was to make communities safer by releasing inmates better equipped to live in those communities and cope with day-to-day stress situations. 

 

Continuing, Ms. Crawford explained that the NDOP used nationally proven standards from the American Corrections Association, which were also sanctioned and recognized by the courts.  By pursuing those types of standards, Ms. Crawford felt the NDOP institutions would become more standardized, which would allow for performance evaluation.  According to Ms. Crawford, the administrative organization of the NDOP needed to be revisited in order to keep pace with anticipated growth.  Currently, the Assistant Director of Operations oversaw the growth and management of the entire inmate population throughout the state.  Ms. Crawford indicated the NDOP would review more contemporary practices, along with management methods felt to be more cost-effective, which would be reflected in the budget.

 

Ms. Crawford remarked that warehousing inmates and managing the population with brute force was debilitating to both staff and inmates.  Such methods also became very expensive in the area of litigation.  The NDOP was exploring better ways to manage its prisons, and Ms. Crawford felt a way could be found through sound correctional practices.  The goals of the department were extremely clear and very simple:

 

1.      Protection of the public and staff, and keeping inmates safe.

2.      Recruitment, training, and development of staff members committed to corrections as a profession.

3.      Remaining sensitive to victims and those impacted by the NDOP’s correctional processes.

4.      To provide offenders with skills needed for reentry into the community.

 

According to Ms. Crawford, the NDOP planned to achieve those four, major goals by development of mid-management and leadership-training programs, which would prepare staff for promotional opportunities, and provide incentives for custody staff to obtain a correctional A.A. degree.  Ms. Crawford stated the NDOP needed to maintain an employee-friendly work environment that would promote a balance between work and family.  New administrative regulations that complied with nationally accepted standards, the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC), and the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) were needed to set and establish a solid foundation for management of the NDOP.  Ms. Crawford stated the department had commenced with the accreditation process, and she strongly advocated review and support of that endeavor, as it would allow the NDOP to review different methods in the management of correctional facilities.  States entering into the accreditation process finished with some very solid, standardized practices, along with the ability to establish performance indicators and standards for evaluation, which Ms. Crawford explained were lacking within the NDOP.  That process would also provide the NDOP with some credibility in the court system.  Ms. Crawford indicated the courts recognized standards that were nationally accepted, and quite often consent decrees were resolved because of accreditation.   

 

Ms. Crawford testified that the NDOP would continue its efforts to ensure maintenance of a drug-free environment, enhancing those efforts through technology and with additional drug testing.  Ms. Crawford noted that drug abuse was a problem within the department, and it was her intent to assess better methods of security in the area of drug trafficking.  Continuing her presentation, Ms. Crawford stated the NDOP would advocate changing its name to the Nevada Department of Corrections, which would correlate with practices in other states.  The department would also review and reorganize the existing organizational structure to ensure accountability, to better address the needs of staff and the offender population, and to better serve the community.

 

Mrs. de Braga complimented Ms. Crawford in the handling of the situation involving employee participation in drug trafficking, and remarked that the morale at Ely State Prison (ESP) had improved.  She noted, however, that ESP was experiencing a shortage of staff by approximately 60 positions, which caused reinstatement of the practice of mandatory overtime in order to accommodate that shortfall; she asked Ms. Crawford to comment on that practice.  According to Ms. Crawford, the NDOP was working diligently toward a reduction in overtime hours at ESP, and had approached the Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) Academy to ascertain whether testing, including physical agility tests, were actually job-related.  The NDOP had experienced the loss of many potential employees during the POST testing process in the past, and Ms. Crawford indicated the standards were revised in September 2000, causing an increase in the success rate from 35 percent to 74 percent.         Ms. Crawford indicated those vacant positions at ESP eventually would be filled.  Mrs. de Braga inquired whether the revised POST testing standards would allow for employment of handicapped persons in certain areas.           Ms. Crawford replied that the NDOP always explored the possibility of hiring handicapped persons, however, it would depend upon the security component involved with the position.  Mrs. de Braga noted the Vocational Rehabilitation Council had asked several questions about the NDOP’s hiring practices, because portions of the POST testing were unrealistic and could not be passed by handicapped persons; she requested that the department research areas where it would be suitable to hire handicapped persons.  Ms. Crawford assured      Mrs. de Braga that she would be available to both organizations and individuals for discussion regarding that issue.

 

Continuing, Ms. Crawford explained that not all changes within the NDOP would result in a cost to the state, but rather would maximize existing resources.  Regarding offender programming, Ms. Crawford stated the NDOP needed to create a continuum of services that delivered, and also tracked, offender programming and treatment from intake through reentry into the community.  Ms. Crawford felt it was important to focus on development of an inmate culture within the institutional environment that taught accountability, responsibility, and respect for order, family and community.  The creation of a work ethic was vitally important in the prison system and the NDOP was working toward expansion of job opportunities within the inmate population.  Ms. Crawford reported there were not enough jobs within the system to accommodate the inmate population, and noted those inmates who kept busy also developed good work habits.  Jobs also presented the opportunity for inmates to pay restitution, child support, or other court ordered payments. 

 

Ms. Crawford stated it was vital to review all institutions for the most efficient and effective programming and housing methods for rehabilitation of offenders.  The NDOP would advocate strongly for a substance abuse program in southern Nevada, using existing available resources, and the continued development of prescriptive programs for youthful offenders sentenced as adults.  Ms. Crawford noted that the NDOP was attempting to remove youthful offenders from the adult population; however, for those with lengthy sentences, it also attempted to prepare them for eventual return to the adult population.  Segregating youthful offenders was the vision of Governor Guinn, who had asked the NDOP to explore such possibilities, and Ms. Crawford indicated a program had been designed with training provided by the National Institute of Corrections.           In December 2000 the NDOP implemented the program on a small scale, and continued to work toward the goal of removing all offenders under the age of 20 from the adult population, while providing orientation, education, training, and treatment.

 

Ms. Crawford advised that Nevada was experiencing a growth in the female offender population, and the NDOP had requested assistance from the National Institute of Corrections to initiate a master plan in order to deal with that growth.  The plan would take into consideration the needs of those individuals being housed within the NDOP.  Ms. Crawford related that many states were reviewing a variety of programs in lieu of incarceration for women who committed drug or property crimes, placing them in a transition center or halfway house setting.  Ms. Chowning asked about the percentage of the female population incarcerated for drug-related offenses, and whether that element was being strongly considered in Nevada’s master plan.  Ms. Crawford stated that was one of the reasons she strongly advocated the development of a master plan, one that could be initiated with existing resources.  With the assistance of the courts and the Division of Parole and Probation, Ms. Crawford indicated a master plan could be designed that would best meet Nevada’s needs.  Ms. Chowning asked when that master plan would be completed.      Ms. Crawford replied that she had sent a letter to the National Institute of Corrections seeking technical assistance, and she hoped a response would be forthcoming in the near future.  Once received, Ms. Crawford would inform the subcommittee of the outcome of her request; input from members would also be welcome. 

 

Ms. Crawford indicated the NDOP’s sex offender programs and screening process had been audited through the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), and the “report card” from that audit was not good, which forced the department to commence searching for better methods to address the problem.  A small in-house committee had reviewed the needs and ascertained that the best method would be consolidation of the sex offender population, which would maximize NDOP’s resources.  Ms. Crawford explained that one institution had been designated to house the sex offender population, where collective resources would be used to address program needs.  The audit also forced the department to review the method used to screen and credential those offenders.  Legislation had been submitted which would establish the criteria to be used for credentialing sex offenders, which Ms. Crawford stated should meet the needs of the state.

 

The delivery of appropriate and adequate medical and mental health care, which satisfied constitutional mandates, was also a part of offender programming.   Ms. Crawford emphasized that medical services staff had worked diligently to bring medical costs under control, and to meet the requirements and mandates set forth by the 1999 legislature. 

 

Ms. Crawford addressed the ongoing strategic planning process that would evaluate the direction and future needs of the NDOP.  She noted there was a committee working to amend the NDOP’s administrative regulations, and the first comprehensive ten-year master plan for the correctional system in Nevada was complete; copies of that plan would be provided to subcommittee members in the near future.  Ms. Crawford emphasized the importance of employee relations, noting that should the NDOP want to retain employees, it needed to revisit its image and its treatment of employees.  A survey was conducted to ascertain staff issues and concerns, which led to review of an alternative work schedule that would allow staff time off to spend with family.  According to Ms. Crawford, that alternative schedule had proven to be very successful.  A plan was outlined for an employee relations committee, which ultimately would allow input from staff and open lines of communication between management and staff. 

 

In keeping with the Governor’s directive, Southern Desert Correctional Center (SDCC) was designated to house youthful offenders, and the program commenced in December 2000.  Ms. Crawford indicated HDSP opened in September 2000, and was the largest facility in the state, with a population of approximately 1,650.  The opening of HDSP also resulted in the relocation of more than 3,000 inmates throughout the various statewide facilities.  Ms. Crawford stated that 150 female offenders classified at minimum custody, were moved into the Jean Conservation Camp (JCC) in southern Nevada.  The camp was program oriented, and would prepare those offenders for reentry into the community.  Ms. Crawford explained NDOP was able to accomplish that programming via the Southern Nevada Work Investment Board, along with the Welfare-to-Work Program.  The NDOP received a $300,000 grant for a pilot project to address the needs of female offenders, and Ms. Crawford explained that counselors would be assigned to help offenders navigate the system, along with job development assistance upon release. 

 

The NDOP had a number of programs, and Ms. Crawford focused on the Therapeutic Community Programs, such as the Willing Inmates in Nevada Gaining Sobriety (WINGS) Program at Warm Springs Correctional Center.  That program was established in 1998 and 185 inmates had graduated and been released since the program’s inception.  Ms. Crawford stated it was an outstanding program with an extremely good success ratio.  According to Ms. Crawford, education programs were strongly advocated, and the NDOP had received approximately $1.8 million in grants.  The avenues to build the literacy program, life-skills program, and the recidivism reduction program were joined in an effort to better serve the inmate and the community.  Regarding education programming, Ms. Crawford indicated 455 offenders participated in the program in 1998, 1,134 in 1999, and 1,233 in 2000, with the numbers continuing to climb. 

 

Continuing, Ms. Crawford stated the NDOP had entered into an exciting endeavor, the Wild Horse Program, located at the Stewart Conservation Camp in Carson City.  Phase II of that program involved the Horse Gentling Program at the Warm Springs Correctional Center.  The program was proving to be phenomenal because of the transformation that took place in the institution’s inmate population.  Ms. Crawford indicated it was a “win-win” program and was proving to be very therapeutic for the entire inmate population.  The department was the first prison in the nation to have such a horse-gentling program inside a medium security prison.  In light of that program, Ms. Crawford reported the Commission for the Preservation of Wild Horses had approached the NDOP regarding a proposal from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the management of horses.  Such a program would produce a revenue stream, and would provide the BLM with a less expensive method of managing the wild horse population, while allowing the NDOP to generate some revenue for its industry programs.  Ms. Crawford indicated the NDOP wanted to actively pursue that program, and the budget proposal included a loan request for start-up funding for the BLM’s Wild Horse Program.

 

Ms. Leslie referenced the 185 graduates of the Therapeutic Community Program, asking whether there was a tracking mechanism in effect that would provide information regarding further drug usage, etc.  Ms. Leslie also requested information about the Drug Court Program that should have been implemented for parolees.  It appeared that no parolees had been received in the program for the Washoe County court system.  Ms. Crawford acknowledged there was a tracking mechanism in place, however, she could not articulate the exact process, and would provide additional information to the subcommittee.  There were federal grant monies attached to the program, and performance indicators were required.  Ms. Crawford was not involved in the Drug Court Program at its inception, and stated Glen Whorton, Chief of Classification and Planning, NDOP, could better address the question.

 

Mr. Whorton explained the Drug Court Program had some difficulties getting started.  The primary difficulty was that the eligibility criteria sought to take inmates from the same candidate pool as the Residential Confinement Program.  Mr. Whorton noted that under the Residential Confinement Program, an inmate could be released to residential confinement within one year of probable release.  The thought behind the Drug Court Program was that it could capture inmates who were within one to two years of probable release for return to the community.  In looking at candidates for the program, it was discovered there were very few inmates who would meet the criteria.  Mr. Whorton stated, in addition, the Drug Court established the criteria whereby persons entering the program were required to have served at least six months confinement within the NDOP before being considered for the program, which essentially further cut the candidate pool to persons within one to one and one-half years of probable release.  It was proving difficult to identify persons qualified for the program.  Mr. Whorton reported there were four inmates currently in the Drug Court Program, with five additional inmates approved for release into the program.  Most participants were from Washoe County, with two applications pending before the Drug Court Board.  Mr. Whorton further explained the type of inmates being sought by the Drug Court were those who were “squeaky clean” with a relatively long sentence, which were difficult to find.  Ms. Leslie asked whether the classification needed to be broadened, or was the program simply not feasible.  Mr. Whorton indicated he was unsure of a remedy for the problem at the present time, and felt additional study and/or coordination with all agencies involved with the program would be necessary.

 

Mr. Whorton then commenced with an explanation of the male offender profile as contained in Exhibit C, a booklet entitled, “Nevada Department of Prisons Presentation to the 71^st Session of the Nevada Legislature,” that provided for audience participation via an overhead presentation.  The average age of the male inmate was approximately 36, and Mr. Whorton noted that a portion of the NDOP’s male population was somewhat older, based upon the “stacking” effect of long-term sentences.  Continuing, Mr. Whorton indicated the average sentence length was from two to six years, with 50 percent of the population sentenced for sexual or violent crimes.  A very large percentage of the population did not have prior felony convictions, had generally served approximately 36 months of their sentence, and were classified at medium security.  Mr. Whorton stated should drugs and alcohol prove not to be an actual factor in the offense itself, quite often they were a significant factor in the behavior that brought the offender to prison. 

 

Ms. Crawford concluded her presentation and indicated Mr. Whorton would present additional population statistics, which actually drove the NDOP budget.  Mr. Whorton again referenced Exhibit C, and stated as of January 24, 2000, there were 8,966 male offenders within the NDOP.  He explained that the population projection instrument currently in use by the NDOP indicated the population should be 9,600 inmates, meaning there were 644 fewer male inmates than anticipated.  The basic reason for the decline was that in 1999, the population remained “flat,” not showing any growth during that year.  Mr. Whorton indicated the same phenomenon had occurred in the female population as well.  The male population, however, had grown by 439 inmates during the year 2000. 

 

Mr. Whorton stated the primary reason for the smaller population was the fact that there were fewer persons in the intake process (Exhibit C), with 989 fewer new commitments and 137 fewer parole violators than anticipated.  Conversely, Mr. Whorton reported there were 637 more paroles granted, with 1,062 fewer discharges.  According to Mr. Whorton, 52 percent of the male population was classified as medium custody, which was typical of correctional practices throughout the United States today.  Most inmates were classified at medium custody.  The close and minimum custody populations contained a similar percentage of 20 percent and 21 percent respectively, with 7 percent of the population unassigned or involved in the intake process awaiting classification.  Mr. Whorton stated the NDOP used an objective classification instrument to classify inmates which provided a recommendation for classification levels; many such recommendations were overridden based on individual case factors not taken into account in the model. 

Referencing Exhibit C, Mr. Whorton explained the male offense group distribution from 1994 through 2000.  In 1994, sexual and violent offenses comprised approximately 49 percent of the inmate population, and comprised approximately 54 percent at the current time.  Under the drug offense category, 19 percent of the male population was incarcerated for drug-related offenses, which remained the same in 2000.  Mr. Whorton stated the most easily seen change occurred in the property offense category, which declined from 24 percent in 1994 to 19 percent in 2000.  The percentage for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) and other “status” type offenses remained the same.  According to Mr. Whorton, the NDOP was experiencing a slight migration toward a “harder” population, due perhaps to harsher sentencing laws for violent offenses. 

 

Continuing, Mr. Whorton addressed the male offender projection, noting that on January 24, 2000, the NDOP population was 8,966, and the population as of February 1, 2000, was 8,999.  Over the upcoming biennium, it was estimated there would be a 5 to 5.5 percent increase in the male population, which was not an unreasonable figure.  Mr. Whorton called attention to the chart in Exhibit C entitled, “Male Population Actual/Projected – FY1990–FY2000,” noting there was nothing particularly remarkable about the gradient of that chart, and it seemed relatively consistent with the growth experienced by the NDOP over the past ten years.  He also addressed the chart reflecting admissions and releases as contained in the exhibit. 

 

Mr. Whorton went on to explain the NDOP’s master plan for the male population was depicted by the chart contained in Exhibit C entitled, “Projects & Initiatives & Actions MEN00-07,” which depicted highlighted items that represented the major elements of the plan.  The first item was the opening of Unit 8B at HDSP in July 2002; Mr. Whorton explained the unit had been constructed, however,  it was not staffed at the present time.  The next major element would be the conversion of the existing female facility to a male intake center in August 2003, which would provide an additional 500 beds within the NDOP for male offenders.  In January 2005, the NDOP anticipated opening Phase III of HDSP, which would add approximately 1,000 beds.  Mr. Whorton indicated the expectation of construction for Phase III was that it would be a true medium security unit, and models were being reviewed toward that end.

 

Senator Raggio felt the Capital Improvement Project for the NDOP would contain sufficient funding for the planning and construction of Phase III, and questioned additional construction fees over the next biennium.  Mr. Whorton explained the projection for construction was during the biennium of June 30, 2003, to January of 2005, a period of approximately 18 months.  Mr. Whorton indicated another component anticipated by the NDOP with construction of Phase III was a gymnasium to service the medium security population.  A substantial prison industries program was also anticipated, in order to employ that population, along with the development of a cooking program that would provide the NDOP with significant efficiency related to the cooking of inmate meals for that area of the state.

 

Mr. Whorton stated in January 2005 the NDOP anticipated opening a new Humboldt Conservation Camp (HCC), which would be a 250-bed facility to replace the existing 150-bed facility.  The replacement facility would address the health and safety issues currently facing the existing facility.  Continuing, Mr. Whorton pointed out that in January 2006 the NDOP anticipated opening a minimum custody facility somewhere in the Las Vegas area.  It was felt that such a facility would increase the possibility of successful return to the community for offenders.  Mr. Whorton stated the NDOP was investigating the possibility of a pre-release program, a restitution center program, along with the development of a return to incarceration component for that facility.  In the letter of intent sent by the legislature to the NDOP during the last session, concern was expressed that dialogue be opened with the Division of Parole and Probation regarding those issues.  That prompted the development of procedures, planning and location for a minimum security facility over the next biennium.

 

Mr. Whorton referenced the proposal for the opening of a 112-bed regional medical facility in January 2007, which would be similar to the existing facility at the Northern Nevada Correctional Center (NNCC).  In March 2008 the NDOP anticipated construction of Prison No. 8, a 1,512-bed facility.  Mr. Whorton noted that plan would be re-evaluated as the population and the impact of the NDOP changed; it was simply a projection at the current time.  Mr. Whorton then reviewed the chart contained in Exhibit C that referenced the projected in-house population, and the impact of opening the proposed facilities.  He stated the population was projected to consistently break into the emergency capacity threshold adjacent to the time new facilities were anticipated.  Mr. Whorton emphasized that the NDOP did not occupy any institution at its designed capacity, which was why the overall proposed plan included the opening of new facilities in a conservative manner. 

 

Mr. Whorton commenced with the overview of the female population (Exhibit C), noting there were currently 802 female offenders.  The charts contained in the exhibit represented the growth in the female population over the past ten years.  There were 69 more female offenders incarcerated in the NDOP than were anticipated by the current population projection.  While that did not seem to be an extreme amount, Mr. Whorton noted it was extreme for the female population because the NDOP did not have much flexibility in housing that segment of the population.  Over the past year, the female population at the NDOP had grown by 131 inmates, a 19.3 percent increase.  According to Mr. Whorton, the growth in female populations was also increasing in other states.  Over the past biennium, the NDOP had been receiving 39 new female intakes per month, along with eight parole violators.

 

There was a significant difference in the custody distribution between the male and female population, which occurred in the minimum custody category, and Mr. Whorton indicated that essentially reflected the composition of types of offenses committed by female offenders.  The major differences existed in the violent offense, drug offense, and property offense categories.  Mr. Beers asked how percentages were calculated for offenders with both a drug and property conviction.  Mr. Whorton replied that the information system used by the NDOP would reflect the most serious offense for an offender convicted of multiple crimes, and would assign the offense category from that selection.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether offenders convicted of trafficking were segregated from those convicted for possession of drugs.  Mr. Whorton indicated the drug offense category included trafficking, possession, attempted possession, under the influence, or any other offense specifically related to sales, possession, or manufacture of a drug.  Ms. Giunchigliani stated should the NDOP’s ten-year plan anticipate rehabilitation programs for those suffering from drug addiction, the statistics would be better used should offenders be segregated by type and/or degree of offense.  Mr. Whorton noted that the NDOP did have the capacity to break out offenses by individual categories, and could also develop subgroups.

 

 

Mr. Whorton addressed the female population projection as depicted in the exhibit, noting the growth level was anticipated based on the significant growth pattern over the past biennium.  In reviewing the admissions and releases chart, it was noted the female population was much more volatile than the male population.  According to Mr. Whorton, it was difficult to project the population growth for the female population, given the volatility, thereby making it difficult to anticipate accommodations necessary for a rapidly growing female population.  The NDOP’s master plan in response to the female population projection included opening the Southern Nevada Correctional Center (SNCC) as a female institution.  Mr. Whorton stressed that was a work in progress, and the plan was based upon a significant increase in the population.  The NDOP anticipated another population projection prior to the end of session.  Chairman Arberry asked Mr. Whorton whether he could pinpoint the date for the next population projection.  Responding, Mr. Whorton indicated the NDOP would have a new projection in approximately March or April 2001. 

 

Ms. Chowning inquired about budget dollars needed to support the female population, noting the approximately $4 million necessary to rehab SNCC.  From Mr. Whorton’s previous testimony, it did not appear necessary to treat the female population in the same costly manner as the male population.  Also, stated Ms. Chowning, moving the female population to SNCC would switch from a privatized to a state-run facility, which would appear to create a savings.  Mr. Whorton explained that the differential housing of the female population was via custody level, with approximately 40 percent of the women assigned to minimum custody, which reduced the cost to some degree.  The breakdown of cost would be solidified as the master plan progressed.  

 

Ms. Tiffany asked whether there was any alternative community placement for women incarcerated because of drug offenses.  Mr. Whorton stated such placements spoke to the need for a master plan for female offenders in order to determine what type of programs were available and how the NDOP could make those programs work together to ascertain the best placement for the offender, her family, and the community.  Ms. Tiffany inquired whether there were community programs currently available for the female offender.  Electing to respond was Ms. Crawford, who explained there were some grant funds available and she was exploring that possibility.  However, she felt the female population should not be disrupted at the present time, and explained the privatization component had done an outstanding job.

 

Ms. Crawford indicated that approximately 50 percent of the female population could be housed in the Drug Court Program via transition houses.  Ms. Crawford reported there were funding sources available that she would explore, however, she stressed that the NDOP needed to explore new ways of conducting business regarding some of its offenders.  The community could not be jeopardized, but Ms. Crawford noted that other states had supplied alternatives to incarceration for women offenders with children.  Ms. Crawford remarked that the NDOP did not currently have access to alternative programs for female offenders.  Hopefully that area would be explored, perhaps via the use of contracts with existing community programs to expedite the process.  Ms. Tiffany asked about the possibility of receiving a report regarding available community programs for female offenders prior to the end of session.  Ms. Crawford replied in the affirmative, noting her focus for the next few months would be on the female population.     

 

Mrs. Cegavske asked about the approximate age of the female offender; Mr. Whorton stated it was basically the same as the male offender at approximately 36 years of age, however, it did fluctuate somewhat due to the smaller population.  Mrs. Cegavske then inquired whether there would be some type of analysis compiled regarding drug abuse by the female offender, or other characteristics that would cause a rise in that population.  Mr. Whorton indicated the NDOP had been in contact with county agencies which were also experiencing a rise in female population, however, no information was available at the current time. Mr. Whorton explained that methamphetamines appeared to be the drug of choice for both male and female offenders, and was a significant problem.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani inquired whether statistics were broken out by ethnicity, and whether the subcommittee could receive such a report.  Mr. Whorton indicated such a breakdown would be prepared and provided to the subcommittee.  Ms. Giunchigliani felt the time had arrived to act on the issue of transitional housing, both through the court system and through evaluation of current drug laws.  

 

Concluding his presentation, Mr. Whorton referenced the master plan for the female population as contained in Exhibit C, which he pointed out was relatively conservative.  The separation between the projected population and the facility capacity was somewhat broader, because the female population was smaller than the male population.

 

Ms. Crawford introduced Janet Johnson, Assistant Director, Support Services, NDOP, who would present the overview of the actual budget.  Ms. Johnson explained the budget process began with a review by The Governor’s Steering Committee to Conduct a Fundamental Review of State Government, with each department having been asked to identify areas where needs existed.  One of the biggest issues facing the NDOP was maintenance of its facilities and the deterioration of the aging facilities.  Ms. Johnson stated as a consequence of that review, the NDOP was chosen by the LCB for audit.  There were a total of nine recommendations made by that audit, some short-term and some long-term, i.e., development of a department-wide maintenance plan.  Ms. Johnson noted that not all of the recommendations from the audit were necessarily budgetary items, however, there were some issues that had been incorporated into the budget.  One was the recommendation to segregate preventative maintenance contracts for the various institutions and camps into a separate category. 

 

Currently, stated Ms. Johnson, those monies were combined with the routine maintenance budget, and should a breakdown occur, the available dollars were utilized.  By separating the preventative maintenance contract monies into a separate category, it was felt there would be some restrictions for the use of the funds as planned.  The other issue involved in the maintenance category was the request in the budget to add $125,000 per year for extraordinary maintenance.  Ms. Johnson indicated the NDOP would submit a work program to the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) for repairs of several thousand dollars at one institution.  Such repairs impacted routine maintenance, but should preventative maintenance not be completed, a “snowball” effect would be created by additional breakdowns and repair costs. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether the NDOP had appeared before the Board of Examiners requesting extraordinary emergency funds.  Ms. Johnson replied that it had not yet done so, however, the NDOP had recently suffered a breakdown in a transformer at the Carlin Conservation Camp, which would precipitate such a request.  Ms. Giunchigliani inquired whether there was a preventative plan in effect for each facility.  Ms. Johnson stated an overall plan was underway, however, it had not been finalized and would not incorporate some of the more recent occurrences.  The compilation of a preventative maintenance plan was a huge undertaking, and involved the inventory of every “nut and bolt” at every facility statewide.  Ms. Johnson indicated the NDOP had a mandate to complete the plan with the assistance of plant operations staff.  Ms. Giunchigliani instructed the NDOP to present the plan to the subcommittee when completed in order to justify funding.  Ms. Johnson indicated that even without a plan, the problem experienced by the NDOP was the continued deterioration of facilities, and the problem would only get worse should maintenance needs not be addressed.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether the NDOP had already spent the total allocation for the current biennium for maintenance.  Ms. Johnson reported there were shortfalls in the maintenance area; Ms. Giunchigliani requested a report of the utilization of appropriations for maintenance.

 

Ms. Johnson addressed the issue of supplemental appropriations, which had not been requested by the NDOP in the past.  However, she felt that since the department was currently experiencing a number of shortfalls, the possibility did exist for the future.  A number of issues affected the budget, with the largest being a decrease in federal funding from the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP).  Ms. Johnson noted the NDOP had been budgeted for approximately $2.6 million from that program, however, because of a new federal funding formula, which included local distributions, the NDOP’s share had been reduced to approximately $411,000.  That would create a shortfall of over $2 million.  According to Ms. Johnson, utility rate increases would produce an approximately $1.2 million shortfall; the unanticipated growth in the female population would increase the costs at the Southern Nevada Women’s Correctional Facility, creating an approximately $2 million shortfall.  Ms. Johnson further explained there was a $2 million obligation under the Letter of Intent for return of those funds to the state.  It was anticipated that savings incurred by the NDOP in the medical budget, by approaching the legislature to utilize the letter of intent funds, and salary savings might cover the total shortfall amount. 

 

Continuing, Ms. Johnson stated she would report on the Southern Nevada Correctional Center (SNCC) lease.  Several NDOP officials had met with the Division of State Lands to discuss the potential for leasing that facility.  At that time, it was discovered that the prison site was situated partially on recreational and public purpose property owned by the BLM, which complicated the lease issue.  Ms. Johnson explained a for-profit organization could not lease the facility under those terms.  Subsequent discussions with the BLM and the Division of State Lands revealed that the department would be required to maintain control over some portions of the facility.  Ms. Johnson stated a Request for Proposal (RFP) was released to ascertain whether there was any interest in leasing the facility, to no avail.  With the current master plan and the need for additional bed space, the NDOP felt the lease would not be an economically viable action to take.  According to Ms. Johnson, a Capital Improvement Project (CIP) would be introduced to complete the improvements to SNCC. 

 

Ms. Johnson next proposed a budget consolidation.  The report from The Governor’s Steering Committee to Conduct a Fundamental Review of State Government focused on the possibility of consolidation of the NDOP budget.  Ms. Johnson pointed out that several years ago, the NDOP budget had been consolidated, however, was eventually broken out into individual institutions and camps.  According to Ms. Johnson, the NDOP would once again request consolidation of its budget accounts to give the department additional flexibility in spending those funds where most needed, given the emergencies that were cropping up in the maintenance area.  The process of moving monies between budget accounts was cumbersome, even though the IFC allowed the NDOP to move monies when necessary.  Ms. Johnson commented that each institution and camp would still maintain its own budget as an in-house distribution, with accountability remaining the same.  Ms. Johnson offered to prepare a demonstration of the Integrated Financial System for the subcommittee.

 

Chairman Arberry voiced his appreciation for the report regarding consolidation of the NDOP budget, however, the issue of combining all institutional budgets into one account was an unacceptable method of providing funding.  Chairman Arberry put the NDOP on notice that the legislature wanted a revised budget, which included an independent budget account for each facility.  The combined budget simply was not acceptable.  Ms. Johnson reiterated that a combined budget would provide the NDOP with the ability to function with greater ease, and in a more timely fashion, and it would also provide the type of flexibility needed to address problem areas. 

 

The next item addressed by Ms. Johnson was the director’s office budget category.  The Office of the Director of the NDOP provided administrative support for all functions throughout the department.  There were 141 existing positions statewide, with a recommendation for eight new staff and three position transfers included in the budget request.  Ms. Johnson stated the largest funding impact was the aforementioned reduction in the SCAAP monies.  Aside from base budget adjustments and population variances, there were technology-related issues included in the budget such as statewide Internet access for all institutions and the central office.  Ms. Johnson indicated the requested amounts for in-state travel and training had been substantially increased to maintain support for geographically disbursed institutions.  Currently, little travel could be scheduled between the central office and the institutions.  Ms. Johnson stated additional monies would be requested for the Nevada Corrections Information System (NCIS) with a view to possible expansion.  Included in the NDOP’s ten-year master plan were a number of data processing issues, which would assist in bringing the department up-to-date in that area.  Ms. Johnson explained the budget contained two federally mandated issues, those being random drug testing for designated staff, and Hepatitis-B immunizations for new employees.   

 

Continuing, Ms. Johnson referenced funding included in the budget to proceed with the accreditation of facilities at Lovelock and Ely.  The NDOP had been under several court decrees in the past and hopefully, accreditation would provide better rapport with the court system and reduce the possibility of future litigation.  Ms. Giunchigliani stated the subcommittee would require information regarding what the cost would be versus the benefits of accreditation, and the benefits that would be realized regarding litigation.  Ms. Giunchigliani also asked for information regarding the mental health director position which was vacant at the current time, and inquired whether a vacancy in that position placed the NDOP in jeopardy regarding past litigation.  Ms. Johnson indicated the NDOP had been in contact with the Attorney General’s (AG’s) Office regarding that vacancy, and it was her understanding that filling the mental health director position was not a prerequisite to remaining within the framework of past litigation, however, a psychologist position was required in both northern and southern Nevada to oversee the program.  Ms. Giunchigliani requested a copy of the AG’s response to the NDOP’s inquiry.

 

Ms. Johnson stated the NDOP had requested the additional positions of Training Officer I and Management Assistant I to facilitate training as a result of the additional staff hired at HDSP.  A Purchasing Technician II and a Management Assistant II position was recommended in the procurement effort, i.e., food and clothing orders, contract administration, and warehouse stock.  Currently, inmate labor was used in that area, and Ms. Johnson explained that inmate clerks were limited in the number of hours worked, and also in responsibilities for certain duties because of confidentiality.  

 

Continuing, Ms. Johnson indicated a Management Analyst IV position was recommended to assist the Assistant Director of Operations.  The span of control in the operations area was quite broad and assistance was needed in the area of inmate and staff grievances, litigation, and court appearances, et cetera.  Also requested were two management assistant positions, to provide needed clerical assistance.  A locksmith position was also being requested to maintain locking systems in northern and rural Nevada. 

 

According to Ms. Johnson, the budget also recommended the transfer of three positions into the director’s budget; two correctional officers to function as intake officers under the Classification and Planning Division, and a Program Officer I position from the prison store reclassified to a Management Analyst IV position in the director’s office.  The final staff recommendation included reclassification of positions within the Classification and Planning Division to accommodate the broad span of control and diverse multiple programs in that area. 

 

Currently, stated Ms. Johnson, the NDOP was experiencing severe overcrowded conditions in Buildings 6 and 89 at the Stewart Office Complex, and used Buildings 17 and 18 for staff overflow.  Ms. Johnson reiterated that offices were extremely crowded, and the NDOP would propose rental of commercial space until such time as additional space at the Stewart Complex could be made ready.  The NDOP had been in contact with the Public Works Board and the Building and Grounds Division regarding the renovation of Building 17, which should be completed in approximately three years. 

 

Senator Jacobsen inquired whether the NDOP had researched the possible use of other existing facilities at the Stewart Complex.  Ms. Johnson reiterated that NDOP had met with the Buildings and Grounds Division on several occasions and found that no additional buildings at the Stewart Complex were ready for occupancy.  The space under consideration for the NDOP was in close proximity to the Stewart Complex. 

 

Ms. Tiffany asked for clarification regarding possible use of Stewart Complex buildings.  Ms. Johnson explained that the unoccupied buildings needed further rehabilitation prior to use as office space; she further explained that Building 17 was set up as classroom space, which currently accommodated the NDOP’s Training Division. 

 

Mr. Arberry asked about inmate population projections, which appeared to be understated.  Ms. Johnson noted there was an error in the population biennial spread sheet, and the NDOP was reviewing possible solutions at the current time.

 

Senator Jacobsen stated his concern regarding budget consolidation was in the area of the Conservation Camps, which furnished the majority of firefighting crews throughout the state.  Any action that would hamper that operation would prove detrimental to the state.  Ms. Johnson stressed that camp operations would not be hampered by consolidation of the budgets, and the biggest issue surrounded the maintenance budget.  Senator Jacobsen noted that during the fire season, inmates were quite often transferred throughout the state, depending on the need.  Ms. Johnson reiterated that such movement would not be affected by consolidation.

 

Senator Neal asked Ms. Crawford how she viewed her responsibilities, i.e., would she simply meet the requirements of the law, or would she inform the legislature of necessary changes that could be instituted within the prison system.  Ms. Crawford stated she believed her role within the NDOP was to assess the needs to the best of her ability, determine what possible resources were available, and provide the legislature with recommendations to best address those needs.  Ms. Crawford felt that was part of her role as director; she did note that since she was relatively new to the position, she was unable to address every issue.  Ms. Crawford indicated she was attempting to review and assess the needs, in an attempt to ascertain where funding could possibly be obtained, and make appropriate recommendations to the legislature.  Senator Neal stated that historically, the Director of the NDOP failed to advise the legislature regarding recommended changes.  Ms. Crawford assured Senator Neal and the subcommittee that she would always be open and honest, and would address any and all questions to the best of her ability.  Ms. Crawford reaffirmed that a different direction and focus was needed regarding the female population.

 

Chairman Arberry asked John P. Comeaux, Director, Department of Administration, to advise the subcommittee regarding the time frame involved for revision of the NDOP budget.  Mr. Comeaux indicated he would discuss the budget with the Governor, and would advise the subcommittee as soon as possible.  Chairman Arberry emphasized that the subcommittee needed the requested information in order to proceed with budget hearings.

 

Testifying next before the subcommittee was Dr. Ted D’Amico, Medical Director of the NDOP, who reported that a strong consideration was made during the last session of the legislature to privatize the entire medical system in order to promote consistent operation.  Dr. D’Amico stated he felt that although privatization was always an alternative, the state-run operation could provide a managed care system and operate in a more efficient manner.  The state employees of the NDOP Medical Division had streamlined operations, followed a specific plan of action, and had performed unbelievably well over the past two years, with approximately $3 million in operational expenses being saved.

 

Dr. D’Amico explained the Medical Division’s budget contained the following major areas:

 

1. Outside medical costs.
2. Status of reports on outside medical costs.
3. Status of reports on charges and collections resulting from A.B. 389 of the Sixty-Eighth Session.
4. Status reports on vacancies in the medical budget.
5. Recommendations, including The Executive Budget, resulting from the internal audit report of August 2000.
6. Initiatives, including The Executive Budget, affecting the delivery of medical services.
7. Relationship with existing private contractors at ESP.

 

Regarding outside medical costs, Dr. D’Amico commented that the costs for providing medical services to an inmate had dropped from the $9.34 figure per inmate day approved by the legislature for FY2000-01 to the Governor’s recommended figure of $8.84 per inmate day, which was a 5.4 percent reduction.  Outside medical costs reported by the NDOP’s third party payer were at $3,236,945 in FY2000, and the continued decrease in outside medical costs were projected to be $2.4 million under budget, which would allow for a conservative projection of $3,271,000 for FY2001.  Per Dr. D’Amico, the areas where outside medical costs and total expenditures had been decreased were outside hospital days, outside surgical procedures, and outside consultations.  Those areas had been augmented within the NDOP’s medical facilities as part of the projected plan to decrease overall costs.

 

Testifying next was Dr. Rex Reed, Medical Administrator, NDOP, who stated he would address:

 

• The program created by A.B. 389 of the Sixty-Eighth Session;

 

• Vacancies within the Medical Division;

 

• Impact of executive audit recommendations; and,

 

• The Executive Budget recommendations.

 

According to Dr. Reed, A.B. 389 of the Sixty-Eighth Session delineated the program codified in NRS 209.246, which regulated the deductions from individual inmate accounts for medical services such as recreational injuries, assaults on inmates, non- required clinical visits, drug expenses, and intentional self-injury.  The program also contained a list of non-medical reimbursements for willfully damaging property, escape, legal supplies, and reimbursement for riots.  Dr. Reed stated the department had completed its audit of program assessments from its initiation in FY1996.  The reconciliation indicated that A.B. 389 of the Sixty-Eighth Session assessments had collected approximately $5 million, and departmental staff had already filed work programs to move the authorized funds to the appropriate accounts, along with a payment schedule to move the remainder of the funds. 

 

Dr. Reed testified that the base budget included 330 employees, however, the maintenance and enhancement modules sustained a reduction of five and one‑quarter positions.  The Executive Budget recommended that seven nursing positions be converted to per diem positions, and the addition of 1.6 Correctional Nurse II’s at JCC.  Those positions had been inserted into the budget because JCC had recently been converted to a female institution and persons were needed to staff medical services.  Dr. Reed stated The Executive Budget also contained proposals to eliminate four positions: a one-quarter time mid-level practitioner at Nevada State Prison, a half-time Psychologist II position at Warm Springs Correctional Center, a Psychologist III and a one-half time psychiatrist position at HDSP.  The proposal to eliminate the two positions at HDSP reflected the fact that it was geographically close to Southern Desert Correctional Center (SDCC), and could share staff from that facility. 

 

Dr. Reed explained that the NDOP proposed the reclassification of five forensic specialist positions at NNCC to correctional officers, along with the reclassification of an additional four forensic specialists at NNCC to Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs).  The budget also contained a recommendation for reclassification of two Psychologist II positions to correctional clinical social worker positions, and the reclassification of one Forensic Specialist IV to a Correctional Nurse II in southern Nevada.  Dr. Reed stated a short history of the division’s vacancies indicated they had decreased over the current fiscal year.  At the end of FY2000, there were 73 vacancies, and at the end of calendar year 2000, that rate had grown to 79; currently, the vacancy rate was 71.  Dr. Reed pointed out that although it did not seem like a significant decrease, the current vacancies included the aforementioned positions that were recommended for reclassification, and there were 14 positions in the final stages of hiring. 

 

Continuing, Dr. Reed addressed the executive audit and resultant budget impact.  The bulk of the recommendations from that audit were procedural in nature, such as preparation of the document regarding existing procedures, and the Medical Division did not really expect any significant expense based on audit recommendations.  Dr. Reed stated the biggest change to date would be modification of the RFP in selection of the next preferred provider organization.  In the past, the Medical Division had used its own staff to compose the RFP, which was then forwarded to the Purchasing Department for review.  In the future, the initial steps of that procedure would remain the same, however, the last step would be submission to the Public Employees’ Benefit Group for final review regarding actuarial and contractual matters.  The Public Employees’ Benefit Group would review the budget, provide a critique, and propose methods for improvement of the RFP. 

 

Dr. Reed stated he would like to highlight the recommendation included in The Executive Budget for conversion of ten forensic specialist positions to five correctional officer and five nursing positions.  Forensics was a unique position that combined both custody and medical functions, and typically the medical function would require nursing.  Dr. Reed indicated what had been seen in the recent past was that the labor market was not really supplying the Medical Division with the number of candidates needed to fill vacant positions, and it was decided in order to meet the concern for a combination of medical and custody coverage, the positions would be disaggregated to individual nursing and custodial positions.  That would supply the needed skills in both the custody and medical areas. 

 

Dr. Reed pointed out that The Executive Budget proposed the continuation of the Therapeutic Community Program at Warm Springs Correctional Center, which was funded in large part by a federal grant for a residential substance abuse treatment program.      

 

Per Dr. Reed, per diem nursing positions were used quite extensively in the private sector, and the Medical Division wanted to borrow that technology by converting seven nursing positions to per diem positions.  Conversion would consist of taking an existing full-time nursing position and creating five “slots” which meant there would be five 20 percent positions for every full-time nursing position.  Those five nurses would be called as needed, which would reduce the overtime costs, and agency nurses would not be utilized as often, which would also reduce costs.  Dr. Reed pointed out that per diem positions were a good recruiting tool that would allow both the nurses and the Medical Division to evaluate employment opportunities and potential employees.  There would be 35 per diem nursing positions created within the division, 5 assigned to the facility at Lovelock, 15 assigned to the facilities in northern Nevada, and 15 assigned to the facilities in southern Nevada. 

 

Mr. Hettrick asked whether there was a system set up to monitor the program created by A.B. 389 of the Sixty-Eighth Session.  Dr. Reed answered in the affirmative.  Mr. Hettrick then inquired how the funding levels in that program would fluctuate.  Dr. Reed advised he could not provide the answer to that question, because quite often, the funding was driven by catastrophic incidents that involved the inmate population.  Mr. Hettrick solicited Dr. Reed’s opinion regarding the trend of the program, either up or down.  Dr. Reed felt the funding derived from the program would level out, and to some extent, the program was initiated to provide a monetary consequence to inmates regarding inappropriate behavior. 

 

Senator Mathews requested clarification regarding the per diem nursing positions, and whether the NDOP Medical Division was experiencing a shortfall of nurses, either LPNs or Registered Nurses (RNs).  Electing to respond was Dr. D’Amico, who explained per diem positions were a mechanism used in the private sector hospitals.  Most administrators of hospitals in the Las Vegas area indicated the hospitals could not exist without per diem positions.  The per diem positions were suggested to address problems in overtime hours and contract funds.  Per Dr. D’Amico, those positions were created first in the Lovelock area, because of the existing shortage, and that experience proved to be successful.  Dr. D’Amico felt it would be a recruiting tool and help cut down overtime hours; the NDOP was not experiencing a shortfall in nurses.  The per diem positions would address the occasions when permanent staff was not available, or on leave status.  Senator Mathews felt the NDOP needed nursing staff who were permanent and knew the system, and still wondered whether the need was for LPNs or RNs.  There was a great shortage of nurses overall, and Senator Mathews could not understand how per diem positions would attract potential staff. 

 

Dr. D’Amico indicated the Medical Division operated with only RNs, and when privatization was considered, each bidding company commented on the lack of mixture between RNs and LPNs, citing cost efficiency.  Dr. D’Amico recognized that a mixture of RNs and LPNs was needed for many reasons, i.e., supervision and cost efficiency.  The NDOP would not replace current staff to realize that goal, but rather would use vacant positions to hire LPNs to correct the mix.  Senator Mathews felt that a system utilizing RNs was most efficient, and hoped that status would not change.  She indicated that some per diem positions would be helpful, however, she would not recommend totally staffing the Medical Division with per diem nurses.  Dr. D’Amico complimented his existing nursing staff, and indicated that the idea was to augment the staff for the proper RN/LPN mix. 

 

Continuing with his presentation, Dr. Reed noted there were two outside private contracting companies that provided medical care for the NDOP inmates.  Last year, Correctional Medical Services (CMS), which provided medical care at ESP, issued a notice to discontinue its contract because outside medical costs had increased to the extent that it was no longer financially profitable to continue servicing ESP.  Dr. Reed explained that an agreement had ultimately been reached to enter into an action plan that would allow the department’s medical physicians to make the NDOP Regional Medical Facility and the HDSP medical facility more available to ESP in order to shorten expensive outside hospital days.  Inmates who were physically limited were continually evaluated because treatment might not be available in an outlying area such as Ely.  Dr. Reed stated that wherever possible, care would be provided within the NDOP at the standard charge.  Continued dialogue between Dr. Reed and CMS personnel had allowed that action plan to carry forward to the present time and CMS had since rescinded notice to terminate its contract.  Dr. Reed felt that illustrated another reason why the NDOP’s plan of action and expertise in handling outside costs would help in arriving at overall better medical care for the inmate population.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether the outside medical budgetary numbers were workable.  Dr. D’Amico stated the Medical Division had put an operation into effect in northern Nevada which allowed for a physician’s management organization to come on-site with consultations, and a strong utilization mechanism was employed to track hospital stays; the budget figures were definitely workable.  Ms. Giunchigliani commended the Medical Division for driving budget numbers down.  The debate of privatization during last session provided an impetus to show the public and the legislature that state employees were just as competitive, qualified and able to follow through as private sector employees. 

 

With no further questions forthcoming regarding the Nevada Department of Prisons, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on that budget and opened the hearing on the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV/PS), Division of Parole and Probation.

 

PS, PAROLE AND PROBATION - BUDGET PAGE PS 113

 

Richard Kirkland, Director, DMV/PS, informed the subcommittee that in conformance with Governor Guinn’s directives for preparation of the budgets, the Division of Parole and Probation’s budget was “flat,” and contained no changes in terms of allocations from the 2001 biennium, with the exception of the roll-up costs of salary, which caused an increase of approximately  9 percent.  Mr. Kirkland emphasized that the division had requested no additional positions, as depicted in Exhibit D.

 

Mr. Kirkland noted that the Division of Parole and Probation was the second largest agency in Public Safety, with 479 authorized employees.  The major problem was in the area of employee acquisition, training, and retention.  Over the past four years, there had been personnel changes in terms of vacancies and promotions involving 562 employees, with a new hire replacement of 342 employees.  With that type of turnover in both management and line staff, considerable problems with continuity and leadership had resulted.  According to Mr. Kirkland, despite those issues, along with other challenging problems, the division continued to do a very good job.  The population of parolees and probationers had only slightly increased, but because the division was consistently understaffed by 30 to 50 employees each day, officers in some areas carried caseloads significantly higher than the 70:1 ratio intended by the legislature.

 

On the bright side, stated Mr. Kirkland, the division had increased its restitution collections by over $50,000 per month in comparison to years past, and had instituted new policies and procedures.  The division had also increased its collection of supervision fees by 28 percent over what was projected in FY2000, which was $2.9 million, and had also increased its collection of restitution for victims from $2 million in 1999 to $2.3 million in 2000.  Mr. Kirkland reported that as of January 1, 2001, the division had exceeded planned collections for FY2001 in supervision fees by 15 percent, and in restitution by 6 percent.  With the appointment of R. Warren Lutzow as Chief of the Division of Parole and Probation, the DMV/PS was confident that the division would continue to see great improvements, as demonstrated in Exhibit D. 

 

Continuing his presentation, Mr. Kirkland stated the major programs of the division were listed in the exhibit, and explained that basically the division was basically responsible for:

 

·        Pre-sentence investigation reports;

 

·        Case management and monitoring;

 

·        House arrest and intensive supervision programs;

 

·        Victim restitution collection and disbursement;

·        Lifetime supervision of sex offenders;

 

·        Specialized sex offender officers;

 

·        Drug testing; and,

 

·        Centralized pre-release, interstate compact, and warrant programs.

 

Mr. Kirkland pointed out that Exhibit D contained graphs which delineated the field supervision and court services history of work unit activity.  The work unit system was devised pursuant to past legislatively authorized studies in the area of officer duties.  Mr. Kirkland stated in 1998 the division had 14,247 work units, and had 281 authorized employees, with an average of 257 employees on any given day during that year.  At the current time, the division’s average staff levels were less than those of approximately three years ago, and yet the work units had increased to 15,109. 

 

Mr. Kirkland advised that also included in the exhibit was the description of centralized case management programs, i.e., Interstate Compact Unit, Special Services Unit, and Pre-Release Unit, along with the reorganization of specialized programs.  In the 1995 legislatively-approved first reorganization, the Interstate Compact Unit, the Warrants Unit, and the Parole Violator Unit were centralized and sworn officer positions were replaced by non-sworn personnel.  Ten sworn positions were converted to non-sworn positions, which increased efficiency and allowed the division to roll the sworn officers into vacant positions.  In the 1999 legislatively-approved second reorganization, the pre-release activities were centralized and five sworn officer positions were replaced with non-sworn positions.  The division reassigned the five sworn officers into existing vacancies.

 

In the area of restitution collection, the exhibit contained a comparative chart which showed the history of planned versus actual collection.  Mr. Kirkland stated in 1998, the division planned to collect $1.9 million, and in actuality collected $2.1 million.  In FY1999, the planned collection was approximately  $2 million, and the actual was only approximately $1,000 below that.  In FY2000, the division planned to collect $2.4 million and the actual was $2.3 million.  During the current biennium, the division was approximately 6 percent ahead of the planned collection.  Mr. Kirkland explained that the benefits of managerial changes, coupled with institution of the planned five-year technology system authorized by the legislature, allowed the division to collect approximately $50,000 per month more than planned. 

 

Mr. Kirkland then explained the sworn officer staffing levels as depicted in the exhibit was a comparative of authorized and actual totals.  He noted for FY2001, the division would experience a 13 percent separation between authorized and actual levels.  Mr. Kirkland stated that demonstrated the problem experienced by the division regarding the significant loss of employees to other law enforcement agencies.  Senator Raggio asked whether the employees who left the division after training were tracked relative to other employment.  Mr. Kirkland indicated that, at one time, the division lost approximately 17 employees to Clark County in the expansion of its juvenile parole and probation department.  The employees of the Division of Parole and Probation had not received salary increases, whereas county employees had realized an approximately $8,000 to $10,000 per year increase in salary.  According to Mr. Kirkland, other employees transferred to various other federal and local law enforcement agencies because of increased salaries.  Also, the division suffered losses in employees for reasons such as retirement. 

 

Senator Raggio suggested the possibility of a “cooling off” period, i.e., a restriction on state employees leaving the agency for other public entities for a period of one year, with that stipulation explained prior to acceptance of employment.  He further stated that the legislature was aware of the need to raise salary levels.  Mr. Kirkland felt such a stipulation would certainly help, and disclosed that part of the problem was that the division trained personnel as Category I Officers, which allowed them great latitude in seeking other employment.  That policy had been changed, and the division now trained personnel as Category II Officers, which would lessen the other employment opportunities.  Mr. Kirkland agreed that something along the lines of a “cooling off” period or repayment of training costs should be initiated.  Senator Raggio stated repayment of costs would be difficult to enforce, and would not necessarily solve the problem.  He felt that for positions where the state had invested officer training, there should be some disincentive to allowing other entities that offered higher salaries to siphon off the division’s personnel. 

 

Mr. Goldwater felt repayment of training costs was an excellent idea, however, he also felt it would be difficult to enforce on an individual basis.  He had researched the possibility of a requirement that local government entities repay training costs for those employees transferring from the state, however, the important factor in such an endeavor would be the ability to quantify the cost of training.  Mr. Goldwater then inquired whether the division had actually quantified the amount of training costs.  Mr. Kirkland stated the division could certainly quantify the cost of training, but it would be difficult because it included “soft” dollar amounts, i.e., instructor salaries.  It was his experience that it had generally cost between $15,000 and $25,000 to fully train an officer in either Category I or Category II, including their salaries.  Mr. Goldwater felt that it would be enforceable for municipalities, and such practices did occur in the private sector.

 

Continuing his presentation, Mr. Kirkland referenced the supervision fee collection history as depicted in Exhibit D in a comparative format from FY1998 to FY2001.  He stated that the division would collect approximately 15 percent more than the fee collection projections for FY2001.  Mr. Kirkland emphasized that despite the current understaffed situation, the division was doing an excellent job.  That job was enhanced because of the technological improvements approved during past legislative sessions. 

 

Mr. Kirkland addressed the civilian and support staffing levels (Exhibit D), and indicated the division did not experience the same type of problem in that area as in the sworn positions.  He felt the non-sworn positions followed the normal attrition average and rate. 

 

The automation of the division was on time and within budget, and the savings were very impressive.  Mr. Kirkland explained that because of the tracking abilities of the division’s automated case management system, duplication of effort regarding pre-sentence investigations had been eliminated.  Through use of that system, an officer could ascertain criminal history of an offender instantaneously, along with other viable data.  The system provided real time and immediate access to important information in both in- and out-of-state inquiries.  Mr. Kirkland indicated the accounting process had been significantly streamlined, which allowed the reassignment of one employee position to more important functions.        

Ms. Tiffany inquired whether there was any responsibility within the division for transitional housing.  Electing to respond was R. Warren Lutzow, Chief, Division of Parole and Probation, who explained that there were no state-funded transitional housing programs: however, the division did work with several non-profit agencies throughout the state to facilitate transitional housing for parolees and probationers suffering from substance abuse problems, et cetera.  Mr. Lutzow reiterated that there was no halfway-type housing available for individuals who experienced problems in the community.  Ms. Tiffany asked whether there were grant funds available for transitional housing programs, or was it state policy that the division would be the “first line of defense” in such situations.  Mr. Lutzow indicated there were grant funds available, and the division had worked with the NDOP, the Ridge House Program in northern Nevada, and a facility in southern Nevada, on a pilot project that would place NDOP inmates into substance abuse programs upon release on parole.  That pilot project was federally funded and basically “bought beds” for the division, while the division supplied the supervision element at no additional cost.  According to Mr. Lutzow, the division envisioned entering into a contractual agreement with the NDOP and non-profit agencies, with each providing a  Portion of the program elements.  

 

Ms. Tiffany asked, other than treatment programs, whether there was a program to assist those parolees and/or probationers who needed assistance securing employment, with life skills, or simply needed 90 days to transition back into society.  Mr. Lutzow replied that while the division realized other needs existed, approximately 65 to 80 percent of the individuals who came through the system suffered some type of substance abuse problem.  He felt a treatment element should be available in all programs, and noted that the stabilization of an individual leaving the institutional setting and reentering the community was a difficult aspect of case management.

 

Ms. Leslie indicated the Ridge House Program had been quite successful, and enjoyed a tremendous success rate in northern Nevada; she noted there was much work to be done in the program area.  Ms. Leslie asked about the Drug Court Program in Washoe County, as it was her understanding the court system had not reviewed any participants.  She noted that the budget presentation included a request for funding to continue the program, and requested the current status.  In response to Ms. Leslie’s question, Mr. Kirkland explained he felt the program would be much better in the future.  Part of the problem had been the lack of communication between the entities involved in the program, i.e., the division, the NDOP, and the Board of Parole Commissioners.  Several group meetings had been held, and future work group meetings were scheduled, where persons from all entities would work together and cooperate in order to realize the full potential of the program.

 

Senator Jacobsen inquired whether the division would require additional office space during the upcoming biennium.  Mr. Kirkland replied that, like every other state agency, the division was experiencing serious problems because of lack of space, however, following the Governor’s budget directive, no additional office space had been requested.  That was not to say the division did not need space, and Mr. Kirkland stated there were some horrendous working conditions in the northern and southern offices.  Mr. Kirkland reiterated that the division had produced a “flat” budget, per the Governor’s directive. 

 

Senator Raggio asked for information about the proposal for a pilot project that would contract out the preparation and development of pre-sentence investigation reports for the courts.  Mr. Kirkland stated the division had been working for quite some time in an attempt to come to some conclusion regarding whether it could contract preparation of those reports.  The division had studied the ongoing program in the state of Utah, and Mr. Kirkland felt that under certain circumstances, it would be feasible for Nevada.  The division would make a recommendation to use a portion of existing funds to initiate a pilot program.  There were some questions whether the program would work in Nevada with its growth and economy.  Senator Raggio felt it was an intriguing idea, provided the quality of the product would be retained, and inquired whether Utah used a private agency located in the state.  Mr. Kirkland replied in the affirmative, and indicated the program currently was operational in Salt Lake County, and expansion was planned.  Senator Raggio asked whether the division had determined the parameters of the pilot project.  Mr. Kirkland stated the division had been working on the project for some time, however, it was not actually contained in a written proposal at the current time.  The pilot program would depend upon available salary savings for funding.  Mr. Kirkland indicated further information would be furnished to the subcommittee.          

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked about computer equipment recommended by the Governor that had not been requested, and was there a plan in place for sharing computers.  Mr. Kirkland stated there was not a plan in place at the current time, but the division would work on that plan, as it would benefit the employees.  Officers were often required to wait for access to computer equipment, and the area would be addressed in the near future.  Ms. Giunchigliani felt the plan should consider the possibility of sharing computer equipment; Mr. Kirkland stated the division would not arbitrarily request a computer for every employee.  Mr. Kirkland indicated further information would be furnished to the subcommittee. 

 

Chairman Arberry referenced the monthly caseload reporting, and noted that data had been provided to LCB staff regarding FY1999-00, however, those figures could not be finalized without receipt of further information.  Additional information was apparently forwarded to LCB staff on January 28, 2001, and Chairman Arberry asked for response to that issue.  Mr. Lutzow reported that the division was late in providing some statistics to the LCB staff, due primarily to shortage of staff, along with the need to work on the computer system to address the restitution issue; he apologized for the lateness of the reports.  Senator Mathews remarked that nearly every agency suffered from shortages in staff, and she did not feel that was a viable excuse.  Mr. Kirkland assured her that he would not make excuses to the legislature.

 

Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on the Division of Parole and Probation, and opened the hearing on the Board of Parole Commissioners.

 

PS, PAROLE BOARD – BUDGET PAGE PS 177

 

Mr. Kirkland introduced Dorla Salling, the recently appointed Chairwoman of the Board of Parole Commissioners.  Mr. Kirkland explained that the agency was comprised of a combination of Governor-appointed commissioners (the board) and classified employees.  Under the current organizational structure, the board operated under the DMV/PS umbrella.  There were 6 commissioners and 1 chairwoman, with 15 total employees.  Mr. Kirkland stated the primary responsibility of the board was to evaluate prison inmates to determine suitability for parole, and to grant parole to those inmates who showed promise of becoming contributing members of society.  The board also conducted parole revocation hearings. 

 

 

Ms. Salling presented the subcommittee with Exhibit E, which contained statistics pertinent to the function of the board.  The first chart depicted the percentage of monthly average inmate population reviewed, granted and released on parole.  The two additional graphs in the exhibit separated the population into male and female inmate categories, and Ms. Salling stated they were self-explanatory. 

 

Mr. Kirkland reiterated that DMV/PS had been requested to submit a “flat” budget for its divisions, and had complied with that request with the exception of the Parole Board.  He explained that due to circumstances beyond the board’s control, such as increased rent, the proposed budget did show an increase of approximately $90,000. 

 

Ms. Salling went on to explain that essentially, the board had maintained a “flat” budget, however, there were slight increases due to an additional 1,100 square feet of office space needed to house the inmate case files, which had previously been maintained by the Division of Parole and Probation.  There were also increases in per diem and training for hearing representatives, who assisted the board in conducting parole hearings.  The budget included a request for funding in regard to training provided by the Association of Parole Authorities, and the payment of worker’s compensation fees for hearing representatives.  Ms. Salling explained there would also be increased costs to the board as a result of the opening of HDSP, along with equipment replacement costs.  The board also paid administrative cost assessments to the DMV/PS for services received from it. 

      

Senator Raggio asked how many commissioners were on the board.  Ms. Salling replied that there were seven commissioners, including herself.  Senator Raggio then asked about the geographical location of hearings, and how many commissioners were assigned to hearings.  Ms. Salling explained that three commissioners were assigned to the Carson City office, along with the Chairwoman, and three were assigned to Las Vegas.  The northern office covered the facilities in the northern portion of the state, while the southern office covered facilities in the southern portion of the state, along with ESP.  According to Ms. Salling, either two commissioners or one commissioner and a hearing representative were assigned to general parole hearings.  The exception was for offenses which were required by NRS to have three commissioners present, i.e., sexual assault, or inmates serving life sentences for crimes of violence.  Four commissioners were required to ratify all parole decisions.  Ms. Salling conveyed that hearing representatives were contract employees who made recommendations to the board, however, were not voting members.  Senator Raggio asked whether the northern office of the board would take over hearings at Tonopah, Pioche, and Ely as a result of the caseload.  Ms. Salling indicated the geographical breakdown was still under discussion, due mainly to the opening of HDSP, and to determine the best method of allocating the board’s resources.

 

Senator Raggio referenced the chart in Exhibit E that showed a parole revocation rate for FY2000 of 72.6 percent, a projected approval rate of 42.6 percent, and the actual grant rate for paroles at 54.3 percent, and asked whether the board’s statistics coordinated with the NDOP’s inmate population projection.  Ms. Salling remarked that there were slight percentage differences in statistics, because the projected statistics were gleaned from two different sources, and were not an identical match.  That was one area which would be reviewed over the upcoming biennium with a view toward uniform statistics.  Senator Raggio felt that was important because the legislature used that information when calculating inmate projection figures.

With no further questions forthcoming, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on the Parole Board budget closed.  The next budget for subcommittee consideration was the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.

 

CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES – BUDGET PAGE CNR1-174

 

Michael Turnipseed, Director, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, indicated each division would address its own budget, with the Division of Environmental Protection being the first presentation. 

 

Allen Biaggi, Administrator, Division of Environmental Protection, commenced with review of the mission statement for the division, as per legislative mandate, which read as follows: “The Division of Environmental Protection’s mission is to protect and enhance the environment of the State consistent with public health and enjoyment, the propagation and protection of terrestrial and aquatic life, the operation of existing industries, the pursuit of agriculture, and economic development of the State.” 

 

Mr. Biaggi indicated the division was comprised of six accounts within The Executive Budget:

 

1. Budget Account 3173, Administration.
2. Budget Account 3185, Bureau of Air Quality.
3. Budget Account 3186, Bureau of Water Quality Planning.
4. Budget Account 3187, Bureau of Waste Management and Federal Facilities.
5. Budget Account 3188, Bureau of Mining Regulation and Reclamation.
6. Budget Account 4149, State Environmental Commission.

 

According to Mr. Biaggi, the division was almost exclusively funded via federal grants and fees, with only approximately $415,000 of General Fund monies utilized by Budget Account 3186, Bureau of Water Quality Planning.  The division occupied two offices, one in Carson City and the other in Las Vegas, with a staff of 179 full-time employees.  Mr. Biaggi reported the division had been asked to vacate its space in the Grant Sawyer Building in Las Vegas to make room for other agencies, and consequently, each budget account that included Las Vegas personnel would reflect rent increases.  Additionally, Mr. Biaggi noted a one-shot relocation appropriation had been proposed to account for moving expenses, the purchase of furniture, and the installation of computer infrastructure.  A rent increase was also anticipated for the Carson City office due to the expiration of current leases.  

 

Continuing, Mr. Biaggi explained that during the next biennium, two budget accounts would be transitioned into special use categories, Budget Account 3186, Bureau of Water Quality Planning, and Budget Account 3187, Bureau of Waste Management and Federal Facilities, in order to streamline and simplify the budget preparation process, the administration, and budget tracking.  Those two budget accounts were extremely complex and were composed of numerous programs, along with a number of distinct sources of revenue.  Mr. Biaggi further explained that one budget account contained 13 separate revenue sources in 18 different divisions.  The modification would allow for one revenue source to be placed into the special use category with its own budget-by-ledger number.  Mr. Biaggi reported such a system had worked very well in other budget accounts within the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.  By making the change to special use categories, greater program flexibility and consistency with federal grants would be realized without sacrificing budget tracking or fiscal accountability. 

Mr. Biaggi reported that the division utilized a computer replacement schedule of 25 percent for computers, printers, and associated hardware, which was consistent with the Department of Information Technology (DoIT) guidelines.  All budget accounts also reflected an additional step to each grade, along with  4 percent for inflation for each year of the biennium, and upgrades for positions in the engineering series, which had traditionally been a difficult series for recruitment and staff retention. 

 

Continuing, Mr. Biaggi stated the administrative arm of the division, Budget Account 3173, provided administrative support for the entire agency.  The budget account supported 24 full-time employees, including Information Services, Office of the Administrator, Office of Fiscal and Personnel Management, and the Small Business Assistance Program.  The Carson City location housed 21 staff members, and 3 were located in Las Vegas.  The budget account was funded by revenues based upon an indirect cost rate, assessed to salary-infringed positions of all other programs within the agency.  For the upcoming biennium, the budgeted rate was 25.5 percent.  Mr. Biaggi said the budget account included a request for two new positions, a new Account Technician I, Grade 30, and a new Computer Network Technician II, Grade 35; both positions would be located in Carson City.  Mr. Biaggi explained that the budget account contained a significant portion of the Information Services equipment needs for the biennium for the division’s centralized Local Area Network (LAN) computer system.  The division would also request an additional one-half time Attorney General (AG) position, because of the litigation caseload, which would bring the total AG support for the agency to two and one-half positions.

 

Budget Account 3185 supported the operation of a statewide air quality program, with the exception of Washoe and Clark Counties, which operated independent programs.  Mr. Biaggi explained that the bureau currently issued and managed approximately 532 permits, in addition to monitoring, planning, inspection, and air quality compliance efforts.  The account contained 30 full‑time positions, of which 2 were in the Las Vegas area.  Mr. Biaggi indicated revenues were based upon fees, federal grants, and the Air Pollution Control Fund, also referred to as the Inspection and Maintenance Fund.  There were some concerns regarding revenue stability for the future because fees were based on emissions, and the bureau had been a positive influence in the reduction of emissions.  However, a greater reduction in emissions would lead to a reduction in fee collection.  Per Mr. Biaggi, as additional emission controls were initiated, the revenue to the agency would be reduced.  A consent agreement was in effect with one of the large sources, where a significant amount of controls would be installed over the next three years, which would dramatically impact the agency’s budget. 

 

Mr. Biaggi indicated the budget included a request for additional funds to support federal mandates such as regional haze, and the new particulate matter requirements, commonly referred to as “PM2.5,” along with state needs such as emission inventories in the rapidly expanding Truckee River corridor, and new equipment.  According to Mr. Biaggi, one new position was requested in the budget at the Bureau Chief level, in order to accommodate splitting the bureau into a Bureau of Planning and Monitoring for Air Quality, and a Bureau of Permitting, Inspection, and Enforcement for Air Quality.  That split would be similar to the one done for water quality programs several years ago, and Mr. Biaggi indicated the split would result in better work efficiency and overall better productivity.  The Bureau Chief position would be located in Carson City. 

 

According to Mr. Biaggi, a number of Bill Draft Requests (BDRs) were anticipated in the 2001 session, which would primarily address a greater state presence in the air quality program in Clark County.  Mr. Biaggi noted a majority of the BDRs were the outcome of the subcommittee, created by S.B. 432 of the Seventieth Session, to conduct an interim study concerning programs for air quality control in Clark County.  Obviously, for the state to undertake any new program responsibilities, the associated resources to carry out those functions must also be provided.

 

Continuing, Mr. Biaggi stated that Budget Account 3186 supported the operation of a statewide Water Pollution Control Program, and included two bureaus, the Bureau of Water Pollution Control, and the Bureau of Water Quality Planning.  Currently, the program had issued permits to over 2,000 facilities and provided associated activities related to monitoring, inspections, and enforcement and compliance.  Mr. Biaggi indicated the bureau also operated the State Revolving Loan Program, which provided low interest loans to municipalities for wastewater infrastructure, and a grant program for water pollution control.  The budget account contained 40 full-time positions, 21 in the Bureau of Water Pollution Control, 18 in the Bureau of Water Quality Planning, and the Deputy Administrator position, with 2 staff members located in the Las Vegas office.  Mr. Biaggi reported that revenues in the budget account were from federal grants, fees, and from a small General Fund appropriation. 

 

According to Mr. Biaggi, substantial additional federal grants had been secured for the programs within the past 24 months as a result of new federal initiatives, and increases in existing initiatives.  The majority of the funds were passed through to local governments for water pollution control projects.  The budget requested one new position in the Bureau of Water Pollution Control, a Program Assistant III, who would assist with the State Revolving Loan Program and the Underground Injection Control Program.  Mr. Biaggi noted the budget also included a request to reclassify a Program Assistant to an Environmental Scientist III, to support the Water Pollution Control Grant Program and outreach, and reclassification of a Management Assistant II to a Management Assistant III, because of increased duties. 

 

Mr. Biaggi reported that certain programs within Budget Account 3186 were evaluated beginning in January 2000 for consolidation with similar programs in the Health Division, Department of Human Resources (DHR), which was done under the auspices of the Governor’s Steering Committee to conduct a Fundamental Review of State Government.  The results of the evaluation suggested consolidation was not appropriate at the current time, however, the review also made a number of recommendations to both agencies related to fee structures, information sharing capabilities, health board representation on the State Environmental Commission, revisions in performance indicators, and formalization of relationships between grant programs and the State Treasurer.  Mr. Biaggi indicated the division was in the process of implementing all recommendations.

 

Budget Account 3187 was the largest in the division, and Mr. Biaggi indicated it supported 67 full-time positions.  It included the Bureau of Waste Management, Bureau of Federal Facilities, and the Bureau of Corrective Actions.  Staff members in the Las Vegas office numbered 13.  Mr. Biaggi noted that the program managed 20 solid waste landfills, 40 facilities that handled highly hazardous materials, over 3,200 underground storage tanks, 7 hazardous waste treatment storage or disposal facilities, hundreds of environmental clean-up sites on public and private lands, and many additional sites on Department of Defense or Department of Energy lands.  The revenues in the budget account were derived from grants and fees.  Mr. Biaggi pointed out that revenue stability was also a concern in the budget account for the next four to six years, because of closure of the Beatty landfill and the expiration of large penalty cases, which had supported the Hazardous Waste Fund in the past. 

 

Mr. Biaggi stated the budget would not ask for any new positions or programs.  At the request of the agency, an internal audit of the State Petroleum Fund was performed in mid-2000.  The audit found that the agency was paying Petroleum Fund claims appropriately and made nine recommendations for better program efficiency and accountability.  Most recommendations were related to the use and standardization of forms and additional internal controls.  Mr. Biaggi testified that the division was in the process of implementing all of the suggested recommendations. 

 

Mrs. Chowning referenced the $1.3 million appropriation in the budget from tire sales, asking how much of that was transferred to Washoe and Clark County Health Departments for regulation of solid waste, and how much of that solid waste was comprised of tires.  Mr. Biaggi indicated 30 percent was transferred to Clark County and 25 percent to Washoe County; there were also grants that could be allocated to local agencies to support local recycling efforts.  The recycling percentage in the state had been going down rather than up, and the division had become more aggressive in marketing the grant programs and providing assistance to increase the recycling rates within the state.  He agreed that tire fees did not relate directly to tire disposal with regard to solid waste.  Several years ago, that was decided as the equitable way to generate fees to support solid waste activities throughout the state.  Mrs. Chowning asked for a report that delineated how the dollars were being spent.  Mr. Biaggi indicated a report was presented to the legislature every year regarding recycling efforts and how the money was allocated.

 

Senator O’Donnell stated with the advent of the federal government’s deregulation of electricity, it was imperative that Nevada adapt to the posture of increasing its supply of electrical plants, specifically those plants which supplied the southern Nevada area.  He asked whether Mr. Biaggi saw a problem with approval of new generating plants in the Las Vegas valley from the Environmental Protection Agency, or were areas in the neighborhood of the Las Vegas valley appropriate for that type of plant.  Mr. Biaggi indicated there were some significant air quality concerns within the Las Vegas valley for            non-attainment of a couple of environmental quality contaminants.  There were a number of proposed power plants to be installed throughout the state, but sites in the Las Vegas valley proper were of critical concern, and would require much evaluation and analysis in order to site facilities within that particular air shed. 

 

According to Mr. Biaggi, it was much easier to site plants in areas where there was attainment, such as in the Truckee River corridor and in rural Nevada.  Senator O’Donnell felt the time line would be critical, and in order to mitigate the California problem, which was spilling over into Nevada, the state would need to produce more electricity, and would need to have plants approved quickly.  Senator O’Donnell asked whether Mr. Biaggi and his organization were ready and willing to approve plants to come on-line as quickly as possible outside the Las Vegas area.  Mr. Biaggi replied that not only was the organization ready, willing, and able, but had already made that commitment by issuing permits for new combustion turbines in the Truckee River corridor within a 60-day time frame, which was an incredible fast-track in order to get the new plants on-line.  The division was considering six very serious proposals for new power plants in Nevada, and was committed to working with the industry and other government agencies to get those permitted as quickly as possible.

 

Mrs. Cegavske stated law enforcement in Las Vegas had advised her about a large quantity of methamphetamines seized during a drug raid, which was shipped to Arizona for disposal, and she asked what cost was involved for such disposal.  Mr. Biaggi explained the state of Nevada typically did not have the budget or resources necessary to fund the disposal of methamphetamine lab waste, which was conducted at the local level.  Washoe County had been very successful in a proactive and unique way of addressing the cost of such waste disposal activities.  Clark County had also been proactive in that area, and had been working with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration in that effort.  Mr. Biaggi reported that such disposal costs were not contained within the budgets of the Division of Environmental Protection.

 

Continuing, Mr. Biaggi addressed Budget Account 3188, which supported the Bureau of Mining Regulation and Reclamation for the state of Nevada.  The bureau issued and managed 174 mining reclamation permits and 156 mining water pollution control permits.  The budget account supported 18 staff members located in Carson City.  Mr. Biaggi indicated the sole source of revenue in the budget was generated from fees placed upon the mining industry.  There were substantial challenges in the budget given low metal prices and new regulations, which had been implemented within the last month at the federal level.  Per Mr. Biaggi, there were currently 34 sites subject to bankruptcy in the state.  The division was working with federal land managers to address those sites and ensure they did not become environmental problems in the future.  On the plus side, Mr. Biaggi reported there had been no new bankruptcies in over one year.  The Division of Environmental Protection, in coordination with the industry, recently implemented an interim Fluid Management Fund to ensure that spills did not occur from mines in the event the operator abandoned the facility. 

 

Budget Account 4149 supported the operation of the State Environmental Commission, which was the regulatory adoption agency for the Division of Environmental Protection.  Mr. Biaggi explained it was a very small budget account, included no staff, and funds were primarily used for per diem for the members for travel and LCB regulatory review.  The funding for the program was via transfers from the other budget accounts within the division that were served by the commission. 

 

The next division to provide a budget review was the Division of Wildlife.  Terry Crawforth, Administrator, informed the subcommittee that the division was a 96 percent user fee-funded agency, staffed by 214 employees.  The statutory mission of the division was to protect, preserve, manage, and restore wildlife and its habitat for esthetic, scientific, educational, recreational, and economic benefits to the citizens of the state, and to promote the safety of persons using vessels on the waters of the state.  Mr. Crawforth stated he was pleased to report that since the last legislative session, the division had worked collaboratively with the Wildlife Commission and its many stakeholders to make great strides and accomplishments of the mission during a time of significant change, challenge, and opportunity.  The division was driven primarily by a comprehensive management planning process, which had at its foundation the most comprehensive public opinion survey of wildlife values ever conducted in the state. 

 

Mr. Crawforth indicated the division had methodically implemented a comprehensive strategic plan.  That plan, which included a mission statement, charter, and guiding principles, had allowed the division to move forward in the implementation of many positive programs that would benefit the wildlife resource, its habitat, and the people of the state.  Continuing, Mr. Crawforth pointed out that the division’s strategic plan was driven by lofty, but practical goals and desired outcomes.  All were based on the best interest of wildlife, habitat, and public needs and desires.  The comprehensive objectives and strategies were challenging, yet achievable. 

 

Mr. Crawforth went on to explain that while the strategic plan was crafted using a series of 22 product areas wherein the services provided to the resource, its habitats, and the stakeholders were defined, the essence of the plan could be distilled into three basic ingredients: (1) good science; (2) customer service; and, (3) employees.  Everything the division did as an agency was focused in one or more of those three areas, and Mr. Crawforth reported that a recent midterm evaluation revealed the agency had already achieved over one-half of its objectives, and the upcoming biennial budget and work plan were designed to keep the division on that successful track. 

 

Mr. Crawforth stated the division’s science and wildlife management programs were second to none, with a motivated and confident biologist force, and Nevada’s Big Game Management Program was considered a model among the nation’s wildlife agencies, as was its wildlife population estimation methodologies.  Good management, favorable climatic conditions, and hunting seasons and harvest quotas adopted by the Wildlife Commission after considering data supplied by the division, along with input from the county Wildlife Advisory Boards, were allowing Nevada’s deer, big horn sheep, mountain goat, antelope, and elk herds to expand at a consistent but realistic rate.  Mr. Crawforth cited as an example the growth realized by the elk herds because of careful thought and controlled parameters.  Elk were controversial in Nevada, however, extensive public participation in the Elk Management Program encouraged by the division, addressed the needs of sportsmen, landowners, and land management agencies.  According to Mr. Crawforth, the division’s extensive Big Game Trapping and Transporting Program was methodically yet compassionately expanding big game into a distribution of historical proportions.  The program carefully monitored herd health issues related to disease; the division was deeply concerned with the introduction and spread of diseases.   

 

Mr. Crawforth indicated that fishing in Nevada was also good, and an extensive program of fishery and species management planning in the state was setting the mark for productive and diverse fish populations throughout the state.  Naturally reproducing fish populations in the streams, rivers, lakes, and reservoirs of Nevada were augmented by the production of in excess of 1.5 million trout at four facilities throughout the state.  Per Mr. Crawforth, fishery management recommendations were made by biologists who were fully conversant and confident in the area of scientific methodologies.  Careful consideration of ecosystem values tempered each management decision.  Mr. Crawforth stated sport fishing regulations were adopted by the Board of Wildlife Commissioners after careful presentation of sound biological recommendations and public input.

 

An active upland game bird trapping and transplanting program was leading to reestablishment of that valuable component of the landscape, and Mr. Crawforth noted that chukar, mountain quail, sharp-tail grouse, and Canadian geese were species regularly trapped and transplanted throughout the state.  Rio Grande turkeys were now well established in Nevada and were providing a relatively new hunting and wildlife watching experience to the public.  Mr. Crawforth stated an extensive program of turkey introduction was possible only through a cooperative landowner agreement process that depended upon a close trust relationship between the division and the private landowner. 

 

While most states were experiencing a downward trend in hunting, fishing, and trapping, Mr. Crawforth announced that Nevada’s numbers remained stable with 234,000 licenses sold.  In the division’s zeal to develop and maintain strong big game, upland game, and fish populations for use by Nevada’s sportsmen, the division remained deeply committed to all wildlife species so critical to ecosystem health.  Mr. Crawforth indicated the biological diversity of the state was precious, and the division worked diligently to protect and enhance it.  For example, a recent cooperative effort on behalf of the Amargosa toad near Beatty prevented an Endangered Species Act listing.  The toad population was closely monitored and habitats were being conserved by the creation of partnerships between federal, state, and local governments, conservation organizations, academic institutions, and private landowners.  Mr. Crawforth noted at the same time, those species already receiving protection from an Endangered Species Act listing were being actively managed, protected and enhanced with a goal toward the species health and eventual removal from the listing. 

 

Mr. Crawforth testified that good science also characterized the division’s habitat management programs.  The devastating range fires in the Great Basin were actively countered through extensive rehabilitation efforts, which were coordinated and partially funded by the division.  Per Mr. Crawforth, range management recommendations that were good for Nevada’s wildlife were a constant product of the division’s habitat biologist.  Efforts to enhance wetlands for wildlife were ongoing through purchase of water rights, wetland development, and wildlife management areas, along with other conservation programs.  Mr. Crawforth indicated the recent collaborative purchase of a ranch in White Pine County, and an extensive public planning process for the           12 state-owned wildlife management areas would significantly enhance the wetland resources and special wildlife habitats in Nevada.  The division’s excellent relationship with Nevada’s mining industry also contributed greatly to the enduring habitat values of Nevada. 

 

The division had recently embarked on a predator management program to explore more fully the role of predators in the Nevada wildlife continuum.  Mr. Crawforth stated as a proactive measure for public safety, the division had implemented a bear awareness program for citizens living in bear country in western Nevada.  An extremely proactive program to develop a conservation plan and strategy for Nevada’s sage grouse had resulted in the most extensive cooperative effort in the state’s wildlife history, and placed Nevada in a leadership role among western states for range-wide management of that species.  Mr. Crawforth remarked that an assemblage of interested parties, organizations, and the public were crafting what should be a monumental plan for the effective management of not only sage grouse, but also other sagebrush habitat-type species in the Great Basin.  Governor Guinn had sponsored the process, which Mr. Crawforth felt would have a far reaching and positive impact on the Great Basin ecosystem, and Nevada’s economy and lifestyle.

 

Mr. Crawforth stated the division was also a partner in the Lake Tahoe Environmental Improvement Project.  While it was important for the division to focus its energies on wildlife, it was no less important for the division to focus on the needs of its customers and the citizens of the state, which was the second essential element of its operation.  Mr. Crawforth indicated in the strategic planning process, the division learned from stakeholders that they coveted two things, information about ongoing programs, and the ability to help with those programs.  Many new projects would allow such participation, and the division was enlarging its conservation, education, and outreach programs incrementally.  Recently, explained Mr. Crawforth, the division had added two new Public Information Officer positions in Las Vegas and Elko, and while each of those positions would work on local projects, they would also have statewide responsibilities. 

 

Continuing his presentation, Mr. Crawforth explained that the division produced a significant number of informational publications and regulatory pamphlets, and its newly designed hunt brochure recently won a national award for its innovative and functional format.  The division also published a seasonal almanac that was received by over 65,000 homes twice a year, and included an annual report of activities, plans, and expenditures.  Mr. Crawforth remarked that the division initiated a volunteer program, and 498 Nevadans had donated over 6,700 hours during the past year to further the cause of wildlife in the state.  Volunteers had collected native shrub seeds for range fire rehabilitation, salvaged fish from drying waterways, captured elk for transplant, stuffed boat registrations into envelopes, dealt with telephone inquiries, cleaned hatchery ponds, entered data into computers, and staffed the nature interpretive centers.  The primary value of those efforts was the commitment to Nevada’s wildlife, but there was also a monetary consideration to the state, since much of the approximately $178,000 value of that labor could be used as the state’s matching contribution toward federal funds for wildlife programs. 

 

Mr. Crawforth remarked that the Nevada Natural Heritage Program also encouraged hands-on participation in wildlife, and money collected from hunters in the division’s Big Game Tag Program was granted back to organizations to conduct projects that would benefit wildlife.   Following legislation adopted several years ago, Nevada’s game tag drawing system was contracted to a private firm and had become a model for wildlife agencies across the nation. 

 

The boat titling and registration process took only minutes, and Mr. Crawforth noted it could be handled through the mail.  The division recently added and staffed three new field offices in Ely, Winnemucca, and Henderson, to better serve its customers.  Mr. Crawforth stated recreational boating was now safer and more enjoyable thanks to educational programs, safety enforcement, navigational aids, and division launch ramp construction and renovation programs.  Boating safety officers, as well as wildlife enforcement officers were constantly commended for their helpfulness, courtesy, and professionalism, as evidenced by the recently completed customer satisfaction survey, which resulted in a 97 percent approval rate.  The division had recently expended considerable effort to enhance agency administration by adding additional staff, addressing all legislative audit recommendations, and working with the Governor’s Internal Audit Division to institute ongoing fiscal process improvements and management of license sales through 150 agents statewide.

 

Mr. Crawforth revealed that in an effort to solicit the best for its stakeholders, the division felt it was critical to provide the best for its employees.  Elements of the strategic plan had been enacted to include:

 

·        A comprehensive training program, which allowed for continuing technical and professional career development from entry level to upper management;

 

·        A new human resources section to meet personnel and administrative needs for employees;

 

·        An enhanced administrative section;

 

·        A facility renovation based on review and planned by the division’s engineer to provide safe and productive work environments;

 

·        New distinctive and practical uniforms;

 

·        Internal communications enhancements such as e-mail and newsletters;

 

·        A more efficient organizational structure, which eliminated one layer of bureaucracy and allowed for enhanced responsibilities and authority;

 

·        Improved communications;

 

·        Better delivery of services to the field; and

 

·        Reassignment of three key staff to address planning, wildlife diversity, and support services.

 

Mr. Crawforth indicated The Executive Budget for the upcoming biennium would continue the programs described, and would also accelerate and enhance those programs.  The base budget encapsulated most of the programs, and the enhancements modified or expanded those programs in addition to creation of new programs.  According to Mr. Crawforth, the division’s funding was stable, and its revenue forecasts had been accurate.  The division had been innovative in development of new funding sources, and had maintained appropriate reserves in all budget accounts. 

 

Based on the strategic plan, the division had developed a list of projects to meet its goals and objectives.  Mr. Crawforth stated each project was typically a multidisciplinary endeavor, oftentimes envisioned and developed by groups of field biologists and game wardens.  One such proposal called for a camp to be established at a popular hunting location where wardens, biologists, and volunteers would share duties to maintain the camp and offer assistance to hunters.  Mr. Crawforth further explained that another project would place small radio transmitters in Bull Trout in the Jarbidge River to determine migratory habits of that threatened fish.  Customer satisfaction of the boat registration process would be ascertained through a questionnaire survey in yet another identified project. 

 

Mr. Crawforth stated that all projects were rated by how they fit into the strategic plan model.  Some submissions were rejected because they did not fit the objectives, and others were shelved due to lack of resources.  Large projects that could not be put off any longer included: a new license and boat registration system; a hatchery refurbishment program; the networking of the division’s computer systems; a new uniform voucher system; and renovation of the division’s aging facilities. 

 

The division was requesting six new positions to help implement the programs. Mr. Crawforth acknowledged that the division’s Web site, presently managed as a “side duty” by the Publications Editor, was currently one of the most popular sites in state service, with an average of 5,500 “hits” per day.  The budget requested a Web site manager position, to administer that valuable asset and further enhance its utility.  That position would also serve as a statewide Public Information Officer to enhance the division’s public relations.  Other positions requested included a Network Administrator, an Engineering Assistant, a Radio Dispatcher, a Wildlife Technician, and a Boat Registration Program Officer.  Mr. Crawforth indicated all requested new positions were crafted to enhance the division’s goals of good science, customer service, and valuing personnel.

 

Mr. Crawforth noted that all four of the division’s budget accounts were balanced, with the remaining amounts balanced forward; adequate operating reserves had been projected and incorporated into all budget requests to ensure financial viability and stability.  The budget requests were built and submitted to comply with programmatic needs.  Mr. Crawforth stated the division was requesting the transfer of excess mining assessment revenue, over and above that required to actually fund the mining program, to Budget Account 4458, Wildlife Obligated Reserve, in order to allow for the mining industry and the division to work together to delineate public supported projects.

 

Chairman Arberry asked about Budget Account 4454, Wildlife Account - Trout Management, which did not reflect increases in the Trout Stamp.  Mr. Crawforth replied that the division was involved in many processes concerning its hatcheries, and indicated the bonds on the fish hatchery in Mason Valley were paid.  The other three facilities at Lake Mead, Ruby Valley, and near Baker, Nevada, were literally falling down, and the division was concerned it would lose a production year at one of those facilities.  The division had presented legislation that would allow the Board of Wildlife Commissioners to establish the fee for the Trout Stamp.  Mr. Crawforth stated the division had developed a significant program for a multi-year project in the neighborhood of $20 million, and would propose funding via bond sales over a course of years, which would be paid in full with Trout Stamp revenue.  The division was currently assessing public attitudes to that proposal through the Wildlife Commission, and a portion of the hatchery renovation project on the Capital Improvement Project list.  Chairman Arberry inquired whether a BDR had been submitted to deal with the renovation program.  Mr. Crawforth explained a BDR concerning the Trout Stamp had been submitted.

 

Senator Raggio asked about the amount of the unobligated reserve in the division’s budget.  Mr. Crawforth indicated it was somewhere in the vicinity of $5 million.  Senator Raggio stated if the budget was approved, the unobligated reserve would be down to $1 million at the end of FY2003, and asked whether that caused concern.  Mr. Crawforth noted that part of the reason for that reserve was for payment of salary increase costs, and the division had built a certain amount of money in the reserve for that eventuality.  The division’s goal had always been to maintain a reserve of approximately 10 percent of annual revenues, and the balance would come close to that figure.  Eventually, the division might have to approach the legislature for fee increases, which had not happened in approximately ten years.   Senator Raggio inquired whether the only fee increase currently being sought was for the Trout Stamp; Mr. Crawforth replied in the affirmative.

 

Mr. Beers pointed out that there had been previous discussion regarding alignment of agency Webmasters with the various public information offices rather than with technology offices, which he felt was the proper method to structure the Webmaster. 

 

Senator Jacobsen asked for a rundown on the status of wildlife, i.e., mountain lions, and also comments regarding the fire season.  Mr. Crawforth stated that with the drought experienced in late 1980, coupled with the severe winter of 1992/1993, Nevada had experienced some serious declines in wildlife populations, especially big game.  Since that time, until the past year, the state had experienced very mild but wet years, which was good for wildlife and fishery resources.  Mr. Crawforth indicated the division was concerned because the past one and one-half years had been fairly dry, and the long-term impact of that dryness would be fires.  The division was reviewing the possibility of expending substantial efforts and funds to rehabilitate ranges and develop programs that would protect the existing habitats which had not yet burned.  For the short-term, the situation was good, however, long-term projections would be relative to climatic conditions and the division’s management. 

 

Mr. Crawforth reported there had been concern regarding the predator-to-prey relationship in the state, and the division had instituted a Predator Management Program in the state in an attempt to address management of the entire ecosystem.  According to Mr. Crawforth, there were less mountain lions in the state today than there were six or eight years ago, however, he felt the statewide population was good.  Senator Jacobsen then inquired whether the game management boards were all active.  Mr. Crawforth indicated it would depend on the issues, and about two-thirds of the Wildlife Advisory Boards were very active, and the division was working with the commission to promote active local input.  The division was planning on sponsoring a county Wildlife Advisory Board workshop within the next few months. 

 

The next division to present its budget was the Division of State Parks.  Wayne Perock, Administrator, explained the intent of the division, as outlined in NRS 407.013, was to acquire, protect, develop, and interpret a well-balanced system of areas of outstanding scenic, recreational, scientific, and of historic importance for the inspiration, use, and enjoyment of the people of the state, and that such areas be held in trust.  Mr. Perock believed the division had accomplished that intent, and referenced the brochure entitled, “Nevada State Parks,” Exhibit G, which depicted each of the 24 park areas currently managed by the division.  Contained in those 24 areas were approximately 131,000 acres.  Mr. Perock stated the division catered to approximately 3.5 million persons a year, and that visitation generated about $1.9 million in revenues.   

 

Budget Account 4162 included 95 full-time positions and approximately 140 seasonal positions.  Mr. Perock noted that in The Executive Budget, the division was requesting five additional permanent positions, along with associated equipment, operating costs, et cetera.  One requested position was for a Management Assistant I at the Valley of Fire State Park, to help with clerical and other duties, which would relieve the ranger staff to complete functions within their classification.  Mr. Perock noted that visitation at the Valley of Fire State Park had increased 46 percent from approximately 291,000 in 1996 to over 427,000 in 1999, which was attributed to the continuing growth in Clark County.  The park had, in recent years, become the division’s number one revenue generator at approximately $500,000 over the past year. 

 

The division would also ask for a Management Assistant I position at Lake Tahoe, again to assist with bookkeeping, fee collection, and accounting, thereby allowing the rangers to devote time to visitor services, law enforcement, and fee collection compliance.  Mr. Perock stated both positions would improve fee collection compliance.  A Park Ranger II position was requested for Lake Tahoe, which Mr. Perock explained was the most heavily visited park in the state with well over one million visitors per year.  The ranger position would be located at Sand Harbor, which was comprised of 52 acres, and was the most-visited acreage in the division. 

 

Per Mr. Perock, a Park Ranger Technician position was being requested at Rye Patch State Park, a second permanent employee to assist the Park Supervisor.  At least 80 percent of the salary for that position would be paid through increased fee compliance and collection.  Mr. Perock stated there were approximately three months of the year when the division had no presence in the park, and a second permanent position would allow seven-day-a-week coverage throughout the year.  The last position requested was a maintenance repair worker in the Elko region, which would be the second maintenance position in that region.  The proposed maintenance position was needed to assist the existing maintenance position responsible for maintenance, renovation and repairs in the two parks in that region.  Mr. Perock pointed out that maintenance caseloads had increased, and many projects were currently contracted out due to staff limitations.  That position’s salary could be partially funded via fee increases.

 

Ms. Cegavske inquired whether there was a full-time ranger in residence at the Sand Harbor Park.  Mr. Perock explained the park supervisor and one ranger were assigned as full-time resident employees. 

 

Senator Raggio asked whether a fee was charged at all state parks.  Mr. Perock replied that the division charged a fee in most areas, however, there were areas where it was not economically feasible, such as Walker Lake, and fee collection depended on the logistics of entrance.  Senator Raggio asked about typical fee charges, along with annual fee charges.  Mr. Perock indicated the park fees were charged on a daily basis, with entrance fees plus fees for boat launch, and additional fees for units that accommodated camping.  The division offered annual permits, which were park-specific, and people could purchase those for use of a specific area during one calendar year.  There was no permit that covered the use of all state parks.  Senator Raggio requested information regarding coordination of the yearly Shakespeare Festival at Sand Harbor.  Mr. Perock stated the division had a 20-year contract with the festival to conduct the event each summer, and the park realized a profit of a $1,000 nightly fee per event.  The festival ran approximately four consecutive weeks beginning in July.  Senator Raggio asked about the funding for the improved facilities.  Mr. Perock explained the Tahoe Shakespeare Festival was a non-profit organization, which held fund-raising campaigns to pay for the stage. 

 

Mr. Perock next addressed one-shot appropriations, which were contained in Exhibit F.  The replacement equipment requested was essential to operate and manage the state parks’ resources and facilities.  The priority list included six replacement vehicles, one used motor grader, one dump truck, six desktop personal computers, ten printers, a laptop computer, and miscellaneous small equipment.  The exhibit contained a complete list by priority, along with cost estimates.  Mr. Perock stated the new equipment request was for one Cisco Router for the Carson City office.  The request for park maintenance and project needs totaled over $700,000, and would provide field staff with materials and labor to complete the highest priority items identified by Buildings and Grounds for maintenance throughout the state.  Approximately $122,000 would be funded via tourism room tax monies.  Mr. Perock next addressed the one-shot request to purchase radio equipment to allow continued or improved access with Nevada Highway Patrol statewide dispatch. That request included 36 mobile radios, 42 portable radios, one programming module, test components, and one set of manuals.  

 

Senator Raggio commented that the $537,000 recommended appropriation to replace vehicles also included radios compatible with the VHF highband radio system, and inquired about a possible funding overlap.  Mr. Perock stated there was an error in budget preparation regarding the replacement vehicle radios, and the Budget Office and LCB staff had been notified of that error.

 

Continuing, Mr. Perock noted there were really no major changes included in The Executive Budget, and the State Parks Division program was basically the same with the exception of the Tahoe Initiative.  During the last session of the legislature, the division was involved in the Environmental Improvement Program at Lake Tahoe, with positions and equipment funded via the Air Quality Fund. During the upcoming biennium, a portion would be funded via the General Fund, with approximately $30,000 funded by the State Lands’ Tahoe License Plate Fund. 

 

Mr. Perock next addressed the Park Improvement Program, a $1.5 million General Fund appropriation, which would provide an opportunity for the division to work on the first 14 priorities on the park improvement priority list (Exhibit F).  Mr. Perock indicated Steve Weaver, Chief of Planning and Development, would address those projects and funding.

 

Mr. Weaver reiterated there were 14 projects in the Park Improvement Program’s budget, totaling just over $3.2 million and of that amount, $1.5 million was a General Fund appropriation request, an additional $263,000 was dependent upon Commission on Tourism room tax funds, and the balance of approximately $1.2 million consisted of federal grants:

 

• The Land and Water Conservation Fund, $863,000;

 

• Bureau of Reclamation, $280,000;

 

• Federal Highway Administration, Transportation Enhancement Program, $300,000.

 

Mr. Weaver stated only two projects were entirely dependent upon General Fund dollars, and two would be funded entirely by room tax dollars.  One-half of the projects would depend upon the 50 percent matching grant from the Federal Land and Water Program, which the division fully expected to be available throughout the biennium, as the program had been reinstated by the federal government.

 

Mr. Hettrick inquired about the possibility of securing the one-acre plot next to the Mormon Station State Park, which would be on the market soon, and would be a tremendous asset to the park for additional parking and facilities.  Mr. Perock advised that the division had addressed the possibility of acquisition of that property via its priority list of potential acquisitions, however, no funding source existed at the present time.  Possibly future land and water conservation could partially fund that purchase.  Mr. Weaver indicated the American Land Trust had expressed an interest in the sale on a temporary basis, providing the state was amenable to repayment at some time in the future.  However, he reiterated the land purchase was not included in the division’s current budget.  Mr. Hettrick stated the selling price on the one-acre parcel was $499,000, however, he felt that price could be reduced, and he hoped the division would pursue possibilities of purchasing that parcel.

 

Senator Jacobsen asked for a report on the Dangberg and Park properties in Douglas County.  Mr. Perock indicated the division was involved in continuing litigation regarding those properties.  Senator Jacobsen then inquired whether there was a possibility for development of a video that depicted all 24 state parks.  Mr. Perock indicated the division would have a display in the lobby of the Legislative Building during one week of the 2001 session, and would present an overhead presentation regarding the parks during future subcommittee meetings.  The division did not have a video, and discussed that possibility with a non-profit fringe group.  The price to produce such a video was quoted as between $30,000 to $40,000, which was more than the non-profit group could afford.  Senator Jacobsen informed the subcommittee that he had taken a trip through the parks located in the eastern part of the state with Mr. Perock’s guidance, and felt the state did little to “sell” the beauty of its parks. 

 

Mr. Weaver then addressed the potential use for the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund, and explained the program was reinstated last year.  It was a 50:50 federal matching program and most parks or outdoor recreation facilities were eligible for those federal funds.  Mr. Weaver indicated for a number of years there were no state-site federal land and water funds available, and during the current fiscal year, the state of Nevada would have access to just over $1 million.  Up to half of that appropriation could be used for state parks, and the division had utilized $521,685.  The division anticipated an equal or slightly larger distribution over the upcoming biennium.  Because of Nevada’s population growth, it could realize an increase in the allocation from that federal program.

 

Mrs. de Braga inquired whether the renovation at Buckland Station was included in the division’s budget.  Mr. Weaver indicated the division had already approved a second phase program for interior renovation of the facility through a grant from the Federal Highway Administration’s Transportation Enhancement Program in the amount of approximately $500,000.  Mrs. de Braga then inquired whether the station was connected via land to Lahontan Lake.  Mr. Weaver advised that on the south side of the Carson River, there was continuous state ownership from Fort Churchill to Lahontan Lake. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked how many parks were handicapped accessible.  Mr. Perock stated the division had been working closely with the Public Works Board to address those needs.  Projects had been completed in virtually all of the parks, with continued work anticipated in Lincoln County.  Mr. Perock felt the division had sufficiently addressed that issue. 

 

Presenting the next budget overview was Hugh Ricci, State Engineer, Division of Water Resources.  Mr. Ricci explained his division’s budget was extremely simple, contained only one budget account, and requested no increase above the current 59.5 positions.  The budget also requested no increases in programs or fees.  Mr. Ricci stated the proposed budget contained in The Executive Budget was reflective of the needs of the division in order to meets its mission to preserve, protect, manage, and enhance the state’s water resources for Nevada citizens through the appropriation and reallocation of water. 

 

Mr. Ricci indicated the maintenance items, along with new and replacement equipment requests, were self-explanatory.  To clarify the personnel area, Mr. Ricci noted that as a result of the dissolution of the Division of Water Planning, there were three staff members assigned to the Division of Water Resources, which involved a transfer from Budget Account 4161 to Budget Account 4171. The personnel figures in Budget Account 4171 would reflect those three additional positions, which were over and above the 59.5 aforementioned positions.  Mr. Ricci explained those positions were:

 

• Professional Staff Engineer III, related to water planning functions;

 

• Program Officer II, related to the Flood Management Program; and,

 

• Program Assistant III, to act as support staff for those positions. 

 

According to Mr. Ricci, also transferred to Budget Account 4171 were the attendant costs associated with travel, operating expenses, and training.

 

Mr. Marvel asked whether the division was experiencing trouble retaining its engineers.  Mr. Ricci replied that the division had experienced some problems in that area.  One problem was the salary scale, which would be addressed in the overall department budget request for additional grades for those employees who had reached the maximum grade and step, plus an additional upward adjustment of 10 percent in the engineering series.  Mr. Ricci noted that many of the younger engineers used the division for training for the professional engineer examination, and then secured higher paying positions.  Mr. Ricci felt The Executive Budget would address that issue.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked why the Division of Water Planning had been eliminated.  Electing to respond was Mr. Turnipseed, who explained the Division of Water Planning had not actually been eliminated; the water plan was finished, it had been accepted by the 1999 legislature, and won national awards.  Three members of the original division’s staff had transferred to the Division of Water Resources with the idea that the State Engineer would initiate planning teams.  The position responsible for the grant program for small water systems fit ideally within the Health Division’s revolving fund for safe drinking water, and the plan was to move that position and attendant funding to the Health Division’s budget via a BDR.  Mr. Turnipseed clarified that his department would retain the personnel from the Walker River team, the Advisory Board for Water Planning, and the Natural Resource planning position.  According to Mr. Turnipseed, the remaining positions in the Division of Water Planning had been transferred to other divisions. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether the rearrangement was envisioned prior to the end of last session and why it had not been discussed with the legislature at that time.  Mr. Turnipseed replied that the action was taken in part because of his appointment to the position of Director of the department, and in part because of the Governor’s suggestion for “flat” budgets. 

 

Mr. Turnipseed further explained: 

 

• The Southern Nevada Water Authority had its water resources planned out to the year 2050;

 

• White Pine County had devised a water plan;

 

• Elko County was in the process of developing a water plan;

 

• Carson City had its water planned to complete build-out;

 

• Washoe County, Reno, and Sparks had the Regional Water Board, and would become the water purveyor in that area because of the take-over of the Sierra Pacific Power Company system; 

 

• Eureka, Lander, Pershing, and Humboldt Counties would review a proposed water plan from the Humboldt River Basin Water Authority. 

 

Mr. Turnipseed indicated there was no need for continuation of the Water Planning Division beyond the recommendations contained in the original water plan, which would be used as a guide for counties in producing local water plans.  Many duties of the State Engineer fit into the category of water planning, i.e., designation of a base for preferred uses. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani inquired whether there would be plans or discussions regarding the damming of Nevada’s rivers in conjunction with the ongoing federal debate.  Mr. Turnipseed indicated the controversial dams were the four lower dams on the Snake River, because of the migration of salmon upstream.  Nevada had no salmon, and no dams that were used for hydropower.  Mr. Turnipseed reported there was a vast interest in development of additional power resources in Nevada, be it coal-fired, gas-fired, geothermal, et cetera.  The Governor promoted construction of efficient power plants so that the state would no longer be a net importer of power, but rather a net exporter.  The department and the Governor were dealing with many energy companies regarding the available resources in Nevada. 

 

Mr. Goldwater noted that one position eliminated within the Division of Water Planning was created by the legislature in approximately 1997 in response to flood conditions.  That position was Flood Plain Management Coordinator, which had procured several thousand dollars in grant funds.  Mr. Goldwater asked where that position had been absorbed.  Mr. Turnipseed explained that the position still existed, and was transferred to the State Engineer’s Office, where flood management functions originally existed.  Mr. Goldwater inquired about the status of the grant monies.  Mr. Turnipseed replied grant monies were still available.  Mr. Ricci disclosed that the division was in the process of issuing the first Flood Management Program Planning Grant to Washoe County, which would partially fund the overall flood management plan for the entire Truckee Meadows area.  The general consensus of what that plan should entail was prepared by the Truckee Meadows Flood Management Coalition.  The coalition’s plan would be somewhat different from the Corps of Engineers plan which was proposed several years ago.  The flood insurance program would still continue through Mr. Ricci’s office. 

 

Senator Coffin asked about beautification projects on the Truckee River through downtown Reno.  Mr. Ricci reiterated that the aforementioned coalition’s plan would develop an alternative to the original plan to build 15-foot high walls through Reno, which would present a problem downstream. 

 

Testifying next before the subcommittee was Steve Robinson, Nevada State Forester Fire Warden, Division of Forestry, and Jennifer Kizer, Administrative Services Officer.  Mr. Robinson declared that the Division of Forestry managed and coordinated all forestry, nursery, endangered plant species, and watershed resource activities on certain public, state, and private lands.  The division was also responsible for protecting property and natural resources through fire protection, prevention, suppression, and supplied other emergency services.  Mr. Robinson explained that the division also provided assistance to county and local fire districts, adopted and enforced fire prevention regulations, which included fire retardant roofing under NRS 472.100.  Mr. Robinson stated the division provided direct protection and management to lands and improvements within fire districts that received federal funds under Revised Public Law 95-313 that covered almost 9 million acres of forest and watershed throughout Nevada.  Natural resource management programs included: (1) cooperative forestry management; (2) rural fire protection; (3) resources rehabilitation; and, (4) tree and insect disease control programs. 

Mr. Robinson conveyed that technical services provided to landowners through the division’s Resource Management Section included technical forestry assistance, disturbed site rehabilitation, invasive species control, tree planting, cost-share grants, and assistance to communities throughout the rural counties.  The division was presenting a “status quo” budget, which included a request for one new position for consolidated air operations, which the division shared with the Division of Wildlife.  That position would be funded 25 percent by the Division of Wildlife and 75 percent from the General Fund. 

 

Mr. Robinson indicated the budget also increased the amount of cost allocated to the county fire protection districts for administration.  During the last session, $230,000 was assessed to the counties.  The division hired a private firm to complete a cost allocation study with the objective to determine what administrative expenses could be allocated to the county fire protection districts, and how those expenses should be allocated to each county.  Mr. Robinson reported the chosen firm completed the study to determine the most equitable cost allocation.  Based on the current year’s budget, the study determined that the allocation should be $586,000, an increase of $356,000 in expenses for the county allocation.  Because of that significant increase, particularly to Eureka, White Pine, and Elko counties, the division requested the elimination of the allocation for dispatchers and mechanics, which reduced the increase to $112,000 over the existing $230,000 allocated as assessment to the county fire districts.  The cost allocation plan was provided to each of the participating county fire districts, Washoe, Douglas, Carson City, Storey, Clark, Elko, White Pine, and Eureka, for review.  Mr. Robinson indicated a public meeting was held to discuss the plan. 

 

Mr. Robinson reported that in the Forest Fire Suppression Budget Account, there were no increases requested.  The $1 million General Fund appropriation remained the same, however, it did include a $39,698 one-shot appropriation request.  In the Forestry Conservation Camp Program, no additional funds were requested, with the exception of equipment, which would be covered in the one-shot appropriation.  The County Fire Protection District budget reflected      a change under the intergovernmental agreements provided for seasonal and full-time fire suppression personnel.  Mr. Robinson stated that would be used in infrastructure and to protect the public from wildfires and other emergencies within the districts, along with initial response to fires or other emergencies that threatened human life.  The budget was funded via assessments from a variety of counties and approved by local governments annually.

 

Mr. Robinson pointed out that each year the Division of Forestry submitted a budget to each county protection fire district in accordance with revenue projections.  Budget hearings for each county were conducted during the month of May, and the final approved budgets were due from the counties by June.  Once the division had received the final county-approved budgets, a work program was completed and submitted to the IFC. 

 

Per Mr. Robinson, a request to transfer federal revenue of $60,000 used to hire seasonal firefighters from the Forestry Intergovernmental Account into Budget Account 4195 would facilitate the removal of the Forestry Intergovernmental Account from The Executive Budget.  The Forestry Nursery Account combined the Las Vegas and Washoe County nurseries into one category, i.e., Forestry Nurseries.  Mr. Robinson stated that category included operating expenditures for both nurseries. 

 

 

Under one-shot appropriations, Mr. Robinson indicated The Executive Budget included $18,000 to purchase radios statewide for the division’s law enforcement positions, in order to communicate with the Highway Patrol Dispatch; $432,000 for equipment for forestry administration and the honor camps; and, $39,000 under wildfire suppression, mainly for a fire crew at the Caliente Youth Center.

 

Mr. Robinson reported that the division was audited by the Internal Audit Division last year in its Forest Fire Suppression Budget Account, which focused on the efficiency and effectiveness of fire suppression activities.  On August 29, 2000, a report containing those findings, conclusions, recommendation, and the division’s response was presented to the members of the Executive Branch Audit Committee.  Mr. Robinson indicated the division was also required to provide a recent status report, which would be evaluated by the Internal Audit Division, and was also required to present a six-month report to the Executive Branch Audit Committee. 

 

Mr. Marvel asked about the funding due the state of Nevada from the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service for fire suppression.   Mr. Robinson disclosed there was approximately $1 million outstanding, which should be received within approximately three to six months. 

 

Mr. Dini asked for clarification regarding the removal of the Forestry Intergovernmental Account from the division’s budget.  He related that Storey County had previously experienced some problems, which were solved via use of that account.  Mr. Robinson indicated he felt it was based on an accounting judgment.  Mr. Dini suggested that perhaps during future subcommittee hearings, the matter could be more thoroughly reviewed.

 

Mr. Hataway informed the subcommittee that the Budget Division had conducted a comprehensive review of all budget accounts created in the state, and those that had specific statutory authority and a separate funding stream were not included in The Executive Budget.  The Budget Division had worked with LCB staff in that endeavor, and a number of budget accounts were impacted.  Mr. Hataway noted that the legislature could request a status of any budget account at any time, and the Budget Division would provide a report.  Basically, he stated, that action allowed The Executive Budget to focus on those accounts which required separate appropriations and allocations.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked about administrative support for the counties, and stated it appeared expenses for dispatchers and mechanics were excluded, which would create a budget impact on the counties.  Mr. Robinson stated he felt that decision was made to simplify the budget.  Ms. Giunchigliani referenced a letter dated November 8, 2000, from the Elko County Board of County Commissioners, Exhibit H, which delineated the concerns regarding the cost allocation.  Mr. Robinson stated he had been contacted by the Nevada Association of Counties (NACO) to voice its concern.  Ms. Giunchigliani stated the argument seemed to be that the change was being done for simplicity, and to create a “pure” budget.  Mr. Robinson felt the change was done to provide a rationale for the charges assessed to the counties.  There had not been a substantive basis for the charges, and the study team had been brought in to determine, on an accounting basis, some rationale for charges to the various counties.  That team reviewed all the positions which served the counties, including the headquarter office.  Ms. Giunchigliani stated it appeared the counties were arguing that the study did not treat them equitably, which would cause an additional burden on local government budgets.  Ms. Giunchigliani felt the subcommittee should review the process at a later date.

Pamela Wilcox, Administrator, Division of State Lands and Division of Conservation Districts, and the Executive Officer of the Nevada-Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, indicated she would present all three budgets to the subcommittee.  Beginning with the Division of State Lands, Budget Account 4173, Ms. Wilcox explained the mission of the division was multiple, and the State Land Office was responsible for holding title to the state’s land.  That office bought land for the state, sold land that was excess to the state’s needs, issued leases, easements, permits, provided technical land support to state agencies that managed those lands, and provided information and support to the public.  According to the NRS, the State Land Office also managed lands that were not assigned to other agencies, i.e., the state’s remaining school trust lands, the submerged or sovereign lands that were under navigable bodies of water, and the sensitive lands that the state had acquired at Lake Tahoe.  Ms. Wilcox indicated the State Land Office also provided archival service for all of the state’s land records, and had maintained those records since statehood, providing information on a daily basis to title companies and others who needed to research land records.

 

Ms. Wilcox reported the division also included the state’s Land Use Planning Assistance Program, which was created during the 1970s to perform a variety of functions.  One function was to provide technical land use planning assistance to local units of government, with one planner position devoted to that program on a full-time basis.  Ms. Wilcox reported that the program had, over the years, assisted most of the rural counties with development of master plans, zoning ordinances and zoning maps, subdivision ordinances, training for planning commissioners, or any service that could be provided related to land use planning.  It was a very valuable program in rural Nevada where, typically, no planning staff existed.  Ms. Wilcox indicated the Federal Lands Program covered a variety of programs related to federal lands and planning, which involved identification of lands the federal government wanted removed from federal ownership.  Ms. Wilcox related that division, via the Federal Lands Program, had been involved in a variety of federal land issues and were at the present time engaged in an update of the public land policy plans first developed by the 1983 legislature. 

 

The state’s Nevada Tahoe Resource team oversaw a variety of duties related to Lake Tahoe, and Ms. Wilcox remarked that Nevada had acquired sensitive land in the Tahoe Basin under the Tahoe Bond Act of 1986.  The state also funded a variety of environmental improvement programs at Lake Tahoe.  Ms. Wilcox testified that since the 1997 presidential visit to Lake Tahoe, the agency had been coordinating the state’s environmental improvement program, including an interagency team.  Ms. Wilcox explained there were eight persons co-located in one office from four divisions within the Department of Conservation, i.e., a forester from the Division of Forestry; a recreational specialist from the Division of State Parks; a wildlife biologist from the Division of Wildlife, and a variety of persons from the Division of State Lands, all working together to carry out the state’s obligations at Lake Tahoe. 

 

Ms. Wilcox referenced Exhibit I, a report on the Tahoe Environmental Improvement Program, which she reviewed for the subcommittee.  The exhibit contained a chart that summarized the environmental improvement program agreed upon by the participants in the 1997 presidential forum.  The program totaled approximately $908 million, and Nevada’s share was $82 million, or 9 percent of the total.  The exhibit contained information regarding the project breakdown among State Lands, the Nevada Department of Transportation, the Division of State Parks, and the Division of Wildlife.  Ms. Wilcox stated in addition, the Division of Forestry played a major role in working on forestry projects, the State Historic Preservation Office was involved in protecting cultural resources, and the State Energy Office was also involved. 

 

Contained in the exhibit was a funding map which delineated the sources of funding used to arrive at the $82 million figure.  Ms. Wilcox noted the program had already committed $5.6 million at the time the forum was held in 1997, along with a $20 million allocation from the 1996 Tahoe Bond Act.  The Fund to Protect Lake Tahoe established by the 1999 legislature provided the bulk of the funding, and the Lake Tahoe License Plate Program also provided a portion of the funding.  Any monies realized from the various programs would reduce the match from the state to the Fund to Protect Lake Tahoe.

 

Ms. Wilcox referenced the list of approved projects under the $20 million   1996 Bond Act contained in Exhibit J, and noted that the approved and pending projects together would utilize the entire funding amount.  Also included was a list of projects funded over the current biennium from the Fund to Protect Lake Tahoe.  The exhibit contained a listing of grants awarded under the Lake Tahoe License Plate Program, which Ms. Wilcox stated had been very successful, with $366,629 awarded.  Applications had been received for an additional $860,000 in grant awards, which had been reviewed by a technical advisory team, with recommendation for approval of an additional $350,000 in grant awards.  Included in the exhibit was a summary of bond funds requested for the upcoming biennium in both state and non-state projects. 

 

Ms. Wilcox indicated the budget for the State Lands Division was a “flat” budget and supported the current staffing level of 17 positions and a seasonal forester; the budget requested no new programs, no new positions, no one-shot appropriations, and no supplemental appropriations.  The budget for the Division of Conservation Districts included no changes, with the exception of the grants to conservation districts, which were included in the base budget, and Ms. Wilcox noted that the Dayton Conservation District had been added as district number 28.  The Nevada Tahoe Regional Planning Agency budget was also a “flat” budget.

 

Testifying next was Glenn Clemmer, Program Manager, Nevada Natural Heritage Program, who stated the program was charged with the systematic collection of information on the occurrences, distribution, and population status of all sensitive species in Nevada.  Mr. Clemmer referenced Exhibit J, entitled, “Nevada Natural Heritage Program – Scorecard 2000,” which provided an idea of how the program set priorities across the state that dealt with sensitive species.  The budget for the program contained one new staff person, previously approved via the IFC in November 2000.  Mr. Clemmer noted that there were only routine maintenance and in- and out-of-state travel increases reflected in the budget.  According to Mr. Clemmer, he believed the program could continue to be an effective and cost-efficient means to track diversity across the state.

 

Catherine Barcomb, Administrator, Commission for the Preservation of Wild Horses, introduced the Chairman of the Commission, Frank Cassas, to the subcommittee, and noted that, in essence, the budget remained the same with one enhancement.  Ms. Barcomb stated the BLM retained the jurisdiction and authority to manage wild horses and burros in the state of Nevada, and the primary duties of the commission were to preserve viable herds of wild horses on public lands in Nevada. The commission served as an advocate for those horses through participation with federal agencies to ensure that sufficient habitat was available, and participated in programs designed to encourage and promote the protection and adoption of wild horses.

Mr. Cassas stated a crisis existed regarding the number of wild horses currently on the range, which presented significant problems for the health of the range itself and the health of the horses.  The BLM’s current budget requested $38 million in additional funding to address the current number of wild horses, and a significant portion of that money would be allocated to the state of Nevada.  Mr. Cassas indicated the majority of the wild horses under the jurisdiction of the BLM were located within the state of Nevada.  The commission concluded that in order to have an effective plan which would put the wild horse population in balance with the range, a significant number of horses would have to be removed from the range.  That presented formidable problems for the federal government and the state.  Mr. Cassas felt the question was whether there was a mechanism which would allow the state to assist the government in solving the problem.  Because the wild horses were under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government, there was not much action the states could take.  Mr. Cassas explained there were two significant programs the state could initiate:  (1) Establishment of a private, charitable foundation to work with the BLM; and, (2) Establishment of a program through the state prison system to assist with the gentling and training of horses, Exhibit K. 

 

The legislature had charged the commission with development of a Nevada Wild Horse Plan, and Mr. Cassas explained after extensive travel throughout the state, and with much input from the public, a plan was developed and submitted.  One of the most significant recommendations made by the commission was the creation of a private charitable foundation.  The funds were allocated last session for the commission to hire consultants to conduct the feasibility study.  The commission had created a joint study group with the BLM and hired a consultant.  Mr. Cassas indicated the commission was now at the point of implementation of the recommendations from the feasibility study.  The creation of the charitable foundation would require significant seed money, and it was hoped the foundation could be operational within a period of two years.  According to Mr. Cassas, the commission estimated the amount of $800,000 was needed as seed money, with half of that amount, $400,000, funded by the BLM.  The project had received approval at the highest levels of the Department of the Interior.  The final step in the process was allocation of the $200,000 per year matching seed money from the state.  The commission would recommend that the funds be allocated from the Heil Wild Horse Bequest, which it felt would be within the spirit and intent of that Bequest.

 

Mr. Cassas concluded that the two steps were very significant, probably the most significant steps taken by the state of Nevada to assist with the wild horse problem.  The problem needed to be solved, and the state was being offered an opportunity to “step up to the plate,” and make a significant contribution along with the federal government.  Senator Neal asked how much money remained in the Heil Bequest.  Mr. Cassas stated it was just over $1.1 million.  Senator Neal then inquired what amount the commission was purporting to remove, and in what form.  Mr. Cassas replied the amount would be a total of $400,000 in principle funds.  Mr. Cassas further explained that the commission would be required to operate under some type of “sunset provision,” and at a reduced funding level.  Senator Neal inquired about the life of the Bequest.  Electing to respond was Ms. Barcomb, who indicated the demise of the commission would occur in approximately 10 to 12 years.  Senator Neal asked what would happen at the end of that time period.  Ms. Barcomb explained the commission was created in 1985, and the federal Wild Horse and Burro Act was created in 1971.  According to Ms. Barcomb, the Bequest was established in the early 1970s, when Leo Heil left the balance of his estate to the state of Nevada for the protection and preservation of wild horses.  The commission was not established until the 1985 legislature, and Ms. Barcomb noted the money simply sat in the State Treasury until that time. 

 

Mrs. de Braga felt the prison wild horse program was very worthwhile, however, if it was expanded, the state should have some assurances that the program would be very carefully managed.  Mrs. de Braga requested a breakdown of how the funds from the Bequest would be applied, because the NDOP budget also included a request for additional funding for that program.  The legislature needed a breakdown of costs to the Bequest. 

 

Howard Skolnik, Assistant Director, Prison Industries, NDOP, advised the subcommittee that the wild horse program at the NDOP would be operated under the auspices of the Prison Industries Program.  The program experienced approximately a $130,000 negative cash flow during the first year of operation of the holding facilities.  Mr. Skolnik indicated that would be more than covered by the $200,000 allocation.  During the second year, the program anticipated as much as $30,000 net for the overall first two years.  The income would be secured from the BLM, based on a minimum of $2.50 per day per horse for 400 horses that would be held at the facility, as depicted in Exhibit K. 

 

With no further comments regarding the Heil Wild Horse Bequest, the hearing was closed. 

 

Testifying next before the subcommittee was Mr. Turnipseed, who reviewed the remaining issues in the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources budget overview.

 

Mr. Turnipseed stated the legislature had passed S.B. 485 of the Seventieth Session, which limited an inmate clerk’s access to sensitive and/or confidential material.  Since inmate clerks were working in the department’s accounting section at that time, it was determined by the NDOP that they were handling confidential material, and the positions were eliminated.  Mr. Turnipseed indicated the budget included two account clerk positions to replace the eliminated inmate clerk positions.  The department budget also included a one-shot appropriation for the Truckee River Operating Agreement, to maintain the administrator position for that agreement for a two-year period.  The supplemental appropriation included in the budget would finance the preceding director’s retirement costs. 

 

Testifying next was Stephanie Licht, who advised the subcommittee she represented Elko County.  She referenced Exhibit H, the letter from Elko County, and noted the county had been in partnership with the Nevada Division of Forestry program since approximately 1965.  The cost allocation process excluded those counties that had been in that cooperative planning, and there was concern that the cost allocation plan would have to be incorporated into the county’s base budget, which was causing some funding problems.

 

Andrew List, representing NACO, stated he had been in contact with various counties throughout the state, and also noted there was concern regarding the amount of money added to the county base budgets, which had been drastically slashed over past years due to the downturn of local economies.

 

Chairman Arberry opened the hearing for the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA).  Juan Palma, Executive Director for TRPA, explained he had been involved in land management in Nevada for over a decade.  The agency included over 70 dedicated employees working diligently to preserve Lake Tahoe.  Mr. Palma indicated he had created an agenda regarding the direction in which he felt the agency should progress in the foreseeable future.  The five areas he focused on were:

 

1.      Implementation of a businesslike approach at the TRPA in all operations.

2.      Continuation of facilitative partnership building at all levels.

3.      Build institutional capacity at TRPA and other partner agencies, to implement the environmental improvement program. 

4.      Recruit and retain qualified personnel to meet the challenges of implementation of the Environmental Improvement Program (EIP) at Lake Tahoe.

5.      Build the framework for completing the next 20-year revision of the Lake Tahoe Regional Plan.

 

Mr. Palma explained that one area he wanted to bring to the subcommittee’s attention was salary comparability.  The TRPA completed an independent study of salaries, and found that between 7 to 26 percent of the agency’s positions were below the average salary range.  Mr. Palma noted that the TRPA was not considered a state agency in either California or Nevada, and the agency did not participate in cost of living increases.  The TRPA was falling very far behind, and would ask for an appropriation of $233,000 over the upcoming biennium, in order to bring salaries up to average for both California and Nevada. 

 

Mr. Palma indicated positions were another area that needed review.  Implementation of the EIP involved permit requests, and in order to expedite those requests, the agency would request two new positions to assist with review of the applications.  In addition, TRPA was reviewing additional projects in the forest health arena, and would request an additional forester to help expedite the various programs.  Mr. Palma noted the TRPA was experiencing a greater degree of financial responsibility as a result of the EIP and the Metropolitan Planning Organization for Lake Tahoe.  In addition, the agency grants had greatly increased over the years, and Mr. Palma felt that in order to preserve fiscal responsibility, the agency would ask for an additional position within its finance administration.  That would bring the total request for new positions to four, and the TRPA was requesting $100,000 from the state of Nevada to secure those positions.

 

According to Mr. Palma, the state of Nevada had done a terrific job, and taken the lead in terms of a team approach in the EIP, and the funding mechanism.  The federal government had also come forward with recent passage of the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act, which included an authorization for $300 million.  Mr. Palma explained the TRPA had expended approximately $85 million in EIP funding at Lake Tahoe.  Given the response and development of the EIP, the TRPA felt good about the program and its future direction, and Mr. Palma indicated that was the reason the agency was asking for the state’s help in implementation of the EIP. 

 

Mr. Palma then addressed threshold studies.  He indicated the TRPA was constantly asked how it knew the approved projects would help the Lake Tahoe Basin.  He felt that was a legitimate question, and the agency needed to be able to ascertain the progress of the programs.  The 20-year Lake Tahoe Regional Plan was coming due for revision in 2007, and in order to achieve and analyze the thresholds, the agency needed to conduct studies that would both analyze and monitor those thresholds.  Mr. Palma asked that the legislature work with the TRPA via a $200,000 allocation to complete studies over the next biennium, which would be in the form of a one-shot allocation.  Mr. Palma noted that The Executive Budget called for most of Nevada’s share of TRPA funding to be allocated from the General Fund, with approximately $131,000 to come from bond revenue, and an allocation of $72,000 from the Air Pollution Control Fund. 

 

In conclusion, Mr. Palma stated the TRPA had been given the authority to impose fines on those who violated the rules concerning Lake Tahoe, and in the past, those fines had been used to fund the agency.  That presented somewhat of a dilemma to the TRPA, and Mr. Palma proposed that the fines be removed from the agency’s control; the fines and forfeitures could then be moved to a separate account for the Science Advisory Group, composed of the Desert Research Institute, University of Nevada, Reno, and other organizations.  That group would use the fine and forfeiture monies for the benefit of Lake Tahoe in terms of monitoring and other studies.

 

Chairman Arberry asked Don Hataway, Deputy Budget Administrator, Budget Division, about the Letter of Intent sent to the Budget Division on June 4, 1999, which indicated emission control revenue funds would not require inclusion in the base budget for TRPA.  Chairman Arberry noted that it appeared those funds had been included in The Executive Budget, and requested clarification.  Mr. Hataway explained that TRPA had always received an allocation from the Air Pollution Fund, which he felt was a legitimate base budget issue.  There were additional funds for inflationary adjustments that were also included in the budget, and the Budget Division would defend the base budget in more detail at the future joint subcommittee hearings.  Mr. Arberry explained that the Letter of Intent included the legislatively-approved budget structure for the agency, however, that structure had not been followed because those funds were included in the base budget.  Mr. Hataway noted that the Letter of Intent involved all of the special funding allocations from the pollution funds, not only for the TRPA, but other special allocations as well.  Those had all been removed and were not included in the base budget, however, Mr. Hataway felt it was a unique situation that he would address in more detail at future joint subcommittee hearings.  The Budget Division felt it had abided by the joint committee’s Letter of Intent.  Mr. Arberry requested a report from the Budget Division regarding the Letter of Intent, and the structure of the TRPA budget;  Mr. Hataway indicated he would provide the report.

 

With no further business to come before the subcommittee, the hearing was adjourned at 4:29 p.m.  

     

                                                                                        RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

 

 

           

Carol Thomsen

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                                                                                         

Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman

 

 

DATE: