MINUTES OF THE JOINT SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION and ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION Sixty-eighth Session February 21, 1995 The Joint Senate Committee on Transportation and Assembly Committee on Transportation was called to order by Chairman William R. O'Donnell, at 1:43 p.m., on Tuesday, February 21, 1995, in Room 119 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator William R. O'Donnell, Chairman Senator Maurice Washington, Vice Chairman Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen Senator Jon C. Porter Senator Raymond C. Shaffer Senator O. C. Lee ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Thomas Batten, Chairman Mrs. Vonne Chowning, Chairman Mr. Dennis Allard, Vice Chairman Mr. David Goldwater, Vice Chairman Mr. Bernard Anderson Mr. John Carpenter Mrs. Marcia de Braga Mr. Dennis Nolan Ms. Genie Ohrenschall Ms. Patricia Tripple COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr. STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Don O. Williams, Chief Principal Research Analyst Paul Mouritsen, Senior Research Analyst Diane Rea, Senate Committee Secretary Jackie Valley, Assembly Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: James Weller, Director, Department of Motor Vehicles & Public Safety (DMV&PS) William Gosnell, Chief Administrative Services, Department of Motor Vehicles & Public Safety (DMV&PS) Galen Mitchell, Sr., State of Nevada Peace Officer Association (SNPOA) Tom Stephens, Director, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) Mike McFall, Assistant Director, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) Carl Hasty, Senior Planner, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) Senator O'Donnell stated that this hearing is in regard to the verification of the Department of Motor Vehicles & Public Safety (DMV&PS), drivers' license and registration divisions. Mr. Jim Weller, Director, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS), stated that the concern is regarding the proposed split of the DMV&PS into two different departments. DMV&PS has been looking at the department as it now stands for approximately 3 years. During the Sixty-seventh Session the proposal was made to split the department. That did not materialize and they stayed as they were then, with some additions. DMV&PS has done a lot of research. The University of Las Vegas (UNLV) study, the department-initiated surveys, took input from the employees, made contact with other states, made contact with the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) and have looked at DMV&PS itself. With the 22 percent cap on certain budgets DMV&PS has just looked at and thrown the resources at individual areas. What DMV&PS would like to do with the proposed split and the DMV standing alone, is focus in on everything that is done in the department in the way of services. They want to take a more holistic approach rather than a piecemeal approach. He continued that some of the things that have been done as a result of the internal looking is to put Automated Teller Machines (ATM) in some of the facilities in Las Vegas; and to put in drop boxes. They have also initiated, on a temporary basis, employment-based travel teams, and an extended hours survey; as can be afforded. DMV&PS has put a "line-walker" out to check with the people to see that they have the correct documents and information needed before they wait in line and get to a wrong window. They have moved an assistant chief position from Carson City to Las Vegas, Miss Donna Wadey. She is responsible for all the motor vehicle operations there. Before the move those decisions and a lot of the management effort was made from Carson City. Mr. Weller said DMV&PS has provided the current organizational chart (Exhibit C). The reorganization includes the director's office, assistant to the director, various boards and commissions, deputy attorney's staff and an internal controls unit. He said DMV&PS has two deputy directors. One on the motor vehicle side and one on public safety side. The public safety side shows the different divisions to include investigative, highway patrol, public safety training, parole & probation; and special services division to include the fire marshal's office, traffic safety, etc. On the motor vehicles side DMV&PS has the registration, drivers' license and the veterans' affairs. The veterans' affairs was reorganized into the department at the time of the Sixty-seventh Session. In the middle, the chart shows the administrative services which is there to service the entire department. Bill Gosnell is the chief of that division. He stated with respect to the proposed reorganization, on the public safety side the committee can see how that breaks out. Right now DMV&PS has about 1650 employees in the department and approximately 600 of those, including veterans' affairs, are on the motor vehicles side. The general thesis behind this split is to put like services together and separate those services that are not really compatible. The reorganization chart would have an administrative services, veterans' affairs, drivers' license and a registration division. Mr. Weller stated that he was trying to concentrate mostly on the motor vehicles side. In developing this reorganization proposal, DMV&PS used as a foundation, what they refer to as their five-point plan (Exhibit D). He stated it involves the following five areas. Mr Weller said the first part would be an Internal Reorganization on the motor vehicles side; right now it has the drivers' license division and a registration division. Both provide field services and headquarters services. DMV&PS has taken a long look at themselves and a part of that was to come up with a reorganizational plan internally which would do away with those two divisions and establish a field services division, which would do both drivers' license and registration services, and a headquarters services division which would do those services that are performed in headquarters. Mr. Weller continued to state that he would look at this as a short-term solution and would estimate 4 to 6 years. At the end of that time DMV&PS would look again at the whole thing and maybe they would need just one division, rather than two separate divisions. But on an interim basis, he would suggest a headquarters services division and field services division. The second part of the five-point plan is facilities improvement. He mentioned in the finance committee or ways and means committee, DMV&PS feels it is in good shape there. They have done some changes at Galletti Way. The Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP) has moved out. The facility has been remodeled totally and is strictly DMV services. DMV&PS has new offices coming on-line in Winnemucca, Douglas County, Tonopah, North Las Vegas (which will combine two different offices in North Las Vegas, commercial drivers' license and motor vehicle express office) and last is a new facility on West Flamingo. The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) (Exhibit E. Original is on file in the Research Library.) would present to the state a full service facility in Henderson. Right now that is an express plus office. DMV&PS would also remodel the East Sahara office and the headquarters building in Carson City. Many of the facilities presently house more than DMV; they include divisions from the Public Safety side. The third part of the five-point plan is Improved Infrastructure. This is how DMV&PS does business internally. The Business Process Reengineering (BPR) proposal that is before the legislature during the Sixty-eighth Session will address that issue. The initial report (Exhibit F. Original is on file in the Research Library.) reaffirmed the problem areas. The BPR would be an in-depth analysis of those problem areas and out of that would evolve recommendations and suggestions as to how they could improve those problem areas. The BPR is a long-term effort. By this, Mr. Weller reiterated, the earliest DMV&PS could see some real improvement would be in July 1997. The reason being that the BPR would have to be approved by the Legislature during the Sixty-eighth Session and DMV&PS would not start working on the BPR until at least July of 1995. It is going to take at least 6 months to do. Out of that will come the recommendations. DMV&PS will have to start costing-out those and then present them to the Sixty-ninth Session. The earliest DMV&PS could take action in any of those areas would be July 1997. That is a long-term approach of the BPR process. Also, what DMV&PS is labeling as improved infrastructure are the legislative initiatives that many of the committee have reviewed or are in the process of reviewing which would be aimed at streamlining the DMV&PS's operation. Mr. Weller continued, the fourth point of the five-point plan would be staff training and development. DMV&PS has already started and are moving along in the Las Vegas area with that. That involves cross training the staff. Because of the computer set up, the way they have been structured in the past, DMV&PS has a drivers' license division and a registration division. It is very difficult, if not impossible, at this time to take people from one side and move them to the other. Sometimes the lines are long in one area and not in the other. This cross training effort is aimed to enable our people so they can move to the other side. It gives some flexibility to management in using resources where they are needed, and it gives some flexibility to the employee so that they can make a decision as to where they would like to spend their time during the working day. Attendant to that is a need for modernized computer programing and the machinery. Mr. Weller said the fifth area of DMV&PS's five-point plan is referred to as Level Two Funding. We have 22 percent caps on many of our motor vehicle budgets. This was established about 30 years ago and now DMV&PS is doing a lot more and different types of services than they were then, and the volume has increased tremendously. To put the 22 percent cap in prospective Mr. Weller referred to the illustration of the privilege tax where DMV&PS collects $1 million in privilege tax which all goes back to the county for which it is collected. The state gets 6 percent of that which is $60,000. With a 22 percent cap, the department is allowed to spend 22 percent of the $60,000 which comes out to about $13,200. It is awful difficult, if not impossible to collect that money, to account for it, to bank it and to disburse it for $13,200. That is the 22 percent issue. Senator O'Donnell asked if that is the intent of that bill? He stated that he is not sure that is the intent of the bill; 22 percent of the 6 percent. Mr. Weller stated that the DMV&PS has questioned that in-house and Bill Gosnell can address that. William Gosnell, Chief Administrative Services, Department of Motor Vehicles & Public Safety (DMV&PS), stated that the decision to put the 6 percent privilege tax commission into the Highway Fund was made a long time ago. DMV&PS's history back 15 to 20 years shows that money has always gone to the Highway Fund. In essence, they are receiving 1.3 percent of what they collect for the counties. He stated that he did not see the relationship between the privilege tax commission and the Highway Fund, but that has been going on a long time. That is certainly part of DMV&PS's problem. He stated the law, the way it is constructed, is very similar to the construction on the sales tax. DMV&PS receives 2 percent of the sales tax commission, but that is put directly into the registration division budget as an offset to the Highway Fund. DMV&PS does not treat these two things the same and Mr. Gosnell stated he does not know why. Senator O'Donnell stated that he would like to direct that to the staff. He asked if the committee had any questions regarding this issue. Mr. Anderson stated that he is more than a little concerned about the separation and the Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP) possibly assuming the responsibilities of the Public Service Commission (PSC) relative to the movement of hazardous materials. He asked if DMV&PS feels that the NHP is in truth prepared to assume the responsibilities currently held by the PSC in terms of their current structure and what they are able to do currently? Did they have the training to meet this additional responsibility? Mr. Weller stated that in certain areas NHP could readily assume and in other areas there would need to be some additional training. Mr. Anderson stated that his concern is not with the adequate job that the NHP does on the highway, but that NHP has limited jurisdiction when they get off the road. Hazardous materials are held at sites as they are being shipped across the state. He stated that creates a real concern for him knowing that those things are out there and that the Legislature is not making sure that the public is being protected and to ensure that the state is not endangering the public, the water supply and the other public usage areas. Unless the scope of the NHP is broadened to get off to those areas, their ability will be limited. Senator O'Donnell stated that the issue is the bifurcation or the split of DMV and Public Safety and that he really does not want to get into Public Safety's responsibilities in the future reorganization. He continued to say that he is concerned about the 6 percent. He asked the staff to research the last time that law was enacted or changed and to find out what is the intent of that law. Was the 6 percent supposed to go to the Highway Fund, or was the 6 percent supposed to go to the operations of the DMV&PS? He stated that it seems small to have a 1.3 percent collection rate and it probably costs DMV&PS more to collect it than to receive the revenue. Mr. Allard stated that during the testimony to the Assembly Ways and Means committee, Mr. Weller indicated that he did not feel that the split between DMV and Public Safety would shorten the lines or have any direct benefit to the public; and that it is going to be a costly endeavor. He stated that Mr. Weller had stated that what is needed is more positions and more equipment to speed the process up. He asked why the committee did not spend the money on the positions and equipment? That is what the people are wanting, shorter lines and better service; rather than spending the money on splitting the two departments up and creating another bureaucracy. Mr. Weller stated that he had said that in the testimony and he meant it. The issues are people and more modernized equipment; primarily data processing, documenting imaging, etc. Mr. Allard stated that he feels the state could save a lot of money rather than splitting these departments up and to put this money where the needs are. Senator O'Donnell asked how many more Full-Time Employees (FTE's) did DMV&PS have? He stated that he believes there is only one in the budget. Mr. Gosnell stated that DMV&PS had discussed, before the Senate Finance committee and Assembly Ways and Means committee, the fact that there is one new additional position as a result of the reorganization and that is the Director of DMV&PS. Given this position would be the Director of Public Safety, he stated Mr. Allard is correct in that there would be some incidental internal costs such as letterhead or things like that, but in reality this would have an impact on resolving the reorganization. Mr. Gosnell stated it was more to giving DMV&PS the ability to focus on like functions. It would be hard for him, in his job, to discern why the Nevada Division of Investigation (NDI) or NHP has a relationship to the Veterans' Affairs or registration. NHP certainly has a lot more focus on public safety. On the DMV&PS side, using the analogy that for every minute Mr. Weller uses solving some public safety problem, that is one less minute he is putting on a DMV&PS collar. It is a big department that does not have a lot of cohesiveness. Mr. Gosnell continued, the reorganization is more of a management decision than it is a dollar or physical decision. DMV&PS is talking about meeting to the 22 percent that is presently on the table, or literally going over the 22 percent. That is an issue the committee is going to have to take a look at during the Sixty-eighth Session. Mr. Gosnell said if the committee wants a 12 hour day in Las Vegas so that they can handle the work load, if they want a full day Saturday so DMV&PS can handle the number of people; Las Vegas is certainly a 24 hour town so why work eight to five is a budget constraint question, not a pragmatic question. Mr. Gosnell stated he does not think that DMV&PS is making full use of their facilities. That is where the bodies and the data processing and the processing would help DMV&PS in Las Vegas. It really does not have a lot to do with reorganization, other than focus. Mr. Weller stated that in getting back to the five-point plan, the fifth area is Level Two Funding and that is DMV&PS's short-term solution to the problems they are having in Las Vegas and with titling. That is the two big problem areas in DMV&PS. That would take DMV&PS over the 22 percent and would put them at around 25 percent. That would be the short-term solution. The long-term solution would be the BPR. He stated if the committee is interested in exactly what the short-term solution would do, Mr. Gosnell and his staff have worked on that. Mr. Goldwater stated that Mr. Anderson had made a very important point. He asked if in this split, will each division have the appropriate resources to protect public safety, particularly in matters concerning transportation of hazardous waste? And could Mr. Weller address the other points Mr. Anderson had brought to him? Mr. Weller replied that the issue on Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT) should be addressed by Major Hammack from the NHP. Senator O'Donnell stated that the committee would like to stay on the issue of bifurcation first and then they will deal with the HAZMAT. Mr. Weller stated that the positions issue, as he had testified before the Assembly Ways and Means and Senate Finance committees, originally when DMV&PS looked at splitting the department. They had looked at seven additional positions, including the new director plus six additional positions. They were asked to revisit that, they did and came back with one additional position. He could not guarantee that would be all they would need. He stated he had mentioned to Senator Raggio that he could not be comfortable in saying that would be it. In 2 years he might have a lot better perspective as to what that answer would be, but right now he does not. Mr. Allard suggested that DMV&PS submit a document for the committee's perusal that would show exactly how much more it would cost by having the split. He stated that he feels the split will cause a need for a lot more than one position and a few letterheads. Once the committee gets into it, it will be a lot more money and the committee should have that information. Senator O'Donnell agreed, and added that the department head is under the gun to defend the Governor's budget. He stated that he did not feel that would solve the customer service problem that is in the lower part of the state. He stated that Mr. Allard had come up with some poignant questions regarding the reorganization shuffle. Mr. Goldwater had touched on something also, in terms of the public safety aspects of it. He stated if the committee was going to develop a public service and develop customer relations and allow DMV&PS to hire one more person to be a director, that the public will never see; he is not sure that would solve the problem. He added that he does not know how the rest of the committee feels about it, but he feels that they really need to get to the heart of the issue. He stated that he knows Mr. Weller is on the spot, but they need to solve the problem from the prospective of the committee that represents the people that have to go to the line and stand there. If that means more staff and data processing capabilities, he stated that he feels the committee is open for it. Mr. Anderson stated that he feels that the proposed division is well and good and that they are all looking forward to cutting down on the length of lines, but they also have to be concerned about public safety. He said that he is concerned because the Legislature has had a long history of several sessions of dealing with the what the NHP is supposed to do and what the PSC is supposed to do in terms of the interchange between these two. He said he is trying to explore that relative to the movement and shipment of hazardous materials, but more specifically relative to the responsibility currently the NHP does have in radioactive waste along the Interstate (I) 80 course and the storage of those things and the facilities that are located in the community in which he lives. That community has a huge warehousing industry and is a rail-marshaling yard that crosses the state and he and the people living in his community are terribly concerned with their exposure in this area. He said if the state gives responsibility for moving of this material to the NHP, without at the same time raising their level of training, he thinks that the committee needs to make sure that they are doing the job. The committee owes that to the public, and not merely a paper shuffle, so that it looks pretty on a couple of flow charts, does not cut it with him, and that is what he is trying to express. Senator O'Donnell replied that Mr. Anderson's point is well taken. Senator Porter stated that DMV&PS in 1993 received the number one courtesy awards from the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce and the Las Vegas Convention Authority and also tied for first place in 1994. What that is based on is the number of people writing in congratulating particular staff people for their performance. He credited Mr. Weller and his staff for some really high-caliber customer-driven employees doing a great job. He stated that many of the frustrations that the public is experiencing as customers of the DMV&PS are more of a system problem than an employee problem. The purpose of today's meeting is to discuss the splitting of the department. He stated that his questions are customer driven because he feels that the committee should start with the customer and then work up to administration. When it comes to the highway funds, in looking at DMV&PS's budget he stated he sees a transfer of highway funds in the amount of $1,716,000. This transfer allows the creation of an administrative service staff at DMV and an administrative service staff and new budget for PS. He stated he is trying to understand DMV&PS's budget process. He understands there are some specific uses for highway funds. He asked for an explanation as to how DMV&PS could use highway funds for administration? Mr. Gosnell stated that right now, under the budget for the state of Nevada, DMV&PS collects a certain amount of revenue that goes to the Highway Fund. DMV&PS is required, by law, to spend no more than up to 22 percent or those revenues for the collection and administration of those funds. Presently the director's office, the present (4706) budget and the present administrative services budget (4714) are under the 22 percent cap. Mr. Gosnell's division and Mr. Weller's office are part of that calculation. Under the proposed reorganization, the guidelines are "no additional funding and no impact on any other funding." Those guidelines require that DMV&PS to take the existing director's budget and the existing administrative service's budget and split it and leave the funding the same. On the surface it would look like highway funds are supporting administrative services and the directors for PS; in fact, they are doing it now. There is no change. Right now, if there is a problem with the allocation of highway funds it has been going on and just continues. Senator Porter asked if in trying, based on information provided to understand the division of the departments; there is also going to be a change in those officers that do inspection for air quality, or what are DMV&PS's plans for that part of the department? Currently, DMV&PS has two positions funded into one actual person who is inspecting air quality. Mr. Weller replied that those positions are called "smog cops" and they are in the NHP and they would stay there. Senator Porter asked would there be one officer and would he be under which department for air quality? Mr. Weller replied that he would be under the PS still with the NHP. Senator Porter asked if the funds for the security of the Governor's mansion would be with the budget of the NHP? Mr. Weller replied that it is the proposal that a certain number of troopers, (six) would be funded for security at the mansion. That is a General Fund item. Senator Porter asked if the monies that are from the Highway Fund are pretty specific as to where they are supposed to be spent; but also they are shared with Peace Officers Standards and Training (P.O.S.T), HAZMAT, and what other department? Mr. Gosnell replied that there are three positions under the reorganization that would come out of the Bureau of Enforcement within the registration division and they would be put in the Nevada Division of Investigation (NDI). The funding for those three would come from the highway funds. They would continue to do what they do now as far as servicing investigations related to licensing or investigating car dealers. The support for the director's office and administrative services would be from the Highway Fund on the PS side. He stated that he does not think there is a whole lot of other funding transfers from the Highway Fund other than those three major areas. Senator Porter asked if the budget that was prepared for the legislative money committees was prepared for the split or for the agency to remain as it is? Mr. Gosnell replied that the budgets, as seen in the agency recommendation column, are based on the way that DMV&PS is today. Senator Porter asked how much time has Mr. Gosnell had to prepare for the split? Mr. Gosnell replied that DMV&PS has had 2 or 3 weeks. He said it was not as hard as it looks; it was difficult, but virtually because of the separation of the divisions and the funding that went with it. The difficult part is to say NDI would be on the PS side. The split does not change the funding of NDI. The difficult part was allocating the director's office and administrative services and a few other elements into where they should go. He stated they did not have much time. They started working on that in the first or second week of December and had to have everything in by Christmas. Senator Porter asked if Mr. Gosnell feels that it is a good business practice to reorganize a department? Mr. Gosnell replied that he would certainly like to have had more time, but they did get it done. Mr. Weller stated that he thought it was in mid-December when the decision was made at the Governor's Office to request the consideration for the reorganization. It did come up during the Sixty-seventh Session and DMV&PS had a couple of weeks to put the budget together. Senator Porter stated that there really is not a department that was touched more by government then the DMV&PS. He said it truly is a travesty when you have the problems that are being created at DMV&PS for the customers, and the loss of revenues because of not being able to work to the business that it impacts. He stated that he would ask that the department would look at what would benefit the customer first and not the department. He said that he feels that although the Governor is directing this, it is incumbent upon the committee as public servants to serve the communities. Senator Porter said that he is afraid that the proposal is not going to change that. The committee and DMV&PS should be looking at the customer first and then looking at reorganizing down the road; he stated he feels this is premature. Mr. Weller stated that if the reorganization were to be approved by the Legislature DMV&PS would look at that as giving them the ability to focus for about 4 years and get some of the problems straightened out that they are aware of; and then maybe at the end of 4 years the Legislature would revisit that and see if the department should continue to stand alone or, as it is in many other states, or become attached to the Department of Taxation or the Department of Transportation. The reorganization looks like a 4 to 6 year period to get the things straightened out that have taken 50 years to mess up, and then bring it back and look at it. Senator O'Donnell stated that the committee should spend some time on the idea that if they would only be doing this for 4 or 6 years and then have to revisit the idea again maybe it is time to do what they need to do now. Mr. Batten stated that he does not know who furnished the report "Department of Motor Vehicles to be Split or Not to be Split" (Exhibit G). Galen Mitchell, Sr, State of Nevada Peace Officer Association (SNPOA), came from the audience and stated that he is retired from DMV&PS and had prepared the report. DMV&PS had no input in the report. Mr. Batten asked, that after examining the report, considering good business practice and benefit of the public does DMV&PS believe that this split is going to be a good business practice and good benefit for the public when they have a lack of operating procedures, lack of leadership, lack of responsibility, and lack of delegating authority. He stated that he would feel a lot better if he could go to one place and catch "heck" as opposed to going to two different places to catch it. He asked how the reorganization would benefit the public? Mr. Weller replied that he has not seen the report and does not know what it says. The idea to split is to have that time for the management of the department to focus in on the problems they know are there and make a concerted effort to correct those problems. The DMV&PS department has more contact with the public then any other department in the state. This would allow management to focus on a continuing basis on those areas that DMV&PS needs to correct. Mr. Batten asked why management cannot do that right now? Why does DMV&PS have to have a reorganization and a split in divisions to ensure that is done, when DMV&PS has the appropriate staff right now; they cannot target that problem; right now without the cost of the split? Mr. Weller replied with an example. This morning, preparing to come to the hearing, he had spent probably an hour and a half of his time addressing an issue dealing with veterans' affairs. This was totally unrelated to the split, but that was an hour and a half of his time and some of his staff's time that was taken away from preparing to come to the committee meeting. DMV&PS has incidents like that which come up and have to be addressed. When Kenny Gager was bombed in his house Mr. Weller spent a lot of time looking at that. When Trooper Borland was killed on the highway; that was time that could have been focused on the DMV side. Senator Shaffer stated that for clarification, he thought that Mr. Weller has no intent to abandon public safety. He said, "Certainly, he would keep that foremost in his mind, but was not what he was really trying to do which is to develop a more effective way to operate the entire department and the DMV&PS. What he is trying to do really is to buy some time with this move, separate the powers a little bit so that he could get a better grip on what was really happening." He stated that he feels that is what they are really trying to attain. Mr. Weller replied, "Yes sir, you said it much better than I did." Mr. Carpenter stated that after listening to all his colleges, he really had some questions about what DMV&PS is going to do. He said it looks to him like they are really not going to do too much at all that they cannot do now. He continued DMV&PS has a deputy director of motor vehicles that is supposed to be taking care of registration, drivers' licensing and veterans' affairs. Mr. Weller stated that the principle was to put like services together and in a lot of states the motor vehicle functions are performed by the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) or as part of the NDOT or taxation. He was not aware of any state where DMV and PS were together. They are two different sets of problems, principles, etc. Senator O'Donnell stated that he thinks the problem started with siphoning off that 22 percent into different areas and one of those areas happens to be Veterans' Affairs. The state keeps aggregating little pockets of agencies under DMV&PS's umbrella and that keeps eating away at the 22 percent. He asked if he is wrong in that assessment? Mr. Gosnell stated that veterans' affairs has no impact on the 22 percent. It was a General Fund agency. It is mixed between the General Fund and federal funding. He stated he is spending time on veterans' affairs helping them with budgeting and personnel problems and is being paid from the Highway Fund. Mr. Carpenter stated that as he understands it, if DMV&PS makes this separation the money would be the same. He stated he feels if DMV&PS has a problem with the 22 percent and getting the personnel to service the public, that the committee ought to be looking at that. He stated that he knows there are great lines in the southern part of the state, but everywhere there are problems with registration; so it was not just a "local eye theory." He really could not see, if it is the 22 percent that is the problem, the committee should really be looking at that, not to reorganize DMV&PS. It would maybe cost DMV&PS much more money. Mr. Gosnell stated that Mr. Carpenter is absolutely correct. The reorganization of the DMV&PS would not shorten any lines. He continued the only thing that would do is to allow management a new director of DMV&PS and a structured staff to focus 100 percent of their time on DMV&PS problems. Right now Mr. Gosnell and Mr. Weller spend probably 50 to 60 percent of their time on DMV&PS problems, because the other 40 to 50 percent are spent on PS problems. It is a matter of focusing their planning and management people. The reorganization does not do a thing to reduce the lines. The only thing that will reduce the lines are the five- steps that Mr. Weller is talking about in terms of staffing and data processing (DP) solutions. Senator O'Donnell stated that he would agree with Mr. Gosnell, but as far as having two different people, one a director of DMV and one the director of PS; the state has a DMV&PS division chief who should be that individual responsible for administrating that department. That person has now been transferred to another position. He stated that he feels the committee has hit on something. He does not agree shuffling and calling that person a director. He did agree that the staffing, data processing, management, and all those other five-points that were talked about would solve the problem. He did not feel a Public Safety Division would solve the problem. It might even cause more confusion because now DMV&PS has 22 percent of money collected from the Highway Fund that would have to be divided between two separate divisions. Mrs. Chowning stated that this decision is not this committee's to make, but being a former teacher, she said that she would never present a plan like this without further audio-visual aids. This is not enough information for her to make a decision. She stated she feels the committee has to know whether this would be cost effective. They have to have indicators so that they know what this is going to accomplish, so that we can go back home and say there is a good reason for splitting these departments. She said the information DMV&PS has provided does not tell the committee how the public is going to be better served in terms of safety and it does not tell the committee how the 4 hour lines are going to be shortened. It does not let her go back home and say, "You know folks, we are going to save you money and we are going to save you time." Senator Washington stated that he thought there is another thing that the committee should take a look at before reorganizing this department. He stated that he thought the report is quite thorough, that Mr. Mitchell had pointed out about 12 different areas that could be improved within DMV&PS to make enhancements for public service, staffing, computerization, automation; and he had pointed out several problems as well as giving solutions for the problems. Senator Washington said before considering trying to split DMV&PS, the committee might want to take a look at the report and ask some of the DMV&PS workers for their suggestions. Mr. Weller stated that he had not seen the report and did not know what it said. The things that he had talked about today as far as the five-point plan, most of that comes from the staff. He stated he feels DMV&PS is well aware of the problem areas, where they are and generally what they need to do. Senator O'Donnell stated that DMV&PS had done an investigation last year as to what was needed for improvement. He stated that he thought the problem was the 22 percent cap and whether the committee should raise the cap. He asked if the case that DMV&PS had made in terms of that last year's study investigation was felt to have been thorough enough for them to make some changes in the DMV&PS, provided they had the staff, the expertise, the equipment and so forth, or does the committee have to wait another 2 years for DMV&PS to do this BPR study so they can placate the public and say that they are studying it again? Mr. Gosnell stated: There are a lot of things that DMV&PS can do between now and after the Sixty-ninth Session; but there are some real barriers. DMV&PS's data processing environment is older than I am. We need to do something about that. In order to get to whatever environment we need to go into, we need to know what kind of business process we want to do. DMV&PS could do that internally if they had a couple of technical staff that were not tied to the day-to-day maintenance of the data processing environment; to take a hard look, go back through what has been done on the case study, they could come up with some near-term solutions. The bottom line Is that we would have to be put on the existing mainframe environment. Would that enhance DMV&PS's capability? I doubt it very much. DMV&PS needs to get into an integrated interactive system, where a DMV&PS tech at a window could handle a customer at one window for registration, drivers' license, or title transaction without having to send that customer to three different lines. Those things are all going to be handled through a DP solution. The mainframe environment, either the pool system or the mainframe over at Data Internal System (DIS), would have to be decided upon. That is what DMV&PS had hoped the study would tell us. There is a lot of discussion about what DMV&PS is going to look like in the future. For DMV&PS to put $1 or $2 million dollars into DP hardware, I do not feel would get us anywhere because we do not know what that hardware will look like. That is the dilemma DMV&PS is in. Mr. Anderson reiterated that he and Senator Porter have a concern with the idea that the state seems to be loading DMV&PS's plate with greater responsibility and what has happened over time is that they have taken it on statutorily, but the enforcement does not seem to be there. He said the committee's frustration in dealing with this situation is first of all, the movement of hazardous materials, particularly radioactive material. The PSC issued five permits last year yet, there were over 840 shipments of radioactive materials in and out of this state. He stated that he has a very difficult time believing that the two departments are even trying to get along under the current set of regulations. He stated that he thinks the committee is looking at a very broad based budget. He stated that he has not had the opportunity to read the report that Senator Washington had referred to, but knowing the gentleman who had prepared the presentation in the past, he has a feeling that it hits the mark very close, because he had talked with the gentleman about his feelings about the propriety of the department. He stated he has a prospective that he is sure DMV&PS management would disagree with from time to time, but in reality it does reflect the frustration of several members. Mr. Gosnell asked if it would be possible for the department to receive a copy of that report. He stated that it would help them tremendously. Senator O'Donnell stated that a copy would be provided. He said that he thinks that there is going to be a problem in bifurcating the two agencies from the standpoint of budgeting. There is one pot and he thinks that if DMV needs staff, equipment, training and whatever it needs to satisfy the customer, that is going to compete for the same dollars that PSC is competing with in terms of HAZMAT, nuclear materials, transportation and the like. Mr. Gosnell stated: It may appear that DMV&PS is overweighing the Highway Fund portion to fund administration and the director's office on PS side. The committee has to remember that there still will be some legitimate highway funding there because if it is done on a cost allocation basis, the NHP which is a very large element of PS is highway funded. They will still have some highway funding, maybe not to the level seen in the Governor's recommendation, but there still will be competing within the directors and administrative services on the PS side for some highway funds to support the NHP. If HAZMAT were moved to the NHP, which is budget account 4729, that is a highway funded budget. Senator Porter stated: The highway funds - Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 481.150 (Exhibit H) [Powers and duties of chief; appointment of personnel to protect life and property and enforce state law ... When requested by the Governor to preserve order, protect life ... The salaries and expenses of the personnel incidental to those operations must be paid out of appropriations for the department from the state General Fund]. Senator Porter asked why is the Highway Fund funding the NHP? The NRS says it is a General Fund and DMV&PS is saying it was highway funded. Senator Porter continued that the point he wanted to make for the record is that the impact on the committee, from the DMV&PS's BPR processing reengineering case, is incredible. "Productivity costs in the state," and he quoted from the report, "as a whole will continue to increase." The current cost based on an average 1 hour waiting time for Las Vegas DMV&PS customers is 4.6 million dollars. He stated that is an average. Senator Porter continued, if the committee were to take into account those people that were not registering their vehicles, because of the lines or trying to avoid it, for those people not getting Nevada drivers' licenses; what he is asking is for DMV&PS to tell the committee where the problem is and what they can do to correct the problem. He continued, it could be that DMV&PS's decision to split is the right answer, but the real need is to start with the customer. He asked DMV&PS to tell the committee the problem and how they can help to correct it. Mr. Weller stated that he would refer back to the DMV&PS's five-point plan. This is an interim fix. He stated the long range fix requires some in-depth analysis and planning. The fifth point, the level two funding, would have 12 hour days and DMV&PS would have 80 percent of those windows filled during those 12 hours; 8 hours on Saturday, document imaging equipment so they could move documents around electronically rather than on paper. Those type of things are what DMV&PS would look at as an immediate fix. With the long range fix being the BPR or something similar. Senator Porter asked if the five-step plan has anything to do with the split? Mr. Weller stated that the DMV&PS has already started into a lot of the steps. The cross training is almost completed in Las Vegas. He said the facilities situation is improving and DMV&PS is very happy with that. Senator Porter replied that as he understands, there is about $2 billion a year in taxable sales in vehicles. He asked if that sounded about right? He added right now the public is waiting about 6 months for a title change. Mr. Weller replied that he thought DMV&PS is down to about 3 or 4 months now. He said DMV&PS took resources from someplace else and put them into there and created an afternoon shift. Senator Porter stated that there are a lot of revenues out there available with the reorganization or whatever level that was, but DMV&PS needs to tell the committee the problem. He stated that he did not feel the reorganization is the answer. Senator O'Donnell stated that he understood that Mr. Weller had said that DMV&PS was cross training the people for vehicle registration. Mr. Weller stated: The registration and drivers' license people are assigned to those divisions and that is all they do is registration or drivers' license. What DMV&PS had done was cross train them so the drivers' license person can do registration and vice versa. That is going on now and is almost completed in Las Vegas and DMV&PS wants to eventually take that to the rest of the state. Mr. Allard asked if the top flow chart is the department as it exists now? He asked why cannot the deputy director of law enforcement and the deputy director of motor vehicles take care of these duties rather than split the departments. He said DMV&PS is saying that they want to focus on these specific duties. DMV&PS shows veterans' affairs lumped in with drivers' license, administrative services and registration under the proposed plan. He asked what does veterans' affairs have to do with these others? Are you planning on building a new building for the other agency? Mr. Weller stated that there is no plan to build a new building. They would be housed within the same agency. Mr. Allard asked if DMV&PS would have to augment that building? Mr. Weller stated that DMV&PS would be doing some renovation in Carson City. Included in that would be to bring Registration for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) down to the first floor. Mr. Allard stated that looking at the top chart, it appears the DMV&PS's basic argument for splitting the two agencies is so they can focus on germaine issues. He asked why DMV&PS could not do that with the two deputy directors? Mr. Weller stated that it is done to a degree now, but the one deputy director is in the south, and he gets involved in across-the-board activities. He also handles a lot of customer inquiries because DMV&PS did not get the ombudsman position that they had asked for to do those types of things. He said the deputy is really the jack of all trades and it is similar in the north. Mr. Allard asked if Mr. Weller is saying that this individual is not only looking after NHP division issues, he is also looking out for drivers' license issues. He asked "Why cannot you, within your department, hone that down where this deputy director just looks at his part of the flow chart? I do not think you have to split the agency in order to do that, do you?" Mr. Weller stated that because of the geographic considerations, it is easier to have the deputy director down south deal with the NHP or NDI or personnel matters than it is to have the one from the north go down to the south and address those issues. He said although they are in charge of those two different areas, they can really mix and match. Mr. Allard asked if DMV&PS would be able to mix and match the boxes on the bottom of the flow chart and accomplish the same results, taking into consideration the geographic discrepancies? Mr. Weller stated that could be looked at. Senator Porter stated that he wanted to talk about the business community for a second. There are real problems with commercial registration. The turnaround time and the cost to the business is passed on to the customers. He said in the five-step plan, what plans does Mr. Weller have to address some of the problems with the commercial side, in the titling area? Mr. Weller stated that the people in the equipment area would have to address those issues. Mr. Gosnell stated: In the budget that is before the committee, regardless of reorganization, there are probably 17 or 18 positions within the registration division that are dedicated totally to the title problem. DMV&PS wants to get the title problem down to under 30 days. That is recognized and is in the budget regardless of anything else that happens. If DMV&PS were to go with the level two funding on the equipment side, which is the document imaging, their goal would be that they could actually do titles in the field. The titles would not have to come to Carson City to be done and DMV&PS could actually speed up the process. Senator Porter asked if under the level two funding for the document imaging, was that out of the business reprocessing plan or something different? Mr. Gosnell stated: It would be related to it, but is totally separate. The level two funding, which the committee has not seen and has not been presented because of the 22 percent [cap] problem, contains around $84,000 a year over a 5-year period to lease a state of the art document imaging system. That is related in the BPR in the sense that it is a need, but DMV&PS has taken action within the proposal to actually acquire one if they can get it. Senator Porter asked if currently, DMV&PS has two data bases, one for registration and one for drivers' license, separate printers; and did they have to change printers around because of the equipment they have now? By investing in this new equipment, will it interface with the plans? Mr. Gosnell stated that DMV&PS would definitely want the document imaging equipment that they would acquire to fit into the environment they would be going into for the future. He said they would not buy something that is incompatible. Senator Porter stated that he knew DMV&PS would not intentionally, but sometimes that happens, act in haste to solve a managers problem. Mr. Anderson stated that the committee needs to acquire a copy of the five-step program. He stated that he does not believe that the committee has jurisdictional authority to deal with the breakup of this particular department. He said he does not believe that it is a transportation question and asked was it going to be? Senator O'Donnell stated that it would be a transportation as well as Senate Finance and Assembly Ways and Means issue. Mr. Anderson stated that the PSC and responsibility question would be within the committee's jurisdictional area as he understands. He stated he would like to see the five-step program. Mr. Allard stated that he would like to make sure that DMV&PS is going to provide the committee with an estimate of the cost for the split. Mr. Weller stated that the five-step plan is an in-house plan and the level two funding, which is the fifth step to that, has not left his shop because of the 22 percent cap. Senator O'Donnell stated that before he would let the DMV&PS people go, he had two more things. He appointed a transportation subcommittee. He said Senator Porter will chair, Senator Shaffer and Senator O'Donnell will be looking into efficiencies of the DMV&PS and to take up this issue further. In lieu of the 22 percent cap, he stated that he understands that DMV&PS is looking at all kinds of ways of receiving revenue, in order to allow DMV&PS to get the 22 percent so they can function. Senator O'Donnell continued that there has been some talk about an almost unknown bill called Senate Bill (S.B.) 118 (Exhibit I). He stated that he thought Senator Jacobsen had some comments he wanted to make regarding this. Senate Bill 118: Requires redesign and reissuance of license plates for motor vehicles. (BDR S-501) Senator Jacobsen stated he was sure that all the committee members had received letters and phone calls. With people having realized that the registration division of DMV&PS had requested the introduction of S.B. 118 which authorizes the department to redesign and issue new license plates beginning in 1997. One factor he is really pleased about is that old time Nevadans realize what their heritage is all about and certainly that is important even after 27 years. He said he could not help but think that he does not know anybody who had not changed their clothes in 27 years. License plates are probably a good example of not protecting the publics if they are unreadable. He continued, certainly it does not identify the vehicle and it does not enhance public safety. He stated, that in talking with the chairman and realizing the public sentiment that has been expressed, he is sure that the bill has no chance at passage at the current time. He said he would like to suggest, with the approval of the committee, that they remove S.B. 118 from Thursday's schedule at 2:00 p.m. Not to give the bill the deep six, but to hold it in abeyance; because there may be some areas related to license plates before the session is over where the committee could use the same bill draft. He had discussed with Ray Sparks the possibility of having some refurbishing method of taking the old plates that are not readable and Mr. Sparks had indicated that there is no place in the state of Nevada that could do that. There are no capabilities in-house to do that, but he suggested it could be researched. Most people who have called, indicated that they would be willing to pay a fee to have their plates repainted. Senator Jacobsen continued that as we look around there are several different plates and it is sometimes difficult to determine which is a Nevada plate. It would be well to indefinitely postpone this bill. Senator O'Donnell stated that as a courtesy to Senator Jacobsen, the committee would go ahead and pull the bill hearing for Thursday. He stated that he feels there is some "flavor" out there for individuals who own older cars and have those older plates, and some who have new cars with the older plates; that those people are proud of those plates. He has received several calls, since he is chairman of the committee; people have called and said that the state needs to have some kind of refurbishing or restoration on the plates. He said DMV&PS does have a special blue plate that, if the plate does happen to be unreadable; or if the person wants to return the plate to DMV&PS to be refurbished, then the committee ought to entertain the ability for the public to bring in their plates in and have them refurbished and restored. Out of courtesy to Senator Jacobsen ... Senator Jacobsen stated that he feels it is kind of early to tell and he feels it is a responsibility of the department to bring this to the committee's attention. Senator Porter stated that as the committee leaves the issue, what DMV&PS is facing was not unlike the corporate America of today. He said it is no longer "business as usual" and we are all having to change rapidly to service our constituents or customers. He wanted to also state that DMV&PS's problems were not created by DMV&PS. The legislature, through the years, has created some of the problems at DMV&PS; in attempts to help the state has sometimes thrown roadblocks. Senator O'Donnell stated that he thought the committee would like to move on to the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT). Ms. Chowning stated that it was the intention of the cochairman of the Assembly Transportation committee to also appoint a subcommittee. The Assembly committee would be composed of Mr. Allard, Mr. Nolan, Mr. Anderson and Mrs. de Braga. Senator O'Donnell stated that based upon information and questions that have been asked he would request that DMV&PS come up with data processing needs as well as staff needs that they feel, outside the Governor's budget, would solve some of the efficiency problems and present that to Senator Porter for perusal. Mr. Weller asked if this would be a short-term solution with the idea that DMV&PS would get staff to look at a long-term solution or do the BPR? Senator O'Donnell stated that he feels the committee and DMV&PS needs to look at long-term solutions. This particular session the committee needs to be told what the DMV&PS thinks is necessary to get the DMV&PS back on track. They need to see costs and the number of people, etc. Senator O'Donnell and Senator Jacobsen sit on the Senate Finance committee and they can deal with that as well. Mr. Allard asked that the Assembly subcommittee be provided the same information. Tom Stephens, Director, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), stated that he was formerly the manager of the Nevada Public Works Board and before that the chairman of the Nevada Public Service Commission (PSC); an agency which has had some dealings with transportation in the past and he understands that role is diminishing. He said the PSC has been winding down its role in transportation because of Federal preemption of state law. They dealt with a lot of the truckers in the state when he was there. He said the Nevada Department of Transportation handout (Exhibit J) indicates that the mission is to build highways and maintain those highways, but they do have some involvement with air and rail transportation and the promotion of public transportation; bicycling and pedestrian facilities. The philosophy of the department is to treat their expenditure of large sums of taxpayer money as a public trust to be carried out with integrity and economy. He points out that NDOT's professional expertise is in consulting public officials and consulting with the traveling public, and the value of all their personnel. He said that the department strives to provide them with the training tools, work environment and professional challenge needed to maintain a high level of expertise and productivity in their work. Mr. Stephens continued, the way traffic is delayed for construction has hurt the image of NDOT. That is an immediate change which he effected. No contracts are signed to go out to bid until the traffic control plan is seen. He said there will be some fallout from this because a lot of people live by the freeways and will hear the construction at night, but it is better than having traffic jams during rush hours. He continued, in the funding area, the NDOT has done a really good job in getting funding for the highways and growth in Nevada. Most of the challenge in the growth of the state is in the Las Vegas area, but there are traffic jams seen all over the state. Mr. Stephens said the Legislature has raised the gasoline tax in the past and that has provided the state funding. Federal funding amounts to about $110 million a year and in addition, in the last 4 years, the state has gotten an extra $184 million by working with our delegation for special projects. In addition, the state got $36 million on a loan, that does not have to be repaid until 2005, for buying the right- of-way for the Carson Bypass. Mr. Stephens said that Inter Mobile Service Transportation Agency (IMSTA) is a proposed combination of the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration and the Federal Railroad Transportation. The budgets would be combined and would result in a reduction in the amount of monies to be sent to the states. He said in the State Highway Preservation Report (Exhibit K. Original is on file in the Research Library.) The highlighted items show that NDOT "represents only 12 percent of the total public road mileage in the state, this system carries 68 percent of all traffic and more than 90 percent of all heavy trucks." Pavement surface alone is worth about $3 billion. The report is aimed at what NDOT does to maintain those surfaces. The NRS 408.203 report (Exhibit L) shows revenues, expenditures and actual work programs, along with the Annual Work Program Fiscal Year 1995 report (Exhibit M). Senator O'Donnell noted that, since Nevada is a recipient state in terms of Federal dollars, for every dollar put in by the state, the state gets $1.30. He asked if Mr. Stephens sees that continuing, eroding, or that percentage changing in terms of what he has found out in Washington? Mr. Stephens stated that he thinks the federal funding is very uncertain at this time and he does not know which direction it is going to go. The administration wants to fund all the other programs out of the Highway Fund so they would lose on that basis, because Nevada does not have a lot of the other programs. Senator O'Donnell stated that during the interim study there were several bills introduced. One was on weight-distance. He stated that Mr. Stephen's predecessor was pushing very hard for weight-distance, and he would like to know where Mr. Stephens stands on how the state would be financing the road situation. Mr. Stephens stated that the weight-distance proposal that the NDOT is putting forth is a revenue neutral proposal and would not provide any new revenues. Senator O'Donnell stated that there are situations throughout the state where the roads are deteriorating. He asked if Mr. Stephens had stated that there was a $20 million gain every year and does he see that eroding? Mr. Stephens stated that he did see that eroding and one of the charts in the reports shows that. He said if the gas tax revenues do not increase tremendously through regular growth, that would be a problem. And he continued, there are several bills that are going to be introduced and which may help in guaranteeing additional revenues. He stated there is a suspicion that there is a great deal of tax avoidance on the part of some of the people who should pay these taxes. He said the Montana's way of collecting that tax is being investigated and it is believed this would bring a $4 million gain to Nevada. Senator O'Donnell asked for a brief update on the spaghetti bowl, and asked is there a federal commitment for funds? Mr. Stephens stated that the spaghetti bowl involves United States (US) 95 and Interstate (I) 15 in Las Vegas. The first phase is going out for bid in June. It would widen some of the shoulders and lanes and increase travel lanes to the south of the spaghetti bowl. The next phase would go out to bid the following summer and would add capacity to the spaghetti bowl, with additional lanes on the throughway and at the turning where there is a constriction to down to one lane now. The $29 million dollar fix is the bottleneck to this whole thing. That is where a driver was going north and wanted to go east. There is still only a one lane ramp. There are other restrictions that NDOT is starting a study. Senator O'Donnell asked if there had been any thought to widening the Rancho off ramp and closing the Martin Luther King off ramp? Mr. Stephens replied that is a very sensitive issue with the community there, but they have given some thought to it. Senator O'Donnell asked if it was possible to move the access down 200 or 300 yards? Mr. Stephens said that the agreements were made before he came on board and as he understands it that has held the project up at least 15 months. He stated that he does not want to reopen that. He stated NDOT would not propose another alternative without it first having the approval of the community leaders. Senator Porter stated for future reference, the Searchlight Highway, Laughlin; with the pressure of hazardous materials being transported across Hoover Dam, plus the sound barrier problems on I 15 in Henderson, needs to be discussed at some future time. Mr. Stephens stated that he has brought a plan study (Exhibit N) for this problem. It is going to be a very large project on how to get people from the very large city of Las Vegas to the very large city of Phoenix. The road between the two are always bottlenecked at the dam. Senator Porter stated that this is his district and this is a very sensitive issue because of the hazardous materials impact on Boulder City. The state is already spending millions of dollars in studies and working with the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), and could have probably built a bridge at the cost of the tourist center. He asked about the Searchlight Highway, which is Highway 95 to which the state owns the right-of-way. It has just been improved into Laughlin and is being improved from there to Kingman. He asked why is it that the state was not looking at expanding Highway 95 instead of building a $200 million bridge. Mr. Stephens stated that he has never looked at that, but he will. Senator Porter stated that it is in place and $30 million has been spent on widening the highway. Mr. Stephens stated that the state would probably still have to build a bridge down there because the bridge that was built was done by Laughlin. He stated that he does not know what the canyon going to Laughlin looks like because he has not been down there, but he will look into it. He continued regarding the question about Henderson. One of the things he has done is to meet with the Mayor of Henderson as well as a lot of public officials. He said noise walls are a big problem in Henderson because the freeway was built and then the subdivisions were built. It would cost approximately $12 million to do the noise walls along that section. He said to do every residential area in the state that has residential neighborhoods would cost the state approximately $202 million. He stated he is going to propose they experiment with walls that are not 18' tall. There are noise wall problems in Reno also, that are being checked into. Senator Washington asked what about the off-ramp between Rock Boulevard and Pyramid on I-80 going by the Nugget Casino? Mr. Stephens stated that it is a $24 million project and they have $5.5 million in demonstration funds which, are extra funds from the federal government. He said NDOT has the ability to sell bonds in advance; but the bonds commit future federal funds, and with a question mark on the federal funds it is not a good idea to obligate money that is uncertain. Senator Washington stated that the Sparks officials and John Ascuaga are pretty adamant about this project. He asked about widening the lanes between McCarran and the spaghetti bowl. Stating it widens to a three lane highway from there, but is pretty bottlenecked during rush hours. Mr. Stephens replied that he thought there would be some widening in conjunction with the interchange. He said Mike McFall is in charge of the roadway design and bridge design, and is the assistant director who is with him. Mike McFall, Assistant Director, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), stated that the current project underway would provide for a new crossing where the ramp enters McCarran and would also pull out an auxiliary lane back toward the spaghetti bowl to get the traffic out of the through lanes. Senator O'Donnell stated that when the state designs a freeway there seems to be a practice that is being employed to identify where the beltway is going to go and then individuals will assemble large parcels in the path of the beltway, run down to the local city officials, city council or county commission and have the parcels rezoned in order to increase their value. On both sides of the beltway, however, there is no intent to develop, but right down the middle there is intent. Now the property value is more. He asked, "Have you or your predecessor seen this in the past"? Mr. Stephens stated that this is a serious problem. NDOT has a bill that states that when NDOT takes somebody's property, they will consider the additional value that is added to the property by the fact that they built the road there. Senator O'Donnell stated that every taxpayer who foots the bill for the highways is paying more for this type of activity. Mr. Stephens stated that this all seems to impinge on private property rights. That is a cause that people take up. Senator O'Donnell asked for any other questions or comments. Mr. Batten asked that the Assembly Transportation committee be dismissed. Ms. Chowning stated that she wanted to express her appreciation for the time that the committees have had together and she felt that with some of the questions and actions together that this would be very fruitful for all of the members. Senator O'Donnell stated that he thought there is a definite commitment to work together for the good of the state. Carl Hasty, Senior Planner, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), stated he wanted to say that at Lake Tahoe the people strongly believe that NDOT does have a large role to play, both as a partner and a leader, and they would like to state that there was a need for strengthening NDOT's role at Lake Tahoe. They are one of the key partners needed in obtaining the environmental and economic goals at the lake. The three areas he would like to briefly address are: scenic and recreation, transportation and air quality, and water quality. He continued giving some examples where the residents have had good cooperation and support with NDOT on the scenic and recreation aspect; there has been in cooperation for designating Highways 28 and part of 50 as scenic byways. They have also been very helpful in developing a bike trail plan for Lake Tahoe. He said some areas along this line where the TRPA would like to work with NDOT more, is in design solutions, more for structures at Tahoe. He stated the scenic is very important; a design that may work in Las Vegas does not necessarily work at Lake Tahoe and vice versa. It is an area that, in terms of design solutions, is important to develop and improve upon. He said in transportation, they have been very good in helping fund what was being called the "Lake Lapper Service" at Lake Tahoe. It is inside transportation around the lake. Mr. Hasty continued: NDOT is very cooperative with the inner city rail study at south Lake Tahoe to try to bring in light rail. They worked very closely with that. More attention is being spent on the proposed loop road at south shore. We would like to see NDOT redesignate that as Highway 50. The parking management plan very much needs NDOT's assistance. In water quality the salt reduction and management are the big issues. We are essentially not building new highways at Lake Tahoe and it was a case of retrofit. Similar to sound walls, this is one for roads control and drainage improvements. There is a need for NDOT to be able to participate more often. We would like to work with NDOT to do projects every year. Senator O'Donnell stated he had been on that committee. The Lake Tahoe Basin is not only a part of our very beautiful environment, but is also a recreation area. It should be seen as well as experienced. The state's commitment should see that Lake Tahoe is not only our gaming community, but our recreational community; and we need to commit to it being a top priority in our endeavors that the roadways be kept up to speed. Highway 28 presently has pot holes, and the temperature has to raise to a certain level before those can be repaired. Senator O'Donnell continued with a bill draft request (BDR) (Exhibit O) that he wanted to introduce. There was a situation in Las Vegas whereby people are stealing copper wire out of the houses and taking the copper pipe from the foundation. They are taking it to the desert and burning it. He said the residue is highly toxic and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has to be called to dig up the soil. The BDR is to prohibit individuals from accepting burnt wire into the salvage pools. The BDR has nothing to do with transportation; Senator O'Donnell stated he was asked to introduce the BDR. He said the environmental community as well as the law enforcement community Is highly interested in getting this piece of legislation drafted. Although they were late in requesting it, it has since become a problem. He requested of the committee that he be able to get a BDR in for this particular bill. SENATOR LEE MADE A MOTION TO INTRODUCE THE BILL DRAFT REQUEST SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION THE MOTION CARRIED (SENATORS NEAL AND SHAFFER WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * Senator Jacobsen stated that he supports this type of legislation. He said especially in the rural areas this is quite a business with bailing wire, any kind of metal as well as hides. He stated he does not want to restrict those persons from any kind of livelihood, because it is good for the ranchers so that they do not have to haul those things off to be recycled. Senator O'Donnell stated that this only concerns the highly toxic residues. Mr. Mitchell stated that he wants to help the DMV&PS. There are a lot of wonderful people working at DMV&PS who cannot come and talk to the legislators without risking their jobs. He is retired and has come before the legislature to speak for them. Mr. Mitchell had submitted the report (Exhibit F) that was mentioned by Mr. Weller. Mr. Mitchell continued, "Julie Lamm, Office Manager, Stremmel Auctions, was here to testify but had to leave (Exhibit P)." Senator Porter stated that he had spoken with Mr. Mitchell earlier and would inform him of any subsequent meetings. Senator O'Donnell stated that there was another bill draft request (BDR) that was requested by the Public Service Commission regarding tow truck operators. The tow truck industry is in favor of regulation. This bill would do just that. He stated the federal government deregulated a lot of the transportation industry. In doing that they deregulated tow trucks. He said it is unclear that there was an intent to deregulate tow truck operators. The operators feel it is good for their industry for them to be regulated. He said the PSC has come up with language that would allow them to continue to regulate tow trucks at their level. They have asked him to request a bill draft (Exhibit Q). SENATOR JACOBSEN MADE A MOTION FOR INTRODUCTION OF THE BILL DRAFT REQUEST SENATOR PORTER AND SENATOR LEE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS NEAL AND SHAFFER WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) Senator O'Donnell closed the hearing at 4:14 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Diane C. Rea, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator William R. O'Donnell, Chairman DATE: __________________________________________ Assemblyman Thomas Batten, Chairman DATE: ___________________________________ __________________________________________ Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairman DATE: ___________________________________ Senate Committee on Transportation Assembly Committee on Transportation February 21, 1995 Page