MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY, TRANSPORTATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS AND SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE Sixty-eighth Session April 11, 1995 The meeting of the joint subcommittee on Public Safety, Transportation and Natural Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance was called to order at 8:08 a.m., on Tuesday, April 11, 1995, Chairman Thomas W. Fettic presiding in Room 321 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Jack D. Close Ms. Chris Giunchigliani Mr. John W. Marvel Mr. Larry L. Spitler Mr. Thomas A. Fettic, Chairman SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen Senator William R. O'Donnell COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr. (Excused) Senator Bernice Mathews (Excused) STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Gary L. Ghiggeri, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst Robert A. Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst Debbra J. King, Program Analyst Gary L. Ghiggeri, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, explained each committee member was provided with suggested adjustments to the budgets which were being reviewed for closure and included the special services portion of the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). Additional technical adjustments are not included in the information packet that may come about due to adjustments in state-owned building rent, group insurance, fringe benefits and a number of mechanical and technical issues that staff would like to have the subcommittee's permission to adjust at a later date, if necessary, without bringing the budgets back to the subcommittee for review. JUSTICE ASSISTANCE ACT - PAGE 1801 Debbra J. King, Program Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, explained the recommended adjustments to the Justice Assistance Act budget would reflect what is currently known about the level of federal funding. The agency will receive $3.184 million for FY 1996. Plans include reserving $1 million of the $3.184 million to be carried forward into FY 1997. The adjustments reflect how the agency anticipates spending the federal grant funds. Ms. Giunchigliani stated she was not comfortable closing any budgets when bills were still being processed and many policy issues had not been addressed. Chairman Fettic noted it was his understanding most of the items being discussed were of a technical nature. Ms. Giunchigliani commented the drug court could be funded from the Justice Assistance Act budget, and the bill was still in the Committee on Judiciary. Chairman Fettic inquired if Ms. Giunchigliani wished the budget on the Justice Assistance Act to be passed over at the present time. Ms. Giunchigliani responded definitely. Senator O'Donnell stated there were certain budgets within the Justice Assistance Act which had no influence regarding policy issues or a split of the DMV and he did not have a problem closing budgets that did not affect major issues to be addressed. Ms. Giunchigliani expressed frustration about piecemealing budgets. When budgets are closed, it takes a 2/3 majority to reopen them. Ms. King remarked staff was not allocating costs to specific areas. The agency will receive $3.184 million in current federal funds, and the agency's plan was to spend $2.184 million in FY 1996 in grants to state and local governments for administration and to carry $1 million into the following year. The drug court funding would come from the $2.184 million which will be available in FY 1996. Ms. Giunchigliani stressed that would affect the local grants. Ms. King explained there were federal guidelines on how the funds could be disbursed, of which a certain percentage must go to local grants. Chairman Fettic stated it was his understanding there would be a certain amount of money to spend and that was the amount to be authorized. The committee was not saying where the money could be spent. Mr. Marvel expressed appreciation for Ms. Giunchigliani's comments, but he felt budget closings needed to begin at some point. If there was an outstanding issue, there would be no problem reopening a budget. Chairman Fettic asked if Ms. Giunchigliani had further comments. Ms. Giunchigliani commented she would be voting no. Chairman Fettic stated the chair would entertain a motion on the budget. * * * * * MR. MARVEL MOVED TO CLOSE THE JUSTICE ASSISTANCE ACT BUDGET WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. MR. SPITLER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED BY VOICE VOTE ON THE ASSEMBLY SIDE, WITH MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI VOTING NO. SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED TO CLOSE THE JUSTICE ASSISTANCE ACT BUDGET WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE ON THE SENATE SIDE. BUDGET CLOSED. * * * * * TRAFFIC SAFETY - PAGE 1803 Ms. King noted the recommended adjustments to the Traffic Safety budget reduced the funding level in the Executive Budget to the actual grant which is anticipated to be received in the amount of $304,918 in the second year of the biennium. An error was made in the Executive Budget which included a carry-forward in FY 1997 and was budgeted to be spent in FY 1996. When Mr. Spitler inquired if this was a pass-through account, Ms. King responded yes. Mr. Spitler asked which agencies received the pass-through. Ms. King replied local governments. Mr. Spitler queried if local governments needed to apply for the funding, and Ms. King acknowledged that was correct. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if $480,372 was subtracted from the budget. Ms. King noted $480,372 was the amount going to counties. The new number for aid to cities will be $192,149. * * * * * MR. MARVEL MOVED TO CLOSE THE TRAFFIC SAFETY BUDGET WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. MR. SPITLER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE ON THE ASSEMBLY SIDE. SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED TO CONCUR WITH THE ASSEMBLY'S MOTION. SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE ON THE SENATE SIDE. BUDGET CLOSED. * * * * * HIGHWAY SAFETY PLAN AND ADMINISTRATION - PAGE 1805 Ms. King stated the Highway Safety Plan and Administration budget account required a number of technical corrections. The adjustment to the revenue side was an increase in highway funds appropriated to the Highway Safety Plan and Administration budget to provide for the proper state match. Planning and administration costs must have a 50% state match. Senator O'Donnell asked if the overall revenue reduction would be $127,566 and expenses would be reduced by the same amount. Ms. King stated that was correct. The adjustment was in two parts. The program cost was reduced by $100,000 to reflect the decrease in the Traffic Safety program. The other expenditures were also decreased to 20% of the total program cost. Senator O'Donnell inquired how much would be left in the Traffic Safety program. Ms. King stated planning and administration would have a total of $153,996 in FY 1996 and $157,244 in FY 1997. In addition, they will have $200,000 in program authorization in FY 1996 and $100,000 in FY 1997. Ms. Giunchigliani asked why Highway Safety Plan and Administration under enhancement 425 was duplicating what local government was already doing. James P. Hawke, Chief, Emergency Management Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, noted the planning and administration part was the operation of the program itself, more than any other campaign. There were campaigns run by staff, such as the getting-you- there-safely campaign, where staff acts to pull together local law enforcement agencies. The real work in the planning and administration was accounting for grant management as well as developing the annual highway safety plan and necessary reports. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if an individual simply coordinates with local governments even though it says an allocation of $100,000 reflects the new traffic safety program be established at the community level. Chairman Fettic drew attention to the adjustments to expenses which reflect the deleted accounts. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the whole program was deleted. Ms. King indicated the enhancement still had money for programs. Mr. Hawke said the program emphasized putting money into the community and the community provided the program. * * * * * MR. MARVEL MOVED TO CLOSE THE HIGHWAY SAFETY PLAN AND ADMINISTRATION BUDGET WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. MR. SPITLER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE ON THE ASSEMBLY SIDE. SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE HIGHWAY SAFETY PLAN AND ADMINISTRATION BUDGET WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE ON THE SENATE SIDE. BUDGET CLOSED. * * * * * BICYCLE SAFETY PROGRAM - PAGE 1809 Ms. King noted the adjustments on the revenue side of the Bicycle Safety Program were made to decrease revenue to a level which would be achievable by the program and was a 7.7% increase over FY 1994. Where revenues were decreased and expenditures were not decreased by the same amount, the program was funded from the reserve account. The expenditures for travel and grants were reduced by agreement with the agency. The agency had a grant from the Office of Traffic Safety which could be renewable in FY 1996. Based on discussions with staff from the agency, it was elected to remove the grant-related expenditures and go to the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) with a work program in the event the grant is approved for FY 1996. Ms. Giunchigliani pointed out there were discussions about moving the program, which was governed by a board, to the Department of Education or the Department of Transportation (DOT). Ms. King stated there were two positions. One position was for bicycle safety and worked to get people to change behavior. The other position was a bicycle planner in DOT who worked on planning bicycle paths. The bicycle planner has a bicycle advisory board and is funded in DOT. When Ms. Giunchigliani asked if there was discussion about moving the position to provide better coordination with DOT, Ms. King replied yes. The position was funded through a fixed fee and was in the Office of Traffic Safety. Senator O'Donnell pointed out the performance indicators showed nothing and suggested funding was being provided for an office which did nothing. Mr. Spitler requested a review of demographics caseload changes, decision unit M-200. He had not seen a more arrogant proposition than spending $12,000 to train one employee. Ms. King explained the out-of-state travel in decision unit M-200 was decreased by $1,045 in FY 1996 and $961 in FY 1997. Mr. Spitler asked what the travel was for. Ms. King responded in FY 1997 it was for the Lifesavers Conference, a national conference on public safety issues, and in FY 1996 it was for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrators Conference. Considering the adjustments, the agency will reduce their out-of-state travel to two conferences, one computer class and a Spanish class, and the Spanish class will be taken on the employee's time. When Chairman Fettic inquired if the in-state travel was deleted, Ms. King replied yes, because it was budgeted twice, once in decision unit M-200 and once in decision unit E-425. Chairman Fettic inquired about decision unit M-200. Ms. King indicated the total expenditures recommended in the Executive Budget were $6,612 and were reduced by $1,376. The Executive Budget recommended funding the module through increases in fees as represented by the agency transfer. The agency cannot generate the level of fees recommended in the Executive Budget; therefore, the increases recommended in the module were funded out of the reserve. Mr. Spitler inquired if $5,421 was decreased by $961 in FY 1997. Ms. King stated the decrease was $1,292. Ms. Giunchigliani commented the Bicycle Safety Program could be accomplished by the Traffic Safety program through grants to local government. Mr. Marvel inquired who at the local level would administer the program. Ms. Giunchigliani stated local government would find someone if it was an important issue. Senator O'Donnell agreed that the program should be administered at the local level. He pointed out the fees did not provide enough money to pay for advertising, books, training, or computers. He suggested deleting the position and the budget account or moving the program to Traffic Safety. Mr. Marvel asked if legislation was required to remove the program. Mr. Ghiggeri stated the fees were set through statute and would require legislation to remove the fee. Mr. Spitler noted he worked to obtain the assessment in 1991. What made him lose faith in the program was decision unit M-200 on the demographics and caseload changes. Instead of increasing the fees, funding was drawn from the reserve. He expressed disappointment on how the program transpired since inception. * * * * * MR. MARVEL MOVED TO ELIMINATE THE BICYCLE SAFETY PROGRAM PENDING LEGISLATION. CHAIRMAN FETTIC SECONDED THE MOTION. * * * * * Mr. Spitler asked if money would be made available to local government or if the program would be eliminated entirely. Mr. Marvel stated that would be addressed in the contemplated legislation, and the motion would be to eliminate the program. Ms. Giunchigliani suggested moving the money in the budget to the Traffic Safety Budget and legislation would address eliminating the fee or making a reduced fee available as grants within the Traffic Safety budget. Senator O'Donnell said giving $0.50 to local governments put them in the same position as the state is in currently, and the pie would be divided in even smaller pieces. He suggested the program be eliminated, let local government request grants and administer the program at the local level. Chairman Fettic commented there may be confusion on whether the program can be eliminated pending legislation. Mr. Ghiggeri explained the statute authorizing the program and collection of fees specifically states the money is to be used to support a position in the Department of Transportation and the Department of Motor Vehicles. Staff would need clarifying information as to what type of legislation the subcommittee would want regarding the elimination of the program or whether to collect the fee and redirect it to another purpose. Mr. Marvel said it was his understanding from the comments of the committee that the program and the fees would be eliminated unless there was legislation to create a new program. Ms. King inquired if the committee was eliminating the entire $0.50 fee which would affect the planner in DOT or just the portion of the fee that goes to the bicycle safety account. Mr. Marvel indicated if the portion of the fee that went to DOT was important, an amendment could be made to keep that portion flowing to DOT and eliminate the portion going to the Bicycle Safety Program. Chairman Fettic pointed out $0.15 of the $0.50 fee went to the Bicycle Safety Program. Senator Jacobsen suggested amending Mr. Marvel's motion to hold the Bicycle Safety Program budget until the next meeting to allow time for more discussion. Mr. Marvel agreed to hold the budget. Chairman Fettic held the budget on the Bicycle Safety Program. MOTORCYCLE SAFETY - PAGE 1813 Ms. King noted the Motorcycle Safety budget had policy issues which needed to be addressed. The account was funded through a $6 charge on motorcycle registration which generated a large amount of money each year. Expenditures include the purchase of motorcycles, payments to the community colleges to hold motorcycle safety classes, four out-of-state conferences for the program manager each year, annual computer training classes and board attendance at motorcycle events. Policy decisions need to be made regarding the reduction of fees, the appropriate level of training, and board attendance at motorcycle events. Ms. King pointed out another issue to be addressed is the work program which was brought to IFC in March 1995 to establish a mobile classroom and to develop an enhanced marketing campaign. The IFC deferred action and referred the agency to the budget hearing process. The agency requested $34,420 to set up a mobile motorcycle training center in a tractor/trailer and additional funds to maintain a van received from the Highway Patrol. The agency has two training sites in Las Vegas and one each in Reno, Carson City and Elko which are operated by the community college system. The agency also provides training in Fallon, Winnemucca and Ely. Ms. King noted adjustments to the budget are those indicated by the agency which remove a one-time expense for converting logos to patches, decrease personal vehicle travel since the agency has a van, reduce computer training classes from six to three classes in FY 1996 and from two to one class in FY 1997. Ms. Giunchigliani stated she did not support the mobile unit. Community colleges were the proper place to offer training. She did not support board travel to motorcycle events. The focus should be to train people on motorcycle safety. Chairman Fettic said it was his understanding the budget would be reduced by $69,000 if the mobile classroom was eliminated. Ms. King pointed out there was an additional request from the agency for a mobile classroom and an advanced marketing campaign which was not reflected in the budget. Senator O'Donnell pointed out it has been suggested that the DMV be allowed to accept certification from a motorcycle safety program, which would shift certification responsibility from DMV to the community colleges, but certain rural areas of the state do not have educational facilities. He requested the budget remain as it is presently structured to allow people to receive certification in rural areas. Ms. Giunchigliani stated people would go to wherever it was necessary to get certification. The state should not be in the business of buying motorcycles to take to rural areas so people can receive certification. Senator O'Donnell said he would accept the elimination of the mobile unit if the rest of the program remained intact. Ms. Giunchigliani responded that was agreeable. Mr. Spitler noted during the 1991 session there was great debate on how the program would be accomplished through dealer and motorcycle association participation instead of an assessment. He stated he felt the dollar amount on the assessment was too high because of the $500,000 reserve. The trailer and other equipment was bought instead of reducing the fees, and now there is discussion of increasing the license fee to $15 and increasing the assessment. Chairman Fettic inquired if the fee was required by statute. Mr. Spitler responded yes. Mr. Marvel asked what the requirements were prior to 1991 for obtaining a motorcycle license. Mr. Spitler explained the community colleges in Las Vegas and Reno worked with the Nevada Motorcycle Association to develop a program. Dealers frequently brought motorcycles out on flatbed trucks to train people on safety, but the licensure requirements were the same, which was taking a test. Mr. Marvel inquired if the safety program had produced positive results. Mr. Hawke indicated his department had provided statistical information to staff. Although the program was created in 1991, it was not operating until approximately 1993, which allowed the reserve to build up. The Motorcycle Safety Board provided advice on how to run the program. In 1993, 11 of the 19 motorcycle fatalities were unlicensed drivers. In 1994 fatalities of unlicensed motorcyclists dropped to eight, which supports the importance of licensing and training motorcyclists. Motorcyclists fund the program, and they have not felt the $6 fee was too high. Chairman Fettic stated four decisions needed to be made regarding: 1) Continued funding for the mobile training center; 2) Continued funding for the motorcycle rallies; 3) Continued funding for out-of-state conferences and computer classes; and 4) CIP paving a course for the tests. Mr. Ghiggeri noted the CIP for paving the course would be part of the remodel of the DMV building in Carson City and would probably be addressed by the CIP subcommittee. Senator O'Donnell said he remembered discussion in 1991 about waiting to start the program until the reserve built up. He asked if the fees were reduced, would the program have trouble operating. Chairman Fettic stated he was not discussing a fee adjustment, which was statutorily required. Ms. Giunchigliani said she would make a motion to eliminate the mobile unit, cut the rallies in half, and request a bill draft. Chairman Fettic suggested the bill draft be done separately. He inquired if Ms. Giunchigliani wished to address the out-of-state conferences and computer classes. Ms. Giunchigliani said she did not see a need for computer classes and suggested one out- of-state conference per year. Mr. Close expressed concern about providing $10,000 for training which other state employees did not receive. He suggested the agency be provided funds and let staff determine how it should be spent on training. Ms. Giunchigliani agreed to incorporate that suggestion into the motion and to reduce funding to two-thirds. Mr. Spitler expressed agreement with Mr. Close's comments and inquired if reducing the amount by half would be sufficient funding. Mr. Close said he felt $2,000 to $3,000 per year would be a reasonable amount. Mr. Spitler agreed with Mr. Close. Chairman Fettic asked if everyone understood the motion, and Senator O'Donnell responded no. Ms. Giunchigliani said her motion would be to not fund the mobile unit, to fund training and/or travel $2,000 in each year of the biennium, to cut the rallies in half, and to not fund the marketing campaign. The committee may want to discuss that because if the issue is marketing safety, the board's intent may have been to provide for a marketing campaign. She suggested reducing the $20,000 for the marketing campaign to $10,000. Chairman Fettic inquired if Ms. Giunchigliani meant by mobile unit to include the purchase of the trailer, paint and equipment and not to include traffic safety, rewiring a building, the easy shelters or the marketing campaign. Ms. Giunchigliani replied yes. Ms. King pointed out one easy shelter went with the mobile unit and four would be at the permanent training sites for the community colleges. Ms. Giunchigliani requested one easy shelter for the mobile unit be eliminated. Chairman Fettic inquired if the motion included funding for training in the amount of $2,000 per biennium, and Ms. Giunchigliani replied per year. * * * * * MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI MADE A MOTION TO INCLUDE THE ITEMS DISCUSSED ABOVE. * * * * * Senator Jacobsen commented people had lost sight of what should be advocated. There are motorcycle runs in Douglas County which put a burden on community services and have torn up the pine nut range. Funding should be spent on off-road safety and for the creation of courses so the countryside is not damaged. Chairman Fettic called for a second on the motion. * * * * * MR. SPITLER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE ON THE ASSEMBLY SIDE. THE MOTION FAILED ON THE SENATE SIDE WITH SENATOR O'DONNELL AND SENATOR JACOBSEN VOTING NO. THE BUDGET CLOSED ON THE ASSEMBLY SIDE. * * * * * MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO REQUEST A BILL DRAFT TO ALLOW A FEE IN AN AMOUNT UP TO $6.00. * * * * * Mr. Marvel asked if anyone in the audience had comments regarding what the threshold should be for the fee. Mr. T-Bone indicated the fee of $6 was not too high. The program was in its infancy, and hiring instructors would use up the reserve. Most motorcyclists feel fees should provide for safety courses provided by the mobile unit in rural areas. The program has already educated 2% of the 44,730 registered motorcycles in the state of Nevada in 18 months. The safety courses have reduced accidents and changed the minds of many people regarding the need for helmets. Motorcyclists would rather keep the $6 fee that provides the safety courses than reduce the fee and not have the courses. Chairman Fettic stated he did not see in the budget where funding would be provided to hire instructors. Senator O'Donnell pointed out funding was provided to community colleges to hire adjunct faculty for the purpose of safety training. He stated he did not feel the fee should be reduced during the biennium, but he voted no because reducing the number of rallies would reduce the number of people who might become licensed motorcycle drivers. Ms. Giunchigliani said her motion did not reduce the number of rallies but reduced the number of board members who attended the rallies. The motion also did not reduce the fee but provided the flexibility to review it and make adjustments if necessary. Mr. Ghiggeri stated it was his understanding that the subcommittee agreed with staff's recommendations on the technical adjustments as delineated on page 1 of the budget closing sheet for Motorcycle Safety. As indicated by Ms. Giunchigliani, there would be a reduction of board attendance at motorcycle events by one half, $2,000 per year for training, and four easy-up shelters would be added. Chairman Fettic remarked that was his understanding, and other issues that needed to be reviewed included the traffic safety grant to increase public awareness, the motorcycle training program for $10,000, rewiring the Stewart Street building for $14,000, easy shelters for $5,575 to be reduced by one, and the marketing campaign for $20,000. Ms. Giunchigliani said rewiring the building was not part of the motion because it should be part of the CIP. Chairman Fettic asked if Ms. Giunchigliani wished to make a motion regarding the traffic safety grant, the easy shelters and the marketing campaign. Ms. Giunchigliani pointed out the easy shelters were in the other motion. She indicated she would make a motion on either the traffic safety or the marketing campaign, but requested clarification on those two items. Mr. Hawke explained the marketing campaign was a grant from traffic safety to the motorcycle program. A similar program in California reminds motorcyclists their bike can be towed if they are driving without a motorcycle endorsement. Ms. Giunchigliani stated the $10,000 should stay in traffic safety, and the budget should fund its own safety program, especially in light of the reserves. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the marketing campaign was marketing safety, and Mr. Hawks replied yes. * * * * * MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO FUND A MOTORCYCLE SAFETY PROGRAM WITHIN THE MOTORCYCLE SAFETY BUDGET WITH RESERVES IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,000. MR. CLOSE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE ON THE ASSEMBLY SIDE. THE MOTION FAILED ON THE SENATE SIDE WITH SENATOR O'DONNELL VOTING NO. BUDGET CLOSED ON THE ASSEMBLY SIDE. * * * * * FIRE MARSHAL - PAGE 1819 Ms. King noted the adjustments to the revenue accounts in the Fire Marshal budget reflected a reduction of expenditures which were proposed as technical or mechanical corrections. One issue which should be noted was the elimination in four budget accounts of a transfer to special services which would have covered a portion of the chief's salary. The transfer was intended to charge other programs for the time the chief of special services spent overseeing the other programs. However, the result of the transfer makes it appear as though the state were matching federal funds with federal funds. Based on discussions with the agency and the Budget Division, it was recommended the transfer not be made until a more thorough plan is developed. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired if the counties needed additional staff to handle the backlog. Ms. King stated if the revenue did not come in at the anticipated level, the counties would lay off the plans reviewer because plans would no longer be coming in. Mr. Spitler noted under operating expenses on page 1821 of the Executive Budget the Governor recommended zero and asked if the agency had provided the operating costs. Ms. King indicated the costs were supplied and funding was provided for supplies, insurance, and postage on the closing sheets. Mr. Spitler inquired if decision unit E-425 was reduced by $8,255 and increased by $684 in the second year of the biennium. Ms. King stated that was correct, and she recommended the position start October 1, 1995, which would generate a savings of $6,400. Ms. King requested policy direction from the committee regarding the Fire Marshal, assistant state fire marshal and administrative assistant who were transferred to the Hazardous Material account. She inquired whether or not the transfer should be budgeted. Expenditures were reduced in the Fire Marshal's account and expenditures were increased in the Hazardous Materials account. * * * * * MR. MARVEL MOVED TO CLOSE THE FIRE MARSHAL BUDGET WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND TO BUDGET THE TRANSFER. MR. SPITLER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE ON THE ASSEMBLY SIDE. SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE FIRE MARSHALL BUDGET WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE ON THE SENATE SIDE. BUDGET CLOSED. * * * * * HAZARDOUS MATERIAL TRAINING CENTER - PAGE 1825 Ms. King explained a major change in the Hazardous Material Training Center budget was to correct the funding of the federal SARA grant. The revenue for the grant was incorrectly budgeted at $66,000 for each year of the biennium and the correct amount should be $45,000. The adjustments correct the technical problem. Senator O'Donnell inquired if the account was a Highway Fund account, and Ms. King replied no. Ms. King asked if the committee wished to budget the transfer of resources from this account into the Fire Marshal account. Mr. Marvel responded yes. * * * * * MR. MARVEL MOVED TO CLOSE THE HAZARDOUS MATERIAL TRAINING CENTER BUDGET WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. MR. SPITLER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE ON THE ASSEMBLY SIDE. SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED TO CLOSE THE HAZARDOUS MATERIAL TRAINING CENTER BUDGET WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE ON THE SENATE SIDE. BUDGET CLOSED. * * * * * EMERGENCY RESPONSE COMMISSION - PAGE 1831 Ms. King explained the Emergency Response Center was funded through hazardous materials permit fees. In FY 1994 the state began participation in the Uniform HazMat Transport pilot program. The result of the state's participation in the program will generate a significant reduction in revenue in FY 1995 for the program which decreases the balance forward in FY 1996 and 1997. The agency indicated fees would be raised for FY 1996 and 1997 to recoup part of the loss. The other adjustment removes computer equipment purchased in FY 1995 which had been budgeted for FY 1996. * * * * * MR. MARVEL MOVED TO CLOSE THE EMERGENCY RESPONSE COMMISSION BUDGET WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. MR. SPITLER SECONDED THE MOTION. * * * * * Ms. Giunchigliani inquired if money was lost in the pilot program because fees were not collected. Ms. King stated it was called the double apportionment formula. Ms. Giunchigliani requested information be provided about how much the fees would increase. Mr. Spitler noted he would be careful in the future not to support resolutions which lost money for the state. Chairman Fettic called for a vote on the motion. * * * * * THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE ON THE ASSEMBLY SIDE. SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED TO CLOSE THE EMERGENCY RESPONSE COMMISSION BUDGET WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE ON THE SENATE SIDE. BUDGET CLOSED. * * * * * EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT - PAGE 1837 Ms. King provided the committee members with new Emergency Management closing sheets and explained there were two issues to be addressed. Emergency Management has two budget accounts, one which is 100% federally funded and one which is a general fund/federal fund mixed budget account. The Executive Budget recommended a program in the federally funded budget account 3601 which requires a 50/50 state match. The entire program was budgeted in federal funds; however, no state match was provided in the account. It was decided to take the entire program out of budget account 3601 and move it into the Emergency Management general fund account. An existing position for the SARA Title III grant would be reduced to 50% SARA Title III and 50% earthquake preparedness. Any remaining funds from the grant would be passed through to local governments for assistance in earthquake preparedness. The net effect would be a savings of approximately $5,000 in the general fund. The remainder of the adjustments are technical or mechanical to correct or adjust incorrect postings, benefits, salaries, and SIIS payment rates. Mr. Marvel inquired if the transfer of funds to local governments was being performed in a timely manner. Mr. Hawke explained all the audit recommendations had been implemented. An emergency measure was put into effect whereby at the beginning of each federal fiscal grant year local governments are advanced a portion of their annual grant funding and in July the closing payments are made. So the payment system is now on a timely basis. Ms. King pointed out the Executive Budget recommended transferring two staff members from the Office of Narcotics Control to the Emergency Management budget account to consolidate all grant activities. The agency also requested to move the two staff members into the DMV hearings account so not to create the appearance of consolidating federal money if it was decided not to split the department. A policy decision needed to be made whether to move the Office of Narcotics Control to the Emergency Management budget or to move the personnel into the DMV hearings account. Senator O'Donnell inquired how the Office of Narcotics Control Assistance administrative staff was funded. Ms. King explained it was 100% federally funded from the Office of Narcotics Control grant. Senator O'Donnell asked if the figures in the budget closing sheets pay for the transfer of the Office of Narcotics Control Assistance to the Emergency Management budget account. Ms. King stated it was included in the Executive Budget, and she made adjustments to reflect IFC action in November 1994. Mr. Hawke noted the basis for the transfer was the program needed start-up money at the beginning of the year. The Emergency Management program has state funds which would allow for the start-up of the first month of operation while waiting for reimbursement. The hearings office would be a better place for the program because of the start-up money. Ms. Giunchigliani suggested the program be placed with narcotics control so it would be more properly aligned. Mr. Hawke stated it was the department's goal to put in one spot all the federal programs that offer grants to local governments. The program was more of a grant program than a narcotics program. Ms. Giunchigliani suggested changing the name of the program to reflect its purpose. Senator O'Donnell asked what the DMV staff recommendation would be if the split is not made because of lack of funding. Mr. Hawke said it was his request to place the two positions in with the hearings office. * * * * * MR. MARVEL MOVED TO CLOSE THE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT BUDGET WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. MR. SPITLER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE ON THE ASSEMBLY SIDE. SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED TO CLOSE THE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT BUDGET WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE ON THE SENATE SIDE. BUDGET CLOSED. * * * * * EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM - PAGE 1843 Ms. King noted this budget account was a pass-through account used to fund grants to local agencies. The staff recommended closing at Governor recommendation. * * * * * MR. MARVEL MOVED TO CLOSE THE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR. MR. CLOSE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE ON THE ASSEMBLY SIDE. SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR. SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE ON THE SENATE SIDE. BUDGET CLOSED. * * * * * EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT - FEDERAL GRANTS - PAGE 1845 Ms. King explained there were two adjustments in the Emergency Management - Federal Grants budget. One adjustment was to balance the revenues from the Executive Budget to the appropriate grant expenditures. The second adjustment eliminates the earthquake preparedness grant which was transferred in budget account 3659. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired if option A in the budget closing sheets was consistent with the other budget closings, and Ms. King replied yes. * * * * * MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO CLOSE THE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT - FEDERAL GRANTS BUDGET WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND TO INCLUDE OPTION A OF THE BUDGET CLOSING SHEETS. MR. MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE ON THE ASSEMBLY SIDE. SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED TO CLOSE THE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT - FEDERAL GRANTS BUDGET WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE ON THE SENATE SIDE. BUDGET CLOSED. * * * * * Mr. Ghiggeri pointed out no action was taken on the bicycle safety program. He requested the subcommittee provide information to staff on what they would require to resolve the issues so the budget could be included at the next subcommittee meeting. Chairman Fettic requested representatives of the Department of Motor Vehicles to come forward. James P. Weller, Director, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, introduced Ray Sparks, Deputy Director, and Bill Gosnell, Chief of the Administrative Services Division. He explained he was present at the request of staff to discuss the five-point plan which was previously discussed in the transportation subcommittee. Mr. Weller explained staff at DMV reviewed their service record prior to the 1993 legislative session. The department worked with a class from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, talked with other states, discussed issues with the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) and DMV staff. He expressed concern about dealing with problems on a piecemeal basis. The department was incumbered by the 22% cap. The department planned to be included in a pilot program for the Total Quality Management (TQM) program, which did not work out. As a result of initial participation in the TQM program, Ray Sparks and other staff worked with a group called DMR, and a case study was developed into a five-point plan. Mr. Weller indicated the first of the five points was reorganization for which a BDR would be submitted to the committee. Presently, there are a Registration Division and a Drivers' License Division. It was contemplated a Field Services Division and a Headquarters Services Division would be added, and they would eventually be combined into one division. The second of the five points was facilities. A new facility was opened on West Flamingo, the facilities on Galletti Way and in Carson City were remodeled, and a new facility in Henderson was in the works. The third point was infrastructure which includes the BPR and formalizing the rewrite in the registration, drivers' license, and revenue accounting systems. Various pieces of legislation are also included. The fourth point addresses staff training and development. Cross training was started in Las Vegas, and it was planned that all employees in the state will be cross trained. The plan includes the conversion to PC terminals at counters for functionality and maximum use of technology. The fifth point involves staffing. The primary problems in Las Vegas are service and titles. The plan provides for 80% staffing at all windows in Las Vegas 12 hours per day, 5 days per week, and 80% staffing 8 hours per day on Saturday. The objective was to reduce line wait to no more than one hour. It is hoped credit cards can be used at the counter and over the telephone. A request is made for a document imaging system. The microfilm machine is 25 years old. Mr. Weller explained the plan addresses facilities, people and equipment on a short-term basis to improve service in Las Vegas. The BPR is a long-term effort. Mr. Spitler asked how the one-hour line wait compared to Reno and Carson City. William S. Gosnell, Chief, Administrative Services Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, indicated the facility on Galletti Way was starting to have the same type of problem as Las Vegas. A legislator indicated he had a 40-minute wait in the Carson City office. Mr. Spitler inquired if the one-hour line wait for Las Vegas was still longer when compared to other places that provide DMV service, and Mr. Gosnell replied yes. Mr. Spitler asked if consideration was given to transferring staff from Carson City or Reno to Las Vegas. Ray Sparks, Deputy Director, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, replied no consideration was given to relocating existing staff from northern Nevada to Las Vegas. The levels of service and the wait in the offices in northern Nevada were considerably better than the wait times experienced in southern Nevada. Staff did not want to degrade that level of service in the north but did want to improve service in the south. Consideration was given to contracting with the university system to quantify the wait time and the number of staff needed to provide a given level of service in the south because present staff is not capable of performing that function except in a very rudimentary fashion. The one-hour wait may be on the high side. Mr. Spitler expressed appreciation for not wanting to degrade service elsewhere, but there were citizens in the south who had never experienced anything pleasant in terms of doing business with DMV. People were happy with the level of service once they reached the employee. In 1991 a proposal was made to provide staff at peak times, but the budget crunch froze the positions. He asked if the present plan encompassed the 1991 proposal to provide more staff at peak times. Mr. Sparks indicated the 1991 plan was proposed by the Drivers' License Division, and the present plan is independent of the 1991 plan. Mr. Spitler inquired why the data from the 1991 plan was not being utilized. Mr. Sparks stated it was his understanding that the formula used in 1991 was not validated. In other words, the staffing levels did not achieve the estimated wait time. Problems arose regarding the hiring freeze. The instructions to the agencies were basically hold-the-line budget requests with the exception of the new staff at West Flamingo who had already been approved. Another factor may have been an underestimate of new residents in terms of projecting the drivers' license wait. Mr. Spitler inquired how the remodel affected the line wait at the Sahara office. Mr. Gosnell stated the department had worked with the Public Works Board, and it was determined the 12-hour day for weekdays and 8-hour day for Saturdays would be phased in at West Flamingo first if funding was provided. The second phase would be Carey. Sahara would begin renovation much the same as was done with Galletti, and the hours would be the same as West Flamingo. Mr. Weller pointed out part of the plan included two public information people to direct customers to other locations because of the remodel. Mr. Spitler inquired if money was available for public information purposes. Mr. Gosnell stated the Governor's office recommended $6,500 per year for advertising. Mr. Spitler stressed he would no longer tolerate the long lines in southern Nevada. In order to close any DMV budgets, he would need to see numbers or studies which would provide assurance that the lines will be reduced. Senator O'Donnell said it was his understanding the Governor supported splitting the department and did not want to raise the 22% cap. With that in mind, Senator O'Donnell asked how the department would fund the five-point plan. Mr. Gosnell determined there were statutes that identify a funding source to pay for the five-point plan. The 6% privilege tax commission presently going to the highway fund could be used legally by the department to fund the program. The net impact to the highway fund would be $5.3 million. Senator O'Donnell asked if the Governor supported 6% going to the DMV. Joel Pinkerton, Budget Analyst, Budget Division, indicated 6% was not a firm proposal from DMV at the time the Governor's recommendations were developed. The recommendation was developed within the current law, which is 22%. When Senator O'Donnell reiterated the question, Mr. Pinkerton stated he did not know. Mr. Weller mentioned there were discussions with staff from the Governor's office and other agencies who have been impacted by the recommendation. The highway fund received the largest impact, but data processing was impacted in the third and fourth years as depicted in the figures of the five-point plan. Senator O'Donnell commented he presented a similar proposal, including the 6% figure, and requested a plan be developed to reflect the numbers on how much it would cost. Mr. Weller agreed they had such a discussion and pointed out the 6% issue was reviewed for several months beginning in October 1994 as one source of funding. The interim highway committee recommended the cap be removed as another source of funding, but the budget was submitted in accordance with the 22% cap. Senator O'Donnell said if the 6% cap was discussed in October, there was plenty of time to have it placed in the budget. Mr. Weller did not think the proposal was firm in October. Senator O'Donnell questioned if it was assumed the 22% cap would be lifted. Mr. Weller indicated either one or the other would be a source of funding for the five-point plan. Mr. Sparks explained the department was clearly in accordance with Mr. Spitler's sentiment. It was a professional embarrassment to the department to not provide better service in Las Vegas. But based on the Executive Budget, the objective will not be accomplished, as has been the problem in previous bienniums. Ms. Giunchigliani agreed with the comments made by Mr. Spitler. She suggested the committee move forward with the bill draft on point-of-sale registration. She would like the committee to explore moving registration completely to the southern part of the state, to explore the imaging issue, and to allow titling to be done in the Carson City office. She did not believe the imaging machine needed to be locked in a special safe. As the Sahara office is remodeled, Ms. Giunchigliani asked if additional windows were being added. Mr. Weller replied the proposal would include a complete renovation of the building and also expansion of services. Ms. Giunchigliani requested a contrast between the full-service offices and the express offices. Mr. Sparks explained the full-service office provided all types of driver's license or vehicle registration transactions. The express offices were limited to essentially driver's license renewals and vehicle registration renewals. They can also do minor transactions like change of addresses. The concept was to limit the express offices to those transactions that are by their nature expeditious. Ms. Giunchigliani commented Henderson may not need a full- service facility. As services are provided to the southern part of the state, a new building may not be required to provide registration and drivers' licenses. Mr. Weller hoped the BPR process would provide direction on how to provide better service. Ms. Giunchigliani suggested not going forward with the Henderson facility and the CIP project until after the BPR was completed. Mr. Gosnell indicated Henderson has grown to the point that much of the impact to Sahara is clearly from Henderson. Henderson did not have a full-service facility. Ms. Giunchigliani asked why additional express offices were not provided to Henderson. Mr. Gosnell noted express offices did not provide registration and drivers' license services to new residents of Nevada. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired what was involved in providing drivers' license services. Mr. Sparks commented he did not understand the suggestion about moving registration to southern Nevada. Ms. Giunchigliani explained she meant eliminating registration as a service in Carson City and moving the entire registration facility to southern Nevada. Mr. Sparks explained the office in Carson City did not do anything differently than was being done in Las Vegas. That prompted Ms. Giunchigliani to question the need for the CIP project in Carson City. Mr. Sparks pointed out the insurance verification and the title programs are administered centrally. The registration program is completely decentralized. Concerning the remodel of the Carson City office, the agency looks at service needs on a statewide basis. Ms. Giunchigliani remarked she did not have a lot of sympathy for other parts of the state until the Las Vegas problems are taken care of. A suggestion brought up during the 1991 legislative session was to have schools assume responsibility for student testing, which was not implemented. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired if the West Flamingo office had any effect on the Sahara office. Mr. Gosnell stated the West Flamingo office had more of an impact on the Carey office. Ms. Giunchigliani requested the department be allowed through a bill draft request to reenact legislation in the form of A.B. 385 (1991 legislative session) to allow for teams to perform services at business sites. Mr. Weller stressed the travel teams were customer-service oriented but were not cost effective. Ms. Giunchigliani pointed out the bill would allow for a surcharge to cover administrative costs. She commented she would support removing the 22% cap, moving the privilege tax to registration, and splitting the department. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired if a bill draft was required to institute payment by credit cards. Mr. Gosnell stated he felt if the appropriation was added, the department could handle the discount costs. Senator O'Donnell noted each time the 22% cap is raised, the highway fund is reduced, and he did not support raising the cap. Mr. Sparks remarked the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety raised approximately one third of the highway funding, counting federal funds. If the ability to collect the money efficiently and effectively is hampered because the department is not funded with the staff and resources necessary to collect the money, the highway fund will be adversely effected. Senator O'Donnell disagreed with the comments made by Mr. Sparks. When Mr. Spitler inquired when the 22% cap was established, Mr. Gosnell responded 1957. Mr. Spitler asked what the population of southern Nevada was in 1957. Mr. Gosnell estimated less than the size of Reno at that time. Mr. Spitler commented the population in Las Vegas cannot be served with the 22% cap. Mr. Gosnell noted there was an appropriation to open an office in Laughlin. In order to do that, $500,000 must be raised to pay for the $100,000 to run the office in Laughlin, and the office there would not provide any revenue. Senator O'Donnell stressed the 22% cap has been in existence since 1957, which means the DMV office in 1957 was run efficiently under a 22% cut of the pie. The pie is now much larger. He asked why the department cannot run efficiently with 22% of the larger pie. Mr. Weller explained more services were provided presently than in 1957. Many county assessors provided services in 1957. Chairman Fettic asked if the department could proceed with the five-point plan if the 22% cap was not modified. Mr. Weller stated either the cap needed to be modified or the 6% fee needed to be added. When Chairman Fettic inquired if staffing was included in the five-point plan, Mr. Weller replied yes. Chairman Fettic concluded the majority of the staffing would be located in southern Nevada, and Mr. Weller acknowledged that was correct. Chairman Fettic questioned information provided which indicated 24 positions would be added to Carson City and 10 would be added to Flamingo. Mr. Gosnell explained those positions were part of decision unit M-200. The Flamingo office was not fully staffed during the last legislative session. Mr. Sparks indicated the 34 new positions were in the registration budget. As previously indicated, two serious problems were title processing and customer service in Las Vegas. The 24 positions recommended for Carson City were to address the titling problem. The solution to the problem in Las Vegas is contained within the five-point plan which is over and above the Executive Budget. The Executive Budget addresses the titling problem but not the problem with lines in Las Vegas. Chairman Fettic inquired how much the department's five-point plan request would cost. Mr. Gosnell said it was $3.2 million in FY 1996 and $4.8 million in FY 1997, which includes data processing, credit cards, and document imaging. There are 92.5 FTE's over and above the budget related to level II funding to reduce the lines in Las Vegas. Senator O'Donnell inquired if it was true that Mr. Gosnell said the credit cards could not be done and Senator O'Donnell said it could be done by not issuing the title until the credit card slip was received. Mr. Gosnell said the conversation was in the context of what the State Treasurer would do. Since then it was determined the credit card could be implemented legally if there was financial authority to do so. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired if the 92.5 FTE's were based on the number of windows requested or personnel requested. Mr. Gosnell replied it was based on personnel. A relief factor was used in the proposal. In the past a person was placed at a window through an appropriation of one FTE per window. This resulted in a shortage because the office is open nine hours per day, and employees take breaks during the day. The proposal recommends Las Vegas be staffed the same as a prison tower where coverage is provided for the hours of operation. Ms. Giunchigliani requested a schematic be provided of the staffing hours. Mr. Gosnell indicated staffing hours were provided with the various proposals, which include keeping the full-service offices open during the hours previously described with staffing to meet the peak times in order to reduce the lines. Pilot projects proved traffic dropped off dramatically after 2:30 to 3:00 in the afternoon on Saturdays, eliminating the need for 100% staffing in the afternoons. Mr. Close inquired if the plan could be implemented with the cap of 22% and the addition of 6%. Mr. Gosnell pointed out 6% was more than was requested and represented approximately 90% to 100% staffing. It was felt the 80% model was cost effective and would reduce the lines to less than an hour wait. If the 6% commission were diverted to the department instead of the highway fund, all points could be accomplished. Senator O'Donnell inquired if it was correct that he requested the 6% numbers be run and also asked what was required to achieve the requested staffing level. Mr. Gosnell replied that was the request, and the numbers were supplied to the committees. Senator O'Donnell pointed out he spoke with the Governor, and the Governor wants to split the department but does not support the rest of the plan. Now the 6% is coming through the back door, and he cannot imagine what will happen with the Governor. He reiterated he wants someone to take responsibility. Ms. Giunchigliani requested a report be prepared regarding the effect of the cap or the $6 million on certain projects in southern Nevada. She expressed appreciation for Senator O'Donnell's concerns but noted that policy had never been addressed. People were bringing ideas together to solve the problem, and that was an important result. Chairman Fettic concluded a decision needed to be made regarding the 22% cap and the 6% fee and requested direction from the committee. Mr. Close stressed he had a problem eliminating the cap and was more in favor of giving a percentage of the 6% fee. Ms. Giunchigliani suggested allocating the 6% and reducing the obligation of the highway fund to the department's budget, which would keep additional revenue in the highway fund. Chairman Fettic pointed out a determination would need to be made on how Ms. Giunchigliani's suggestion would affect the highway fund. Ms. Giunchigliani reiterated her request for a bill draft request to reenact legislation in the form of A.B. 385 (1991 legislative session) to allow for teams to perform services at business sites. Mr. Ghiggeri pointed out the subcommittee would need to provide staff with direction on the bill draft request regarding the 22% cap and the 6% fee. A request could be made of the Department of Transportation to provide information on what the impact of reducing their budget by $4 million to $5 million would be to their construction program. Mr. Marvel indicated the crux of the problem was reducing the lines in southern Nevada. He did not want to adjust the 22% cap and requested information on what portion of the 6% fee could be utilized to start the program. Mr. Ghiggeri suggested he and Ms. King meet with the Department of Motor Vehicles to discuss some of the issues raised during subcommittee. * * * * * MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO REQUEST A BILL DRAFT TO REINSTATE THE FIELD TEAM OFFICES. MR. CLOSE SECONDED THE MOTION. * * * * * Mr. Marvel pointed out the request would need to be brought up before the full committee. Mr. Ghiggeri stated the request would go to the full committee so the legal department could commence work on the request. Ms. Giunchigliani recommended the request for a bill draft to reinstate the field team offices be brought to the full committee. There being no further business, Chairman Fettic adjourned the hearing at 10:48 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Jonnie Sue Hansen, Committee Secretary Joint Subcommittee on Public Safety, Transportation and Natural Resources Assembly Committee on Ways and Means and Senate Committee on Finance April 11, 1995 Page