MINUTES OF THE JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY, TRANSPORTATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS AND SENATE FINANCE Sixty-eighth Session April 25, 1995 The Joint Subcommittee on Ways and Means and Senate Finance was called to order at 8:05 a.m., on Tuesday, April 25, 1995, Chairman Larry Spitler 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 Senator Bernice Mathews Excused ASSEMBLY SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Larry Spitler, Chairman Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr. Mr. Jack Close Mr. Thomas Fettic Ms. Chris Giunchigliani Mr. John Marvel Excused STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert Guernsey, Deputy Fiscal Analyst Gary Ghiggeri, Deputy Fiscal Analyst Debbra King, Program Analyst Following roll call and remarks from the Chairman, the meeting was opened to hear closing actions on the budgets for the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety Budgets. Two exhibits were distributed, the Subcommittee "Budget Closing Action, April 24, 1995" (Exhibit C), and the "Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, Issues which need to be resolved for Closing" (Exhibit D). CRIMINAL HISTORY REPOSITORY - PAGE 1777 FINGERPRINT - PAGE 1781 Responding to Chairman Spitler's request for a review of the information on page 13 of Exhibit C, Program Analyst, Debbra King, pointed out most recommended adjustments were in the base budget to annualize the Fiscal Year 1995 year-to-date cost. The Executive Budget, she said, had been prepared by using the work program from 1994. The first issue for subcommittee consideration and decision would be the proposal to combine the Criminal History Repository budget account and the Fingerprint budget account. Commenting on the functions, Ms. King commented the Criminal History Repository basically collected the data, and then the Fingerprint unit performed the searches for the civilian job applicants. Since these two units were so closely related, the staff and costs had been co-mingled. The question was whether the subcommittee would wish to make the combination of the two accounts formal. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if it would be possible for Ms. King to delineate which groups currently paid into Fingerprint, and the sources of revenue. Although there were no General Fund monies in either of the budgets, Ms. King said she would be able to provide Ms. Giunchigliani with more detail. Ms. Giunchigliani again voiced her objection to the fact that a portion of the law enforcement community did not pay for fingerprinting services. She agreed this should not affect the joining of the two budgets, but by charging equally there would be a potential for lowering the cost to everyone. Responding to Senator O'Donnell's request for an explanation regarding the revenue, Ms. King remarked in the Criminal History Repository there were two revenue sources: 1) Court assessments; and 2) the Brady Bill charges. There were no charges for fingerprints in the Criminal History Repository. The $228,000 in the Federal Bureau of Justice Statistics Grant, she said, would enhance the Criminal History Repository. The Fingerprint revenue source came from the charges for taking fingerprints: 1) The agency's charge for fingerprints; and 2) the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) charge for fingerprints which the agency collected and then advanced to the FBI. If the two budgets were combined, Ms. Giunchigliani asked, would there still be the categories, i.e., Brady, fingerprint collections, etc. Ms. King said they would track the revenue separately, but not the expenditures. In response to Senator O'Donnell's request, Bill Gosnell, Administrative Services, Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and Public Safety representative, stated the Department supported the merger of the DMV and Public Safety budgets. The reason for this support stemmed from the fact that during the last session the court assessment fees, at that time the sole source of revenue to the Criminal History Repository, were inadequate because of the under collection of the court assessments. Mr. Gosnell opined there would be better use of existing revenues if the programs were combined. Further, Mr. Gosnell did not believe the court assessments were reliable. Senator Jacobsen asked whether the combination would help with the backlog of fingerprints. Mr. Gosnell believed, indeed, if the revenues could be used, there would not be a reserve sitting in one account and revenue inaccessible in another account; and this would alleviate the backlog. Ms. King continued with a review of the $13,500 funding for computer hardware. She said the fiscal staff had been unable to determine what this was for, and asked if the committee wished to remove it from the budget. Although this had come as an agency request, the agency was also unsure where the request came from. To answer the question, Dennis Debacco, Program Manager for the Criminal History Repository, said this had been part of the equipment intermingled with personnel requests, and since the intent was unclear, it was acceptable to take it out of the budget. Continuing with a discussion of staffing, Ms. King said the agency had requested six additional positions, but the Executive Budget had not followed along on the recommendation. Although the unit had a backlog, this had been reduced significantly from approximately 38,000 fingerprint cards to be researched, to approximately 8,000 through the use of the federal funds earlier discussed. Without additional staffing, however, the agency projected this backlog would continue to grow between 2,000 and 4,000 cards per month. Based on discussions with agency staff, additional staff appeared to be necessary. Ms. King said she had provided four alternatives regarding staffing level. Currently, it appeared Level C would be the most appropriate, i.e., one fingerprint technician and two data entry operators. This would allow the unit to not only stay current, but to also attack the backlog. Mr. Close asked whether the additional staffing would be necessary if the two functions were merged. In response, Ms. King said the staffing recommended in this budget account would resolve some of the issues relating to the Criminal History Repository backlog and the processing of the criminal records. Additional staff was also recommended in the Fingerprint budget account to handle the increased number of civilians required to be fingerprinted for job purposes. Discussing vacancy savings, Ms. King noted during FY 1994, court assessments came in significantly less than the budgeted amount. As a result, the agency had to keep positions open for cash flow purposes. She noted the Executive Budget had recommended $64,000 in vacancy savings, and this would be reduced to the FY 1993 level, i.e., $31,000 in FY 1996 and nearly $32,000 in FY 1997. This would establish vacancy savings at the more reasonable level of what it was in 1993, and what was budgeted for FY 1995. As for the reserve, Ms. King said this was generated by the Brady Bill program which was started March, 1994. Since this reserve would roll over, the Department no longer had the cash flow problems previuosly experienced. Mr. Fettic questioned if vacancy savings were reduced and the two vacant positions replaced whether the one Fingerprint Technician and two Data Entry operators would be needed. Ms. King said, "yes," the level of recommended staffing would be based upon reducing the vacancy savings. Ms. King explained there were some additional funds available in the court assessment area, because of decreased funding needs in the Victims of Crime program. Agencies receiving court assessments had been asked to make proposals that would be enhancements to programs but would not require ongoing funding. The agency had thus proposed updating the dumb terminals into micro-computers which would cost approximately $69,000. In response to Chairman Spitler's request to comment on the rent distribution, Ms. King said in the Fingerprint account, the changes made were to allocate the rent costs to a self-supporting account, i.e., taking it out of highway funds and putting it into the self-supporting account, and to reduce the training to $100 per person. ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO CLOSE THE CRIMINAL HISTORY REPOSITORY BUDGET AS STAFF RECOMMENDATION, ADDING ONE FINGERPRINT TECHNICIAN AND TWO DATA ENTRY OPERATORS, AND WITH ADJUSTMENTS BEING MADE TO THE FINGERPRINT BUDGET AS NECESSARY. ASSEMBLYMAN FETTIC SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THE MEMBERS OF THE ASSEMBLY SUBCOMMITTEE. (ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ############## SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED THE SAME RECOMMENDATION. SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. (SENATOR MATHEWS WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) DMV (DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLE) HEARINGS - PAGE 1687 Once again Ms. King explained the technical corrections being proposed. She said they were reporting some revenue and some expense in the DMV Hearings Budget to reflect some anticipated costs for hearings for people who attempted to buy a gun and were denied the right under the Brady Bill. If, in fact, a person was unable to buy a gun and subsequently requested a hearing, the staff in this account would be used. The revenue reflected the charges to the Criminal History Repository for the cost of the hearing. Ms. King remarked that the first policy decision the subcommittee had was to determine whether it should be a separate, stand-alone account. Currently, all the DMV Hearings officers' activities were recorded in the DMV and Public Safety Director's budget account, but she said it would provide better accounting if it was separated. Remarking on the Module M-200 recommendation for two additional staff, Ms. King noted the Las Vegas office had a current backlog of hearings for drivers' license/ motor vehicle issues, so the staffing recommendation was consistent with their work load. In discussing the computer capability of the DMV Hearings office, Ms. Giunchigliani noted there had been a history of outdated equipment. Ms. King told her the agency had received five computers from an Office of Traffic Safety grant during the last fiscal year, and there was a recommendation for four new computers during FY 1995. Chairman Spitler agreed with the proposal to separate these two budgets, and said he was pleased with the proposal for additional staff in Las Vegas. In response to Senator O'Donnell's question whether the separation would affect the 22 percent cap, Ms. King replied the separation would not change the funding, whether it was in the Director's office or in a separate budget account -- it was still funded by highway funds. ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED STAFF RECOMMENDATION, ALLOWING THE DMV HEARINGS OFFICE TO BE A STAND-ALONE BUDGET, AND APPROVING THE TWO ADDITIONAL POSITIONS FOR LAS VEGAS. ASSEMBLYMAN FETTIC SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THE MEMBERS OF THE ASSEMBLY SUBCOMMITTEE. (ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ############# SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO ACCEPT THE SAME RECOMMENDATION AS STATED BY THE ASSEMBLY SUBCOMMITTEE. SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. (SENATOR MATHEWS WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) RECORDS SEARCH - PAGE 1697 Explaining, Ms. King pointed out this budget handled all information requests from insurance companies, mail-order companies, questions of drivers' licenses, registration, data, etc. Primarily, the adjustments were technical. Ms. King reviewed the items shown on page 5 of Exhibit C, adding that there were plans to: 1) Fund the inflationary and caseload increases for postage which were not included in the Executive Budget; 2) correct some coding of some computer maintenance costs; and 3) the highway fund reversion was reduced to reflect the additional recommended costs. Also, she said, the agency estimated revenues were adjusted based upon revenue projections being matched to the agency's projected increases in the performance indicators. Chairman Spitler ascertained this included the miscellaneous office equipment requested by the agency. Ms. King answered affirmatively, saying the staff recommendation was to accept the Governor's recommendation which included the miscellaneous office equipment and three computers for each year. ASSEMBLYMAN CLOSE MOVED STAFF RECOMMENDATION. ASSEMBLYMAN ARBERRY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THE MEMBERS OF THE ASSEMBLY SUBCOMMITTEE. (ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ############# SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED STAFF RECOMMENDATION. SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. (SENATOR MATHEWS WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) COMMERCIAL DRIVERS' LICENSE (CDL) - Page 1707 Ms. King continued with her review. She told the subcommittee technical adjustments had been recommended by staff, and the revenue reflected expenditure adjustments. There was also a recommendation to: 1) Reduce the training to three staff in accordance with previous agency testimony; 2) reduce the cost of the computer to Department of Information Services (DIS) recommended level; and 3) eliminate funding for the computer maintenance contract. Ms. King commented that this budget account, which was created in 1989, was originally supposed to be self-supporting. In addition, a separate budget account had been established to account for the federal grants which were received. Subsequently, it was learned the program was not self-supporting, there were no more federal grants available for assistance, and the agency had, on its own, expanded the functions of the office to include issuing regular drivers' licenses. Due to these reasons, Ms. King said the staff was recommending the Commercial Drivers' License account be combined with the regular drivers' license account. Also, she said the subcommittee might want to advise the agency to advertise the fact that the local Commercial Drivers' License office would also issue regular drivers' licenses, and this might help reduce lines. Ms. Giunchigliani asked how many Commercial Drivers' License sites there were. Responding, Mr. Gosnell said there were three -- Elko, Reno and Las Vegas. In Las Vegas, he said, they would be combining the two offices into the new CDL express office, and cross-training was already underway. ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND THE COMBINATION OF THE COMMERCIAL DRIVERS' LICENSE BUDGET WITH THE REGULAR DRIVERS' LICENSE BUDGET. ASSEMBLYMAN FETTIC SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THE MEMBERS OF THE ASSEMBLY SUBCOMMITTEE. (ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ############# SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED THE SAME MOTION. SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. (SENATOR MATHEWS WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) Ms. Giunchigliani and Chairman Spitler discussed the need to somehow disseminate the information that Commercial Drivers' License and regular Drivers' License were combined. Chairman Spitler asked Mr. Gosnell to provide the subcommittee with information regarding how many people this would add to each office, and how the DMV planned to disseminate the information that the two functions had been combined. SALVAGE WRECKERS/BODY SHOPS - Page 1717 Discussing the information on page 7 of Exhibit C, Ms. King explained the technical correction regarding agency testimony that the unit only needed the training and travel allocation for one year of the biennium. The policy decision for the subcommittee, she commented, was to consider that this budget currently funded three investigative positions who were assigned to the general Bureau of Enforcement. In order to provide more efficient use of the resources, it was this Bureau's policy not to assign investigators to a specific industry. The agency had been unable to provide assurances that the three investigators funded through this account, were equal to the three full-time equivalents from the Bureau of Enforcement and were necessary to support the function. This budget account was supported by charges to the industry, and since there was a decreasing reserve level there was a possibility the unit might have to raise rates in the next biennium. The question was, if the unit was unable to support the staff being paid from this budget account, and there was a decreasing reserve, did the subcommittee want to continue to support the three positions. Discussing the justification for the three investigators funded by this budget account, Mr. Fettic remarked if the industry was paying for these three investigators, they should either get something back, or not be required to pay. Mr. Sparks noted the Bureau of Enforcement had 25 investigators, and these were being funded from three different budget accounts -- the highway fund, emission control, and the Salvage Wreckers/Body Shops. For the sake of efficiency, and because the investigators were located statewide, they were not restricted to only cases involving the budget account from which each investigator was paid. Mr. Sparks said he believed each budget account, indeed, got full value for the investigators. Chairman Spitler questioned whether the investigators kept time allocations, and in response, Mr. Sparks said, "no," the time was not tracked with the kind of detail suggested by the Chairman. The number of investigations was tracked, but not with great detail. The Chairman noted a paucity of justification that the budget account merited three people. Noting the creation of the unit was before he took the position, Mr. Sparks said he understood the auto wrecking industry had approached the Legislature with a scheme for licensing and regulating that segment of the automobile industry in order to deal with questionable and unscrupulous businesses who created a poor image of the industry in general. Chairman Spitler told Mr. Sparks if he could prepare documentation to support the addition of three people, the subcommittee would withhold their decision for one week. Mr. Sparks said he would provide the breakdown in terms of the cases being investigated. He believed the three industries affected by the budget account, i.e., body shops, wreckers and salvage pools, would be able to show justification for the three full- time investigators in this program. In response to a question from Senator Jacobsen, Mr. Sparks said one of the primary objectives in the program, in relation to the body shops, was to make sure the people engaged in the activity of a body shop were licensed. When the program was first established, it was thought there was a need to provide some regulation in regards to stolen auto body parts. In his experience, however, there had been no significant occurrences of this. The quality of work was not within the program's purview, however, there was a relationship between the body shop and the insurance industry through the Automotive Affairs Advisory Board, which was funded out of this budget account. VERIFICATION OF INSURANCE - Page 1721 Ms. King reviewed the information on page 8 of Exhibit C. The policy issue to be decided was whether the subcommittee wanted to add the three additional staff to handle the increased work load resulting from the monthly insurance verification program. Also, the budget statutorily carried forward $1 million each year to fund start-up costs while waiting for insurance verification charges to start flowing in. The agency had indicated that $300,000 would be sufficient to fund start-up costs, however, $500,000 had been requested to give them a buffer against future program changes. Referring to the policy issue which did not set a penalty for insurance companies who did not report, Senator O'Donnell told Ms. Giunchigliani there was, indeed, a very heavy penalty that if the information was not provided, the insurance company would receive no information from the DMV regarding traffic accidents or moving violations; and without that information, the insurance company could not write insurance. Donna Wadey, Acting Chief of the Registration Division, said the DMV was currently dealing with seven insurance companies who were not in compliance. The Department was in the process of revoking these insurance companies' privileges to receive information from the DMV. Also, the Insurance Commissioner's Office had invoked regulations that established a fine for the insurance company in the event of non-compliance with the monthly requirements. Responding to Ms. Giunchigliani's question, Ms. Wadey said she believed those fines would go into the Insurance Commissioner's fund. Ms. Giunchigliani contended if an insurance company did not comply on a monthly basis, they should be immediately restricted from writing insurance, but Ms. Wadey said it was her understanding that legislation drafted during the 1993 Session gave the DMV only the authority to withhold the information, and the Insurance Commissioner was given the authority to either fine the insurance company or revoke the company's authority to write liability policies in Nevada. As for the reserve, Ms. Giunchigliani said in her discussions with staff, she had been told it would require only a simple BDR change to go back to the word "fines," and this would give the Department more flexibility in the use of the funds. In agreement with Senator O'Donnell, Ms. Wadey said these were small insurance companies writing perhaps only one or two policies -- usually less than 1 percent of the business currently being written in Nevada. Another area of non-compliance, she pointed out, had to do with the report required to be filed if there was no activity each month. There were two concerns expressed by Mr. Close. First, he agreed with Ms. Giunchigliani that the insurance companies should be compelled to comply regarding insurance verification. Also, he noted the title of the budget was Verification of Insurance, and he believed the Legislature should put greater emphasis on verifying that people driving on the highways had insurance. Currently, this function was very ineffective, he stated. Chairman Spitler asked Ms. Wadey to provide the subcommittee members with information regarding DMV notification to the Insurance Commissioner when an insurance company needed to be suspended, and what the DMV regulations were. After further discussion, Mr. Sparks said he believed when the new verification program was fully implemented, it would be very effective in identifying uninsured motorists. Although the Legislature had established a very stringent program to verify liability insurance, the DMV saw many incidences of certain Legislators trying to appease a constituent's complaint when that constituent had not bothered to respond to the DMV's request. This put the DMV under political pressure to violate the law. Additionally, some of the insurance companies had not reported their policy information to the DMV, and as a result, certain policy holders were in jeopardy of having their registration suspended. This put the DMV in a difficult position between the two parties. Mr. Fettic asked if at some point in the future, a patrolman would be able to instantly verify an individual's insurance situation by simply phoning in the request. Mr. Sparks said, "yes," one feature of the program currently being brought on line would include a flag in the vehicle registration data base, which would indicate whether the individual had insurance. When this was possible that individual could be taken off the road immediately. Remarking on the hard work done to develop the insurance verification program, Senator O'Donnell said this looked like it would be a model piece of nationwide legislation. Agreeing, Mr. Sparks said the reason the Nevada DMV was successful when others were not, was because the insurance companies were involved in designing the program at the outset. Certain problems with the insurance companies were merely glitches which would be worked out. Noting there had been a number of Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) problems, Senator O'Donnell said many VIN numbers given to the Department by the dealers, were in error. Because these were of significant number, he suggested the three positions in the Insurance Verification Program be funded, to make sure the program worked adequately and well. Remarking on the Insurance Advocate, Chairman Spitler recommended funding this position with the full understanding that whatever happened legislatively, this budget might have to be reopened. ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED STAFF RECOMMENDATION WITH THE THREE POSITIONS TO BE FILLED, AND CAPPING THE RESERVE AT $500,000, SETTING ASIDE $125,000 A YEAR FOR THE INSURANCE ADVOCATE, AND REVERTING THE REMAINING $375,000 TO THE HIGHWAY FUND. In discussion, Ms. King said the Department was currently allowed to carry over $1 million each year; but only $500,000 was needed. The Insurance Advocate's position needed only $125,000 a year. This left $375,000 which either needed to go to the Highway fund or the reserve should be set at $875,000 instead of $1 million. Mr. Gosnell explained if the $500,000 reserve was established instead of the $1 million, as it was right now, the $500,000 would automatically go into the highway fund as a revenue. If $125,000 to $130,000 was set aside to fund the Insurance Advocate, he believed there should probably be a category set up in mandatory insurance, to make the appropriation so the Legislature had the authority to move the money. This would mean $350,000 would still be reverted to the highway fund. By reducing the reserve, the revenue into the highway fund would be enhanced. Mr. Gosnell agreed a $500,000 reserve was satisfactory. ASSEMBLYMAN CLOSE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THE MEMBERS OF THE ASSEMBLY SUBCOMMITTEE. (ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ############# SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED THE SAME MOTION. SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. (SENATOR MATHEWS WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) Following a short break, Chairman Spitler took up the Peace Officers' Standards and Training (POST) budget. PEACE OFFICERS' STANDARDS AND TRAINING - Page 1797 Ms. King continued with a review of the information on pages 17, 18 and 19 of Exhibit C. Chairman Spitler said he believed POST needed to be instructed to look at funding in general during the biennium to determine whether this would be an agency supported by General Fund monies, or whether charges to participants were adequate. Ms. Giunchigliani noted there was a request for three vehicles, one for the emergency vehicle operation center, a van to transport cadets to different training locations, and a vehicle for staff to use for travel between the Stewart facility and the Academy building and headquarters. Ms. Giunchigliani said she might be convinced of the need for an emergency vehicle, but wondered if it was possible to use a motor pool vehicle for transporting people between facilities rather than purchasing a van. Ms. King pointed out to the committee that currently, the Governor's proposed raises were not reflected, and she asked permission, once the raises were determined, to adjust the reserve so the raise could be taken out of the reserve balance. She indicated this request was echoed in all the self-funded accounts. Deputy Fiscal Analyst Gary Ghiggeri, noted Ms. King had budgeted $174,000 for a reserve to fund start-up costs and initial operation of the agency, pending the receipt of court administration assessments. That $174,000 would probably need to be increased to $194,000 if a 4 percent pay raise was approved by the Legislature. Because this was authorized revenue which was allocated, Ms. King said she would need permission from the subcommittee to increase the $174,000 by $20,000. This amount would probably need to be increased somewhat during the second year, in the reserve category, which would then be available for transfer from the reserve to the salary category based upon need when salary estimates were provided. In discussing the list of requests shown on pages 18 and 19 of Exhibit C, Ms. King indicated the list was in preference order. Chairman Spitler noted that Ms. Giunchigliani had expressed some concerns with items "g," "h" and "I." Mr. Fettic asked how POST staff now traveled back and forth between locations. To answer that question, Dick Clark, Chief of POST, said currently there were vehicles assigned to staff for transport back and forth. The list before the subcommittee was not only to enhance POST's present fleet, but to replace certain vehicles, which would include the van. Item "I" would probably be considered an addition to the present fleet. Chairman Spitler suggested the three items of concern to Ms. Giunchigliani be moved in priority order to the bottom of the list. He also indicated he could not support item "l" for video equipment. Returning to the subject of court assessments, Senator Jacobsen indicated he would like a guarantee these court assessments would continue, or alternatively, that the door would be open for the agency to approach the Interim Finance Committee (IFC). Ms. King confirmed the door to IFC would not be open if the agency was not funded with General Fund appropriations. Mr. Gosnell interjected that the appropriation the General Fund made to carry the program, would suffice for access to the IFC. Mr. Ghiggeri agreed with Mr. Gosnell that the Fiscal Year 1996 General Fund appropriation would provide the access, but there would be no access in Fiscal Year 1997. However, the Legislature would be in Session in 1997, and the 1997 Legislature could be approached for a supplemental appropriation. This could be provided irregardless if General Fund dollars were in the budget. Senator Jacobsen was somewhat mollified, but added he wanted to make certain funds did not evaporate mid-session. Senator Jacobsen suggested this was perhaps the time to indicate to the Supreme Court that many agencies were depending on court assessments, and this would require not only an emphasis on collecting, but also on the monies being moved to the agencies. ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED STAFF RECOMMENDATION, PLACING ITEMS "G," "H" AND "I" TO THE BOTTOM OF THE LIST; REMOVING ITEM "L;" AND ADJUSTMENT FOR PAY RAISES FROM THE RESERVE. ASSEMBLYMAN FETTIC SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THE MEMBERS OF THE ASSEMBLY SUBCOMMITTEE. (ASSEMBLYMEN ARBERRY AND MARVEL WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ########### SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED THE SAME MOTION. SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. (SENATOR MATHEWS WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ****************************** ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED THE SUBCOMMITTEE INCLUDE A LETTER OF INTENT TO REQUEST P.O.S.T. TO DEVELOP ALTERNATIVE FUNDING SOURCES OVER THE BIENNIUM AND TO REPORT BACK TO THE LEGISLATURE. ASSEMBLYMAN CLOSE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THE MEMBERS OF THE ASSEMBLY SUBCOMMITTEE. (ASSEMBLYMEN ARBERRY AND MARVEL WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ########### SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED THE SAME MOTION. SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. (SENATOR MATHEWS WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) COMMISSIONER FOR VETERANS' AFFAIRS - Page 1737 The one adjustment being recommended by staff to this account was technical in nature, Ms. King told the subcommittee. The Executive Budget had recommended two half-time positions, but the agency was requesting one full-time position. This would require health benefits being paid for only one person. Because of this, Ms. King said they were taking the health insurance benefits out. The committee should decide where the Commissioner for Veterans' Affairs should report. Currently, the Executive Budget reflected the Commissioner reporting to the proposed Department of Motor Vehicles. The options were: 1) Department of Motor Vehicles, which the agency indicated would be acceptable to them; 2) the Department of Public Safety; or 3) the Department of Military, which had indicated a willingness to work with the agency in providing administrative support. Senator Jacobsen told the committee he would like to hold this particular budget, because there were some contacts he wished to verify before moving ahead. Chairman Spitler agreed to hold the budget of Commissioner for Veterans' Affairs until Senator Jacobsen got back to the subcommittee. VETERANS' HOME - Page 1743 Ms. King reminded the subcommittee this budget account was funded through the sale of veterans' license plates. There were two recommendations shown on page 11 of Exhibit C, which she reviewed and explained. ASSEMBLYMAN CLOSE MOVED STAFF RECOMMENDATION. ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THE MEMBERS OF THE ASSEMBLY SUBCOMMITTEE. (ASSEMBLYMEN ARBERRY AND MARVEL WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ########### SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED STAFF RECOMMENDATION. SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. (SENATOR MATHEWS WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) FORFEITURES - LAW ENFORCEMENT - Page 1795 Ms. King noted the Executive Budget had recommended that the agency have revenue and expenditure authority of approximately $1.3 million, with $200,000 of that being placed in reserve. Historically, this budget had not received over $843,000 from forfeiture activities. As written, the Executive Budget would allow the agency to spend the forfeiture money as they saw fit, within federal law, without coming into Interim Finance Committee. Historically, the finance committees had authorized a specified level of expenditure with any new programs coming before IFC to move the money out of reserve and into the expenditure authority. Thus, the committee had to consider: 1. Whether to close the budget as the Governor recommended; 2. Whether to provide a limited amount of spending authority in certain and various categories, but placing the largest percentage in reserve. Ms. King recommended if the spending authority was granted, the subcommittee should include a transfer to the Nevada Division of Investigation (NDI) of approximately $240,000; or 3. Whether the agency should come before IFC before spending any money. Senator O'Donnell recalled there had been questions in the past as to where the money was going and what was being purchased. He was more agreeable to the recommendation shown as item "c" on page 16 of Exhibit C, even though he was reluctant to do so. SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO PROVIDE NO SPENDING AUTHORITY OTHER THAN THE PASS-THROUGH TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, AND THAT THE AGENCY WOULD THEN BE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A WORK PROGRAM TO INTERIM FINANCE COMMITTEE FOR ALL PROPOSED EXPENDITURES. SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR MATHEWS WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ################ ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED SAME MOTION. ASSEMBLYMAN CLOSE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) MOTOR VEHICLE POLLUTION CONTROL - Page 1725 Again, Ms. King reviewed the information shown on page 9 of Exhibit C. Referring to the first item on the list, revenue adjustments to agency projections, she said the Governor's recommendation was based on the assumption that the enhanced inspection and maintenance program would be implemented. This had been delayed. The enhanced program originally envisioned would require testing every other year, and since this had been delayed, the revenues were now projected with testing every year. Ms. King pointed out this agency had minimal vacancy savings which did not reflect actual operations and turnover. There was also overtime funding, and the choice of either eliminating the overtime funding or increasing the vacancy savings. Fiscal staff recommended the elimination of overtime. An item-by-item review continued. The Chairman recalled there had been a lengthy discussion in IFC on item 1 on page 10 of Exhibit C, and it concerned him the subcommittee was being asked to consider three additional staff in Carson City when the non-attainment area was in Las Vegas. It also concerned him that the subcommittee intended to close budgets by shunting decisions to IFC when the final regulations were not known. Mr. Close questioned the amount in the reserve account. Ms. King indicated that based on increased revenue, at the end of Fiscal Year 1997, the reserve in this account would be approximately $5 million. The state agencies receiving grant funds from the account could not legitimately pull any more out of the account, and Ms. King suggested it might be time to look at the fee being charged. One of the agencies had indicated to her that the enhanced program would eliminate testing of newer cars which already met federal mandates. If this happened, the revenue would go down. The question, Mr. Close said, would be whether the fees could be lowered. Responding to Mr. Close's question, Ray Sparks said the problem being faced with this budget account were the number of unknowns. Although federal regulations did require the enhanced inspection and maintenance program, it was not exactly known what the details of the program would be. This was yet to be implemented in 1995. In fact, he said, the state had to submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to the United States Environmental Protection Agency by July 1, 1995. Draft regulations would be accepted by the federal government for purposes of compliance, however, this was not to say there would be no changes. The Department did know, however, that all the emission stations would have to be networked, and the DMV would approach IFC for funding for that. Also, the mechanics training program would have to be enhanced. Generally, Mr. Sparks believed the $6 certificate fee, currently being charged and funding this budget account, could be reduced, however, this was a bit premature. In response to Mr. Fettic's question whether the DMV would be able to live with a sliding fee up to $6, Mr. Sparks said, "yes, that would work." Ms. King noted Module E-175 included training for implementation of the enhanced program so there would be an adjustment to that based upon what the committee did to the enhanced program. E-175 also included travel for the three staff members to travel to Colorado and California to review the enhanced emission inspection stations. This represented about 50 percent of the staff in this program, she remarked, and it was not general policy to send that large a portion of staff. Senator Jacobsen indicated his support for attending these kinds of conferences, but he believed one person was adequate to attend and return to share the information. ASSEMBLYMAN FETTIC MOVED TO DEFER DECISION UNIT M-590 AND THAT THE AGENCY SUBMIT A WORK PROGRAM TO THE INTERIM FINANCE COMMITTEE; TO ACCEPT STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ON MODULE E-175, AND IN-STATE TRAVEL; AND IN E-175 TO APPROVE TRAVEL FOR ONE PERSON ONLY TO TRAVEL TO COLORADO AND CALIFORNIA CONFERENCES. ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ############# SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED SAME MOTION. THE MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. (SENATOR MATHEWS WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) Returning to the subject of the reserve, Mr. Close questioned whether a $1 reduction in the fee charged for emission checks would be a step towards returning something to the people; or would it be better to leave it open for agency determination. In reply Mr. Sparks said he did not know how much of the reserve would be needed to implement the required changes in the program. A dollar reduction would amount to some $800,000 to $900,000 per year in revenue. Recalling previous testimony, Mr. Sparks said the actual cost of administering the program to the DMV was a small part of the budget. Most of the money went back to other state agencies and local governments in transfers from the account. Thus, the fee could be reduced from $6 to $5 without any problem as far as funding the DMV's portion of the program, also he did not believe it would affect any of the pass-through moneys. He said he would not be uncomfortable with reducing the fee from $6 to $5, although this would take a statutory change. Confirming, Mr. Spitler asked if Mr. Sparks had fully funded all the grant requests during the year, and Mr. Sparks said, "yes." Drawing attention to page 1726 in the budget book, Senator O'Donnell noted the reserve was basically flat. He stated he was reluctant to tamper with any revenue mechanism at this time without knowing what the federal government would approve or disapprove. After some discussion, Mr. Sparks acknowledged the Department would probably have to come before the IFC and request possibly $1 million to allow them to implement the enhanced program. Even given that, he thought the fee could be reduced by $1 and still have adequate monies to implement the required changes and maintain an adequate reserve. Historically, the revenues had been substantially more than the program required. Mr. Sparks recalled that two Legislative Sessions past, the fee was $3. It had been raised by the budget office to $3.50 to fund some transfers to other agencies, but during the same Session Washoe County and Clark County had come in with a scheme to raise the fee to $6, and give the counties $1 of that $6. This had created the windfall in the account. The largest part of the start-up costs, Mr. Sparks mentioned, had to do with the computerization to link all the emission stations to the DMV system. This was important in that there was a desire to see future ability to implement a program to allow citizens to renew their vehicle registration by telephone, using a credit card for payment. A key element of successful implementation of that program was for DMV to get control emission data into the computer. The various suggestions were discussed, with Senator O'Donnell finally stating he wanted to look into the matter further, before making a decision. After reviewing future subcommittee meetings, Chairman Spitler adjourned the meeting at 10:45 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 April 25, 1995 Page