MINUTES OF THE
JOINT Subcommittee on
Public Safety/Natural Resources/Transportation
of the
Senate Committee on Finance
AND THE
Assembly Committee on Ways and Means
Seventy-second Session
May 7, 2003
The Joint Subcommittee on Public Safety/Natural Resources/Transportation of the Senate Committee on Finance and the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means was called to order by Chairman Dean A. Rhoads at 8:41 a.m. on Wednesday, May 7, 2003 in Room 2134 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
Senate COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Chairman
Senator Sandra J. Tiffany
Senator Bob Coffin
Assembly COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. David R. Parks, Chairman
Ms. Christina R. Giunchigliani
Mr. Joshua B. Griffin
Ms. Sheila Leslie
Mr. John W. Marvel
Mr. Richard D. Perkins
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Steven J. Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analysis
Mark Krmpotic, Senior Program Analyst
Tracy Raxter, Program Analyst
James D. Earl, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Jackie Crawford, Director, Department of Corrections
Darrel Rexwinkel, Assistant Director, Support Services, Department of Corrections
Dr. Ted A. D’Amico, Medical Director, Department of Corrections
Glen Whorton, Assistant Director, Operations, Department of Corrections
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Senator Rhoads:
We will address our first item in the Department of Corrections budget.
Casa Grande Transition Housing – Budget Page NDOC-38 (Volume 3) Budget Account 101-3760
Tracy Raxter, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau:
A number of budget closing items (Exhibit C. Original is on file in the Research Library.) affect the housing plan of the Department of Corrections. The first item is a proposal for a transition housing facility to be named the Casa Grande Transition Housing. The Governor’s recommendation reflects a 436-bed facility, developed by a nonprofit organization utilizing low‑income tax credits. In response to committee concerns, the department developed four alternatives to the original proposal. The alternatives involved either a 200-bed or a 400-bed facility with housing for 200 inmates in the next biennium. The department proposed a private facility leased and operated by the department. Residents would be required to pay rent of $14 daily. The department’s preferred alternative is a 400-bed facility, housing 200 inmates during the first year of the biennium and an additional 200 inmates in the 2005-2007 biennium. This would result in a net reduction of approximately $137,000 over the next biennium from the Governor’s recommendation in the Executive Budget.
Staff notes there are a number of uncertainties with the proposal for a transition housing facility. There are different possible site locations. The facility could have 200 or 400 beds. Residents could remain for different periods. The department’s business plan reflects a residency period of from 4 months to 12 months. The alternative plan reflects an average residency of 4 months. There are variations involving case management. The Governor’s original proposal was based on an agreement the department signed with a nonprofit organization for development of the facility. That agreement specified the nonprofit organization would be responsible for offender case management with the department providing assistance and support. The department’s alternative plan reflects the department operating and managing the entire facility. The recommended caseworker staffing for this facility is still one position for every 200 inmates, a slightly higher ratio than authorized in existing department facilities.
Staff points out a number of inmates would be involved with various program services; this might involve a greater need for case management services. The Governor’s initial recommendation reflected 12 custody officers, as does the department’s alternative plan. Staff has concerns regarding the ability of an inmate to balance time between employment, an important consideration in the conceptualization of the facility, and the programming, victim-impact, and restorative justice programs required of all inmates. The budget includes funding for inmate programming services including education, life skills training, victim impact panels, and substance abuse treatment. The level of that funding was $10 per day per inmate under the Governor’s initial recommendation but $5 per day per inmate under the department’s present proposal. Staff has not received a budget allocating this funding among various services.
High Desert State Prison, -- Budget Page NDOC-71 (Volume 3)
Budget Account 101-3762
The department also provided budget information on the alternative not to open a reentry center. Staff points out this would result in a decrease of General Fund support of approximately $1.5 million over the biennium. This alternative does not imply that inmates otherwise housed at Casa Grande Transitional Housing would be housed at High Desert State Prison. Rather, opening housing unit 8 at High Desert State Prison would make available an additional 290 beds, which would be filled by a redistribution of population within the prison system.
The committee may wish to consider approving funding to house the 200 inmates in existing facilities and provide the department with a Letter of Intent, indicating it should continue the development of a transition housing plan for presentation at the next Legislative Session if it produces a feasible plan.
Senator Rhoads:
What is the difference in funding between Casa Grande and an honor camp?
Mr. Raxter:
The overall funding is slightly higher for Casa Grande due, in part, to higher inmate programming costs.
Senator Rhoads:
What kind of treatment do Casa Grande prisoners receive that prisoners at honor camps do not?
Mr. Raxter:
I defer to the department.
Jackie Crawford, Director, Department of Corrections:
I would first like to address how funds for inmate services would be used. We staffed our plan very lightly because we want to use community resources. There are tremendous resources in the community we can use at no cost to the State. However, we need to have inmates in community-based programs before we can use those services. The State would realize cost savings by making use of what is available outside the department.
The programs at the transitional facility would include job development counseling and other programs I believe will help inmates get out of the prison system. Currently, many inmates waive parole because they cannot find either housing or jobs. Eventually, this will create a backlog in our prison population. This is why the department planned this reentry center. We want to use this facility as an alternative to housing in a hard bed. Many of our people cannot find housing because they do not have families in the community. Between 68 percent and 80 percent of these people are Nevadans, and 68 percent of these people come from Clark County.
Senator Rhoads:
What do you mean by “Nevadans?”
Ms. Crawford:
Those percentage figures refer to inmates born and raised in Nevada. They will be returning to the state, and 68 percent of released inmates may return to Clark County.
The department proposal for a reentry facility is one for you as Legislators to address. Do we want to change our state policy, or do we want to warehouse inmates and turn them out onto street corners, as we do now, with only $25 in their pockets?
Senator Rhoads:
Has such a program worked in other states?
Ms. Crawford:
Almost every state has such a program. Nevada is the exception. We are trying to develop one.
Originally, we considered a private, nonprofit program. However, the comfort level with it did not seem to be very high. As a result, we modified our proposal and brought it back to this committee in a work session. I felt our presentation was well received. There are options we can consider. We can implement something in October 2004.
Again, you have to decide where we want to go in Nevada, what our policy and our philosophy should be regarding prisoner release. This is an opportunity to transition inmates back to society and, hopefully, make them successful.
Senator Rhoads:
How do you distinguish between inmates going to Casa Grande and honor camps?
Ms. Crawford:
The department has one of the best prisoner classification systems in the country. We do this very well. We screen for property, drug, violent, and sex offenders. No violent or sex offenders will be going into this program. We want to design this program to succeed.
Senator Rhoads:
If we follow the staff recommendation to house 200 inmates in existing facilities, where would the department put them?
Ms. Crawford:
Are you talking about putting them in the institution or about Casa Grande?
Mr. Raxter:
I believe the Senator is asking whether, in the event the Casa Grande proposal is not approved and the inmates must be housed in existing facilities, which facilities would house them?
Ms. Crawford:
It would depend on where the department had available beds. These might be hard beds or beds in a camp.
Senator Rhoads:
Would they be treated differently?
Ms. Crawford:
We cannot treat institutionalized inmates differently. We can distinguish among inmates by placing them in a community-based setting.
Assemblyman Parks:
We strongly support the transition program. I hope I am not putting words in my colleagues’ mouths inappropriately. Our problem is that the logistics are unclear. We cannot now say that a facility will exist on a specific date to accept inmates from hard beds. There are other long-term budget ramifications we may address later today. Our bottom line is, “How are we going to do this?”
Assemblywoman Leslie:
I share Ms. Crawford’s view of the outcome of the work session. I believe we agreed on what was then option two, cutting the number of involved prisoners from 400 to 200. Is that your recollection?
Ms. Crawford:
Yes, I recall 200 prisoners originally involved, with a subsequent 200 if the program were stabilized.
Assemblywoman Leslie:
Do you mean, “perhaps an additional 200?”
Ms. Crawford:
That is correct. We were going to come back to the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) for an additional decision.
Assemblywoman Leslie:
What date would you be able to start transitioning prisoners? Did you give us an exact time line, involving release of a request for proposal (RFP)?
Ms. Crawford:
Yes, we did. There was an action plan attached to the handouts we provided at the work session. We were looking at October 2004 as the start of the turnkey operation.
Assemblywoman Leslie:
Perhaps an initial program covering 400 inmates is unreasonable. While I do not know about the rest of the committee members, I thought we were committed to a reentry program for at least 200 prisoners. I recommend we look at this. I do not know whether staff is missing information needed to process and evaluate the plan. I expected a staff recommendation to move toward implementation unless a major problem had been identified.
Mr. Raxter:
The department presented budgets for those alternative plans. I am unaware of a date of October 2004. The budget submitted involved a July 2004 date with staffing beginning in May in order to ramp up to a July 2004 opening.
Assemblywoman Leslie:
Did you think it would start in July 2004?
Mr. Raxter:
That was the date given staff by the department. I described some uncertainties earlier. If we are unclear about the opening date, that represents an additional uncertainty.
Assemblywoman Leslie:
Do we need a list of specific questions for the department? I would be glad to work on this some more in order to see if we can get the program operational by October 2004. That seems like a reasonable date to me.
Mr. Raxter:
I would ask the committee for its views in considering the uncertainties I identified. Staff is just identifying areas of concern. We are not representing that these things will hold up the project.
Assemblyman Marvel:
Ms. Crawford, when would you need the money? If opening is not until October 2004, could we approve the project with authorization for expenditure coming from the IFC based on a more specific plan?
Ms. Crawford:
This project would be good for the State regardless of how it is put together and approved. I understood the projected opening would be in October 2004. I know our staff was considering opening in July or August. If that makes us sound as though we are not reading from the same sheet of music, I understand that perception. I will be able to have a turnkey operation in October 2004.
Senator Rhoads:
How many inmates would that involve?
Ms. Crawford:
I am speaking of an operation for 200 inmates.
Senator Tiffany:
I want to raise a couple of points. The subcommittee direction was to fund the project for 200 inmates. We seem to have a chicken-and-egg situation. How can we expect the department to have a vendor and a site selected when the department does not yet have an approved budget? We have closed many multimillion-dollar budget accounts where many decisions remain open. I know of $300 million computer projects where not all of the details are known. The recommendation of the subcommittee was to move forward on the recommendation involving 200 beds. I disagree with staff regarding uncertainties. We are clear about size. We cannot determine the site until we identify a vendor, but we know what direction we want to move. We also discussed housing out-of-state inmates as a source of funding. The idea of transitioning prisoners is sound. It works in northern Nevada. Some 70 percent of prisoners are from Clark County, and it is time to have a transitional housing facility in Clark County.
I have worked in community-based services. I have placed people in jobs. We have obtained counseling and drug rehabilitation services without money from the General Fund. This is pass-through money from federal sources managed by community-based services. This program makes complete sense. It takes an inmate from a hard bed and places that inmate in transition housing, provides a job and housing that is otherwise impossible to find in Clark County. They are reunited with their families and given an opportunity to become successful rather than return to prison. I do not have questions so much as I have support for the concept. If another subcommittee meeting is required, I am volunteering. I fully support the 200‑bed proposal and the Letter of Intent for IFC oversight.
Darrel Rexwinkel, Assistant Director, Support Services, Department of Corrections:
Senator Tiffany got it right. Our position would be very different if the State put up construction money and we were looking forward to delivery of a facility the State Public Works Board was building against a specific delivery date. In our case, we need a funding commitment in order to find a facility. We need to be taken seriously by an owner or a property developer. Without an appropriation we will be perceived differently.
Our latest proposal did include a July 2004 opening date. The reason for the $630,000 General Fund appropriation request for fiscal year (FY) 2004 is we need to hire staff before opening. Staffers, including caseworkers, need 2 months of training. We need sufficient equipment to support opening in October 2004. Opening dates in August or September 2004 are also manageable. Our biennium population plan shows every honor camp as full. There simply is no more room to put an inmate in an honor camp. The 200 inmates we are considering would remain in hard beds. If one of them were to go to an honor camp, one of the inmates currently slotted for an honor camp would have to remain in a hard bed. This proposal represents a real option to transition inmates to the community. Hopefully, we will not get them back, and we will not have to spend $18,000 annually to house that inmate in a hard bed.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
The City of Las Vegas recently received a large federal grant to deal with felon reentry. Our program could complement that. We need the comfort level provided by knowing that a plan is in place. Too often, we are asked to approve programs on the fly. We talked about option two as described by Assemblywoman Leslie. Is that the most viable option? If so, we need to have detailed dates and numbers so we share an understanding. However, we clearly need to institute a transition program.
Assemblywoman Leslie:
Staff has outlined some issues. I am quite willing to work in an emerging subgroup to get answers. I do not think the answers will be difficult. We are anxious to get going. My suggestion is we give the department an opportunity to address current concerns, including any additional matters staff might want to address, before we close this budget.
Senator Rhoads:
The problem is that we are running out of time on budget closure. If there is a problem, we could reopen the budget.
Assemblywoman Leslie:
Perhaps we could address the questions today.
Steven J. Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau:
Mr. Chairman, you can hold the budget open. I suggest only that we need a specific date for resolution. I do not know when that date might be, but it would have to be soon. We do not want to drive your decision on closure.
Senator Rhoads:
Perhaps questions can be answered now.
Assemblywoman Leslie:
The original plan had additional case management services included. The alternative plan does not. What is the issue?
Ms. Crawford:
I would reiterate the grants we have received and the available federal funding. Nevada’s Workforce Investment Support Services can provide staff for counseling and placement.
Assemblywoman Leslie:
Do you not need additional case management staff?
Ms. Crawford:
I do not believe so. Most people will be in the facility from 4 to 6 months. They will be working. Frankly, what we proposed, some case management with automation, will be sufficient.
Assemblywoman Leslie:
My next question concerns the 12 custody officers and 1 caseworker. Is that constant across the 200-bed and 400-bed options?
Ms. Crawford:
That is correct.
Assemblywoman Leslie:
I understand employment is part of the program to be balanced with other parts of the program. Is that correct?
Ms. Crawford:
Yes, it is.
Assemblywoman Leslie:
Making the inmates pay $10 daily was in the Governor’s initial recommendation, but has that been reduced to $5?
Ms. Crawford:
We revisited the issue, and feel that $5 daily will be sufficient. This is for contractual services. Rather than hire staff, we would contract for services. We feel that to be more prudent.
Assemblywoman Leslie:
Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to move for closure based on a 200-bed facility, targeting an October 2004 start date. I remind the committee I am the only member here to have participated on the Governor’s commission that studied this issue. This facility was one of that commission’s primary recommendations. I agree with Senator Tiffany, this facility is a critical piece of the prison solution. Additionally, it will save the State a lot of money compared to expansion of hard bed systems.
Senator Rhoads:
Would you include a Letter of Intent?
Assemblywoman Leslie:
Yes, the department would come to the IFC.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I need clarification. The department should come to the IFC for the actual allocation. I would also ask that the department begin tracking the dollars, so that there will be a basis to consider expansion in the next biennium.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS TO OPEN A 200-BED REENTRY CENTER IN OCTOBER 2004, CONTINGENT UPON AUTHORIZATION OF FUNDING BY THE INTERIM FINANCE COMMITTEE.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.
ASSEMBLY: THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
SENATE: THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR COFFIN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Senator Rhoads:
The next issue addresses medical services at Ely.
Prison Medical Care – Budget Page NDOC-13 (Volume 3)
Budget Account 101-3706
Mr. Raxter:
A private contractor currently provides medical services at the Ely State Prison and the Ely Conservation Camp. The Executive Budget reflects continued use for contracted medical services, but does not include a price increase for the existing contract, which will expire on June 30, 2003. An RFP has been issued; two proposals have been received. A decision has not been made. The department indicates the proposal superior on both price and technical issues would require a budget augmentation of $484,000 in FY 2004 and $770,000 in FY 2005 beyond the amounts in the Executive Budget.
The department reported in a previous meeting that it had prepared a contingency plan to provide services itself if a suitable contractor was not found through the RFP process. The department plan would require an augmentation to the Executive Budget of $48,000 in FY 2004 and $191,000 in FY 2005.
Staff notes that a budget modification was not submitted by the Budget Division on this proposal. Additionally, the 68th Legislative Session instructed the department in a Letter of Intent to pursue the implementation of the privatization of medical services at Ely State Prison. Contract medical services were considered at that time, in part because of difficulties in professional staff recruitment and retention. Privatization was implemented in December 1995. The committee should consider whether to augment the prison medical budget in one of two ways. One option is to continue the privatization of medical services. The second option is for the department to provide medical services. I have already explained the cost implications of these options.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
What is the current status of recruiting and retaining medical personnel in the Ely area? We should revisit the cause of moving to the contract solution.
Dr. Ted A. D’Amico, Medical Director, Department of Corrections:
The private contractors established our staffing patterns at Ely over the last 6 years. People previously employed by the State remain in the area. The ability to recruit and staff has changed over the years. The State system has improved its ability to staff in various geographic areas. We have talked to some people in the Ely area who are presently employed privately. We have a good indication that a majority would be happy to return to state employment. We do not know the exact numbers. I have spoken to physicians, dentists, optometrists, psychiatrists, psychologists, and nursing staff. A number would like to return. Our recruiting efforts, excluding a few nursing positions, could be solved easily.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I did not support privatization. I think we have now come full circle. If I understand the funding of the options, State assumption would cost about an additional $240,000 versus about $1.2 million pursuant to the existing RFP over the biennium. Is that correct?
Mr. Raxter:
That is correct.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
This is an easy decision in my mind.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO AUGMENT THE MEDICAL BUDGET OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS BY $48,356 IN FY 2004 AND $191,283 IN FY 2005 TO PROVIDE MEDICAL SERVICES IN ELY PRISON FACILITIES.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Perkins:
I will not support the motion only because I have some concerns about staffing patterns in Ely. I recall some significant issues. I do not want to delay the motion, nor do I want to speak to attempt to sway the committee. I wanted to express this concern for the record.
Assemblyman Parks:
I understand the bids pursuant to the RFP are proprietary. In what way was one bid superior, were there simply additional “bells and whistles” that drove the cost up? Can you shed light on this?
Mr. Raxter:
I defer to the department; it described one bid as superior.
Dr. D’Amico:
Let me first explain that I am not bidding on this contract as though I were a private company attempting to take it over. I feel the State has an obligation to care for its inmates appropriately. We were instructed to compose an action plan to determine whether we could provide care. I admit that 10 or 15 years ago it would have been difficult for the department to provide care in outlying areas. Presently, we have a proven staff and matrix of operations. I feel comfortable we can staff and operate that facility.
I understand that one reason the Legislature built the prison in Ely was to support the community. We are getting indications that, although privatization has solved some staff problems, it has not always been a source of community support. Medical personnel in Ely have told me that private companies are not in full accord with the community in supporting efforts at the hospital. They are very happy the Legislature is considering State assumption of medical services. They believe that would be a boon to the local economy.
This company terminated the contract about a year ago because it had trouble with external medical costs and operation in Ely. We went to the negotiating table to support the contractor as much as possible using state facilities. The company said it would stay. There is uncertainty when one gets service from a company that must consider profit margins. If the company has an option to terminate at will, my attitude is that it is easier for me to operate the facility than to try to provide additional contractor support. The State should use a private contractor to save money, to provide better operations, or to provide higher quality care. If none of these benefits are present, why should there be privatization?
Senator Tiffany:
If the State provides medical services in Ely, I assume there will be an in-house general practitioner (GP), and that GP will handle diagnosis as well as prescriptions. Is that correct?
Dr. D’Amico:
Yes, that is correct. We try to utilize local facilities as much as possible as augmentation. This physician will be on site full time to provide medical care.
Senator Tiffany:
What happens in catastrophic situations where a prisoner requires surgery or some other procedure that the GP cannot handle?
Dr. D’Amico:
Presently, that is under the control of the private contractor. The contractor has its own methods. Sometimes patients are sent to the University Medical Center in Las Vegas. If we bring medical services in-house, the inmate operation will become subject to our utilization review committee. We would probably transfer patients using our regional medical facility and make maximum use of local hospitals to cut down on outside medical costs.
Senator Tiffany:
What medical services are available in Ely? There is not a hospital there.
Dr. D’Amico:
There is a good hospital in Ely. The administrator is quite anxious to work with the State. They have some surgical capability, emergency services capability, and the capability for many other medical procedures. My understanding is that facility is currently underutilized.
Senator Tiffany:
There is a hospital in Ely? If it has a population of 20, then of course it is underutilized. Do they have a full-blown hospital?
Dr. D’Amico:
Actually, it is a pretty good facility, and, yes, it is a full-blown hospital.
Senator Tiffany:
Is that where we would take inmates for the next stage health care?
Dr. D’Amico:
Yes. There have been cooperation problems between that facility and the existing private contractor. Those complications would disappear if the State were to take over operations.
Senator Tiffany:
If the State assumed operations, would it have a contract with the Ely hospital involving capped rates of some kind?
Dr. D’Amico:
We would negotiate with the hospital in the same manner we negotiate with hospitals elsewhere in order to get the best rates for care. The hospital in Ely would be more than happy to negotiate with us to get our business.
Senator Tiffany:
Do we have an in-house pharmacy?
Dr. D’Amico:
The pharmacy function would be handled by the State pharmacy system. We are presently streamlining that system.
Senator Rhoads:
I think we will hold this budget open for the next few days because of Speaker Perkins’s concerns. Let us move on.
Dr. D’Amico:
Mr. Chairman, I would like to make one comment. Whenever an entity takes over an existing operation, be that a private company in transition to state operation, or a state operation moving to a private operation, there is a certain lead time needed in order to hire people. Interviews need to be conducted; inventory of equipment needs to be undertaken. I have worked with private operators. Tactics delaying decisions benefit the entity in control. If you delay a decision, my lead time diminishes and this will affect our ability to transition a proper takeover. We need to know as quickly as possible whether we will be expected to operate in Ely.
Senator Rhoads:
I would expect it would be a matter of days before we could make a decision, would it not, Mr. Speaker?
Assemblyman Perkins:
I do not want to hold up the committee’s action if it wants to pursue the matter. I have great respect for Dr. D’Amico, and I supported his cost‑cutting measures several sessions ago in order to turn around the prison medical system. I think he has done an extraordinary job. I have some private concerns regarding our ability to staff a state system in Ely. I remember the problems of 6 years ago. I wanted to note my concerns for the record, but this issue is at the pleasure of the committee.
Assemblyman Marvel:
I would like to see the committee vote since we have a motion on the floor.
ASSEMBLY: THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS VOTED NO.)
SENATE: THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator Rhoads:
Let us turn to issues relating to Wyoming and Washington inmates.
High Desert State Prison – Budget Page NDOC-71 (Volume 3)
Budget Account 101-3762
Mr. Raxter:
The department has submitted a budget modification adding two decision units to the High Desert State Prison budget. The department requests revenue and expense budget authority for the housing of inmates from the states of Wyoming and Washington. The department currently houses inmates from Wyoming; that contract was approved by the IFC in November 2002 for receipt of inmates commencing in December 2002. The department currently houses 112 Wyoming inmates. The modification covering Wyoming inmates requests authority to house 181 inmates. Net revenue from the current 112 inmates is $1.8 million in each year of the biennium. The department asks this revenue be used to offset other General Fund expenses within the department’s budget. Wyoming has sent the department a Letter of Intent indicating a desire to continue housing its inmates in Nevada through at least June 2004 and possibly beyond that date.
The department has provided a budget modification for housing 240 inmates from Washington State during the biennium. However, the department has recommended no General Fund savings since no contract is currently in place and the inmates are not currently in the state.
In reviewing the biennium housing plans for Washington and Wyoming inmates, staff would like to point out the Lovelock Correctional Center would need to operate above emergency capacity for 21 months of the biennium. This assumes the Casa Grande facility is approved. If the Casa Grande proposal were not approved, then an additional facility would have to be operated above emergency capacity. If the department were to house only Wyoming inmates, then the department could operate without exceeding emergency capacity. If the committee approves expense and revenue authority to house out-of-state inmates, then staff suggests consideration of budget authority for housing only Wyoming inmates. Staff also suggests accounting for net revenue of $1.8 million as General Fund savings only in FY 2004 since the Letter of Intent from Wyoming covers only that period.
Senator Rhoads:
Is it a common practice for one state to house another state’s prisoners? It appears Nevada is making money on this transaction; maybe we should encourage it.
Mr. Raxter:
Practice depends on the housing capacity of the state. Some states have insufficient capacity and house inmates in local county jails. Nevada’s prison population growth rate has declined over the last several years. Consequently, the state has facilities in the department that are not utilized. One example is housing unit 8 at the High Desert facility. The 71st Legislature approved the budget for the department based on inmate projections available at the time. Those projections envisioned use of housing unit 8 beginning this biennium. However, due to the slower than projected growth of the inmate population, that housing unit has not been used.
Mr. Rexwinkel:
Mr. Raxter is correct. We had projected the opening of Casa Grande in July 2004. Several months’ delay would change the numbers somewhat. However, with 181 Wyoming inmates and 240 Washington inmates, we project a General Fund savings of $15.5 million if the inmates remain throughout the biennium. We are not requesting that amount be built into our budget, because, as Mr. Raxter explained, we do not have contract approved yet. We have requested sufficient revenue and inmate-driven costs be placed in the budget to support that number of inmates. As revenue is received, it will be placed in reserve.
Senator Rhoads:
I think we have to decide on issues relating to inmates from Wyoming and Washington. We might approve housing only the Wyoming inmates. We need to include the Washington possibility.
Mr. Raxter:
Staff has concerns regarding Washington inmates. Given our most recent population projection of March 2003, the department would have to operate above emergency capacity. The department has told me there is some concern doing so on a more permanent basis. There would be stress on the facility, on the staff, and on the resident inmates. Staff recommends not including the Washington inmates in the budget. If the actual inmate population during the biennium is below that projected, then the department could approach the IFC with a work program for housing Washington inmates.
Mr. Rexwinkel:
This all gets fairly complicated. We do have a work program the IFC will hear tomorrow to begin receiving Washington inmates around May 15. We plan to receive 120 inmates with the additional 120 inmates coming at the end of May. The contract has been executed but not approved; it is before the Board of Examiners for review on the next meeting, scheduled for May 13.
Senator Rhoads:
Is the price the same as that for the Wyoming inmates?
Mr. Rexwinkel:
It is a little bit different; actually, the price is a little bit more.
Senator Rhoads:
Can the department do this for a profit?
Mr. Rexwinkel:
Yes, we can. If those decisions fall into place, the department needs on-going authority. We would need to open unit 8 at the High Desert facility. We will not place all Washington inmates in unit 8, but the numbers require opening that unit. We need an additional 18 staff to open unit 8; they are part of the work program request to be considered by the IFC. Those 18 staff will not be available immediately. We will be putting some strain on the system, but we are willing to do so in anticipation of a $15.5 million savings to the General Fund over the biennium. We would have to hire staff with the anticipation personnel would have continued employment. This is why we are requesting ongoing budget authority in an amount at least sufficient to cover the inmate-driven costs and the employee salary cost for the Washington inmates through the biennium.
I believe the committee just approved the Casa Grande proposal. That will free 200 beds beginning in the second year of the biennium.
Senator Rhoads:
Are the Washington prisoners in the budget?
Mr. Rexwinkle:
That issue is outside the budget right now. That is why we have the work program scheduled to go before the IFC tomorrow.
Assemblyman Marvel:
It might be appropriate for us to deal with this item after the outcome of the IFC meeting tomorrow.
Mr. Raxter:
The issue for decision is a policy one, whether or not to house out‑of‑state inmates. It might be more appropriately addressed by the Legislature than the IFC. Staff will be recommending to the IFC whatever position the committee adopts this morning.
Senator Rhoads:
What is the staff recommendation on the Washington inmate issue?
Mr. Raxter:
Our concern is with operation above emergency capacity. Mr. Rexwinkel is correct. The reentry center will provide 200 beds. However, the department’s biennium plans, even including the reentry center, still reflect operations above emergency capacity. We would still be operating above emergency capacity in the second year of the biennium.
Glen Whorton, Assistant Director, Operations, Department of Corrections:
The department would be operating the Lovelock Correctional Center in excess of its emergency capacity threshold. We do this periodically at almost all of our institutions since we cannot build an institution a bed at a time. We have to have a population large enough to justify institution expansion. When we exceed emergency capacity, we craft the population of the institution to match the characterization of the institution. We have been making efforts to soften the population at the Lovelock facility. We have reduced the protective custody population at Lovelock. The current population is not as difficult to manage; inmates are more compliant. We expect to continue this practice throughout the biennium in order to manage the excess capacity.
Assemblyman Parks:
How firm are the numbers of Washington inmates due to arrive in May? Is there flexibility to phase in our acceptance of inmates over a period of 6 months? Are the numbers you provided hard and fast?
Mr. Whorton:
I do not think the numbers are hard and fast. However, Washington is very eager to send us those inmates because of legislative and budget issues. Returning to an earlier question, while not necessarily common, it is certainly not unknown for states to engage in these practices of inmate housing because institutions cannot be built a bed at a time. States may get behind in a construction program and have to send inmates to facilities in other states. Nevada has sent male inmates to Ohio. Given the foresight of the Governor and the Legislature in providing the department with appropriate facilities, we are in good shape. As a result, we have an opportunity.
Senator Rhoads:
When do you go before the State Board of Examiners?
Mr. Rexwinkel:
We go before the board on May 13.
Senator Rhoads:
Is the question before the State Board of Examiners whether to accept 240 inmates from Washington?
Mr. Rexwinkel:
That will be before the board indirectly. The issue is approval of the contract with Washington. I think the contract provision is for 250 inmates. The reason we have used the figure 240 involves a transportation issue. Washington can transport 120 inmates at a time. This gets us to the 240 figure even though the contract is for 250 inmates.
Senator Rhoads:
Mr. Raxter, what kind of motion do we need to address this issue? I do not think there is committee opposition if the State can make money housing inmates from Washington.
Senator Coffin:
Is $68 enough? I know there is a contract rate proposed, but it has not been approved. Is $68 just a courtesy rate used among states when beds are available?
Mr. Rexwinkel:
Our inmate-driven rate, the cost per inmate for food and clothing and associated expenses, comes to about $1100 annually. On top of that, medical costs may run an additional $900 annually. Rounding these figures up, our inmate-driven rate is about $2000 annually.
Senator Coffin:
So, that is about $20 per day.
Mr. Rexwinkel:
No, it is not that high. It works out to $4 or $5 a day.
Senator Coffin:
Then, staffing needs to be included.
Mr. Rexwinkel:
Staffing is essentially a fixed cost. Once hired, the staff is in place. We would have to open a new unit to accommodate Washington inmates, and that would include staffing. We have included that staff in the budget projections. The average inmate cost per day in FY 2005, including institutional costs such as utilities, is about $42 a day. That includes costs of the wards. That $42 across our institutions is the figure to be compared with the $68 in the contract. The $42 is an average cost. The marginal cost and revenue are different.
Senator Coffin:
Who classifies these prisoners? Do we trust and rely on the classification of Washington authorities?
Mr. Rexwinkel:
Central classification staff has been classifying candidates involved in the transfer to Nevada for the last 2 days.
Senator Coffin:
Are they sending us their best, well-behaved young men?
Mr. Rexwinkel:
That is not necessarily the case. High Desert State Prison is a high-medium institution. In our discussions with Washington’s classification people, they indicated the security level of the High Desert facility is about two levels above what Washington uses in its medium-level institutions. They are confident we will be able to manage these inmates. My counterpart has visited High Desert State Prison.
Senator Coffin:
Have they told you how many Aryan Nation inmates and how many gang types will be included in the 240 inmates?
Mr. Rexwinkel:
Some of the inmates have gang histories. We know what our gang population is, and we are careful to ensure we will not accept inmates who will be at odds. There are violent offenders in the Washington population, but we have violent offenders in all of the department’s institutions.
Senator Coffin:
I wanted to make certain that this addition would not change the chemistry of our prison population. You seem to have considered that.
Senator Rhoads:
Mr. Raxter, we need some guidance. What do we need to do in order to accept the Washington inmates?
Mr. Raxter:
You need a motion that includes budget authority within the Department of Corrections for High Desert State Prison to house up to 180 Wyoming inmates. Total revenue authority would need to be $2.5 million in each year of the biennium with $1.8 million in FY 2004 offsetting General Fund costs within the department’s budget. The motion should include revenue and expense authority of approximately $1.5 million in each year of the biennium to house up to 240 Washington inmates.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS MOVED TO ADOPT THE ORAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR HOUSING WYOMING AND WASHINGTON INMATES.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.
ASSEMBLY: THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
SENATE: THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator Rhoads:
We will turn to inmate population projections, although we already have had some discussion on this issue.
Mr. Raxter:
This information was prepared under contract by George Washington University. The revision of March 2003 reflects an increase of 113 inmates in FY 2004 and 158 additional inmates in FY 2005. The Budget Division submitted a modification to provide funding for the additional inmate-driven expenses. The General Fund impact is $600,000 in the first year and $700,000 in the second year. Staff notes the projections prepared for the last two biennia have somewhat overestimated the actual population. The FY 2002 population was 522 inmates below the projection. In FY 2003, actual population is 280 inmates below the projection. The committee may wish to consider a Letter of Intent to the department. Such a letter might provide that should the population fall below the projections during the biennium, the department will reserve the excess funding for inmate-driven expenses so that those funds would revert at the end of the year. A similar Letter of Intent was issued by the 70th Legislature. Staff recommends the budget modifications as submitted by the Budget Division to allow for the additional projected inmates.
Senator Rhoads:
Do we need a motion on this recommendation?
Mr. Raxter:
Yes. I recommend the motion reflect approval of the budget modifications submitted by the Budget Division for the additional inmates and a Letter of Intent.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS MOVED TO ADOPT ORAL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO INMATE POPULATION PROJECTIONS.
SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
ASSEMBLY: THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
SENATE: THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator Rhoads:
We can move on to prison medical care.
Prison Medical Care – Budget Page NDOC-13 (Volume 3)
Budget Account 101‑3706
Mr. Raxter:
The Governor recommends the elimination of 22 positions and the transfer of 36.5 outpatient mental health positions to the proposed Correctional Programs Division. The mental health positions include psychologists, psychometricians, substance abuse counselors, clinical social workers, and administrative support staff. The department reports 50 mental health positions would remain within the medical division to provide inpatient mental health services at both the regional medical facility and the mental health and extended care units within the department.
The Governor’s budget recommended changing the pay schedule for pharmacists within the department. The recommendation is similar to one made for other state pharmacist positions. The proposal is to move pharmacist positions from the classified employee pay schedule to the classified medical pay schedule. This has a General Fund impact on the Department of Corrections of approximately $95,000 the first year and $96,000 the second year.
The next closing issue involves medical inflation. The Executive Budget included provisions for funding medical inflation. There were modifications submitted by the Budget Division to correct numbers. The total amount requested is $900,000 the first year and $1.5 million the second year. These inflationary increases deal with outside medical services, such as hospitalization, prescription drugs, medical and dental supplies, and medical prosthetics. The inflation rate used is based on information obtained from federal Medicaid and Medicare services sources. In reviewing that information, staff believes demographic changes were included in the federal data in addition to inflation increases. Staff requests authority to continue review of that information to ensure the recommended inflation rates are appropriate. Should we identify proposals for changing the rate, we would like to be able to return to the full Senate and Assembly committees with any recommendation. The rates proposed for the Department of Corrections are the same rates proposed in the Department of Human Resources budgets.
The Governor has recommended reclassification of the mental health coordinator position to a correctional programs coordinator. This position would be transferred to the proposed Correctional Programs Division to serve as the division’s administrator. There is a request by the department to increase in‑state travel and training funds. Actual travel and training in FY 2002 was reduced by the Governor’s request to limit travel to essential trips. Staff notes the recommended funding levels reflect a slight increase over what was approved for the last biennium. The Governor’s request is to increase the travel and training categories by $18,900. Staff notes this is about $3500 more than what is budgeted annually in the current biennium. The committee may want to reduce the amount to the level for this biennium, approximately $15,400 annually.
The department requests the elimination of one mid-level practitioner position at Lovelock, and the increase of a senior physician position from half time to full time. Currently, there are two part-time senior physician positions at Lovelock. Based on the population at the facility, the department recommends an additional half-time position increase. This is the department’s top priority among the seven positions it is requesting.
Other than staff technical adjustments, there are no other closing items in the budget.
Senator Rhoads:
We need to act on the pharmacist pay increase. The Governor has recommended moving the position into the classified medical pay schedule. This represents an additional cost of $95,000.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 101‑3706 INCLUDING ELIMINATION OF 22 FULL-TIME POSITIONS AS RECOMMENDED, THE TRANSFER OF 36.5 POSITIONS FROM THE MEDICAL DIVISION TO THE CORRECTIONAL PROGRAMS DIVISION, RECLASSIFICATION OF PHARMACIST PAY, MEDICAL INFLATION COSTS SUBJECT TO STAFF PRESENTATION OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, RECLASSIFICATION OF THE MENTAL HEALTH COORDINATOR TO CORRECTIONS PROGRAM COORDINATOR, REDUCTIONS OF TRAVEL FUNDS TO $15,400, THE INCREASE OF A SENIOR PHYSICIAN POSITION TO FULL TIME, INCLUDING THE ELIMINATION OF A MID‑LEVEL PRACTITIONER POSITION, AND OTHER DECISION UNITS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR, CLOSING THOSE DECISION UNITS CONSISTENT WITH OTHER ACTIONS PREVIOUSLY TAKEN BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblywoman Leslie:
I am finally satisfied with the mental health changes, although I am not convinced on one point. I want to raise it for your continuing consideration. I am talking about the two clinical social workers remaining in the medical division; they are responsible for discharge planning. I am not satisfied that they do not belong in the proposed correctional unit. Dr. D’Amico, I would appreciate your keeping me informed. It may make more sense to move them once the new division is in place.
Dr. D’Amico:
I will take that under careful consideration. I will watch the situation and monitor it very closely. We will change it if necessary; I can assure you of that.
Senator Rhoads:
I am amazed the State can make that much money from bringing in prisoners from other states. We have had only 120 from Wyoming. Has consideration been given to constructing a prison just for out-of-state prisoners? This might be a way to balance the state budget.
ASSEMBLY: THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
SENATE: THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator Rhoads:
We will take up director’s office issues.
NDOC Director’s Office – Budget Page NDOC-1 (Volume 3)
Budget Account 101‑3710
Mr. Raxter:
There are several closing issues in this budget account. The department is requesting a new victim’s services officer position. Currently, the only statutory responsibility of the department relating to victims is to provide notification of an offender’s release or escape to those victims who have made a written notification request. The department is requesting this position in order to perform additional functions; the new position would be responsible for notifying victims of an offender’s sentence reduction, transfer, death, appearance before the psychological review panel, or the pardons board. Other duties would include teaching victim empathy to department staff, assisting in victim impact panels with inmates, developing an information clearinghouse for victims, and educating victims and victim service providers on the operation of the corrections system. The department has identified this position as its second priority of the seven new positions requested.
The department has requested a new grants analyst position to seek additional funding opportunities. The department has given Legislative staff a list of private foundations that provide grants in Nevada for various functions. It is unclear to staff how many of these foundations would support correctional programs. Staff notes that federal funding will likely be impacted by the President’s FY 2004 budget proposal to redirect funds from the Department of Justice to the Department of Homeland Security to bolster terrorism preparedness and prevention. We have concerns about the availability of grant funding for the department. This position is ranked priority five among the seven requested department positions.
The third major issue in this budget concerns a request included in the Executive Budget to provide preemployment psychological testing for custody personnel. The department believes this will help ensure only suitable individuals will be offered employment. It is the department’s position this program could reduce potential State liability costs while also positively impacting staff retention. Staff notes that preemployment psychological testing is typically used by law enforcement agencies within Nevada to screen individuals for positions where the use of lethal force occurs in a general public environment. The potential liability would be much greater in this situation than it would be in a correctional facility. Staff has made a technical adjustment of the amount of this request, reducing the General Fund support by $33,000 each year.
Other closing items within this budget include a request to eliminate six positions contained in enhancement unit E-605, a food service administrator, a locksmith, a budget analyst, an accounting assistant, a management assistant, and an administrative assistant. Staff notes three of these positions were approved by the last Legislature; they remain vacant, having never been filled. Staff concurs with this recommendation.
The Governor has recommended $300,000 in FY 2004 and $600,000 in FY 2005 for replacement equipment in E-710. This equipment includes a leased passenger bus. Currently the department has two passenger buses used for centralized transportation functions. The department recommends a 7-year lease to replace one of the buses. The recommended budget also includes $175,000 annually to replace radio communications equipment. The department recommends a lease rather than a purchase; the lease would be for 5 years and would include radio maintenance. The department reports that of its 696 existing radios, 370 would be compatible with the new leased system. However, 326 current radios would not be compatible. The department reports problems with its current radio system. It has different radio types; radios are from different manufacturers; radios operate in different modes. These differences cause coverage problems within institutional grounds. There is insufficient maintenance money, and the department has too few radios.
There is a recommendation for live-scan fingerprint systems for the Northern Nevada Correctional Center and the High Desert State Prison. Funding would involve a federal Byrne grant for 75 percent and a 25 percent match from the General Fund. These systems would enable the department to submit higher quality fingerprints to the Criminal History Repository; submission of prints is a statutory requirement.
Staff has made technical adjustments to this account. One involves the mattress replacement program where an adjustment was made based on inmate population projections. There was also an adjustment for drug testing. There is also a major adjustment. In the first year, some $700,000 in revenue is added from federal funds under the federal State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. The President’s original budget as submitted to Congress reflected elimination of this program; however, the program was reauthorized. The department would receive this money in State FY 2004. That $700,000 would offset General Fund money in this account.
Senator Rhoads:
I think we should look at the department’s priorities. I understand staff does not recommend approval of the victims’ service officer. Is that correct?
Mr. Raxter:
That is correct.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 101‑3710, INCLUDING APPROVAL OF THE VICTIMS’ SERVICE OFFICER, EXCLUDING THE GRANT ANALYST, INCLUDING PRE-EMPLOYMENT PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING, EXCLUDING POSITIONS IN E-605, INCLUDING REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT AND THE RADIO COMMUNICATION SYSTEM IN E-710, INCLUDING LIVE SCAN FINGERPRINT SYSTEMS.
Senator Coffin:
If we are going to deal with all the subjects, I have several questions, but I do not want to interrupt the motion.
Senator Rhoads:
Go ahead and raise your questions.
Senator Coffin:
I want to ensure we do not have citizens who do not know a dangerous person has escaped. Staff does not want the victims’ services officer position funded. Maybe the staff has been directed not to fund the position. It seems like a useful position to me. It does not duplicate the functions of the parole board. Would the functions of this position augment the notifications for parole hearings?
Ms. Crawford:
This position is one component of our system. That system has been very fragmented. The victims’ services officer will solidify the system and bring it into focus. We get hundreds of calls from victims. Once an inmate is paroled, we have to notify victims. Or, if we have a compassionate release as a result of illness, we have to notify people 45 days in advance. This position allows us to create a system for victims. Honestly, it is the right thing to do. Victims are often overlooked.
Senator Coffin:
It seems important to me.
Senator Rhoads:
What is the staff recommendation on psychological testing?
Mr. Raxter:
This is a policy issue; there is no staff recommendation. We did adjust the dollar amount based on the department’s information. We just note it is unclear whether there is a direct connection between this testing and reduced liability costs.
Assemblyman Parks:
Let me try a motion again; I will try to break some issues down.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS MOVED TO APPROVE THE VICTIMS’ SERVICE OFFICER, DENY THE GRANT ANALYST, APPROVE PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING IN THE AMOUNT OF $85,500, REQUESTING A REPORT ON ITS EFFECTIVENESS.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.
ASSEMBLY: THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
SENATE: THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator Rhoads:
We need to address the remaining items in this budget account. The Governor recommends most of these.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO CLOSE THE REMAINDER OF ITEMS IN BUDGET ACCOUNT 101-3710 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR WITH STAFF TECHNICAL CHANGES.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.
ASSEMBLY: THE MOTIONCARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
SENATE: THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator Rhoads:
We will open the budget dealing with correctional programs.
Correctional Programs – Budget Page NDOC-33 (Volume 3)
Budget Account 101‑3711
Mr. Raxter:
The Governor has recommended a new Correctional Programs Division within the department. It would be responsible for intake assessment, counseling, and treatment of offenders. Programs would include substance abuse, sex offenders, mental health, developmental disabilities, life skills, religious, educational, and prerelease reentry. There are three major closing issues. The Governor has included $8400 annually in new funding for specialized software to aid in the determination of offenders’ program needs. The Governor recommended funding of the inmate literacy program; it involves four teachers. Three of those positions were approved by the subcommittee for funding through the inmate welfare account. The fourth position is to be funded through the General Fund as proposed by the Governor. Staff seeks clarification on the issue of funding; staff recommends funding of the fourth teacher position through the Correctional Programs Division. Finally, the staffing of the division would come through transfer of 55.5 positions from other divisions within the Department of Corrections. The Medical Division would provide 36.5 positions, and another 11 positions would come from the substance abuse treatment program at the Southern Desert Correctional Center. Other transfers would include four chaplain positions and one teacher position. The contracted costs of the Willing Inmates in Nevada Gaining Sobriety (WINGS) substance abuse treatment program would be transferred to the new division.
SENATOR TIFFANY MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 101-3711 BASED ON THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATIONS WITH STAFF TECHNICAL MODIFICATIONS.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.
ASSEMBLY: THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
SENATE: THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator Tiffany:
I seek clarification on one issue. Will the personnel staffing the four literacy positions work where they have before? Will the only change be their funding source?
Ms. Crawford:
That is correct.
Senator Rhoads:
We will move on to the High Desert State Prison.
High Desert State Prison – Budget Page NDOC-71 (Volume 3)
Budget Account 101‑3762
Mr. Raxter:
There is only one major issue in this budget account. The Assembly has not yet voted in the relevant subcommittee on the food inflation issue. Other items reflect technical adjustments by staff based on the inmate-driven costs adjusted to account for population projections. The Budget Division submitted a modification adding $68,000 in the first year for electrical repairs to the water pumping system. That maintenance is potentially critical. Staff has also made technical adjustments to the base budget resulting in $2500 annually.
Senator Rhoads:
Has the Senate subcommittee made inflationary adjustments?
Mr. Raxter:
Both the Senate subcommittee and the Senate committee have approved including food inflation adjustments. The Assembly subcommittee has not taken action.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Would you explain how this works? Is there a contract involved?
Mr. Rexwinkel:
We have a primary supplier of food. However, we do take advantage of good opportunities to buy from other suppliers. We have several smaller contracts with vendors.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Do you get credits from your primary supplier you can then apply toward other purchases?
Mr. Rexwinkel:
We do not get credits. We buy on the best basis we can. We buy food as cheaply as possible. The food enters the institutions from one of our warehouses where it is prepared for the inmates.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Do you buy dry goods in advance, store them in the warehouse, and then ship them to the institutions?
Mr. Rexwinkel:
We generally try to keep a month’s supply of food on hand to counter supply disruption. We need to have food for the inmates.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
So, do you protect against waste or having to throw food out if you purchase too much too soon?
Mr. Rexwinkel:
That is for sure.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 101‑3762 BASED ON THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATION, INCLUDING FUNDING OF FOOD INFLATION, WITH STAFF TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.
ASSEMBLY: THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
SENATE: THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES
DMV, Compliance Enforcement – Budget Page DMV-21 (Volume 3)
Budget Account 201-4740
Mark Krmpotic, Senior Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau:
The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) budgets begin with compliance enforcement. There are two primary issues. The first involves the addition of eight positions to form a fraud unit within the Compliance Enforcement Division. The agency has provided statistics reflecting both actual and projected fraud cases. Staff’s primary concern is the inability to confirm whether the projections will materialize. Staff recommends, if the positions are approved, that they be reconsidered by the 73rd Legislature. Staff also recommends a Letter of Intent whereby the agency reports semiannually on program activity by the fraud unit.
The second major decision involves inclusion of authorized revenue of approximately $200,000 to $300,000 each year, with the recommendation to reduce Highway Fund appropriations by a like amount. This would allow the agency to collect fees for fingerprint checks required by automobile brokers and sales personnel, as well as for various principals and businesses licensed by the department. Staff had been concerned whether additional legislation was required. Legal staff has now confirmed no additional legislation is required. Staff has no other issues with this recommendation. There are other closing items I can discuss at the committee’s discretion.
Senator Rhoads:
We need to decide on the eight positions. Staff recommends approval, to be looked at a second time by the next Legislature. Staff also recommended a Letter of Intent. There is also the matter of reducing Highway Fund expenditures.
Senator Coffin:
I want to return to our discussion of last week regarding 100 percent staffing and the letter we received from Ms. Lewis. I need a clarification of terms in the letter. In reducing the manpower request from 179 to 147, leaving the wait time at Reno a half hour after normal closing and the wait time at Las Vegas at about an hour and a half, she indicated this would allow for “100 percent efficiency” in the DMV metropolitan offices. I am curious. I want to ensure a definition does not trick me. What is “100 percent efficiency”? Does this mean every window is staffed at all times? Will there still be a half dozen windows not staffed because people are on breaks?
Mr. Krmpotic:
I believe what the director is referring to is that the formula and the increased staffing will ensure all the windows in the office are staffed 100 percent of the time. This takes lunch breaks, coffee breaks, training, sick days, and vacation days into account.
Senator Coffin:
Does this mean the State does not have enough DMV windows to meet demand? I know you are not necessarily the person to answer this question.
Mr. Krmpotic:
That is difficult to say. This staffing formula would maximize staffing in all the major metropolitan windows. If the recommendation were approved and, yet, wait times continued to grow in Las Vegas, then, to improve service further, the Governor or the Legislature would need to consider adding more windows.
Senator Coffin:
This proposal is on the other side of the ledger from the decision we took recently. I will vote to approve, but I will raise the issue again in full committee.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Now I am confused. Senator Coffin, are you talking about the 179 positions? Those are not in this budget. This item deals only with the fraud unit.
Senator Coffin:
I thought we were in general discussion of closing issues.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I have concerns about the 179 positions as well.
Senator Coffin:
DMV will not have an additional 179 positions; it is down to 147. I do not believe I voted to support that issue despite the letter.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I do not believe the issue was closed at our last session. I did get a copy of the letter. I am trying to determine what we would be voting on at present. Does this budget address only the fraud unit positions?
Mr. Krmpotic:
That is correct. The field services positions are on the agenda; that issue follows this budget account.
Senator Coffin:
I am afraid I jumped ahead.
Senator Rhoads:
We need a motion on this budget.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 101‑4740 BASED ON STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
ASSEMBLY: THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
SENATE: THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
DMV, Field Services – Budget Page DMV-29 (Volume 3)
Budget Account 201‑4735
Mr. Krmpotic:
There are two remaining issues. The first is increased staffing in field offices in the major metropolitan offices in Las Vegas and Reno. The original proposal included 11 positions for Saturday operations in the Carson City office. The subcommittees acted last week to eliminate those positions from further consideration. The 22 percent cap was raised and discussed last week. Staff has been able to get the department below the 22 percent cap through use of technical adjustments and other items previously presented. This was the intent of the committee. Staff suggests the elimination of seven positions associated with relief for on-going customer service training. Keep in mind, customer service training is provided during initial employee training. These measures also include the elimination of $283,000 in overtime each year, representing coverage of service windows after normal 5 p.m. closing. The staffing formula takes into consideration the average time it takes to provide service beyond 5 p.m.
Another item for consideration, also discussed previously, is the proposed fee for dealer’s reports of sale. This is also needed to maintain the department’s budgets below the 22 percent cap. The fee, as originally proposed, covered only new vehicle sales. Director Lewis has indicated the Governor supports the fee being applied to all vehicle sales, including third-party sales. That would generate an estimated $2.4 million the first year and $3.2 million the second year. Staff recommends any such money be added to the administrative services account with like reductions in appropriations.
The committee has acted on other items considered in maintaining the department below the 22 percent cap. These include elimination of the chief accountant in administrative services, document imaging in central services, and the Carson City field staff in the field services account.
Assemblyman Parks:
Let me interrupt. We might want to deal with this item on a stand-alone basis.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I think we should review how the DMV does business. This has been part of the discussion raised by Senator Coffin and others. I appreciate the amount of time Mr. Krmpotic has had to spend on this.
I think kiosks are a good idea. We allocated funding in September 2002 in the IFC, and we still do not have a “pilot” off the ground. I would like to have an expansion of kiosks and not talk about a pilot program. We need to consider how to prevent people having to stand in line at all. Maybe we need to add money for more field or travel teams to provide computer access to those without computers. There are better ways to educate the community, and the DMV has a marketing plan to address that. I do not think adding staff to windows will help in the long run. Now, I know that the DMV will need some staff, but I do not think 147 are required. If we do not do something creative, then we retain our traditional pattern.
Senator Coffin:
We are not looking at the same issue, are we?
Mr. Krmpotic:
This recommendation is the same one considered by the committee last week. There have been no changes in the number of staff or the approach taken to customer service transactions.
Senator Coffin:
I believe the DMV needs more than 147 people. During our last discussion, we dealt with how long it took just to get to the window. There was agreement from the DMV that sometimes people wait much longer than the 73‑minute average in Las Vegas. Our constituents bear this out. The wait is considerably shorter in Reno.
Since this is the issue that generates most constituent complaints, we should make use of this opportunity. The money is there to plug the gap by providing the bodies. If the committee does not feel compelled to add the bodies, and if there is a feeling that other projects will take care of the wait times, then so be it, and I will vote against the measure.
Last week we received a letter from Ms. Lewis indicating numerous conversations with the Governor. They were certain 147 additional personnel would solve the problem. The 147 is down from the 179 personnel, who were initially acknowledged as necessary to meet the need. We were told that 147 additional personnel would allow us to operate at 100 percent. I do not see how that is possible, particularly in Las Vegas. Adding people in Carson City for Saturday service is all well and good, but does very little for the people in Clark County. I left the last meeting thoroughly disappointed. I will just vote “No” again. Hopefully, there will be enough complaints so that a sufficient number of committee members will change their minds by next session. I see no reason to leave money on the table when we could cut the wait times. I hope the experiments work.
Assemblyman Griffin:
I agree with Assemblywoman Giunchigliani. I remain concerned about funding additional infrastructure to avoid doing things differently. I agree we should be focusing on alternative approaches. I will oppose this budget item. That may be for the opposite reason from Senator Coffin’s rationale. I do not think we should simply have a trial, the results of which we would then analyze next session.
Senator Coffin:
We asked the DMV to provide us with the amount of money it would take to remedy the problem. I threw out a suggestion several months ago that we should double the fee for new registrations and new driver license applications to see how much money that would bring in. The amount was $40 million. That would, of course, repair the damage done to the Highway Fund. Then they came back with a jiggering of the formula to keep expenditures below the 22 percent cap so no fee increase was necessary. Why they did not want to raise fees on newcomers, who cost more to service, I do not know. But, they did not want to provide the information to us. They did not want to provide the dollar amount it would take to provide enough bodies. The count did not need to be doubled. The amount expended did not have to be $40 million. They just decided, after consultation with the Governor, that they did not have to do it and everything would be all right.
I said something I should not have phrased so harshly suggesting our constituents call the Governor and Ms. Lewis when they experience long waits. I recall saying something crude like that. I still stand by that.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I do not know where we are in this discussion. If we continue to add positions, we will never move to new technology and a new approach. Do we have numbers we can consider so that we can think about what direction we should take, if the committee concurs?
Mr. Krmpotic:
Staff has not developed any funding alternatives. The proposal on the table would include staffing at the Henderson, Flamingo, Sahara, and Carey offices in Las Vegas enabling the department to staff the windows at 100 percent. The same would occur in the Reno offices, although staff recommends that funding be placed in reserve and the agency justify use to the IFC since the Reno wait times are consistently under an hour. The staffing formula provides for 100 percent window staffing. There is no formula link to wait times; it merely staffs the windows at 100 percent taking into consideration those times employees are away from the window.
The agency has requested $2 million for kiosks; there is no plan or detail explaining what the money would provide. The agency has represented it would like to place multiple kiosks in the major metropolitan offices if the pilot project proves successful.
Assemblyman Griffin:
What will we learn from a pilot program? Is this being done elsewhere?
Senator Rhoads:
I am going to let Assemblyman Parks chair this discussion.
Assemblyman Parks:
The pilot project relates to kiosks and we have not yet come to that part of the budget. The issue before us is whether to approve increased staffing of 147 positions in order to provide 100 percent window service in five major metropolitan offices. The intent is to reduce wait times below an hour.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
If the staffing level is 100 percent, would that do any more than provide an additional 1.5 hours each weekday?
Mr. Krmpotic:
Staff cannot indicate the wait times. The agency indicates an average wait time in the south of about 73 minutes. There is no link between the formula and projected wait time.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Staffing the windows does not benefit our constituents. That is my concern. I cannot determine whether this proposed staffing would reduce wait times. We do not want to hinder the DMV. The department is the first place citizens visit. However, we have to discuss how the DMV is properly staffed to do business, but we also need alternative methods to divert traffic. I think we are getting stuck on a formula instead of thinking about how to divert the traffic destined for lines at DMV offices.
Ms. Lewis:
I would like to make several points without repeating our discussion over the last 3 months. The Executive Budget addresses a multitude of issues in order to better serve constituents. We have a critical need for staff in certain offices in Las Vegas. The wait times are unacceptable. We also agree that technology is the solution. We have proposed a kiosk pilot program. I believe the pilot portion is very important. I know of no other state using the concept of a machine accepting cash and provides a decal and registration notice. I think it would be premature to deploy machines without a pilot program. We need to evaluate the success. I have heard statements that the DMV does not have a plan. Yet, when I came before the IFC last summer, we had a plan. During the pilot program we want to learn how many transactions a kiosk can perform daily. We want to be able to compare that to what a technician can do. We want to determine the acceptance of customers of the technology. We hope they will accept it, but we have nothing to compare it to at present. Moving from a pilot program to full deployment means placing four kiosks in each of the major metropolitan offices.
The other technological innovation we have pursued with IFC approval is the upgrade to the emissions analyzer software. This is a solution with tremendous potential for those citizens required to go to an emissions station anyway for a smog test. You have already approved a public relations campaign; this is also a part of our plan. Finally, we are expanding our Internet services.
We have come to this committee with a multitude of solutions. There is no single answer to reduce wait times. Turning to the issue of 100 percent efficiency, we have to maximize the use of our offices. We are not doing that. We have windows that are not staffed. Until we can do that, until we can provide access in every window to customers, we are not maximizing the use of that office.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Years ago I raised an issue I would like to offer again. Why do we not charge a surcharge for people coming in to the office? Sometimes a disincentive is needed in some cases, and an incentive is needed in other cases. You were not here at that time. Even if the surcharge is $5. We used to talk about making registration by mail several dollars cheaper. Perhaps that would offset some of the numbers. This seems reasonable. People are charged surcharges for many things based on the amount of administrative time consumed.
Ms. Lewis:
I understand your idea. We have all identified the customers who have to come to DMV offices. Unfortunately, we deal with a huge cash population. This presents a challenge unique to Nevada. In my mind, we would be discriminating against customers who have no choice because they have no credit card or computer.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Right, that would be the purpose for the kiosk. However, you could add a surcharge if the transaction could have been handled by Internet or by mail. If they choose not to use those means, then they are charged $5 more. That plays into kiosk expansion. Remind me what the $2 million actually buys us for the pilot program.
Ms. Lewis:
Our proposal is for four kiosks in each of the five metropolitan offices as expansion after the pilot.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
My suggestion would be to pilot five kiosks at all five offices and see how that works. The DMV could expand beyond that based on experience. Why could we not do that? Why not make the pilot a pilot at all five locations? You might have variation of use among the locations. More deployment would allow us to better capture information on who is using what. We might capitalize on this information for a full rollout if appropriate. We should also consider using the surcharge. Can this get us closer to a resolution on this issue?
Senator Coffin:
I am glad others are considering other revenue sources to do new things. However, this revenue enhancement will be rejected as mine was. I think this is where we are. We might as well have a motion and move on. We can let the blame fall where it may for the next 2 years. Then, maybe, we will have a chance to be heard.
Assemblyman Perkins:
Ms. Lewis, what percentage of your staffing complement do you have? Are there positions that remain unfilled?
Ms. Lewis:
We have been concerned about the vacancy rate. Our rate in the field is about 2 percent. We have tried to keep positions filled, and we have done a very good job for the past 2 years.
Assemblyman Perkins:
What is the present percentage of efficiency at your windows?
Ms. Lewis:
We are now between 85 and 87 percent of our authorized staff.
Assemblyman Perkins:
Would this addition bring you to 100 percent, some 13 percent more than you have at present? Would that translate to more windows available to the walk‑in public? Is that essentially what this will do?
Ms. Lewis:
That is correct.
Assemblyman Perkins:
For what it is worth, Mr. Chairman, I agree with almost everyone in part. I am concerned that unless we make maximum use of our buildings, then the blame falls on us. To the extent we can reduce waits, it is important that we do so. However, technology is certainly how we need to move. I am not certain how much technology we can adopt in this biennium.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
How much will we save through the passage of Assembly Bill (A.B.) 30?
ASSEMBLY BILL 30: revises provisions regarding registration of motor vehicles. (BDR 43-67)
Mr. Krmpotic:
Staff estimates the amount of registration refunds to be about $1.2 million. I do not have estimates on the government services tax with me.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Has that been committed to anything within the budget at this point?
Mr. Krmpotic:
Staff has merely included that in the 22 percent cap calculation. The increase in registration fees as a result of restricting refunds would simply be increased revenue to the Highway Fund at this point. I cannot think of any specific budgetary impact.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
So, it has not been spent, but does assist keeping us under the 22 percent cap. Is that funding we could use if we wanted to implement some of these ideas?
Mr. Krmpotic:
It could potentially be so.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
We might have to wait until the money was actually collected. Would we need a year or so?
Mr. Krmpotic:
The refunds would occur throughout the year. Staff is including that in the increased revenue over the course of the year. We take 22 percent of that to determine the cap. Committee use of that money in the budget accounts of the department would result in a Highway Fund appropriation. I am not sure that would resolve the problem with respect to the cap.
Assemblyman Parks:
As I understand the situation, if we increase the fees for driving records, dealer’s report of sale, and third-party sales, then we would generate $2.4 million in the first year and $3.2 million in the second year. Is that correct?
Mr. Krmpotic:
That would include strictly the fee for the dealer’s report of sale. The increase in the records search fee was a separate increase acted on by the committee. It generates about $2.6 million.
Assemblyman Parks:
We will not get into that then. Thank you.
Senator Tiffany:
I have been listening to the discussion. I ran into a banker I know in the airport recently. He made an interesting remark. He said, “Give me control of DMV for a year, and I will change the transaction time.” Have we changed the transaction time, the time a person is actually at the window? I know there were computer problems at one time.
Ms. Lewis:
We have monitored transaction time closely over the last 3 years. It is a key component of the total wait time. You are correct. When we brought our system into operation, the transaction time was too long. It has decreased steadily over the past 3 years. We are now at about an 11-minute transaction time. This is customer interaction with the technician when the computer is actually processing a transaction. Further reduction of this component of wait time will depend on additional modifications to the screen viewed by the technician. Our technology group will make these changes. We want to eliminate screens in order to make the transaction more efficient for the technician.
Senator Tiffany:
I ask because a transaction time of 11 minutes in a bank would be unacceptable. Banks encourage customers to use electronic banking or kiosks. Banks impose an extra cost for services provided at the window. I believe we have not used a banking approach to this problem. Perhaps we could add specialized windows for certain functions as banks do. What can we do to encourage people to conduct more business on line?
Ms. Lewis:
As I have stated in the past, it is incumbent on us to continue to educate the public about our on-line services. This is part of our public education campaign.
Senator Tiffany:
Have you received feedback indicating people are unaware of options, or the system is too difficult to use? What feedback have you received?
Ms. Lewis:
The feedback we receive is one of unawareness. We use inserts in our registration renewal mailings to communicate. We have funding for a public education campaign. We get positive feedback after a person has used the Internet. People believe it is simple and fast. After first use, a person becomes a true believer. The problem is the first use. Driving people to use the Internet is the key.
Senator Tiffany:
There are kiosks in banks. Every Wells Fargo branch has an ATM for deposits and withdrawals. I have a tendency to add technology rather than DMV bodies. I cannot see adding 147 new personnel.
Ms. Lewis:
The objective of the kiosk plan is to become an ATM-type environment. That is phase 3. If we are successful during the next biennium, we will return to the next Legislature to take the program outside the building by making the kiosk appear like an ATM. This would allow operation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Senator Tiffany:
My tendency is not to add personnel, but to encourage people to move on line and to use kiosks. There would be a disincentive to prevent people from standing in lines. Banks cannot keep adding personnel; people are the largest overhead cost in business as in government. If we did not add 147 people, then what wait time increase would be caused in Clark County? If that is only another 3 minutes, then I believe that is acceptable. Maybe that will induce more people to go on line or use a kiosk.
Ms. Lewis:
We have done a lot with office processes to try to reduce wait times using only existing staff. A minute here, a minute there, and the time continues to accumulate. I believe we are at the point where we have done all we can do with office processes. Our greatest challenge is continued growth. Some think the 71-minute wait today is acceptable; I do not.
Senator Tiffany:
Seventy-one minutes is not acceptable. Adding only another 70 people in Clark County, only a body or two per office, may not directly relate to serving more people. I do not know whether adding more state employees will really make a difference, but once we do, we do not fire them. We then pay benefits and retirement. I do not want to move in this direction. I want faster transaction time through computers. I want an ATM solution. I want to go on line. This makes sense to me.
Assemblyman Griffin:
I know we need to move on. I agree with Senator Tiffany. I believe the lines themselves are a disincentive; we do not have to look for one. I know there is a challenge in public awareness. However, there is no more captive an audience than someone waiting in line for several hours. We need to encourage a public awareness campaign that takes place at the field offices while people are in line. Waiting in line is a pretty good disincentive. We do not need this type of spending given the budget circumstances we face.
Senator Coffin:
There are two types of time statistics we are considering. The wait time involves entering the building and waiting until a window is available to you. After a person gets to a window, we begin counting transaction time.
Ms. Lewis:
The wait time has three components. You walk in the door and get into the information line. This is critical because we want to ensure you are prepared and you have the documents appropriate to be able to complete a transaction. Once you get your Q-matic ticket, then you wait until you get to the window. When you get to the window, you begin counting transaction time.
Senator Coffin:
What is the 71 minutes then? You and I have agreed that the actual wait time can often be 2 or 3 hours.
Ms. Lewis:
The 71 minutes is the sum of the three components. Our reporting has included all three components. You and I agreed that customers wait longer. Customers may not be prepared. Our reporting is based on average time.
Senator Coffin:
I supported the additional people at the windows and increased adoption of technology. I simply wanted additional bodies because I do not believe the technology would take off all that quickly.
Senator Rhoads:
This is a contentious issue we will be unable to solve today because of the Legislative schedule. We stand adjourned at 11:03 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
James D. Earl,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Chairman
DATE:
Assemblyman David R. Parks, Chairman
DATE: