MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
Assembly Committee on Ways and Means
AND THE
Senate Committee on Finance
JOINT Subcommittee on Public Safety/Natural
Resources/Transportation
Seventy-Second Session
February 21, 2003
The Assembly Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance, Joint Subcommittee on Public Safety/Natural Resources/Transportation was called to order at 7:37 a.m., on Friday, February 21, 2003. Chairman David R. Parks presided in Room 2134 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
Assembly COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. David H. Parks, Chairman
Ms. Chris Giunchigliani
Mr. Josh Griffin
Ms. Sheila Leslie
Mr. Richard Perkins
Senate COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Bob Coffin
Senator Dean A. Rhoads
Senator Sandra Tiffany
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. John Marvel
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Mark Amodei
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst, Assembly
Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst, Senate
Jim Rodriguez, Program Analyst
Mark Krmpotic, Senior Program Analyst
Anne Bowen, Committee Secretary
Connie Davis, Committee Secretary
Chairman Parks called the Joint Subcommittee on Public Safety/Natural Resources/Transportation to order.
Chairman Parks stated that in the interest of time, the agenda would be taken out of order and Budget Account 3743, Division of Investigation, Public Safety, would be heard first.
PUBLIC SAFETY – DIVISION OF INVESTIGATIONS – BUDGET ACCOUNT 3743, BUDGET PAGE PS-77
Chairman Parks stated there were interested parties who wished to make brief comments to the Subcommittee. He asked them to come forward and confine their comments to five minutes.
Scott Slobe, Detective Sergeant, Office of Professional Responsibility, Department of Public Safety, appeared before the Subcommittee representing the Nevada Public Safety Employees Association. Mr. Slobe thanked the Subcommittee for the opportunity to explain the concerns the Association had regarding the elimination of half of the Nevada Division of Investigation (NDI). Mr. Slobe referred to page 2 of Exhibit C, Department of Public Safety Employees Association report, which was the Table of Organization and depicted the 21 employee positions recommended for elimination in decision unit E-250. Page 3 contained the current organizational chart.
Mr. Slobe stated that the Division of Investigation, specifically Narcotics Investigation, was developed in 1988 to assist the rural counties. Narcotics Task Forces had been formed and had completed many investigations, including those investigations into the most widely-used narcotic, methamphetamine. Methamphetamine could be manufactured in the state in very small areas, known as “box labs,” which could be moved in a matter of minutes. The larger laboratories were very complex and it took teams of highly trained individuals to dismantle them. Members of NDI had been sent for specialized training in order to assist rural counties in the dismantling of those large methamphetamine labs.
Mr. Slobe said that homeland security had recently been an important issue. NDI had been developing a Special Investigative Response Team to handle homeland security should there be a natural disaster or terrorist attack. The same personnel that had been trained in clandestine lab detection and break down would be trained in homeland security through grants from the federal government.
Mr. Slobe stated that the elimination of 39 positions within NDI included support staff. Support staff in the Division were very qualified and trained individuals who assisted the investigators in many ways. Eliminating those positions left a statewide response team unable to perform at the current level of enforcement. Local jurisdictions would be required to assume responsibility for investigating and eliminating illegal drug trafficking and manufacturing in their regions. Mr. Slobe stated that the Nevada Public Safety Employees Association felt very strongly that NDI should be kept intact and their base budget should be reinstated.
Senator Rhoads asked how efficient coordination had been between NDI task forces and local jurisdictions.
Mr. Slobe responded that NDI task forces and local law enforcement were usually housed in the same offices, enabling them to work together as a uniform task force.
Senator Rhoads inquired what would happen if, instead of reinstating NDI positions, each county or city were given increased funding to handle drug enforcement duties themselves.
Mr. Slobe responded that even with more funds, the local jurisdictions would still need more people and more training for those people.
Senator Rhoads asked if the local jurisdictions would need more positions than were being cut from the NDI budget.
Mr. Slobe replied that he could not answer that question as he could not speak for the local jurisdictions.
Noel S. Waters, Carson City District Attorney, appeared before the Subcommittee representing the Nevada District Attorneys Association. Mr. Waters stated he was before the Subcommittee to urge the reconsideration of the proposed budget cuts concerning the Nevada Division of Investigation and in particular, the Narcotics Task Forces. Essentially, the counties were contemplating the loss of 24 law enforcement personnel and 15 staff positions as a result of the proposed budget cuts. Mr. Waters emphasized that action would have devastating consequences for the rural counties, but Clark and Washoe Counties would also share the impact. Individuals who participated in illegal drug trafficking and drug manufacturing did not respect county lines or boundaries. Combining law enforcement efforts throughout several jurisdictions ensured a great deal of success in combating illegal drug operations. The Tri‑Net Narcotics Task Force combined officers from Carson City, Storey County, Lyon County, Douglas County, and the state of Nevada, which gave them the authority to investigate criminal offenses throughout the state. Mr. Waters stated that the Tri-Net Narcotics Task Force could more effectively combat the problems of drug enforcement in Nevada. For example, he stated he had been involved in a fairly extensive methamphetamine trafficking case since 2000, and ultimately 19 individuals had been arrested. Two of those individuals had been involved in methamphetamine labs in Montana, had acquired chemicals in Reno, stored them in Dayton, and had labs in Mound House and Gardnerville. Six of those individuals had been arrested in Carson City, which illustrated the ability of those agencies to work together. Mr. Waters stated that losing the expertise of the state narcotics officers would be devastating to the rural counties, as they did not have the resources to fill the void left by the elimination of those officers. Because of homeland security issues, some of the traditional support of the Federal Drug Enforcement Agency was going to be lost as well. Speaking on behalf of the Nevada District Attorneys Association, Mr. Waters stated they were very concerned and were requesting that the Legislature consider restoring the NDI and Narcotics Control budgets to their former levels. The Nevada Division of Investigation was a critically needed resource for the law enforcement and prosecuting agencies in the state of Nevada. Submitted for the Subcommittee’s consideration was Exhibit D, a letter from the Nevada District Attorneys Association.
Senator Rhoads asked whether there was evidence, when some of the methamphetamine labs had been dismantled, that the product had been going into Las Vegas and Reno.
Mr. Waters answered that it was a fairly common practice to set up a methamphetamine lab in a remote part of Nevada, where it would attract little attention, and then distribute the product in Las Vegas and Reno. Mr. Waters further stated that he had spoken to the District Attorney of Mineral County and she had related there was a serious problem of producers cooking methamphetamine in abandoned mine shafts. Because of Mineral County’s budget constraints, they lacked the law enforcement personnel to take action.
Clair Morris, Chief of Police, Elko, Nevada, stated that working in the rural counties required cooperation between law enforcement agencies and reducing NDI personnel would be devastating to Elko County. Chief Morris submitted Exhibit E, a letter he had written regarding NDI, and Exhibit F, a letter from Neil Harris, Sheriff of Elko County, regarding NDI.
Chairman Parks requested a copy of the Resolution prepared by the Nevada District Attorneys Association.
Chairman Parks stated the Subcommittee was honored to have Senator Mark Amodei before the Subcommittee.
Senator Amodei, Capital Senatorial District, appeared before the Subcommittee as the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senator Amodei stated the Senate Judiciary Committee had held a hearing to elicit information regarding the operational impact of the proposed budget in the area of Public Safety. The Senate Judiciary Committee dealt with policy issues regarding Public Safety. Senator Amodei stated he would provide a copy of a letter drafted and signed by all seven Senate Judiciary Committee members to the Subcommittee members. Senator Amodei had been authorized to express the concerns of the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding Budget Account 3743 and Budget Account 3744 to the Joint Subcommittee. One of the items that concerned the Senate Judiciary Committee was that in The Executive Budget, what some people colloquially referred to as “cuts,” appeared to be elimination. Senator Amodei noted that the Legislature was “not famous for throwing resources at this area.” When you examined Budget Account 3743, which was General Fund, and Budget Account 3744, which was the Byrne Grant Fund, those were not large amounts of monies appropriated to deal with a large devotion to resources through personnel, equipment, and operations. The organization was not particularly large and making cuts at this level would leave large areas of the state unprotected as far as narcotics enforcement was concerned.
Senator Amodei commented on Senator Rhoads’ question about whether additional resources could be provided to local entities to enable them to continue the present mission. He stated that the testimony the Senate Judiciary Committee heard indicated that there was an infrastructure already in place and to dismantle that infrastructure and rebuild in another form would be prohibitively expensive. When personnel were faced with insecurity in their jobs they tended to go elsewhere to find positions where they would have security. Senator Amodei stated that one of the reasons he was testifying before the Subcommittee on this matter was that the Legislature was being asked to maintain the historical level of resource devotion to a mission that had been in place since 1988. He said it was a good “bang for your buck” in terms of what the state paid versus what was received from Byrne Grant resources. Senator Amodei continued that he found it curious that the value judgment had been made that the state should abandon a great deal of this agency when there were only about 40 positions statewide, and the mission had been expanding in the areas of narcotics enforcement and homeland security.
Senator Rhoads stated that he did not believe there was a person on the Subcommittee that did not support the program, but the problem was that the budget was based upon new taxes, which might, or might not, be implemented. If NDI received funding, there would have to be cuts elsewhere, and the Subcommittee would have to make those difficult decisions.
Senator Amodei responded that he could sympathize with Senator Rhoads’ comments. He referred Senator Rhoads back to when he used the term “value judgment” because the budget that was proposed had increases based upon new revenues and the positions being discussed had been funded in the present biennium. He continued that this was, in fact, a value judgment where you had not said, “we are cutting the rate of growth,” and so the existing funds were going somewhere else in the existing base budget.
Senator Rhoads speculated that the reason for the budget cuts had been because the Byrne Grant was not expected to pass Congress, and presently it was in Conference Committee. If the Byrne Grant was made available, although it was expected to be a smaller amount than in the past, those funds could be used to continue the program.
Senator Amodei stated that it was interesting because there were two different budgets being discussed. Budget Account 3743 was General Fund and Budget Account 3744 was Byrne Grant. The budget being proposed was not contingent upon the Byrne Grant, at least not as concerned Budget Account 3744 funds. It had been decided at the budget level to eliminate funding regardless of the Byrne Grant. Senator Amodei commented that criminal enterprise did not operate in nice, neat sectors that were divided by county lines, and to think that withdrawing police enforcement from the rural areas would not have an impact on urban areas was not realistic.
Senator Rhoads stated he agreed with Senator Amodei and put this program on a high priority, but wanted others to know that if this program was funded, cuts would have to be made elsewhere.
Assemblywoman Leslie stated she could not agree more with Senator Amodei and could not understand why this program was being eliminated. She had asked previously why those funds were eliminated, and had received the answer that it was a duplication of effort because the rural counties already had police and sheriff personnel in place to handle the needs. Ms. Leslie stated this was an absurd answer that made no sense. The Subcommittee had a study that had been conducted by the University of Nevada, Reno, stating the program was very effective. Ms. Leslie asked if Senator Amodei had discovered during the Senate Judiciary hearings why the Department of Public Safety was so upset with NDI, and why NDI or the rural law enforcement agencies, had not been contacted before making such a drastic decision.
Senator Amodei said he did not believe that the Department was upset with NDI; he felt the Department had made a value judgment.
Ms. Leslie questioned how the Department could have made such a value judgment when the common goal had always been the elimination of methamphetamine labs in the rural areas.
Senator Amodei stated that his view was that, when the budget was written, there were decisions made by upper level management in the affected divisions, departments, and the budget office, that reflected the values of those involved in terms of where they thought resources should be distributed. He further stated that he would respectfully disagree with the budget decisions.
Ms. Leslie asked if she was missing some rationale that Senator Amodei had ascertained.
Senator Amodei stated that if you looked at the facts in terms of mission, the amount of resources that had historically been devoted, and the infrastructure that had been built, this was an area of public safety spending where the citizens of the state of Nevada were getting a very good “bang for their buck.”
Chairman Parks noted for the record that the Subcommittee had a quorum present.
Senator Coffin thanked Senator Amodei for his testimony. He stated that administrations always picked programs to cut in order to gain support for the budgets and tax increases. There were always complaints about new taxes and new programs from constituents and he was receiving letters from rural counties as well. He hoped that local sheriffs and police chiefs would be holding press conferences in order to tell their constituents to keep in mind what they would be losing if the Legislature did not pass the tax bills necessary to keep those programs operating. Senator Coffin opined that the Byrne Grant could not be guaranteed as there had been a surplus in the federal government two years ago and now there was a deficit. There had been many things promised by the federal government that had not been delivered. Law enforcement was a local responsibility and taxes would have to be raised.
Senator Amodei responded to some of Senator Coffin’s remarks by stating that he did not see drug enforcement as a rural issue because the market for the product was in the two urban areas of the state. No one was going to engage in this endeavor because “they wanted to corner the market in Humboldt County.” He stated that, obviously, an illegal operation would be more desirable in an area where the pressure was the least. What was being done was to set up a “traveling squad” to operate in sparsely populated areas of the state but the market was clearly an urban market.
Senator Coffin interjected that the record should reflect that he agreed with Senator Amodei on this matter.
Senator Amodei stated that the last time he checked the Constitution of this state, the ability and duty to appropriate funds rested with the members of this Subcommittee as well as members of other committees. He noted that a process had evolved in our state that had resulted in a close working relationship between the Executive Branch and the Budget Office. However, ultimately and constitutionally, appropriation was the job of the Legislature.
Chairman Parks asked if others wanted to speak on this issue, and limited those speaking to one to two minutes each.
Eric Larson, Caitlin Gunn, and David Rikalo presented the following testimony for the record:
We are students from Carson Middle School and we want to put faces and names with those labels of “student” and “kids.” We are the “students” and “kids” you will be sentencing to an environment of drug dealers and criminal activity. Our message today is short, simple, and to the point. The world for the average teens today is a rapid-fire succession of learning experiences, demands, temptations, peer pressures, and half-truths. War looming on the horizon worries us and our achievement gap worries you. We all face the stark reality of “No Child Left Behind.” As a Legislature, you have mandated requirements for us:
standards, benchmarks, and accomplishments. Now, we are here to ask something of you. We would like to meet all of these requirements in a safe, secure learning environment. Recently, we conducted a very unofficial and totally random straw poll of 500 Carson Middle School 7th and 8th graders, ages 12 to 14. We discovered that 77 percent of our classmates had been exposed to some kind of drug-related event. We would like you to think about this comparison. If you have a staff of teachers and you cut your staff in one-half, are you cutting duplicated services? Can you do without that staff? What if the one-half you are cutting are all math and English teachers? Then are you cutting duplicated services or expertise? We are here today to ask you not to cut the expertise of NDI in rural Nevada. For the good of us all, we must not cut the drug task force in any way.
The students submitted Exhibit G, a poster entitled “Survey Regarding Drug Task Force.”
Senator Rhoads asked if the 77 percent that had been exposed to drugs were high school students. Miss Gunn replied they were middle school students, ages 12 to 14 years.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani thanked the students for their testimony and commended them for the excellent presentation.
Senator Coffin suggested that the students ask their parents where they stood on the issue of new taxes and inform them that programs were hanging in the balance.
Richard Weighall, Chief of Police, West Wendover, stated his experience had been that when drugs, especially methamphetamine, were introduced into a community it was almost impossible to eradicate. Chief Weighall said the West Wendover Police Department had a staff of 15 sworn officers, who did not have the time or resources to effectively deter the drug culture in their community. The West Wendover Police Department was a member of the Elko County Combined Task Force and the Task Force had been able to accomplish drug enforcement at a level that the Police Department had been unable to achieve.
Ron Skinner, Sheriff, Pershing County, and president of the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, stated that the job the Narcotics Control Task Forces and the Nevada Division of Investigation did was critical to the rural counties. He asked the Subcommittee to support that function and assist in the continuation of the Division’s mandate.
Richard Bushnell, private citizen, stated that from 1984 to 1990 he had worked for the California Department of Justice’s Multi-Jurisdictional Task Force. Mr. Bushnell emphasized that if the Narcotics Control Task Forces were eliminated, lives would be in danger. Smaller enforcement agencies had a great deal of dedication but did not have the wherewithal or sophistication to deal with drug manufacturers. Mr. Bushnell said that he was in favor of more taxes if it would make his life better and his grandchildren’s lives more secure.
Dave Peck, northern director for the State Peace Officers Council (SPOC), stated that NDI was an integral part of the criminal justice system in Nevada, especially the positions in the Narcotics Control Task Forces. The Narcotics Control Task Forces offered an expertise not generally available in the rural areas and augmented the manpower of rural law enforcement organizations as well.
Chairman Parks asked Mr. Peck if, in his estimation, the current operations of NDI and the Task Force were a duplication of effort. Mr. Peck stated that while the different agencies frequently worked together, it was not a duplication of effort.
Senator Rhoads thanked everyone who came to testify regarding this matter.
Chairman Parks expressed his appreciation to everyone who testified about this matter and stated that discussion of the budgets would continue.
David Kieckbusch, Deputy Director, Department of Public Safety, presented an overview of Budget Account 3743. Mr. Kieckbusch introduced Phillip H. Brown, Chief, Investigation Division, and asked where the Subcommittee would like to start the presentation.
Chairman Parks requested a brief synopsis of the budget before delving into the individual elements.
Chief Brown introduced Beverley J. Bergstrom, Management Analyst, Investigation Division, and further stated he would like to acknowledge the testimony and words of support previously given on the Division’s behalf.
Chief Brown noted that Budget Account 3743 and Budget Account 3744 could not be separated, although they were separate accounts on paper. Operationally, those two budget accounts were mingled together, and any attempt to reduce one would have an effect on the other.
Chief Brown pointed out that in The Executive Budget the Division had been reduced to 40 sworn positions and the overall budget for FY2004 was $4.6 million, and for FY2005 it was $4.7 million. The budget included a loss of 39 positions with 40 remaining positions covering 3 geographical regions across the state. There were 7 individuals in the southern district, 2 individuals in northeastern Nevada, and 4 teams of 7 individuals in Carson City, accounting for the 40 remaining positions.
Chairman Parks said that not all the members of the Subcommittee had brought their binders from the previous hearing and the members were using Exhibit C, which had been submitted by the Department of Public Safety Employees Association. Chief Brown began a PowerPoint presentation for the Subcommittee.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the chart provided by the Division in the previous hearing agreed with the chart provided in Exhibit C. Chief Brown stated that the 39 eliminated positions were illustrated in the chart. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired as to whether the Division had provided information regarding the funding streams for the particular investigator positions. Chief Brown answered that information was not included in the packets, but the information could be provided to the Subcommittee. Ms. Giunchigliani stated it would be helpful to see how the positions were funded.
Chairman Parks noticed that NDI received funding from the Highway Fund to support three criminal investigator positions and related costs. He asked if those particular positions were dedicated to motor vehicle-related crimes.
Chief Brown responded that those three positions dealt with vehicle related crimes as a general area of expertise and they did not cross over into the narcotics area. Chairman Parks asked if separate performance statistics were maintained for those positions. Chief Brown replied that they were. Chairman Parks requested copies of those statistics.
Chief Brown stated that the Division responded to investigative functions 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and responded primarily at the request of other law enforcement agencies. The Division dealt with crimes against persons, crimes against property, and some administrative investigations. The Division investigated the AeroTech fire and explosion in 2002 at the request of the Clark County Manager. That investigation consumed many man-hours. The Division also reviewed the paperwork that the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office had prepared after a prisoner escaped from their jail. Certain employees that were reimbursed from this budget account were dedicated to narcotics enforcement, clandestine laboratories, and drug investigations. Most recently, the Division had conducted specialized investigations in the area of homeland security and provided an International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) resource for the state of Nevada.
Chief Brown stated both the General Fund and Highway Fund funded Budget Account 3743. Current staffing in this account was 61 full-time employees, which consisted of 44 sworn personnel and 17 support staff. The proposed staffing under The Executive Budget was 40 full-time employees, which consisted of 32 sworn personnel and 8 support staff. Positions eliminated under this budget account were 21 full-time employees, which consisted of 12 sworn personnel and 9 support staff. The General Fund savings over the biennium would be approximately $1.6 million in each year of the biennium.
Chief Brown said the narcotics control function, most commonly known as the Edward Byrne Memorial Grant Program, was federally funded by the grant and 25 percent state matching funds. The Executive Budget recommended eliminating the Narcotics Control Task Forces statewide in decision unit E-250. The current staffing was 18 full-time employees, 12 sworn personnel and 6 support staff. Staffing would be reduced to zero if the Governor’s recommendations were followed.
Senator Coffin asked Chief Brown if he had been consulted about the budget cuts and been allowed to make suggestions as to the best way to make those cuts. Chief Brown responded that he and the management analyst had originally prepared a budget based upon 79 employees. In January 2003, the Division had been notified that the original budget was no longer acceptable and they were instructed to build a budget based upon 40 employee positions. The budget from the Governor’s Office was later shown to the Division.
Senator Coffin inquired as to whether the Governor’s Office or the Budget Office had dealt with the Division.
Mr. Kieckbusch responded that, as he understood it, the discussions took place between members of the Executive Branch designated by the Governor, and Richard Kirkland, Director, Department of Public Safety. The budget decision, based upon those discussions, was handed down to the operational level for implementation.
Senator Coffin asked if the Budget Office was involved. Mr. Kieckbusch stated he could only assume that the Budget Office was involved since he had not been personally involved in the discussions. Senator Coffin noted Mr. Kieckbusch was in a difficult position as it was important to remain loyal to the Governor, but still remain loyal to the employees.
Senator Coffin asked if the Division had been told, in any manner, that if the Legislature imposed sufficient taxes the Division would receive the original 79 full-time employees, or some figure close to that. Chief Brown responded that had never been suggested. Mr. Kieckbusch stated that he had received information that if additional resources were identified, the Governor would include the Division in a discussion as to how those resources would be used, although no commitments had been made. Senator Coffin commented that before he supported any tax proposals he certainly wanted to know how the money would be spent and he needed to know what the Division had been told. Chief Brown stated that although there had been no specific conversations, it was clear that the Governor was open to reinstating the original number of positions if funding was available or funding could be located.
Chairman Parks stated that in the interest of saving time the Division would probably have to submit some responses in writing, but there were three other items that needed attention and one dealt with the elimination of a criminal investigator, a polygraph position, and ancillary costs. Chairman Parks requested comments on that matter.
Chief Brown stated the elimination of that position and ancillary costs had originally been part of the 3 percent General Fund budget reduction mandate.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the polygraph examinations were performed for the Division or outside of the Division and why the number of polygraph examinations given had increased 23 percent. Chief Brown responded that the examinations were given both inside and outside of the Division. The numbers had increased because the Division provided services to the Department of Parole and Probation by giving polygraph examinations to sexual offenders. Ms. Giunchigliani requested a list of which polygraph examinations were performed in the Division, and which polygraph examinations were performed outside the Division, and for what agencies. Chief Brown said he would provide the list. Ms. Giunchigliani wondered who would be given a polygraph examination inside the Division. Mr. Kieckbusch responded that the Division had an Office of Professional Responsibility that was basically an internal affairs function, however, most of the internal investigations were done at the Division level. Modifications to NRS 289, last session, removed the mandatory polygraph examination of law enforcement officers. Mr. Kieckbusch stated that voluntary polygraph examinations were still permitted. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the Division had the numbers regarding polygraphs that had been performed on employees within the Division. Chief Brown stated that the numbers on polygraph examinations were 108 for FY2003, but he did not have an available breakdown as to which agencies requested those examinations.
Chairman Parks questioned the rental cost for the Mesquite office, which had previously been funded from an interagency cost allocation, and had been transferred to, and was completely funded by, the General Fund under decision unit E-907 and E-500.
Chief Brown introduced Beverley J. Bergstrom, Management Analyst, Division of Investigation, Department of Public Safety.
Ms. Bergstrom stated the enhancement was to move utility costs from the motor vehicles budget, which was how the Mesquite office had been funded, into the General Fund. Chairman Parks asked if it was a shared facility. Ms. Bergstrom responded that it was a shared facility.
Chairman Parks stated the final item was under decision unit E-914, the cost of storage associated with the Division’s evidence vault and warehouse in Carson City, which was being paid through a cost allocation in Budget Account 4714. Ms. Bergstrom stated that cost had been paid by the Department and with the cost allocation it was determined that a percentage should be charged to all applicable budgets. Chairman Parks stated the Subcommittee would consult the Budget Office to determine if funding should be added.
Speaker Perkins asked what the savings to the General Fund would be by cutting NDI in half. Chief Brown answered it would be $3.2 million over the biennium. Speaker Perkins commented that in the present environment after the events of September 11, 2001, and all of the other things happening in the public safety community, he wished he could fund 40 positions in his department for $1.6 million per year. He stated the Legislature needed to find some way to balance cuts with whatever new revenues were available and he had some significant concerns about effecting those cuts in this area. The first fundamental responsibility of government was to provide public safety, before anything else. Speaker Perkins stated that he was not sure this was a department that should be cut.
Chairman Parks asked, if this budget should be approved, how many positions would be terminated or transferred elsewhere and, collectively, what would be the estimate of total years of experience that would be lost to the state. Chief Brown stated that with the current vacancies, 30 positions containing experienced personnel would be terminated. Chairman Parks questioned whether terminated personnel could be reassigned to other state positions. Chief Brown replied that the Division was fairly confident that many of those people, if laid off, would find employment in other positions in state government.
Speaker Perkins asked if Chief Brown knew, in terms of the investigative side of a state law enforcement agency, the ratio as to population and how that compared with other states. Chief Brown replied that Nevada was probably comparable to other states of the same population in terms of the dedication and number of resources provided for narcotic enforcement, especially multi‑jurisdictional narcotic task forces. However, if the Division were cut in half, Nevada would be in the minority. Multi-jurisdictional task forces were standard in all 50 states.
PUBLIC SAFETY – NARCOTICS CONTROL – BUDGET ACCOUNT 3744, BUDGET PAGE PS-84
Chairman Parks commented that although Budget Account 3744 had been discussed at the same time as Budget Account 3743, there were still questions about the Byrne Grant and how to use the eligible Byrne Grant funds if the Narcotics Control Task Forces were eliminated.
Chief Brown stated that the latest information available was that the Byrne Grant was on the President’s desk and approximately $500 million was available to law enforcement for the purpose of drug enforcement. The Division had requested Byrne Grant funds to support a multi-jurisdictional task force. If the task force was eliminated, the Byrne Grant could not be applied for in the same way. The amount of funds being received by the Division would not be available without a multi-jurisdictional task force.
Chairman Parks asked if the Narcotics Control Task Forces could operate at a lower level with certain tasks being handled by NDI, or would the narcotics control function cease to exist.
Chief Brown responded that the narcotics control function would not necessarily cease to exist, but the ability to work as a multi-jurisdictional task force would be reduced.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the Division knew what the dollar amount of the Byrne Grant would be.
Chief Brown replied that the Division had not yet applied for the Byrne Grant, as the deadline was March 15, 2003. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the Division would be applying for the Byrne Grant and what amount would be requested. Chief Brown replied that they would be applying for a total amount of $1.7 million each year.
PUBLIC SAFETY – TECHNOLOGY DIVISION – BUDGET ACCOUNT 4733, BUDGET PAGE PS-14
Alan Rogers, Data Processing Manager, Technology Division, Department of Public Safety, stated this budget provided technical services to the Department and statewide law enforcement by providing law enforcement with a “switch function,” which was a sophisticated messaging software system. This switch function gave local law enforcement and justice agencies access to data from the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) and other regional and national criminal justice computer systems. Mr. Rogers referred to Exhibit H, an Expanded Program Narrative, which listed enhancement units on pages 2 and 3. Decision unit E-277 requested funding for a federal grant match to provide encryption for the justice network. A federal mandate required encryption throughout the Division’s network by September 2005. The project was estimated to cost approximately $1.3 million, the majority of which would be provided through the grant program.
Decision unit E-279 requested an increase in data communications bandwidth between Carson City and Reno in order to provide better communications to improve response times and service to the agencies. The network would support Department agencies as well as local law enforcement and other criminal justice agencies.
Chairman Parks asked whether the Division had numbers regarding the need for another DS3 line. Mr. Rogers stated the driving factor was the increase in traffic on the Nevada Highway Patrol’s dispatch system. The Division was moving from data systems that were mainframe based to server-based systems that required additional capacity to send data. Further, the Division was anticipating, with NCIC 2000, that local agencies would be requiring the transmission of fingerprint and photo data that would need additional bandwidth.
Senator Tiffany asked for clarification of the Division’s current bandwidth. Mr. Rogers stated that currently the Division had six T1s. The DS3 that was being requested was equivalent to 28 T1s. Senator Tiffany stated that was “quite a jump,” and while she was not opposed to the Division receiving more bandwidth, she wondered if there was an area that had increased other than photo data. Mr. Rogers referred to page 9 of Exhibit H, a chart titled “NCJIS Terminal Count,” which illustrated the increase of the actual devices and terminals that the Division supported for the past ten years. The increases were driven by in-car terminals and additional agencies being added to the system. The growth was in terms of the numbers of devices as well as the amount of data transferred. Senator Tiffany questioned whether the additional bandwidth was needed because of complaints about response time, or in order to avoid receiving complaints about the service. Mr. Rogers replied that complaints were not necessarily an issue because he felt the Division had been doing a good job, but they had to comply with mandates. The Division was required by NCIC to measure response times and there was a 3-second response time requirement that the Division was able to meet approximately 70 percent of the time. Senator Tiffany asked what the response time for transmitting photo data utilizing the present equipment would be, from Reno to Carson City. Mr. Rogers responded that the response time would probably decrease considerably, by at least half.
Chairman Parks commented that it appeared as if the Division was trying to go from a “6-lane highway” to a “50-lane highway” and requested that the Division provide additional material citing the need for the new equipment. Mr. Rogers stated the Division would work with staff to determine what information would be helpful to the Subcommittee. Chairman Parks stated that the Subcommittee also understood that there were federal regulations involved and requested more information regarding those as well.
Senator Tiffany asked what the difference was between radios and/or cell phones as opposed to data transmissions through personal computers. Mr. Rogers responded that the Division was not supporting any cell phone or voice communication; this was strictly data transmission. Senator Tiffany asked if the Division had seen any growth in wireless communication. Mr. Rogers stated that the Highway Patrol operated approximately 80 field units that used Cellular Digital Packet Data (CDPD). Mr. Rogers was not aware of any wireless connections being used other than CDPD. Las Vegas Metro, Henderson Police Department, some in Washoe County and some in Reno, were using in-car terminals that were wireless and put some load on the system. The Highway Patrol had the potential of approximately 400 units, and if they were funded for in-car terminals it would have a serious impact on the network. Mr. Rogers did not know if there was a plan within this biennium for that addition to the network.
Chairman Parks asked for comments regarding decision unit E-280, which requested four new programmer positions to support the Division’s Integrated Rehabilitation Information System (IRIS) project and the Parole and Probation information system. Mr. Rogers stated that the Parole and Probation information system had been funded in 1995 and was to be a five-year project to provide automation support for the Division’s normal functions. That project had been completed on time and within the approved budget. The ability to collect restitution payments, to track offenders, and to replace rooms of files and papers with technology had been greatly improved. Mr. Rogers said that during the development of the system there had been enhancements identified that were not identified in the original project. The additional programming position for the Division of Parole and Probation would be used to perform the enhancement work for their program, which was called Offender Tracking Information System (OTIS).
Mr. Rogers commented that the IRIS acronym was intended to represent “opening our eyes” in order to obtain a better view of the activity in the Department. The IRIS project was intended to integrate information systems throughout the Department to provide better management and control. At the present time the Department had fragmented internal record keeping systems. Mr. Rogers stated that any large law enforcement or public safety group needed some integration of the information that was collected. As an example, the Department contained five agencies with arrest powers, with five different systems and five different forms for recording arrests. The project was very similar to initiatives in other states and large police agencies to record, manage, and report on the activities of the agency.
Ms. Giunchigliani stated there appeared to be a duplication of resources between the IRIS project and the Highway Patrol budget and asked how those were correlated. Mr. Rogers replied that duplication of resources did not exist. The Highway Patrol had one of the largest needs for an internal case management system. In order to begin the IRIS project quickly, the Highway Patrol transferred two positions to become programmers. In the past the Highway Patrol had used troopers to help with automation efforts. Those troopers had been reassigned to the field and two vacant positions had been reclassified as programmers. The programmer positions had begun a needs analysis for the Highway Patrol. That information would eventually be integrated with the IRIS project so that the entire Department would benefit. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if there would be five positions working on the IRIS program. Mr. Rogers stated that was correct.
Ms. Giunchigliani acknowledged that she was not a technology person, but asked why a needs assessment was not performed before deciding upon the type of program. Mr. Rogers stated that the needs assessment had been completed and now the Department was performing detailed design. Over the past several years a needs assessment had been conducted and the Department had concluded a records management system was necessary.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if this would affect the work done for any of the local agencies. Mr. Rogers responded that IRIS was completely a Department of Public Safety project.
Ms. Giunchigliani inquired as to whether the Civil Name Check Re-write (CNC) would be integrated. Mr. Rogers said CNC would not be integrated, however, the Department used the same systems that the local entities used for criminal histories, restraining orders, and civil name checks. When the Department needed to use the state law enforcement system it used the same application as any other user.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked what budget was funding those positions. Mr. Rogers responded that Budget Account 4733 was completely cost distributed. Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether there was any General Fund impact on any of the other budgets that would be charged. Mr. Rogers stated there were General Fund accounts in NDI and the Department of Parole and Probation. Ms. Giunchigliani requested a written breakout of the General Fund accounts.
Senator Tiffany asked if those local agencies had requested this integration or if the Division had decided it was the correct thing to do and then assessed them. Mr. Rogers responded that he believed the Department had a good program of working with the agencies that they supported, and discussions had been ongoing for several years regarding improving the records keeping system.
Mr. Kieckbusch stated that the genesis of this project had begun shortly after he began working at the state and had discovered that none of the agencies under the Department of Public Safety had any idea what they were doing, how they were doing, or why they were doing it. The divisions needed the information in order to help them manage their operations.
Senator Tiffany asked if the different agencies would have different data, different codes, different fields, and eventually discover that the data might not be accurate. Mr. Kieckbusch responded that the Department was not that far along with the IRIS project and many of the divisions still compiled information manually. The IRIS project would be the foundation of the overall project because most of the divisions had no systems to integrate.
Senator Tiffany asked if the integration would be placed on a mainframe, NT servers, or UNIX boxes. Mr. Rogers stated the Division would be decommissioning the mainframes and utilizing server-based systems. Senator Tiffany stated she wanted to be sure there was a mind-set to utilize current technology and asked if there would be any Web-based programs integrated into the system. Mr. Rogers stated all components of the project would be Web-based, with browsing capability provided to the users. Because the IRIS program was in its infancy, standards for data were being developed that would be imposed on the divisions. However, the divisions had been involved in the development of those standards, which would eliminate any problems. Those standards were being developed so that before any programming was completed, standards would have to be in place so that all users knew how the data should be formatted.
Mr. Parks asked when the IRIS project would be completed and how much it was expected to cost. Mr. Rogers responded that the five positions being requested for the project would cost approximately $500,000 each biennium and the development would take five years. The Division needed the five positions in order to avoid extending the project and running the risk of not completing it in time to be of benefit to the agencies. The first modules of IRIS would be completed by the end of April 2003. Overall, the project was estimated to cost approximately $3 million.
Mr. Parks questioned whether the IRIS project was modeled after another system with a proven track record that had already been developed and if the standards were still being developed. Mr. Rogers responded that the Division was in the process of developing standards. A project-tracking module was being developed but an arrest module was not, and they were very different modules. Data element standards could be developed for the present applications and other applications could be developed later. Mr. Rogers continued and stated that NDI had looked at a few states that were developing similar projects and found that the technology was available.
Colonel David S. Hosmer, Nevada Highway Patrol, commented that New York City had started this type of project and called it ComStat, and then Florida had instituted the same type of system. Col. Hosmer stated that when he had been assigned to NDI they sent two people to Florida to look at their system. The Department had considered installing a system like the one used in Florida for an initial cost of approximately $80,000, but the Florida system had not been perfected and the Department decided to build a system for exactly what was needed for Nevada. Nevada’s project had been named SafeStat. SafeStat allowed the first-line supervisor to access the system at any time of the day or night to receive almost “real-time” statistics.
Chairman Parks asked for comments regarding decision unit E-282, which requested three new network technician positions.
Mr. Rogers stated the Division provided statewide network support for not only the Department but also local agencies that attached to the network. Within the Department were approximately 2,000 devices that seven network technicians supported. Each network technician provided support for over 200 devices including 25 servers, and the Division maintained 30 locations in 15 different cities within the state. The Division could not keep up with the demand for services with the present personnel. Mr. Rogers referred the Subcommittee to Exhibit H that contained a chart that showed the number of infections detected monthly. Network technicians were being required to handle network security as well as network and desktop management and server support. Currently, the average response time for service was about four days. The Division’s goal would be to reduce response time to two days. The current staff was unable to handle an average of 80 calls per month, which caused a backlog that would continue to grow.
Chairman Parks noted that the Department of Information Technology (DoIT) network support group had a ratio of staff to equipment of 1 to 250 and the Division was requesting additional staff to create a ratio of 1 to 110. Chairman Parks also noted that decision unit E-283 requested additional funding for a new computer systems programmer position to serve as a technology security specialist. He requested the Division provide some demand statistics to demonstrate workload and the need for those increases.
Mr. Rogers commented that when he provided those requested statistics he would be placing all of the network technicians together and not removing those doing server support. When DoIT and other agencies supplied statistics their server support was usually in a separate group. Mr. Rogers continued that if only the technicians performing actual PC support were included in the statistics, it would probably be well within the range of 250 or 300 per technician.
Senator Tiffany noted that the Division supported five agencies and stated they were like a “data center.” She asked if the Division received complaints and questions regarding decentralization.
Mr. Rogers replied that the Division frequently received questions and complaints about decentralization and felt they were caught in the middle. Consolidation at a state level meant groups like the Division that were very specialized and worked for a specific department. The Department of Public Safety had 14 divisions within the Department that probably would have liked to have their own programming and network staff and would be in favor of decentralization.
Senator Tiffany stated when there was a backlog and people could not get help, the Technology Division became a problem. She further stated she would like to see the agencies support themselves with what they knew they needed. Senator Tiffany questioned whether the Division had ever surveyed the agencies regarding their needs.
Mr. Rogers stated that recently the Division had worked with the University of Nevada, Reno, to study the services the Division provided. That survey was not yet available.
Senator Tiffany commented that she would like to see the results.
Mr. Parks said that the problem was that the help desk provided support for not only the Department, but for all statewide law enforcement and criminal justice agencies. Most of the agencies in the Department were too small to be able to provide 24-hour help desk support. Because all of the agencies in the Department were related to Public Safety, the IRIS project was expected to provide an integration of information and level of improvement that would help the agencies more than if each agency supported its own data processing services.
Col. Hosmer stated that as chief of one of the larger divisions he supported centralization as his expertise was not in the area of computer technology and he relied on the Technology Division to provide those services. He stated that from a management standpoint, it was a great asset to have the Division providing those services on a day-to-day basis.
Senator Tiffany commented that Col. Hosmer’s agency might make the decision to use the Technology Division, but when she heard that people were waiting for response, waiting for support, and waiting for programmers, that was a problem.
Chairman Parks asked for clarification regarding decision unit E-284 that requested a new administrative assistant position. He noted that the Division currently had an accountant technician position on staff to handle maintaining the Division’s budget, accounting, personnel, and payroll functions.
Mr. Rogers stated that the system reports used for billing purposes were performed by technical support personnel and the Division would like to have a non-technical position perform those duties. The workload for the accountant technician had increased to a level that was too cumbersome for one person. Mr. Rogers said that rather than use technical positions to augment the duties of the accountant technician, the Division was requesting an administrative assistant in order to keep the technical people doing technical work.
PUBLIC SAFETY – CRIMINAL HISTORY REPOSITORY – BUDGET ACCOUNT 4709, BUDGET PAGE PS-42
Col. Hosmer introduced Daryl Riersgard, Manager, Criminal History Repository, Department of Public Safety.
Mr. Riersgard stated he had been the Manager for the Criminal History Repository for approximately five months. He introduced Jeffrey Artz, Program Manager; Tisha Johnson, Program Manager; and Dana Howry, Program Officer. Exhibit I was submitted to the Subcommittee and accompanied a PowerPoint presentation.
Mr. Riersgard stated that the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) audit report represented the tip of the iceberg, while the more “tell-tale” issues were below the surface.
Mr. Riersgard sought to clarify the mandate and function of the Criminal History Repository. While over the years its function had expanded, the core service of the Criminal History Repository was to be the central repository of criminal history records. In addition to recording and maintaining criminal history records, the Repository provided three other main services:
· Brady Gun Checks
· Civil Name Checks
· Civil Applicant Background Checks
All three of the above services were fee-based and, therefore, self-sufficient.
Mr. Riersgard stated that providing a repository for criminal history records was the core service provided by the Repository. In addition to fingerprint-based records the Repository handled the Sex Offender Registry (SOR) that contained over 7,200 files. The Repository also provided latent fingerprint searches that aided law enforcement across the state in solving serious crimes by matching a fresh crime scene suspect’s fingerprint with the Repository files. The Repository had a success rate for matches of over 30 percent, one of the highest in the country. Also included in the core services were Uniform Crime Reporting and Development and Compliance. Mr. Riersgard said that those core services accounted for 46 percent of the total Repository budget.
Mr. Riersgard opined that the budget architecture for Budget Account 4709 was flawed because the criminal history records function depended on court assessment funding that had proven to be unreliable and inadequate. Court assessment funding had been 18 percent below projections, which translated into the Repository being currently underfunded by approximately $797,000. Experience had shown that this number would change several times between now and the end of the fiscal year. When the Repository was underfunded staff positions remained unfilled, work that was mandated by law and expected by the statewide users was not completed, and backlogs occurred. Approximately 40 percent of the Repository’s workload remained uncompleted.
Chairman Parks questioned the 40 percent workload that was not being completed and requested some examples. Mr. Riersgard stated that some graphic illustrations would be presented shortly.
Mr. Riersgard stated that he had recently attended a national conference and during that meeting had the opportunity to survey other state repository representatives as to the current health of their repository budgets. He said he could not find one other state that would describe their budget situation as serious. Mr. Riersgard emphasized that the Repository’s budget situation was serious. The budget problem had evolved over an eight-year period. Staff of the Repository agreed that there were three phases that led up to the current problem. The first was the “early warning phase,” which took place when the Repository had very healthy reserves at the end of each fiscal year. This situation was artificial because of a funding account called “Cat-15” that covered many of the expense items such as personnel and operating expenses and served to make the Repository budget appear healthier than it actually was.
Mr. Riersgard said the next phase was the “change phase,” which began in 1999 when the Legislature made a major change to how expenses were covered and for the first time the Repository began using cost distribution. The change phase continued through FY2001 and in that final year the last subsidy from the Highway Patrol was received.
The final phase was what Mr. Riersgard called the “trouble phase.” This phase began in FY2002 and it was soon established that the Repository could not operate in the manner that was intended. Under the current budget architecture, the Repository could not cover expenses in the core area of criminal history records.
Mr. Riersgard stated that in FY2002 the Repository had a deficit of $361,616 or 9 percent. It was too early to tell the final outcome, but with six months left of FY2003, the Repository budget appeared to be short by almost $800,000.
Mr. Riersgard commented that additional assessments were being proposed in addition to the assessments that were not presently being fully collected. It was unknown whether those new amounts would be realized. The trend had been that court assessments continued to fall short of the projected amount.
Mr. Riersgard continued by commenting on staff shortages. He stated that when court assessment revenue did not meet projections there was very little discretionary authority over income or expense line items, and what remained were the categories of personnel and operating expenses. When the court assessments were less than expected, needed personnel was not hired in order to save funds. The reduced staffing caused the backlogs that the LCB audit described. Mr. Riersgard stated that the Repository currently had 12 vacant positions out of 61 authorized positions. In March 2001, the staffing level stood at 95 percent; currently, the staffing level was 79 percent.
Mr. Riersgard stated that based on many years of experience it had been concluded that a fingerprint employee could process, on average, 8 fingerprint cards per hour, or 64 per day, or 1,100 per month, or 13,200 per year. This was a two-step process where the fingerprint card started with the data entry step and was followed by the technical search step. The Repository had eight employees in the first step and nine in the second step and those employees could handle approximately 105,000 cards in the first step and approximately 118,000 in the second step. When compared with the 183,000 cards being submitted per year, the Repository was averaging approximately 62 percent of the workload in this area. Mr. Riersgard said that based upon the Repository’s workload and number of employees there would be a backlog of 77,000 fingerprint cards per year.
Mr. Riersgard stated that in the interest of being candid with the Subcommittee he would share each and every backlog in the Repository.
The first backlog was in fingerprint cards. Although the Repository had managed to reduce the original backlog of cards from 70,000 to 7,000, it was Mr. Riersgard’s opinion that the number would begin working its way back up to 77,000 per year.
The second backlog, court dispositions, was the fastest growing. Mr. Riersgard stated that backlog had not been touched since July 2000 and was growing at the rate of 2,700 per month. The court disposition backlog degraded the Repository records system and put them at odds with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The FBI expected all parts of the criminal history to be accurate and up-to-date as their criminal history files were affected as well.
Domestic violence reports were behind 20,000 reports. Mr. Riersgard said that meant that vital statistical information requested by the Attorney General was not available.
The fourth backlog was Uniform Crime Reporting. The FBI required monthly Uniform Crime Reporting and the Repository was six months behind in processing the information. Mr. Riersgard stated that there used to be four people working in that section and now there was one. State law required a Uniform Crime Reporting report to be submitted to the Governor each July and Mr. Riersgard was not certain the Repository could meet that requirement.
Mr. Riersgard stated that he had made a recommendation to the Director of Public Safety to consider stopping the processing of misdemeanor fingerprint cards. The recommendation was in line with the Governor’s philosophy that if an agency was shorthanded work should be prioritized. Misdemeanor fingerprint cards made up 54 percent of the total volume and eliminating them would bring the workload back in line with the workforce. Unfortunately, eliminating misdemeanor fingerprint cards would put the Repository out of compliance with state law and cause great concern to the FBI.
Chairman Parks asked Mr. Riersgard if he had provided copies of his presentation to the media. Mr. Riersgard replied that he had provided one copy to someone who had asked and had extras if anyone wanted one. Chairman Parks stated there were some great slides in the presentation and believed they painted a picture not only for the Repository, but for other divisions around the state as well.
Chairman Parks commented that if he was reading Exhibit I correctly, the Repository appeared to be behind in the processing of 7,000 fingerprint cards, but the Repository had had a backlog of as many as 70,000 fingerprint cards. Mr. Riersgard responded that the figures were correct and the backlog had been reduced because of National Criminal History Improvement Program (N-CHIP) funding targeted at the problem. It had enabled the Repository to hire some temporary employees to focus exclusively on reducing the backlog.
Senator Rhoads complimented the Repository on the quality of Exhibit I and asked if the court assessments were increased, as had been recommended in The Executive Budget, would the Repository compare favorably with repositories in other western states. Mr. Riersgard replied that he was not sure how to accurately answer that question. At the conference he attended in Denver, he had spent a lot of time asking that question in both formal and hallway meetings. In a 50-state nation there were approximately 50 different systems in place. Many repositories were funded exclusively from the General Fund and many were funded exclusively from fee-based programs with many hybrids in between. Mr. Riersgard stated that he did not have the ability to give a good comparative example.
Chairman Parks inquired whether N-CHIP funds would be available to address the backlog of fingerprint cards in the future. Mr. Riersgard deferred to Jeffrey Artz to answer Chairman Parks’ question.
Mr. Artz stated that the N-CHIP grant funds received were due to an agreement with the Public Safety Technology Division to use some of the N-CHIP funds for backlog reduction. The Repository had received approximately $181,000 of N‑CHIP funds to begin the backlog reduction project, although it had been clear from the beginning that the very large backlog could not be eliminated with that amount of money. The Repository applied for a Byrne Grant and received another $73,500. In order to maximize the use of the money the Repository had hired temporary student workers and the fingerprint technicians had worked overtime on the problem. The backlog had been reduced to 7,000 fingerprint cards and there had been no significant additions to that number in the past few months. The Repository had also implemented some automation efforts such as an automated print system and the Live Scan fingerprinting systems that were being utilized in Nevada jails.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked why the Repository had not moved to a full scanning program. Mr. Artz replied that the Repository was moving toward full scanning on a statewide basis as far as criminal records were concerned. Currently the jails were submitting fingerprints through the Live Scan fingerprinting system and not through ink and paper as had been done previously. The Repository, as well as local agencies, had used grant money to purchase Live Scan fingerprint systems. The Live Scan fingerprinting system had resulted in one-time data entry at the point of arrest.
Ms. Giunchigliani commented that the backlog should be reduced fairly quickly now that the Live Scan fingerprinting system had been implemented. Mr. Artz replied that the problem was that the backlog consisted of old cards that required scanning.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked what categories the fingerprint cards in the backlog represented. Mr. Artz replied that they were criminal arrest fingerprint cards; civil fingerprint cards were not currently backlogged.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked about the status of the Civil Name Check (CNC) program. Mr. Artz explained how the CNC program worked. An employer did the check online and it was basically nothing more than a name and descriptor check. Ms. Giunchigliani noted that the Repository budget showed an increase in revenues of 34.5 percent, but projections indicated that actual revenue would fail to meet the amount budgeted for the program.
Mr. Riersgard introduced Dana Howry of the Criminal History Repository to address the CNC program.
Ms. Howry responded that the Repository had recognized that for FY2003 the revenue had been overstated. In the budget for the 2004-05 biennium the revenue had been minimally increased which was attributable to having been able to do more marketing in the northern part of the state. In FY2002 a position had been moved to Las Vegas to assist with marketing in that area.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked by what dollar amount the revenue had been overstated. Ms. Howry stated that it had been determined for FY2003 the amount was approximately $360,000. Ms. Giunchigliani asked why the Repository was spending money marketing something that had not been requested by the legislative body and why the program was not being eliminated. Mr. Riersgard responded that some of those additional functions served a practical purpose and at the same time provided revenue that could be applied back to the Repository budget and, in this case, was a service to users in the state. Ms. Giunchigliani interjected that the Repository could save the staff that was being used to market a program for a small group that wanted to access it, namely, the gaming industry. Gaming cards already existed and it seemed to her that this might be an area where dollars could be saved by eliminating that part of the budget.
Mr. Riersgard commented that the employee that had been sent to Las Vegas to help market the program was doing so in a secondary capacity, as the primary duty was auditing and training for the southern users. If there was any time left from the primary duty, it was used for marketing. Ms. Giunchigliani replied that she appreciated that, but had never envisioned that the CNC program would need to be marketed or subsidized by the budget.
Ms. Leslie asked if the new regulations regarding gaming work cards, which had been enacted by the Legislature during the last session and were expected to drastically reduce the number of work cards issued, had been figured into the projections. Mr. Artz responded that the new gaming work card regulations, which went into effect January 1, 2003, had not decreased the workload and, in fact, had increased the workload by 3,000 cards in the month of January. Ms. Leslie asked how work cards could have increased by 3,000 in one month. Mr. Artz responded that the old work card statute allowed the sheriffs and chiefs of police the choice of whether to do a fingerprint-based background check to issue a work card or not. Clark County had not been sending the Repository any fingerprint cards, however, with the new regulations it was required. The gaming work cards from Clark County accounted for the 3,000‑card increase. Ms. Leslie asked if the fees had been increased. Mr. Artz stated that fees had been increased by $6.00 per card. Ms. Leslie asked if the counties had been given any notice of the fee increase. Mr. Artz stated the counties had been given approximately a month and a half notice. Ms. Leslie stated that she had heard that it had been less time than a month and a half and it had caused quite a few complaints. Ms. Leslie said her original question still was, had the Repository taken into account, in the budget, the new situation with the gaming work cards. Mr. Artz stated that Ms. Howry could answer that question better than he could, but the Repository had projected out through the rest of FY2003 what the gaming work card fee increase was going to do for the budget.
Ms. Howry stated that the Repository was expecting some increase from the new work card fees but she could not say what the exact amount would be at the present time, but she would present that information to the Subcommittee.
Speaker Perkins asked what percentage of agencies used the Live Scan fingerprint program as opposed to inked cards. Mr. Artz stated that approximately 95 percent of criminal fingerprint cards were received through Live Scan technology. Live Scan technology had significantly reduced the manual labor required to input those records in the Repository, however, the present problem was the ever-increasing number of applicant fingerprints that were being received.
Mr. Artz continued and said that one of the other problems the Repository had was that NRS 449 required them to make employment or licensing decisions for the elderly care providers throughout the state. That function had taken a serious toll on the Repository’s operation. Speaker Perkins asked if that was because the applications were submitted with inked cards as opposed to the Live Scan fingerprinting system. Mr. Artz stated that the fingerprinting process had nothing to do with the problem; the problem was obtaining disposition information. The Repository had a backlog of 100,000 dispositions. Dispositions that were not entered into the system required calling courts and district attorneys to determine if an applicant had been convicted of a crime before issuing a license to work in an elderly care facility. Speaker Perkins stated that it had been mentioned that the civil side did not have a backlog, but the criminal side did, and it seemed as though the criminal side would be more crucial to the Repository. Mr. Artz stated that both sides were crucial and the main problem was people waiting for jobs. The Repository had prioritized the civil work over the criminal work for the reason that people had to have work cards and licenses in order to work.
Chairman Parks asked if there was a higher error rate with the Live Scan fingerprint system than there was with inked cards. Mr. Artz stated the Live Scan fingerprint system provided almost a zero error rate. Validation checks were built into Live Scan computers so that bad information could not be entered. Live Scan systems checked the quality of the fingerprints as they were scanned, so very few fingerprint cards were rejected and sent back to the agencies.
Chairman Parks questioned the statutory requirements, the Repository’s compliance, and that effect on their budget. Mr. Artz responded that he did not believe the Repository was out of compliance with statutes, although they were seriously behind in certain areas. The Repository had given no consideration to eliminating any requirement listed in the statutes.
Senator Rhoads asked how it had been determined that the Repository was losing $6.03 in processing every fingerprint card. Mr. Artz stated that they had figured costs for personnel, equipment, and operating expense and had arrived at a cost of $21.03 per card. Senator Rhoads asked how long the Repository had been losing money processing fingerprint cards. Mr. Artz stated that the original user fee for applicant fingerprint cards had been established in 1988. In 1988 the user fee was set at $15.00 and even then it had cost the Repository approximately $14.70 to process a fingerprint card. On numerous occasions the Repository had requested increases in the user fee but it had never been granted.
Senator Rhoads asked if the fees could be raised by regulation or if they had to be raised by statute. Mr. Riersgard said that the statute provided that raising fees was at the discretion of the department head and that was the avenue the Repository had taken.
Chairman Parks thanked the Repository for their presentation and adjourned the meeting at 10:25 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Anne Bowen
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman David H. Parks, Chairman
DATE:
_____________________________________________
Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Chairman
DATE: