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
May 2, 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 8:19 a.m., on Friday, May 2, 2003. Chairman David 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 Parks, Chairman
Ms. Chris Giunchigliani
Mr. Josh Griffin
Ms. Sheila Leslie
Mr. John Marvel
Mr. Richard Perkins
Senate COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Bob Coffin
Senator Dean A. Rhoads
Senator Sandra Tiffany
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst, Assembly
Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst, Senate
Tracy Raxter, Program Analyst
Mark Krmpotic, Senior Program Analyst
Jim Rodriguez, Program Analyst
Joyce Garrett, Program Analyst
Lila Clark, Committee Secretary
Anne Bowen, Committee Secretary
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
SOUTHERN NEVADA WOMEN’S CORRECTIONAL FACILITY (101-3761)
EXECUTIVE BUDGET PAGE NDOC-41
Mr. Tracy Raxter, Program Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, introduced himself. Mr. Raxter described the Southern Nevada Women’s Correctional Facility as a state-owned facility located in Las Vegas that was operated by a contracted vendor.
Mr. Raxter said that decision unit M-200 provided for the increase in the inmate revenue expenses at the institution based on the increase in the inmate population. Mr. Raxter said The Executive Budget reflected an inmate population of 465 female inmates in each year of the biennium. He said the Department received a revised inmate population projection in March 2003, from George Washington University, which reflected an increase in the female population. Mr. Raxter said the Department revised its biennium plan for housing of inmates based on the revised population projection. He said that revision reflected an increase of 27 female inmates at the facility in the first year and an additional 26 inmates in the second year. Mr. Raxter said that the increase in the inmates resulted in an increase in the inmate-driven expenses of approximately $450,000 in each year of the biennium.
Mr. Raxter stated that the Governor’s budget proposal for the Department of Corrections included the Casa Grande reentry center, which would house 36 female inmates in the second year of the biennium starting in November 2004. Mr. Raxter said the center would average 24 inmates for fiscal year 2005. Mr. Raxter said that based upon discussions that were held in a previous work session the Department presented alternative plans for Casa Grande. Those alternative plans did not include the housing of female inmates so the Subcommittee would need to consider if it would want to house the 24 female inmates that were originally planned to be housed at Casa Grande at the Southern Nevada Women’s Correctional Facility. Mr. Raxter noted that the Southern Nevada Women’s Correctional Facility was the only other women’s facility within the Department that had the capacity available to house female inmates. Mr. Raxter said the cost of housing those additional female inmates in the second year of the biennium that were originally planned for Casa Grande was $431,000.
Mr. Raxter stated that the existing contract with the vendor, Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), included an automatic renewal clause every three years. The next renewal period would occur in October 2004, which was in the second year of the biennium and there was no indication yet whether the vendor would wish to remain under that contract or would wish to opt out of the contract. Mr. Raxter said it was staff’s recommendation to fund that portion of the budget as if it was with a contracted vendor for the full two years of the biennium, even though the Department had indicated that there could be some additional costs if it took over the operation of the facility in October 2004. Mr. Raxter said the Department and staff felt that there would be sufficient funding to get to the beginning of the 2005 Legislative Session, where they could approach the 2005 Session of the Legislature for a supplemental appropriation if necessary.
Senator Rhoads asked if there was any choice other than to approve the $431,000 appropriation because there was nowhere else to house the prisoners.
Mr. Raxter said the only other choice would be to include an appropriation for female inmates in the Casa Grande budget. He said the Department had indicated to him that since it was a new type of facility for them, the Department would like to see it house only male inmates.
Ms. Jackie Crawford, Director, Department of Corrections, introduced herself. Ms. Crawford said that as the Department began to explore the Casa Grande concept, and in light of looking at some revisions, the Department felt it was best not to start as a co-ed program. Subsequently, the Department believed that it could expand the program and design a separate program for women. Ms. Crawford said the program should start out with males only, be stabilized, and then bring in the females. She said the Department had expanded the Southern Nevada Jean Conservation Camp for women and she believed that the inmates were being placed in jobs and housing. Ms. Crawford said she felt the need was not as dire for the women as it was for the male offender.
Chairman Parks said that based on the population estimates provided, the Department would need to increase the inmate-driven revenues for the budget for the additional count of inmates. Chairman Parks said that in addition, the budget should account for those female inmates who would otherwise have been assigned to the Casa Grande plan. Chairman Parks said the final issue dealt with the contract with CCA and it was his recommendation to continue the funding for a full two years, presuming that the contract would be renewed, and if it was not renewed that could be addressed through the Interim Finance Committee (IFC). Chairman Parks said the $431,000 would need to be added to the budget.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE BUDGET WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
SENATOR RHOADS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES
MANAGEMENT SERVICES (101-4742)
EXECUTIVE BUDGET PAGE DMV-58
Mr. Mark Krmpotic, Program Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, introduced himself. Mr. Krmpotic referred the Subcommittee to a memorandum dated April 30, 2003, from Ms. Ginny Lewis to the Cochairs of the Subcommittee, Exhibit C. Mr. Krmpotic said that during the Subcommittee’s April 29, 2003, meeting there were additional questions and requests by the Subcommittee. The Subcommittee asked the Department to look into accelerating the kiosk development and to determine the impact on staffing and possibly look at charging fees to first-time customers registering a vehicle within the state.
Mr. Krmpotic said that based on Exhibit C, it appeared to him that the Department would not provide any alternative plans but renewed its recommendation for adding the additional field office staff and funding for kiosk development in the second year of the biennium.
Mr. Krmpotic asked the Subcommittee to recall that two decision modules were held in the Field Services Account based on the request by the Subcommittee. The modules that were held were module E-350 in the Field Services Account that added 147 positions and the kiosk pilot project expansion in modules E-306 and E-307.
Senator Coffin said he had read the memorandum from Ms. Ginny Lewis, Exhibit C. He said the Department had “closed the door completely” on any ideas or any suggestions to try to increase fees or make it more convenient for the customers, particularly those in southern Nevada who oftentimes had a wait of several hours, although the Department had produced a “pseudo average” of 73 minutes wait. Senator Coffin expressed skepticism about the Department’s calculations of the wait time. He said that he was sorry the Department had said no, despite requests to assist the Department to find help for the constituents. Senator Coffin said he would advise any legislator who heard a complaint from any constituent or citizen who had to wait in line to direct their complaints to the Governor and to the Director of the Department. He said he felt the Department had ignored a good way to reduce the problem. Senator Coffin said the “so-called” 100 percent staffing might be satisfactory for Carson City and Reno where the waits were short but not in southern Nevada. He said 100 percent was a “myth” that sounded good but in real life was nothing and would not work. Senator Coffin said he was very sorry the Department had taken the position it had and he believed the responsibility should rest on the Department’s shoulders.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said that based on Senator Coffin’s comments in response to Exhibit C, she wondered if there was anything in Exhibit C that would affect the budget other than the approval of the training positions.
Senator Coffin said that Exhibit C was irrelevant at that point. He believed that the Department had said no to putting a higher fee on new arrivals to the state. Senator Coffin said he did not believe the Department’s position affected the budget.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said she believed the Subcommittee could decide what its plan was and put it into effect.
Chairman Parks said there could be more discussion later on Exhibit C.
Mr. Krmpotic continued by saying that Budget Account 201-4742, Management Services, supported other divisions in the Department by providing strategic planning research and development of policies. Mr. Krmpotic said the major item in the account dealt with the recommendation of module E-275 to add six Program Officer positions to provide training in the Department. He said the Department had justified the additional positions based on requests for training by outside entities. In addition, the Department had identified ongoing training for existing employees in the field and in Central Services, which would require the use of the four training positions and the existing two positions in the budget. In total, the six positions would provide for outside training requests, ongoing training for existing employees, and would also assist with training of new employees that would begin with the Department, particularly in the Field Services area. Mr. Krmpotic said he believed the Department had indicated to staff that the six positions requested would result in a total of eight training positions for the Department, four of which would be located in southern Nevada and four would be located in northern Nevada. Mr. Krmpotic said staff had reviewed the need for training positions given the proposed elimination by staff of 24-hour ongoing customer service training. He said the Department had provided information to justify the recommended positions if the customer service training was eliminated.
Chairman Parks said the Subcommittee needed to consider whether to add six Program Officer positions to the budget and asked if there were any questions.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked where the laptop computers were shown in the budget for the travel teams.
Mr. Krmpotic answered that the laptops for the travel teams were included in the Field Services account.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE BUDGET WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS. THE MOTION INCLUDED THE RECOMMENDATION TO ALLOW FOUR PROGRAM OFFICER POSITIONS TO PROVIDE TRAINING.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Speaker Perkins was not present for the vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
TECHNOLOGY DIVISION (201-4733)
EXECUTIVE BUDGET PAGE PS-14
Mr. Jim Rodriguez, Program Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, introduced himself. Mr. Rodriguez said staff had identified five major decision units in the budget account that needed the Subcommittee’s attention.
Mr. Rodriguez said the first major closing issue was the Department’s request for four programming positions. He asked the Subcommittee to recall from previous budget hearings that the Department was undergoing a major development project referred to as the Integrated Records Information System (IRIS). That system was designed to integrate the independent databases and programs within the Department of Public Safety and designed to integrate, consolidate, and standardize all of the Department’s databases. Mr. Rodriguez said the major beneficiary of the task would be the Highway Patrol, who would use it for a time management and allocation program for controlling officer disbursements. He said that in addition, it would integrate all the databases within the Department and standardize all of the data protocols. Mr. Rodriguez said the Department had requested four positions to assist in the IRIS development and to assist with the Parole and Probation database system. He said staff had gone through the documentation and had calculated an equivalent of a little over three positions. Mr. Rodriguez said that staff recommended a reduction in the number of programmer positions from four to three based on the full-time equivalent hours calculated from the maintenance and development projects backup documentation provided to staff. Mr. Rodriguez stated that the Department concurred with that recommendation.
Mr. Rodriguez explained that item 2 was a request for three Network Specialists. He said the Department’s plan was to allocate an additional Network Technician to each of the three service areas, one for Carson City, one for Las Vegas, and one for the Elko area. Mr. Rodriguez said that staff had looked at the request and had some concern with the request for the Elko area. He said that the Department of Information Technology (DoIT) had attempted to dedicate a full-time position to that area but the demand for services in that area just was not sufficient to justify a full-time position. Mr. Rodriguez recommended reducing the request from three Network Specialist positions to two Network Specialist positions.
Mr. Rodriguez said that item 3 was a request for an Administrative Assistant position. He said that had been a recurring request of the Department for several past biennia and the Department had been able to provide some workload statistics that justified a position. The position would assist with the accounting, billing, payroll, personnel, and financial services functions of the Division. He said the Division had grown to a point where it had been able to justify the addition of the position.
Mr. Rodriguez said item 4 was a request for a DS-3 data communication line to be used as a backup and a redundant service connection between Reno and Carson City. Mr. Rodriguez said he had spoken with the Department and DoIT who confirmed that based on the new billing methodology that DoIT had employed to provide a tiered level of billing for state agencies, the Department of Public Safety could access the DS-3 line and still not breach its billing tier based on what it was currently being charged. That service could be added to their complement of data communication services without an additional cost. Mr. Rodriguez said that staff recommended the deletion of that decision module.
Mr. Rodriguez stated that item 5 was a request for a Technology Security Officer as the result of a legislative audit that identified some weaknesses in their security policies and procedures for their internal databases in the computer systems. He said staff had reviewed the request and determined that DoIT had a similar request and staff had concluded that it was a reasonable request.
Mr. Rodriguez said there were other items for the Subcommittee’s consideration and he would review them if there were any questions.
Chairman Parks asked that the five major closing items be prioritized in the estimation of the Department.
Mr. Rodriguez said he believed the number one priority for the Department was the addition of the Technology Security Officer position. He said the second priority would be the approval of the programmers for the IRIS project. The third priority would be the addition of the network technicians, the fourth priority would be the Administrative Assistant position, and the fifth priority would be the DS-3 communication line.
Chairman Parks said that he supported staff in the deletion of the data communications line. He said he was not convinced that the Administrative Assistant position was fully justified but he thought the other recommendations were valid.
SENATOR RHOADS MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE BUDGET WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
Chairman Parks clarified that according to staff it appeared there was justification for two Network Technician positions rather than three positions and justification for three additional Programmer positions.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
FORFEITURES – LAW ENFORCEMENT (101-4703)
EXECUTIVE BUDGET PAGE PS-74
Mr. Rodriguez said Budget Account 101-4703 was a pass-through account to local governments to match the Byrne Grant which funded the Nevada Division of Investigations Narcotics Task Force. Mr. Rodriguez said there were no budgetary issues with the budget account but he would point out some recommendations for funding on the Narcotics Task Force account.
Chairman Parks said that account 101-4703 would be held until after the Narcotics Task Force budget was acted upon.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
DIVISION OF INVESTIGATIONS (101-3743)
EXECUTIVE BUDGET PAGE PS-77
Mr. Rodriguez said the major issue in Budget Account 101-3743 for consideration was the elimination of 21 Criminal Investigator positions. He said the Governor had recommended the elimination of those positions based on the fact that there was a level of redundancy of service provided to the urban areas of the state. Mr. Rodriguez said the recommendation would result in a $1.6 million reduction in General Fund support to the budget account each year of the biennium. Mr. Rodriguez said that the Department had indicated that there was a fine line between redundancy and complementary services to the urban areas. He said that the Department would argue that the services they provided were complementary with a small amount of redundancy. Mr. Rodriguez said the Division’s concern was that some of the positions supported the Narcotics Task Force. Mr. Rodriguez stated that staff had no recommendations on decision unit E-250.
Mr. Rodriguez stated that decision unit E-600 was an additional reduction to the General Fund. He said the recommendation was to eliminate a vacant Criminal Investigator position and a vacant Polygraph position. The resulting impact of the reduction would be $157,419 in FY2004 and $157,697 in FY2005. Mr. Rodriguez noted that the reduction of the Polygraph position would leave the Department with two Polygraph positions that were split between Criminal Investigations and Polygraph. Mr. Rodriguez said the Department had reported a significant increase in polygraph activity and there would still be two positions to perform those activities.
Mr. Rodriguez said E-907 and E-500 requested authority to shift the funding for rental costs for the Mesquite office from interagency cost allocation to General Fund. Mr. Rodriguez stated that if the Subcommittee’s decision was to approve the Governor’s recommendation to eliminate the 21 positions, the Mesquite office would be among those deletions and the decision units would no longer be needed. Mr. Rodriguez also recommended the technical adjustments based on the closing decisions of the Subcommittee.
Mr. Philip H. Brown, Chief, Division of Investigations, introduced himself. He said that there had been interest expressed in adding additions to the Investigations unit with support for Narcotics Control in particular. Chief Brown said that as that moved forward, working with the budgets had been a little like “trying to separate a Siamese twin.” Chief Brown said the two accounts were interwoven and it was difficult to work with. He said if the Subcommittee and the Governor were interested in additional support beyond the 40 recommended positions he would welcome that.
Senator Rhoads asked if the Narcotics Task Force in the rural areas of Nevada would be affected by eliminating the 21 positions.
Chief Brown responded that the Narcotics Task Force would be affected with the loss of positions. He said it was a little like “lining up a football team with five players instead of a full complement.” Chief Brown said if the 18 positions were reinstated in Narcotics Control the Division would still be able to function. He said the loss of positions would have some impact with respect to the Narcotics Task Force.
Chairman Parks asked how many of the 21 positions were sworn and how many were support.
Chief Brown responded that 12 positions were sworn positions and 9 positions were support staff.
Chairman Parks asked if there was any middle ground regarding the positions. He said he realized that Budget Accounts 101-3743 and 101-3744 functioned together but he wondered if the Subcommittee could add some positions back into the budget and what number of positions could be replaced that would eliminate the redundant function and still afford the Division the opportunity to operate.
Chief Brown said that any addition to the 40 positions would help him operate, and particularly if the Narcotics Control section was reinstated through the Edward Byrne Grant money and the forfeiture funds. That would be a beginning that the Division could function with. Chief Brown said the Division had considered a scenario that would involve reinstatement of 15 positions from the proposed 21 deleted positions. Chief Brown submitted Exhibit D, “Critical Positions to B/A 3743,” which was a listing of the positions and the potential savings.
Chief Brown said that if the 21 positions were eliminated the savings would be $1.6 million per year, or $3.2 million for the biennium. He said if 15 positions were reinstated the savings would be approximately $363,000 per year, or approximately $750,000 compared to the $3.2 million for the biennium. Chief Brown said the positions added would be a criminal supervising position in the Elko office along with an Administrative Assistant’s position. In Carson City, an evidence technician was needed. Currently that position was not filled and might have to be filled with an Investigator position if there was a reduction in staff. A criminal supervisor Investigator for the Carson City Tri-Net Narcotics Unit, along with one additional Investigator for Carson City, was needed.
In Las Vegas, a Lieutenant’s position to oversee the height of the high intensity trafficking areas would be reinstated along with four Investigator positions. Chief Brown said the high drug trafficking area (HIDTA) Investigators in Las Vegas were funded from the General Fund and were not positions that would be considered Task Force positions paid from Budget Account 101-3744. Chief Brown said an Administrative Assistant III position would also be needed.
Chief Brown said that a fiscal position in Carson City was necessary.
Chairman Parks asked Chief Brown if he would provide copies of Exhibit D to all Subcommittee members.
Chief Brown said that in addition, an Investigator III position in Fallon was needed along with two Administrative Assistant III positions in Carson City for the Special Investigations Unit.
Chief Brown said that of the original 21 positions, 12 were sworn officers and 9 were support staff. Of the 15 positions, 9 would be sworn and 6 would be support staff. He said the ultimate savings per year would be $363,532, as opposed to the savings mentioned by Mr. Rodriguez.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked Chief Brown to explain what the ratio was of sworn officers to support staff.
Chief Brown said that of the current 79 positions there were approximately 50 sworn positions and 23 support staff. He said that some of the support staff worked side by side with the officers, for instance, in the Special Investigations Unit.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if the ratio of two sworn positions to every support staff position was a common ratio.
Chief Brown responded that he believed it was a reasonable ratio. He said there was a great deal of paperwork involved in the assignments.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked what the support staff would be doing when they were working side by side with the sworn staff.
Chief Brown said that the Special Investigations Unit took requests from outside agencies through a sworn supervisor and worked side by side in some capacity with respect to taking requests from other law enforcement agencies.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked what other instances there were and what the pay ranges were.
Chief Brown said those were, in particular, clerical support. He also said the pay ranges were the state classified “pay scale.”
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if the 50 sworn and 23 support staff were all from the Nevada Division of Investigations (NDI).
Chief Brown responded that the positions were all NDI positions and some of the positions were in Records and in Budget and Accounting.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked for a breakout on the location of staff in the state. Chief Brown replied that he had provided that information.
Chief Brown said the staffing breakout in Budget Account 101-3743, General Fund, was 44 sworn and 17 support staff. In Budget Account 101-3744, Narcotics Control, there were 12 sworn and 6 support staff.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said it was a “steep” ratio throughout the budget and it was not one she had looked at closely in the past but she intended to now.
Chief Brown said it was important to note that when one talked about the 12 sworn positions on a narcotics task force there would be approximately 6 officers that would be on that team that would also run their paperwork and their demands through the non-sworn NDI staff since they were managed by NDI.
Speaker Perkins said that if the original budget had 21 positions eliminated and the suggestion was to replace 15 positions, he wondered which 6 positions were not being returned to the budget.
Chief Brown responded that the six positions that would be eliminated included one Deputy Chief position, one Criminal Supervisory Investigator position, one Criminal Investigator, and three Administrative Assistant positions.
Speaker Perkins asked from where in the state the positions would be eliminated.
Chief Brown responded that the positions would be from Carson City.
Speaker Perkins said the ratio of sworn staff to support staff was good in some ways and bad in other ways. He said there would not be investigators in the field doing the work but by the same token if the work was clerical intensive, those positions were less expensive than a sworn position. Speaker Perkins said that saving $1.6 million for 21 positions did not make sense to him in terms of public safety and also fit hand in glove with the Narcotics Control account and had virtually no savings to the General Fund.
Chairman Parks asked how many of the positions were eligible for funding through the Highway Fund.
Chief Brown responded that three positions were funded from the Highway Fund. Chief Brown said those positions were not being cut from the budget.
Speaker Perkins said that as he looked at the 15 critical positions, one‑third of them were located in Las Vegas for the HIDTA participation. Speaker Perkins said that as much as he thought that was an extraordinarily important program and as much as the population certainly existed in Las Vegas, there were many other agencies that participated in HIDTA, such as the local law enforcement agencies, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and others. He said what he was concerned about in the budget was to make sure that a great deal more narcotics criminal activity was not encouraged in the rural areas by leaving them uncovered. Speaker Perkins said it seemed to him that there were many law enforcement resources in the Las Vegas metropolitan area to absorb some of the workload if the Division of Investigations was not present. Speaker Perkins wondered if some of the positions would be better placed in areas that were uncovered in the rural areas.
Chief Brown responded that when the positions were reinstated, not only would NDI have the ability to participate in the HIDTAs but would also have enough investigators to respond to general crimes and other narcotic issues in rural counties such as Lincoln County, Nye County, and Esmeralda County. Chief Brown said one of his concerns was that if they were just in Las Vegas for the HIDTA then they had not done a service to the rural communities. He said that by “beefing it up, so to speak” if it was the wish of the Subcommittee and the Governor then that would solve the problem of participation in both.
Speaker Perkins made a disclaimer that he doubted that Chief Brown’s position was the position of his agency and he was anticipating a telephone call from his Chief later that day.
Chairman Parks asked Chief Brown to clarify if the six positions reflected for Las Vegas also covered Lincoln, Nye, and Esmeralda Counties as well but were based in Las Vegas.
Chief Brown said that was correct.
Chairman Parks asked if any of the Subcommittee members had further questions.
Speaker Perkins pointed out that with Chief Brown’s proposal there would be a savings of approximately $300,000 per fiscal year. He said that he thought it was a good investment and was a fundamental responsibility of the state to provide public safety, however, given that the Legislature was in the revenue discussions he was unsure that the Subcommittee should take action on the budget since it was not built into The Executive Budget. Speaker Perkins said the discussions on the revenue needed to fund the budget had not yet “jelled” and he suggested holding the budget.
Chairman Parks stated that he concurred with Speaker Perkins and thought the Subcommittee should proceed and review Budget Account 101-3744 to gain a better perspective on both of the budgets. Chairman Parks held Budget Account 101-3743.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
NARCOTICS CONTROL (101-3744)
EXECUTIVE BUDGET PAGE PS-84
Mr. Rodriguez stated that the item of consideration for the Subcommittee was the elimination of the budget account as recommended by the Governor. He said that would eliminate 18 positions and all the task forces that currently operated in the rural areas of the state. Mr. Rodriguez said that as discussed by the Subcommittee, that particular budget account provided narcotic enforcement services throughout the rural areas of the state that were not capable of, or had the resources for, doing that type of investigation.
Mr. Rodriguez said that he had clarified with the Agency that the current amount in the Forfeiture Funds was $1.7 million. He said staff had pointed out that the Forfeiture Fund provided 25 percent match for the operations of that unit. Mr. Rodriguez said that based on the Governor’s recommendation as currently reflected in The Executive Budget that $875,259 would be required to match the Bryne Grant throughout the biennium. He said there were sufficient funds in the Forfeiture Fund to cover that, however, the issue was not in the first year but in the second year. Mr. Rodriguez said the President’s budget was proposing to make adjustments in the grant fund allocations for the Byrne Grant funds. He said the Bryne Grant would be merged with the Justice Assistance Grant and some of those funds reallocated to Homeland Security. Mr. Rodriguez said the result of that could be a reduction of 33 percent in the Bryne Grant to Nevada. He said that if that occurred and the Subcommittee decided to continue funding for the Narcotics Task Force, that shortfall in the Bryne Grant would have to be made up with state funds. Mr. Rodriguez said staff had calculated that if that occurred it would result in a 33 percent reduction in the worst case and there would be sufficient funding if the Subcommittee chose to fund the Narcotics Task Force with the entire $1.7 million. He said that would require that the Subcommittee dedicate that $1.7 million to the Task Force in case the 33 percent reduction in the Bryne Grant occurred in FY2005.
Mr. Rodriguez stated that the downside of that option would be that the $1.7 million that would normally be allocated to the other agencies within Public Safety would not be accessible. Mr. Rodriguez said that during the year forfeiture funds were likely to accumulate in the account that then could be allocated to the other agencies. Mr. Rodriguez said the decision the Subcommittee needed to make was whether to continue funding for the account or not to continue funding for the Task Force. Mr. Rodriguez said that if it was decided to continue the Task Force the options would be to fund it as stated in The Executive Budget and also to restrict the funds for the $1.7 million to that account in FY2005 so that in the event the Byrne Grant received less funding the funding would be there. Mr. Rodriguez said if the 33 percent cut did not materialize, the funding came in somewhere in between, and the Bryne Grant came in, the Bryne Grant could be received and the Forfeiture Funds could be deaugmented to the account. Mr. Rodriguez said another option would be to fund the account “as is” and let the agency go to the Interim Finance Committee to request additional Forfeiture Funds if the 33 percent cut was realized. He said the risk of taking that action was that during the interim it had been a practice of the Department to submit work programs throughout the interim requesting allocations from the Forfeiture Funds. Mr. Rodriguez said the Committee would need to feel that the agency would be fiscally responsible and not request those allocations throughout the biennium in anticipation of the reduction in the Byrne Grant.
Chairman Parks said he was not confident that anyone would know within the next month or so whether the funding for the Byrne Grant would be reduced.
Mr. Rodriguez said he did not anticipate having a better indication of the President’s budget as far as the Byrne Grant was concerned. He said that reductions in the Byrne Grant had been recommended in the President’s budgets over the past few years and the history had been that the reductions had not materialized to the extent that they were initially proposed. Mr. Rodriguez said that Congress had always been willing to support the program with the full Bryne Grant. He said he could not predict what Congress would do in the future but the history had been that reductions had been proposed but had not materialized.
Chairman Parks commented that the program could be funded using a combination of Bryne Grant and Forfeiture Funds, however, there was no assurance that those funds would be available. He said the alternative was that the Subcommittee could adopt the figures contained in The Executive Budget and then whatever Bryne Grant funds and Forfeiture Funds were received could be put to some other use.
Mr. Rodriguez clarified that The Executive Budget recommended the deletion of the Task Force. He said the amount in the budget that was recommended for deletion would be funded. It could be funded at $875,259 and either allocate the entire $1.7 million currently in the account as an insurance policy for the reduction of the Byrne Grant or fund it the way it was and let the Agency request additional Forfeiture Funds in the interim in the event that the 33 percent reduction was realized. Mr. Rodriguez said that staff recommended that the Subcommittee set aside the $1.7 million so that there would be no question as to the availability of funds for the support of the Task Force.
SENATOR RHOADS MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE BUDGET WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS USING A COMBINATION OF THE BRYNE GRANT AND FORFEITURE FUNDS.
ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairman Parks said that he was unsure the Subcommittee was in a position to move forward with the approval of the program given the status of the budget.
Speaker Perkins said that he thought the motion that had been made was a good motion and Mr. Rodriguez had presented a prudent way to fund the budget, but he believed it was a crucial budget and the Legislature should make sure there was narcotics enforcement in the rural counties. Speaker Perkins said the two budgets went hand in hand and he wanted to see them acted upon together.
Chairman Parks said he shared Speaker Perkins’ concern that the two budgets should be acted upon together.
Speaker Perkins advised the Subcommittee that although he supported the funding mechanism that had been proposed he was not prepared to support the motion that day because he believed that action on the two budgets should be taken together.
SENATOR RHOADS WITHDREW THE MOTION HE HAD MADE.
Chairman Parks held Budget Account 101-3744.
Chairman Parks asked if there was anyone in the audience that cared to make brief remarks regarding the budgets.
Lt. Mike Biaggini, Douglas County Sheriff’s Department, introduced himself. He said he was in charge of investigations for the Department and he had staff members in the Tri-Net Task Force based in Carson City. Lt. Biaggini said he wanted to stress the importance of the narcotic “nets.” He said Tri-Net had operated specifically since 1988 and was responsible for over 1,800 trafficking arrests and approximately $26 million worth of narcotics taken off the street. Lt. Biaggini stated that NDI provided supervisory and support personnel and an office for the nets to work from. Lt. Biaggini said the continued funding of the Drug Narcotics Task Force was extremely important to his agency. Lt. Biaggini provided a letter from Ronald P. Pierini, Douglas County Sheriff, dated May 1, 2003, Exhibit E.
Mr. Steve Schutte, representing the Carson City Sheriff’s Office, introduced himself and said he concurred with Lt. Biaggini. He said Carson City had two representatives in the Tri-Net Task Force and he felt it was very important that the Task Force be allowed to continue to function.
Mr. Scott Slobe, representing the Department of Public Safety Employee’s Association, introduced himself. He said that he had spoken to the employees and the Chief and they agreed that if the 18 positions in the Narcotics Task Force budget, Budget Account 101-3744, could be funded with the Byrne Grant, the matching funds from forfeiture, and the reduction of positions from 21 positions to 15 positions, rather than the elimination of 21 positions, they were in concurrence.
Mr. Gary Wolff, Nevada Highway Patrol Association, Teamsters Local No. 14, introduced himself and said he supported continued funding for the budget.
There being no further comments, Chairman Parks closed the hearing on Budget Account 101-3744 and opened the hearing on Budget Account 296-4490.
COLORADO RIVER COMMISSION
COLORADO RIVER COMMISSION (296-4490)
EXECUTIVE BUDGET PAGE CRC-1
Ms. Joyce Garrett, Program Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, introduced herself. Ms. Garrett said Budget Account 296-4490 was the primary budget account for the Colorado River Commission.
Ms. Garrett said The Executive Budget contained a request for eight new positions. She said the positions were recommended to be hired in the first year of the biennium, however, the Agency had agreed that three of the positions recommended in the first year could be deferred to the second year. That would reduce the personnel related costs by approximately $200,000 in the first fiscal year.
Ms. Garrett said that the research and development contracts included in decision unit E-375 for $450,000 in each year of the biennium, had statutory authority granted through Nevada Revised Statutes NRS 538. She said the Agency had statutory authority to enter into contracts for studies or the implementation of projects relating to water quality.
Ms. Garrett next explained decision unit E-376, which was for the continued involvement in both upper and lower basin resource activities and electric power activities. Ms. Garrett said the Governor recommended approximately $400,000 in each year of the biennium.
Ms. Garrett said decision unit E-377 would fund a symposium and a publications project. The symposium would focus on the law of the Colorado River, which would raise the attention level of the other member states to Nevada’s needs for additional resources. She said that currently the law of the Colorado River did not allow the other states to provide excess resources to other states, and Nevada was interested in bringing that to their attention so that they could possibly have a long-term lease agreement for those resources while the other states were not using them.
Chairman Parks asked if the symposium would be a “road show” that was taken to the other states.
Ms. Garrett responded that the symposium would take place in Las Vegas and attendees would come from eight states to attend.
Ms. Garrett said that decision unit E-605 recommended the elimination of three vacant positions, which resulted in budget reductions that staff concurred with.
Ms. Garrett said that decision unit E-710 included $9,000 in funding for replacement equipment. She said decision unit E-720 included funding for computer hardware and software to further develop the internal resource tracking system (ISTAR). She said the Agency used the system for various internal reporting and tracking processes and the Colorado River Commission’s customers used the system to obtain contract pricing data up to five years into the future. Ms. Garrett noted that costs had been reduced by $15,800 in the first year of the biennium and $14,137 the second year based on revised pricing from the Purchasing Division.
Chairman Parks asked if there were any questions on the budget. There were none.
SENATOR RHOADS MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE BUDGET WITH TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS AND STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDING THE DEFERRAL OF THE HIRING OF THREE POSITIONS UNTIL THE SECOND YEAR OF THE BIENNIUM.
ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Assemblywoman Giunchigliani and Speaker Perkins were not present for the vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
COLORADO RIVER COMMISSION
POWER DELIVERY SYSTEM (502-4501)
EXECUTIVE BUDGET PAGE CRC-13
Ms. Garrett said that the budget primarily accounted for the Colorado River Commission’s largest customer, the Southern Nevada Water Authority. She said there were three decision units in the budget to accommodate the demand for an increase in power from their customers. Ms. Garrett said that in the three decision units the Agency had requested the authority to collect the revenue, which would only materialize if the customers actually used the power and were billed for it.
Ms. Garrett said there was $62.5 million in the first year and $52.6 million in the second year in decision unit M-200 for the Southern Nevada Water Authority’s new water treatment facility. Ms. Garrett said the projections were based on the customer’s power usage.
Ms. Garrett said decision unit E-351 accommodated the second increase in the demand for power. She said it represented the estimated power usage for the Commission’s S.B. 211 customers, which were the local water organizations that were member agencies of the Southern Nevada Water Authority. Ms. Garrett said the decision unit contained $36.9 million in the first year and $49.5 million in the second year.
Ms. Garrett explained that decision unit E-352 was also for the Southern Nevada Water Authority. She said the Governor had recommended $250,000 in FY2005 for power that the Southern Nevada Water Authority would purchase through a third party contract, the Silver Hawk Power Generation Facility. Ms. Garrett said it was the Southern Nevada Water Authority’s desire to purchase that power from them and then the Colorado River Commission would administer that power through their power lines.
Ms. Garrett said decision unit E-375 was for the Renewable Energy Project. She said The Executive Budget recommended $150,000 in FY2003-04 and $7.1 million in FY 2004-05 for a pilot project for renewable energy resources. Ms. Garrett said the first year would continue with the investigation of potential projects such as solar projects, mini-hydroelectric projects, or wind projects. She said that in the second year of the biennium a project would be selected and a $7.1 million cost had been estimated to engineer, design, and construct the project. Ms. Garrett said that amount had been estimated although the funding under the contract for the project would be provided by the Southern Nevada Water Authority and the S.B. 211 customers.
SENATOR RHOADS MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Assemblywoman Giunchigliani and Speaker Perkins were not present for the vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
COLORADO RIVER COMMISSION
POWER MARKETING FUND (505-4502)
EXECUTIVE BUDGET PAGE CRC-17
Ms. Garrett said Budget Account 505-4502 was used to record purchases and sales of power and other power marketing-related activities except those dedicated to the Southern Nevada Water System and S.B. 211 customers.
Ms. Garrett said decision unit M-200 was for hydropower purchase and sales, similar to the decision units that had been previously discussed. She said there was $78.9 million in FY2003-04 and $93.8 million in FY2004-05. She said that was related to a projected increase in power usage and the cost of power.
Ms. Garrett said decision unit M-201 was for the basic substation complex in Henderson, Nevada. She said the Colorado River Commission had taken over the operating and maintenance responsibility of the substation. She said The Executive Budget contained $691,000 in each year of the biennium to fund their operating and rebuilding costs of the substation. Ms. Garrett stated that the substation would be completely operational in FY2004.
SENATOR RHOADS MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR WITH TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Assemblywoman Giunchigliani and Speaker Perkins were not present for the vote.)
BUDGET CLOSED.
********
There being no further business, Chairman Parks adjourned the meeting at 9:34 a.m.
Lila Clark
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman David Parks, Chairman
DATE:
Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Chairman
DATE: