MINUTES OF THE JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY, TRANSPORTATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS AND SENATE FINANCE Sixty-eighth Session March 10, 1995 The Joint Subcommittee on Ways and Means was called to order at 7:40 a.m., on Friday, March 10, 1995, Chairman Thomas Fettic presiding, in Room 321 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator Lawrence Jacobsen Senator William O'Donnell Late/Excused Senator Bernice Mathews Late/Excused ASSEMBLY SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Thomas Fettic, Chairman Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr., Late/Excused Mr. Jack Close Ms. Chris Giunchigliani Mr. John Marvel Mr. Larry Spitler COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert Guernsey, Deputy Fiscal Analyst Following roll call and opening remarks, Chairman Fettic asked the representatives of the Department of Motor Vehicles to come forward and give an overview of their budget. Responding to Chairman Fettic's request, James Weller, Director of the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, pointed out the joint meetings of the Assembly Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committee had clearly shown the two major problems in the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) existed, 1) in the Las Vegas office where the waiting periods and long lines were excessive, and 2) in the backlog of titles in the Registration Division. Mr. Weller informed the committee he had been working with a subcommittee of the two Transportation committees trying to address some of those very problems. Mr. Weller was asked to explain what advantage there would be if the two departments were separated, one being the Department of Motor Vehicles and the other being the Department of Public Safety. Mr. Weller indicated the main advantage would be that each director could then focus strictly on the issues facing their specific department. When asked by Mr. Marvel what point there was in having a Deputy Director, Mr. Weller explained there were two deputies, one for the Public Safety, working out of the Carson City office, and one for Motor Vehicles, who worked out of the Las Vegas office. The Las Vegas deputy, he declared, was so involved with responding to concerns, complaints and inquiries from the public, he did not have time to consider overall and future planning. Mr. Weller indicated he had previously asked for additional people to handle complaints and inquiries, however, the requests had not been filled. Mr. Weller agreed splitting the division would not address the problem of long lines in Las Vegas, but in the past when they asked for an ombudsman type of position to deal with the public, the positions had been deleted in the budget process. Mr. Marvel suggested perhaps they should look at approving such a position for the Las Vegas office. Referring to Mr. Weller's remark concerning meetings with a Transportation subcommittee, Mr. Close questioned whether this was just a duplication of testimony. He then asked Mr. Weller to update the subcommittee on what had transpired in those meetings. Mr. Weller replied the joint subcommittee had been studying their Five-Point plan and level-two funding (Exhibit C). He said they discussed concerns with: 1) equipment, 2) data processing, 3) personnel, and 4) had also looked at a source of funds which might allow them to work around the 22 percent cap in some of their budgets. Mr. Close insisted the information being generated in the Transportation subcommittee would be useful to the money committees in making their decisions. Mr. Fettic asked Mr. Weller to provide the money subcommittee the DMV information which had been given to the Transportation subcommittee. While Ms. Giunchigliani believed the work between the DMV and the Transportation subcommittee was meritorious, ultimately it was the money committees who would decide what would be funded. Referring to the DMV's Five-Point plan, Ms. Giunchigliani asked for more information regarding "point of sale registration." Would this be part of the discussions in the Transportation subcommittee? Another issue would be whether the titling function would continue to operate from Carson City, or whether there was a plan to relocate some of this in Las Vegas for a quicker, easier turnaround. Also, what plans were being considered to go around the 22 percent cap? Bill Gosnell, representing Administrative Services, said they had started working on the Five-Point strategy for DMV betterments a year ago. Provisions of that plan were: 1. A bill had been requested to reorganize a headquarters unit and a field services unit internally within the DMV. This would integrate Registration and Drivers License into a one-stop concept. 2. The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) requested a Henderson facility and some renovation of existing buildings which would allow them to handle the southern Clark County area better. 3. The Business Process Re-engineering (BPR) process, addressed by S.B. 218, would allow complete internal renovation, restructuring and re-engineering of their existing systems so they could go to the one-stop environment. 4. Cross-training conducted statewide, especially in Las Vegas. 5. The highest cost was posed by staffing changes with a 12-hour day, 80 percent minimum window staffing and 8 hours on Saturday in Clark County. Their goal was to implement a credit card system over the next two years; renew by phone on a credit card, which would require a tie-in with smog checks and mandatory insurance; and acquiring document imaging equipment for 25 offices so they could electronically transfer titles, etc. As for funding on these projects, Mr. Gosnell suggested they consider the 6 percent privilege tax the Department now collected for the counties as a way of alleviating the 22 percent cap. He believed this could be a fund source allowed by the constitution, and further supported by an opinion written by Legislative Counsel, Brenda Erdoes. Ms. Erdoes had stated the Legislature could constitutionally divert those funds directly into the budgets, and treat those funds as the sales tax commission was treated. In response to Ms. Giunchigliani's question regarding the 6 percent privilege tax, Mr. Gosnell said currently those monies went into the highway fund, and from there, the DMV received 22 percent of the 6 percent. Ms. Giunchigliani asked Mr. Gosnell to provide the committee with the opinion from Ms. Erdoes, and he agreed to do so. What was being proposed, Mr. Gosnell said, was for the 6 percent privilege tax to go directly into the DMV budgets to fund their proposals, but not into the highway fund. He said there was approximately a $5.3 million net loss to the highway fund under this proposal. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if there were any statutory problems with instituting a credit card program. Mr. Gosnell said they believed if the appropriation was provided in a specific category for the DMV to implement it, it would be possible. Certainly, they could not do it without paying something for a discount. Ms. Giunchigliani then asked if their plan looked at more substations along with increased hours and different shifts, rather than constructing a large, new facility. The main problem, Mr. Gosnell stated, was influx of new people into Nevada. This was further discussed. Again referring to the Five-Point plan, Mr. Close questioned whether it was proposed to have the DMV field team do on-site registration. Mr. Gosnell explained the travel team was unfunded, but within the model they might be able to yield enough full time equivalencies (FTE) to do that. What they were trying to do was provide an 80 percent window coverage, 12 hours a day, get the waiting time in line down under an hour, and provide as much field service as possible. While Senator Jacobsen realized the disruption which took place in any reorganization, he wondered how long Mr. Weller estimated it would take to get up to speed if the department was split. In reply, Mr. Weller commented they hoped to be up to speed in about two years. Senator Jacobsen then asked Mr. Weller to comment on whether they would have adequate facilities. Mr. Weller said they anticipated building a new facility in Henderson, and other facilities would be remodeled. Space in Carson City was undetermined as yet, but they were currently occupying the bigger portion of Building 107 at Stewart; and it was their understanding in July they would take over some of the Mental Health space. Senator Jacobsen observed there were five buildings in the Stewart complex, and he preferred them being used on a permanent basis rather than consistently remodeling other buildings. Mr. Spitler questioned whether there had been authorization to charge extra for the DMV to go out to work locations. Mr. Gosnell and Ms. Giunchigliani disagreed on whether there was authorization with Mr. Gosnell believing there was no authorization for the practice, and Ms. Giunchigliani asserting, indeed, this was part of the bill. Bruce Glover, Chief of Drivers Licenses, explained, first, in 1991 they had been authorized to charge the businesses, but when they attempted to do it, no one was willing to pay the extra charge; and secondly, there had been a two- year sunset provision on the legislation. Mr. Spitler opined the 900 employees of Sprint, where he was Vice President of Human Resources, would happily pay a surcharge for the convenience of taking care of registration at their place of work. Mr. Spitler also queried the scheduled remodel for the Sahara facility. Mr. Gosnell said the remodel of the Sahara facility was shown in the CIP, and would probably be completed within a year. Referring to the work of remodeling, Mr. Marvel asked how the DMV planned to operate while they were doing this and whether it would it be a large impediment to a smooth operation. Mr. Gosnell assumed it would be very difficult, but possibly there would be temporary housing at the Stewart facility. The Galletti and Henderson Express office remodeling had been done in phases, and while this had been somewhat cumbersome, it had worked without too much disruption. Ms. Giunchigliani reminded them of the necessity of providing handicapped accessible accommodations when the remodeling was taking place. She also said she hoped the planned remodel did not deal with expansion. Mr. Weller said they were looking at bringing registration to the ground floor, and if and when they reorganized, they would attempt to have all public services on the first floor. Ms. Giunchigliani noted the CIP called for two remodels and one completely new construction for a new facility in the Henderson area. She said she preferred not to build new buildings. Referring to the long lines and waiting periods in the Las Vegas DMV, Mr. Spitler shared some statistics dealing with the lengthy lines and extensive waiting periods experienced in southern Nevada. He believed it was the committee's first task to alleviate the biggest problem which was occurring in Las Vegas. In Carson City, the shortest wait was 11 minutes, the longest, 18 minutes, with an average wait of 14 minutes; in Fallon it was 4 minutes for the shortest wait, 23 minutes for the longest wait and 11 minutes average; in Reno it was 4 minutes - shortest, 12 minutes - longest, 7 minutes average; North Las Vegas, 38 minutes - shortest, 1 hour 29 minutes - longest, 1 hour 16 minutes - average; in Las Vegas it was 34 minutes - shortest, 1 hour 15 minutes - longest, and 1 hour 10 minutes - average. He insisted this had to be made more equitable. Although they addressed the problem in 1991, it had meant adding many people, and that year there was a budget freeze, even though the DMV was not a general fund agency. He hoped the DMV would go back to that scenario to provide the personnel needed to provide the service. Commenting on this, Mr. Gosnell said they did not believe they were getting a good yield from an 8:00 to 5:00 environment in Las Vegas. However, while they needed to open those offices up, they also needed the personnel to do it. Thus, the package they were providing showed 100 percent, 90 percent, 80 percent, on a 12-hour day, and he believed this would alleviate Mr. Spitler's concern. Senator O'Donnell indicated the Transportation committee had considered the problem referred to by Mr. Spitler, but if the Department was split, only one new position was possible. Also, if salaries were increased for state employees, they would again bump up against the 22 percent, which would then necessitate either a cut in services, a cut in employees, or an increase in the lines. The question was, should they raise the 22 percent cap so more could be spent administratively, thereby hiring the new employees and implementing the programs to staff it? He said he was not willing to increase the 22 percent cap, but preferred building in greater efficiency in the DMV. Adding one more person in the DMV would not increase the efficiency, he opined. Senator O'Donnell continued with an explanation of his objection to the split. Ms. Giunchigliani questioned if they were to consider raising the cap, could they also look at reducing the 6 percent privilege tax. Mr. Gosnell indicated the privilege tax was not an element within the cap. Ms. Giunchigliani also questioned the dollar impact if the 22 percent cap was raised and the 6 percent privilege tax was lowered; and how much the cap would have to be raised to commensurately offset some of the out of pocket cost to the consumer through the privilege tax. Mr. Gosnell said they could do this, and he would be happy to provide it in writing. Senator O'Donnell explained the cap would have to be raised to 25 percent. In the highway fund, however, a 22 percent piece of the pie went to operation of the DMV and Public Safety. If the 22 percent were raised to 25 percent and the 6 percent privilege tax was reduced, there would be less money in the highway fund to build bridges, roads, over-ramps, thoroughfares, etc., which meant they would cut into the Department of Transportation's budget not once, but twice. Rather than debate the issue of the 22 percent cap, Chairman Fettic said since he did not understand the issue, he would ask Mr. Weller and Mr. Gosnell to provide information delineating the advantages and disadvantages of raising the 22 percent cap. DIRECTOR'S OFFICE - DMV - Page 1679 Chairman Fettic observed that during earlier discussions regarding reorganization, the Legislature had been told the DMV would need perhaps less staff, or at least no new staff. Two years later, this was proving to be very wrong. In response, Mr. Weller told the committee when this was first brought up they were asked to supply budgets reflecting what staff they would need to add; and they requested seven positions. This was sent to the budget office, and subsequently, they were asked to reconsider the request. After doing this they finally came down to one position, the position of a new director. Mr. Weller indicated at this point he really did not know what was needed, and he would probably need some time to be able to arrive at those figures. Mr. Weller did agree with Senator O'Donnell that if they had the flexibility to move people around, they could be more responsive to the load demands. DMV HEARINGS, Page 1687 According to information she had received from the Hearing Officers, Ms. Giunchigliani remarked, their greatest complaint was the lack of equipment. Was this part of what they were trying to contain within the budget upgrade? Mr. Gosnell indicated this was the case. The budget reflected new computer equipment and better recording equipment. Mr. Marvel asked approximately how many hearings were held each year. In response, Mr. Sam Martini, Senior Hearing Officer for the Department of Motor Vehicles, said in 1993 the four hearing officers, including himself, conducted approximately 3,014 hearings, and in 1994 they conducted 3,037 hearings. In response to Mr. Marvel's question regarding the affect of reorganization, Mr. Martini answered he did not believe it would affect the hearing office either way. Mr. Spitler requested a description of the computer equipment purchased with the Office of Traffic Safety grants. Mr. Martini replied they had purchased five computers to replace antiquated computers for the clerical staff. Two went to clerks in Carson City, three went to Las Vegas, and the computer equipment in Elko was adequate. There was a total of seven computers assigned to their offices, he stated. In response to a question from Mr. Marvel regarding the central hearing office being moved to Reno, Mr. Martini said he was the hearing officer for Carson City, Reno, Lake Tahoe and Minden, and while hearings were held in Reno three days a week, he did not believe there was sufficient reason to move the office to Reno. Most of his staff responsibility was in Carson City, and the cost of operating the vehicle he drove to hearing locations was part of the Director's budget. Chairman Fettic called forward John Holmes, a private citizen who had asked to speak. Mr. Holmes said he wished to focus on an attitude problem he had run into in the last year at the DMV which was far more serious, he believed, than the lack of personnel or the lack of dollars. He related the details of a very negative experience he had had in Carson City having to do with his veterans' exemption card, the sale of a truck registered in a trust, and the rude treatment he claimed he had received from DMV employees. Since it was clear something needed to be done to improve services, and the public was not amenable to a rise in rates, Mr. Holmes suggested an audit would point out the problems. By withholding a portion of agency funds, the budget office would maintain some leverage and ability to restrict monies until improvement was demonstrated. Mr. Holmes acknowledged the need for additional personnel, but insisted until an agency demonstrated an attitude change in their operations, they should not be granted additional budgetary appropriations. Senator O'Donnell fully agreed with Mr. Holmes and indicated he had had similar problems. After further discussion, Senator O'Donnell suggested perhaps a "complaint department" was needed within the Department of Motor Vehicles. Again, Mr. Holmes suggested an ombudsman function which would provide feedback to the Ways and Means Committee to determine if improvements had, indeed, been made. He volunteered to work with whatever type of complaint center was established to provide feedback to the Legislature. Mr. Arberry expressed his concern regarding the safety of DMV employees. He believed there was a potential for violence against the personnel if a customer received poor treatment. The DMV Director expressed his apologies to Mr. Holmes and additional comments alluding to the majority of helpful, conscientious people employed by the DMV were made by Ray Sparks, Deputy Director of the DMV. Ms. Giunchigliani stressed she believed the DMV needed a proper complaint department if one was not already in place. She indicated: 1)The Ombudsman's office for SIIS appeared to be operating quite effectively; 2) perhaps they could provide greeters who would patrol the lines of people to check paperwork, etc. She stated adamantly the committee was looking at a budget which did not reflect what the DMV really needed. There was the question of whether the subcommittee should even consider the budget document before them, or whether they should have the DMV representatives return with more appropriate documents. In response, Mr. Weller said their budgets were prepared in accordance with the 22 percent cap, and the budgets before the subcommittee were just a first step. The second step would be to review the recommendations of the Transportation subcommittee they were working with. This proposal brought many negative comments, with Ms. Giunchigliani saying while she appreciated the work the Transportation subcommittee was doing, the Ways and Means Joint committees had the responsibility and obligation, and were the policy makers as far as funding purposes. Senator O'Donnell agreed with Ms. Giunchigliani the budget before them would not necessarily solve the problems concerning the DMV. However, he said, the Governor had stated in the budget there would be one new director and the 22 percent cap was to remain in place. This would need further work with the Governor, he believed. Mr. Spitler made it clear he believed more people were needed, and his support of the whole budget would be to get the Las Vegas time frames consistent with Reno or other population centers. Regarding trusts, Mr. Spitler questioned the DMV's method of handling such documents. He asked Mr. Sparks to provide information to the committee as to whether a trust agreement submitted to the DMV did, indeed, become a public document. Mr. Sparks agreed to do so. Following a short break, Chairman Fettic opened the hearing on the next item on the agenda. MOTOR VEHICLE ADMINISTRATION, Page 1691 Regarding Mr. Marvel's question of how long it would take to relocate the bar coder, Mr. Gosnell said he did not really know, but this would probably only be the time it took to physically move it and reconnect. Although the operator was to go with it, since it was such a large piece of equipment, he estimated it would be about a week. He admitted there were some technical adjustments which needed to be made to the budget based on the bar coder transfer and the new postage rate. Mr. Marvel observed this was one of the recommendations of the audit report, but would there be any savings by centralizing it? Mr. Weller said actually, their rates went up because of centralizing it. Mr. Gosnell assured the committee the bar coder really did work, and they had seen savings in their department, not necessarily related to postage, but other benefits such as standardization of the mail. Ms. Giunchigliani requested information regarding the LAN and the file servers. If the department was split, what reconfiguration would be necessary? To answer her question, Wally Lauzon, Chief of Administrative Services, came forward and told her they currently had one file server and the LAN, with approximately 50 nodes on it. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if they would have to acquire one more file server for the Department of Public Service (DPS) if the split was to take place. In response, Mr. Lauzon said the plan was to keep both sides of administration in the same building so they could still use the nodes. Referring to the E-175 item, Mr. Fettic noted they were requesting two budget analysts to develop revenue and cost estimates for the department's biennial budget. If those two positions were approved, he wondered if an improvement would be noticeable. Mr. Gosnell assured him it would be very noticeable. He said they had only one person now who would carry the entire load for all the 38 budget coordination and work programs in the department. If they had a budget analyst working primarily on public safety and one working on DMV, their ability for management reporting and their response time on questions from staff or the budget office would be greatly increased. The major weakness in the department was the financial control structure, due to lack of personnel. RECORDS SEARCH - Page 1697 Ms. Giunchigliani noted Speaker Hettrick had a bill submitted to stop the selling of lists. What type of budget impact would this have? Mr. Gosnell replied that Mr. Hettrick's bill, as now drafted, with the word "private" included, would virtually put this budget out of existence and eliminate revenues. It would mean that each individual would have to grant the DMV permission to do it. However, Mr. Hettrick was reconsidering the draft, and Mr. Gosnell indicated he believed the bill would provide, "if you don't want us to, you have the option to tell us not to." The crime bill would allow the latter, and if Mr. Hettrick's bill was rewritten it would be consistent with the national crime bill. In response to a question from Mr. Marvel, Mr. Gosnell explained while there were 17 positions in the Records Search Division, in the 1980's two of these people were loaned out, one to the Drivers License Division and one to Bad Check Collection. The Records Search Division had requested those two positions be replaced in their host budgets, and the two slots he referred to, be returned to Records. This was being requested in the budget. DRIVERS LICENSE - Page 1701 Returning to the subject of the excessive lines in the Las Vegas DMV, Mr. Spitler asked what the plan was to alleviate this problem. Bruce Glover, Chief of the Drivers License Division, told the subcommittee this was a status quo budget which would allow them to continue on with their present method of operation. Mr. Spitler stated this was unacceptable. He wanted to see a plan which would bring southern Nevada into alignment with what the rest of the citizens of the state got when they visited other DMV offices. Some plan had to be devised to take care of the waiting period. Mr. Glover indicated the plan to staff windows over a longer period of time with more people was part of the plan the subcommittee in Transportation had been working on. Mr. Spitler believed, indeed, the Las Vegas DMV employees were doing an exemplary job under the most difficult conditions; however, somewhere in the budget they had to find a remedy for the inconvenience the general public in southern Nevada was being subjected to. This was further discussed by Mr. Glover who also pointed out he had asked for no additional personnel for the northern offices, with the exception of one person who had been returned to Mr. Gosnell's office. Mr. Glover emphasized he was committed to reducing the lines in Las Vegas, and towards this end they had introduced some legislation which would hopefully keep people out of the main office. One piece of legislation would allow for a renewal by mail program which would mean some 180,000 per year would not have to go into the DMV offices. Another bill, S.B. 65, would allow people moving to Nevada, who had a good driving record and were over 20 years of age, to not have to go through the testing process, but rather to just go through the same process as a Nevada resident renewing their license. This would mean a further 86,000 reduction in traffic. Another bill allowed motorcycle riders who completed a course administered by a community college or an approved school, to not have to be tested, but rather to bring in their certificate of completion. Mr. Glover said there was a fiscal impact on the renewal by mail, and Virginia Lewis, Budget Analyst for the Drivers License Division, said if S.B. 65 passed, the budget would have to be reworked to reflect this fiscal impact. In response to Mr. Fettic's observation that perhaps the initial investment would lessen the need for additional employees in the future, Mr. Glover agreed this would seem to be the case, but in fact, it was not. In a ten-state survey of states using this method, there was a continuing fiscal impact because of returned mail, address changes, etc. Additionally, Mr. Fettic wanted to know what impact the motor/voter regulations had. Mr. Glover remarked the legislation came out in 1988, the DMV willingly agreed to make the program successful, and he believed this had occurred. Referring to Mr. Glover's statement that approximately 160,000 people would be affected by the renewal by mail program, Ms. Giunchigliani asked for further explanation of how this number was determined. Mr. Glover said currently the Registration Division experienced a 54 percent usage of their renewal by mail program. However, he had arrived at his estimate by first considering an individual's driving record, age and medical record; and then used 60 percent of the figure which was an arbitrary number, he acknowledged. Mr. Glover and Ms. Giunchigliani continued with a discussion of the process of dealing with renewal by mail. Ms. Giunchigliani asked Mr. Glover to provide a written statement on the process and how they proposed to organize their office. In order to ease the lines, Ms. Giunchigliani said, in 1991 they had asked for high school students to be allowed to take their drivers test at the school site, rather than having to go into the DMV offices. Had that been put into place? Mr. Glover said it had not been, however, there were plans to go into the Drivers' Education classes and organize a way which would allow the instructors to administer the test. Certain on-site registration and titling had not been successful because everything had to be done manually since they lacked the necessary data processing equipment. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if there were budget requests for the equipment which would eliminate that problem. When Mr. Glover indicated they had not requested this in the budget, Ms. Giunchigliani asked him to submit cost estimates for the necessary data processing equipment. Ms. Giunchigliani objected to the present Senate bill which would allow a new Nevada resident to obtain a driver's license without taking a test. Mr. Glover pointed out under different interstate compacts, states were all coming under the same licensing laws. Currently, throughout the state, there were probably 40,000 people driving who did not hold a Nevada driver's license. The question was, if he were to test all incoming residents on new Nevada laws, should they test all renewals for the state of Nevada, which would include present residents who had not taken a test for a number of years. Senator Jacobsen noted on his perusal through the budget, it appeared that everything the agency had requested had been reduced by the Administration. Were they using a 22 percent yardstick? In response, Joel Pinkerton from the Budget Division, said, "yes," that was exactly what they used. Mr. Marvel asked if they issued regular driver's licenses at the Commercial Drivers License (CDL) facilities. Mr. Glover said, yes, they were cross-utilizing their CDL office by issuing regular driver's licenses as well as motorcycle license transactions. He agreed to provide the subcommittee with a breakdown showing the services offered by the CDL offices. Mr. Marvel believed the public should be better apprised of the availability of those offices. Mr. Spitler was told by Mr. Glover the facility in Las Vegas was located on Lamb Street next door to an Express office, however, they would soon be in a new express commercial facility on Craig Street. Mr. Glover acknowledged there were no signs indicating the existence of that office. The budget request for training was questioned by Mr. Marvel who wondered whether it was necessary to train four people to operate the Commercial Drivers License offices. After some discussion, Mr. Glover said initially, Nevada was required to have a minimum of four people in the Commercial Drivers License courses, but after some conversation with the governing office, this number had been lowered to three. This would give them one trainer for each CDL office, i.e., the one in Reno, the one in Elko and the one in Las Vegas. Mr. Marvel wondered why they could not send just one person who would then return to train the others. Mr. Glover said the Appleton office was not willing to offer them those types of classes for one person. Mr. Marvel was not convinced this could not be done with one person and said he wished to consider it further. REGISTRATION - Page 1711 Acting Deputy Director for Public Safety, Ray Sparks, came forward to testify in place of Donna Wadey, the Acting Registration Chief. Ms. Giunchigliani questioned if the actual number of titles issued for 1994 were 407,073. Mr. Sparks agreed it was, indicating the figures were an accurate reflection. Ms. Giunchigliani asked where in the budget they found requests for alternatives to assist with registration, or was this a status quo budget. Mr. Sparks said there were no new initiatives or new strategies being promoted in the budget request. Ms. Giunchigliani then asked if there were any new plans or BDRs in process to deal with the vehicle dealers' point-of-sale registration. Mr. Sparks said he was not sure this would need legislation, because the Director could appoint agents for the department. However, experience had shown the vehicle dealers refused to accept the process of point-of-sale registration when they had been approached on numerous occasions. He suggested perhaps legislation could mandate this, but the dealers would not voluntarily accept the function. Ms. Giunchigliani asked what their objection had been. Mr. Sparks said there were several: 1) The additional time it took their staff to complete that part of the transaction; 2) they would have to collect another sizeable amount of money at the time of sale; and 3) the complexity of the Nevada system argued against the dealers doing it. Ms. Giunchigliani then questioned whether Nevada's motor vehicle system differed greatly from that in California. Mr. Sparks replied one major difference was that in California the license plate stayed with the vehicle -- in Nevada the license plate could be transferred. If this made registration simpler, was there a way Nevada could change its system, Ms. Giunchigliani asked. Mr. Sparks strongly believed it would be very controversial. Mr. Arberry asked Mr. Sparks to explain the 34 positions being requested over the biennium, and questioned how this would affect the Registration Division's backlog of titles. Mr. Sparks said the bulk of the 34 positions were being requested to deal specifically with the problem of the title backlog. Ten positions over the biennium were scheduled to provide additional staffing for the West Flamingo Office in Las Vegas. As for a prediction of a time frame for bringing the title problem up to date, Mr. Sparks said they were striving to reduce the turn-around time for processing a title document to two weeks. Presently, there was somewhat less than a three- month backlog. Some people had been borrowed from other Divisions to help deal with the backlog, and a number of the requested positions were for people who were being returned to their home division. Conservatively, Mr. Sparks said, he would estimate by the end of the first year of the biennium they would be at the two-week target period. In response to Mr. Arberry's concern, Mr. Sparks said once they had reached their target period of two-week turn-around, any positions no longer needed could be shifted to other problem areas. Noting the request for remodeling, Mr. Arberry questioned how the division would be affected if the funds were approved. Mr. Sparks acknowledged there would be some disruption, but they would simply have to deal with it as well as they could. To accommodate the additional people requested, they would anticipate putting on a night shift which would negate the need for additional space. Mr. Arberry then questioned whether the function could be moved to Las Vegas where the bulk of the business occurred. The issue of centralization of title process, Mr. Sparks explained, had simply been to provide better security for the documents and also for the computer support available in the Carson City office. Another issue would be space, as the offices in Las Vegas had not been designed or planned to add a title processing unit into those offices. Thus, there was a question whether the existing space could be found in one of their existing buildings or whether they would need additional space. Mr. Arberry then questioned the request for three investigators to "improve services to the citizens of Nevada." Within the Registration Division was the Bureau of Enforcement, Mr. Sparks explained, which was charged with licensing and regulating various segments of the automotive industry in the state. Including the Assistant Chief for that Division, there were 25 positions which had peace officer authority related to investigative duties. Mr. Sparks went on to explain the roles of the different divisions, and added the act of transferring the three investigators from the Registration Division into the Division of Investigation, would be to allow the Bureau of Enforcement to focus on the regulatory mission, and allow the Division of Investigation to focus on criminal enforcement activities. Attention was also drawn by Mr. Arberry to the request for an additional two employees for the function of special license plates, bringing this to four employees. Since there appeared to be no backlog, why add two more employees, Mr. Arberry asked. Mr. Sparks said the special license plate section also processed the disabled parking permits and license plates, so the activity in that section had increased substantially with no staffing increase for a number of years. Mr. Arberry asked Mr. Sparks to provide additional detail for this request. Returning to the question of the titling process, Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the sole reason for maintaining the titling process in Carson City was because of the secure storage. Mr. Sparks agreed with her this could be provided in Las Vegas, and Ms. Giunchigliani said she believed the equipment should be moved to Las Vegas because the majority of the business was from the southern area. She also asked them to provide budgetary needs to accomplish this transfer. Mr. Sparks said it would be fairly simple for them to provide the cost for decentralizing this operation. He did, however, stress the only savings decentralizing would provide was the mailing time, which had not been a significant problem. The titling process was backlogged, he indicated, because they had outdated equipment, and there was a lack of imaging systems. These needs had been discussed with the Transportation subcommittee, however, this had been cut out due to the 22 percent cap. Part of the Registration Division would be impacted by the remodel of the Carson City office, Mr. Sparks remarked, but when asked if there could be reductions in the cost of that remodel if the function was moved to Las Vegas, Mr. Gosnell said they wanted to move Registration to the first floor in Carson City. If titling was moved to Las Vegas, it did not change the fact they had to do some physical change in Carson City to provide a decent customer service. Mr. Weller interjected that part of the Five-Point Plan included internal reorganization to a Field Services Division and a Headquarters Services Division instead of the now known Drivers License and Registration. He said it was his goal to move the Field Services Division operations to Las Vegas. This was further discussed. Mr. Fettic noted although the Registration Division was backlogged, there was no request for microfilm equipment. He asked for further explanation. Mr. Weller said they asked for that equipment, but again, this was eliminated due to the 22 percent cap. The document imaging system had been presented as a component of what had been referred to as the level II funding discussed. SALVAGE WRECKERS/BODY SHOPS - Page 1717 This budget account funded three of the investigators, Mr. Sparks explained. Because it was self-funded, there was little opportunity for changes. The most significant item in the budget was a replacement automobile. Mr. Marvel asked if many "chop shops" had been found. There had been a few, Mr. Sparks said, but he was not sure how many. Most of the investigations had been developed through cooperation with other law enforcement agencies, as well as voluntary outside information. Mr. Spitler asked if the enforcement officers focused only on the salvage wrecker/body shops. Mr. Sparks said, "no," of those 25 Bure--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------0 percent of what they were paying for. Although Mr. Sparks agreed, he said sometimes they were getting over 100 percent, but in some cases it might be less. Specifically, Mr. Sparks believed the wreckers were getting their full portion even though each investigator's time sheet did not specifically break out cost allocations and time spent on each project. The only data they could have to approximate that kind of analysis would be the numbers of cases, the numbers of licenses and a look at the ratios of those to funding ratios. In response to Mr. Spitler's question, Mr. Sparks said they had not done this because it was just one more administrative process. Drawing attention to the E-125 item, Mr. Close asked Mr. Sparks to explain the training request for $3,000. Mr. Sparks said this request was to send three people one time, and the requested training was to provide additional and current information on how to identify Vehicle Identification Numbers (VIN) which had been obliterated. Instruction was given on the techniques to raise numbers which had been ground off, and this would update the skills of those investigators who could return to train other investigators. Mr. Fettic questioned the reserve being used to fund ongoing operations, which probably related to the three investigators. At the current rate, when would they need an alternative source of funding? Mr. Sparks observed in 1993 he had predicted they would need it in this biennium, however, primarily because of vacancy savings, they were able to extend the life of this budget account, but by the next biennium, what with cost of living increases, they would have to consider cutting a position or increasing the funding. Senator Mathews asked the agency representatives to clarify whether their request was for $3,000 each year of the biennium, meaning $6,000 total, or $3,000 for the biennium. JoAnne Keller, an employee of the Registration Division, told Senator Mathews the training request would cover any new developments coming into the VIN switching arena, so this included both years. Alternatively, if the training could be provided on-site, they could pay for having a trainer brought in. VERIFICATION OF INSURANCE - Page 1721 Mr. Marvel questioned whether the increase shown for licensing fees, was a realistic number. Mr. Sparks said he believed it might actually be understated, as he had used a conservative number of 5 percent, of the fleet to be insured, and then 50 percent of those would reinstate at the $100 reinstatement fee. Qualifying this, however, he said they were in the implementation phase of the new Insurance Verification program. Under the previous program, most of the revenue was derived from a circumstance in which 1) a registered owner was requested to verify their insurance, and 2) if they failed to respond with the information requested, the DMV suspended their registration and as a condition of reinstatement, a fee had to be paid. Under the new system, the registered owners would not be bothered by a request to verify insurance where they had simply changed insurance carriers. He discussed the mechanics of this change. Noting the "expenditures" category, Mr. Marvel also asked Mr. Sparks if he was satisfied with his state cost allocation, which had shown a significant increase. Mr. Sparks said he did not know how that figure had been derived, nor had they asked for an explanation as they explicitly trusted the Budget Office. Continuing through the budget summary, Mr. Marvel noted a $1 million carryover, and wondered if it was necessary. Could it be used someplace else? Mr. Sparks reminded the Assemblyman that in the 1993 Session they had passed legislation to transfer any reserve in excess of a million dollars from this account into the highway fund. Because it was a self-funded account, the monies were used to pay the salaries at the beginning of the fiscal year until revenues were received to replace these funds. Also, if there were any changes in the program, it gave the agency the opportunity to come before the Interim Finance Committee to ask for a work program revision. Mr. Marvel reminded the agency of his former concerns regarding the audit as it related to insurance companies and cancelled policies. So far, he said he had not received an answer as to whether some legislation was needed to establish a penalty for insurance companies who were not reporting cancelled insurance policies. Mr. Sparks said he did not believe additional legislation was necessary. The 1993 Legislature had enacted a provision to allow the Department to withhold driver's license information from insurance companies who were not complying with the reporting requirements. Additionally, the Division of Insurance had recently promulgated regulations which provided for fines against insurance companies which did not report. Thus far, he said, they had had almost total compliance. What was left to be determined, was whether they were reporting the information accurately and in the proper format. Although Mr. Close appreciated this, he suggested identification of activity in this area be part of their measurement objectives or indicators. Mr. Sparks agreed to provide this information. Senator O'Donnell mentioned A.B. 157 of the Sixty-Seventh Session required the DMV to withhold driver's license information, which meant the agency could withhold information regarding speeding tickets, traffic accidents, etc. If the insurance company did not receive this information, they could not write insurance policies because they had no idea whether the individual was a high risk. MOTOR VEHICLE POLLUTION CONTROL - Page 1725 Mr. Sparks said this budget had been based upon plans to modify the Emission Control Program because of federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations. Since then there had been a change in EPA's position as to the requirements of this program. It was still uncertain. The budget was formulated based on the assumption that a portion of the vehicle fleet in Clark County would be tested only every other year. Now, this did not appear to be probable. The result of this would be the understated revenues in this budget account. MOTOR CARRIER - Page 1731 This was another highway funded budget account, Mr. Sparks explained. It funded the operations of the Motor Carrier Bureau within the Registration Division, which was charged with registering vehicles over 26,000 pounds and any vehicle which had a prorated registration. This bureau also collected the special fuel tax. Noting the request for computer equipment, Ms. Giunchigliani asked why the agency had requested this for the 1997 budget rather than the 1996 budget, and could it be moved to 1996 in order to improve the computerization of collections? Mr. Sparks said this could be done, and he would provide the committee with the revised costs for that. COMMERCIAL DRIVERS LICENSE - Page 1707 There we no questions or comments on this budget. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: __________________________________ Iris Bellinger, Committee Secretary Joint Subcommittee on Public Safety, Transportation and Natural Resources Committee on Ways and Means and Senate Finance March 10, 1995 Page