MINUTES OF THE JOINT SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION and ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION Sixty-eighth Session March 16, 1995 The Joint Committee on Transportation was called to order by Chairman William R. O'Donnell, at 2:44 p.m., on Thursday, March 16, 1995, in Room 119 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator William R. O'Donnell, Cochairman Senator Maurice Washington, CoVice Chairman Senator Jon C. Porter Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr. Senator Raymond C. Shaffer Senator O.C. Lee ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Assemblyman Thomas Batten, Cochairman Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Cochairman Assemblyman Dennis Allard, CoVice Chairman Assemblyman David Goldwater, CoVice Chairman Assemblyman John Carpenter Assemblywoman Marcia deBraga Assemblyman Dennis Nolan Assemblywoman Genie Ohrenschall Assemblywoman Patricia Tripple COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen (Excused) Assemblyman Bernard Anderson (Excused) GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Senator Kathy Augustine STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Don O. Williams, Chief Principle Research Analyst Paul Mouritsen, Senior Research Analyst Diane Rea, Senate Committee Secretary Jackie Valley, Assembly Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: William Gosnell, Chief Administrative Services, Department of Motor Vehicles & Public Safety (DMV&PS) James Weller, Director, Department of Motor Vehicles & Public Safety (DMV&PS) Ray Sparks, Acting Deputy Director, Department of Motor Vehicles & Public Safety (DMV&PS) Senator O'Donnell stated that the reason for the two committees meeting together was because they have a situation that has been developing over a period of years in DMV&PS and has reached a point where the committees need to do something quickly. The technology is behind the times and there is a need to put money into technology to bring them to a standard that the rest of the state can appreciate. Senator O'Donnell stated: The DMV&PS has a 22 percent cap on the Highway Fund. The Public Safety and DMV uses 22 percent of all the highway funds placed into the Highway Fund. Of that 22 percent, they have to fund a number of agencies, a number of staff, a number of programs. Every time the State of Nevada gives employees raises, that eats into the 22 percent and they have to either cut services or they have to cut individuals from the program. The subcommittees met. I am not in favor of increasing the 22 percent cap; however, I think there is another mechanism by which we can all address this problem. I would like to know if Senator Porter, who is chairman of that committee, would want to give the recommendations of the subcommittee, or would he like me to do that? Senator Porter stated: I think we can do them together, Mr. Chairman. We do have prepared, at least for the Senate, some of the agenda items that we discussed as a subcommittee and we could review these (Exhibit C). I am not sure if there is a copy available yet for the assembly. Why don't we take that memorandum and use that as our direction this afternoon? The first was the Bill Draft Request (BDR) to allow the 6 percent privilege tax commission to be deposited directly to the DMV&PS. Senator O'Donnell stated that this should be explained for some of the new members of both of the committees; what that 6 percent privilege tax really is and where it comes from. Senator Porter stated that he would like to have the representatives from DMV&PS come forward and summarize exactly what that means. William Gosnell, Chief Administrative Services, Department of Motor Vehicles & Public Safety (DMV&PS) stated: The issue that the senator is referring to is the present 6 percent privilege tax commission that is collected by the department on all the privilege taxes that are transferred to the counties. We are entitled to retain 6 percent under the law. What we have been doing in the past is putting the 6 percent into the Highway Fund of which then we get 22 percent of the 6 percent. In effect, we are netting 1.3 percent toward the operation for the collection of those privilege taxes from our budgets. We looked at it and felt that possibly this 6 percent privilege tax could be handled the same way as the 2 percent commission on sales tax is handled, which is now retained within our operating budgets. So, we suggested to the committee the possibility of funding the betterments within DMV&PS could come from this existing fund source and there would be no increase in taxes or fees needed to do this. Senator Porter asked Mr. Gosnell to explain what kind of dollars he was talking about. Mr. Gosnell replied: The amount of dollars that are generated under the present 6 percent are estimated to be for 1996, $6.7 million and for 1997, $6.9 million. That is what is in our revenue estimates at this point. Senator Porter asked where those funds are currently going and what will happen with the 6 percent change? Mr. Gosnell replied: The negative net effect is on the Highway Fund. By taking the 6 percent off the top and plugging it into the DMV&PS budgets, it of course reduces our dependence on the Highway Fund and therefor, our budgets, as fixed under these proposals, would come in at about 20 percent. Fiscal year [19]96, we would need about 20 percent of the 22 percent cap. The impact on the Highway Fund is a net of about $5.3 million. There impact, on there side, would be a net loss of $5.3 million. Senator Porter asked, "Which would be new construction, new construction, or repair or maintenance?" Mr. Gosnell replied, "Maintenance or full time employees (FTE) or anything they use those dollars for, for the construction, maintenance and repair of highways." Senator Porter asked, " And then with those funds that would come into your department, specifically where would you use those moneys?" Mr. Gosnell replied: We would plug ... in a sense they are collected within the registration division and the motor carrier branches, we would put those revenues as a direct revenue flow into there. Thereby, reducing the Highway Fund amounts accordingly. The new money would enable us to increase staffing in Las Vegas to an 80 percent window level on a 12 hour day. Our proposal is that we open Las Vegas full services offices 12 hours per day and 8 hours on a Saturday. That we institute a credit card system, so people can use credit cards at the windows; and also enable us to institute, in maybe the second year of the biennium, the renew by credit card by phone so that you would not have to come into the office at all. You would be able to tie into our data processing enhancements and actually stay at home and call it in. We would also get document imaging systems, so we could eliminate this, or eventually eliminate this title problem we presently have. There are a few items in there, but generally the money would be spent for enhanced staffing at the three main service offices in [Las] Vegas, better data processing; we want to enhance our data processing environment, and also the document imaging and credit card systems. Those are the primary spenders of this new money. Senator Porter asked that the action number tow refers to the Level II budget request, so it would be funding that request? Mr. Gosnell replied: Yes, sir. The $6.9 million or the $6.7 million would fund everything you see here on the agenda and still leave money left over. In other words, we would be under the 22 percent significantly. We would be at 20 percent in [19]96 and around 21 [percent] in [19]97 including anticipating the pay planned increase. That is assumed into this number. We are still ... a lot of room there. We did not spend all of the money is what I am saying. Senator Porter asked for questions from the committee members. Mr. Allard asked, "Would you touch of the Department of Information Services issue that was brought up in the subcommittee?" Mr. Gosnell stated: The SCR5 spirit proposal would have taken our data processing center that is presently within the Department of Motor Vehicles and would have, over the next year or two, moved that under the control of the Department of Information Services. We would have lost control totally of our data processing. We are suggesting that we believe our solution is cheeper, that we can actually enhance and increase our platform within our existing system by going to a new, open environment; get the storage that is presently kept on the mainframe over at Department of Internal Services (DIS) that we pay about $1 million a year for. The data that we generate, we pay $1 million to get it back. In using those, over the next 4 or 5 years, we can dramatically increase our data processing capability as well as come out cheeper. At the end of the 4 or 5 years, we are actually saving almost a half a million dollars a year by the end of the 4th year. So, we believe by enhancing what is already there and bettering it is a cheeper solution than the other. Senator O'Donnell asked: Eventually, there is going to be an initial hit of about $1 million because you are not going to be able to do this immediately. It will take a year or two to get rolling, but after that period of time, you will be able to save quite a few dollars. That is why I am not interested in taking off that 22 percent cap; because if you take off that 22 percent cap, you are never going to get it back. There are some economies of scale; there are some affiances that we will be able to appreciate by using more advanced data processing techniques that will actually lower the cost of registration, lower the cost of doing business at the DMV[&PS] and then, at that point in time, we can look at taking that 6 percent and placing it back into the Highway Fund. This is sort of a kick-start program where we take money out of the Highway Fund, kick the DMV[&PS] into gear and then we can replenish that money in a period of time when it is due. That was my full thinking behind taking the DMV[&PS] and making it its own data center. Senator Porter stated: To take that a step further, Mr. Gosnell plus Mr. Weller; assuming status quo, of course that is something we deal with everyday, we have this plan which is a jump-start, as the senator has mentioned, which could immediately reduce some lines ... in a shorter period of time. But, with going with the status quo, how long would it be before we could possible see any impact on our 4 hour waits or our 6 month waits? Are we still 6 or 7 years away? Mr. Gosnell replied: It is probably forever, unless the population growth in [Las] Vegas stops. As long as the population is going the way that it is in Las Vegas, we cannot stay with that. We are falling further and further behind because we are stuck with the incremental budgeting that is based on the 22 percent. We will never catch up. Senator Porter asked, "Based on the item number two, and that is your Level II budget request, is there anything else you would like to cover, Mr. Gosnell?" Mr. Gosnell replied: Within the 80 percent staffing, I guess it is ... we are talking more from a model. We have never done a 12 hour day, so we do not know what will happen at 7 p.m because we have never been there. We do think, given the environment in southern Nevada, that people will use our facilities if they are open. The 80 percent model, I believe is fairly conservative in the sense that we are not asking every window to be filled all the time for 12 hours. What we are saying is that during peak periods, as we get more experienced with opening the buildings 12 hour , we may find that we need a 100 percent coverage from 11 o'clock to 4 o'clock. And, we may need only 60 to 65 percent coverage in the evening. We want to balance our staffing around those types of statistics and put the body or the staff where it is needed at the time it is needed and get these lines really cleaned out. James Weller, Director, Department of Motor Vehicles & Public Safety (DMV&PS) stated: Senator Porter, I think also a critical factor in this whole thing is our request for the Public Information Officer (PIO) position so we can get out message out to the public as to when we are open and what hours. Even after we develop some patterns, we can tell them [if you want to save some time, come at three in the afternoon or come at 5:30 at night or whatever the situation may be. Those two positions are critical of this. We have done a very, very poor job on getting out message out. Senator Washington asked: On your Level II budget proposal, if you expand the hours 80 percent for 12 hours a day, you are talking about flexibility in peak times within that day or that period, are you talking about also increasing your staff on the line, too? Mr. Gosnell stated: Yes, this 80 percent model increases counter staff by almost 70 to 75 additional FTE that will almost directly go into West Flamingo, Sahara, and Carey. That is a definite increase. The reason being, we are not at 80 percent staffing now because the way we budgeted in the past, there is a window that you put a body on. The reality is, when that person takes a day off or is sick or is only in there for 8 hours, we do not have anybody for that window. This allows a relief factor very, very similar to what we do now with prison budgeting for, let's say guard posts. We want that guard post covered for so many hours, we budget for that based on annual leave, sick leave. I think that we have given out that sheet. Yes, there is a significant additional amount of staff being put on the problem. Senator Washington asked if Mr. Gosnell had given a percentage on the increase? Mr. Gosnell stated: The 80 percent staffing adds about 70 some positions right at the counters. There are a couple more accounting positions and the public information officer positions. That would get us at 80 percent staffing in those three locations. Mr. Allard asked: Mr. Gosnell, I just want to make sure that I am following the domino effect on the money. First of all, if the Bill Draft Request (BDR) to redirect the short-term lesser monies were to pass, then what you want to do ... Mr. Gosnell replied that this had nothing to do with the short-term lesser fees. Mr. Allard continued: ... I thought the short-term lesser fee, I am looking at a document here, a letter from you, would be to plug the hole in the Highway Fund and redirect it from the General Fund, correct? Mr. Gosnell replied that was correct. Mr. Allard continued: So, first of all, what you want to do is retain the 6 percent privilege tax which won't go into the Highway Fund, So that will leave approximately a $5.2 million hole in the Highway Fund, that is [fiscal year] FY [19]96, and $5.4 million in FY [19]97. You proposed that if the BDR were to pass, that hole would be plugged by the short-term lesser being transferred from General Fund to the Highway Fund. Now we have a hole in the General Fund. How do you propose to plug that hole? Mr. Gosnell stated: We don't. The reality is that I do not know what is going to happen with the short-term lesser fees. This was based last summer on the fact that at that point the interim committee on highway financing was going to make a recommendation to move that money into the Highway Fund. If that were to happen, then the $5.3 million would have been plugged. Mr. Allard asked: Also, you have, in previous testimony, you have testified that you would be able to save money once this 5 point plan was implemented. Is that correct? Do you think that somehow could be worked out where it would help plug that hole. Mr. Gosnell replied: Absolutely. Not in the General Fund side, it would plug a further hole in the Highway side. Everything that we get from the Highway Fund, what we do not need stays in the Highway Fund. The law says that we cannot go over 22 percent. It certainly does not mean that we cannot stay at 19 or 20. The savings that we would get on data processing on the long haul; which I think maybe almost close to $1 million by the time this is all done, because we are not paying DIS, that would remain in the Highway Fund. We are not a solution for the General Fund in any way shape or form. The department ... not at this stage anyway. Mr. Allard stated: Unless we did not give you as much money out of the Highway Fund and we started plugging that hole is what I am thinking. Senator O'Donnell stated: I would just like to say that the numbers that you have given us do not equate to the total amount of dollars that are in the 6 percent privilege tax. I would ask our fiscal staff on the Senate finance committee to make sure that the numbers equate. I do not want to take any more money out of the Highway Fund than we absolutely have to and I want to place back into the Highway Fund as much money as we can legitimately. So, I would ask that our fiscal staff deal with your organization to come up with the correct numbers. Mr. Gosnell stated: The one thing I would like to get on the record is that I believe if we move the 6 percent commission into the department at this point, we can make the necessary cuts off the bottom, as the numbers indicate that we are not using all of it. My concern is that we start doing 4 percent vs. 6 [percent] or 3 [percent] vs. 6 [percent] that when we get into the Sixty-ninth Session, if the Legislature funds the Henderson building, we are going to have to staff that building in [19]98/[19]99. We have not reflected that at all. That is fully my goal to keep the money into the Highway Fund now so we don't run into a 22 percent problem in the future, at all. So, that would mean you would be back here in [19]97 trying to do something with the 6 percent. It is easier to do it this way, from my perspective. Senator O'Donnell stated: I am glad you brought that up. At the present time, the CIP Public Works is building, or at least in the design phase of a new facility in Henderson. That new facility is sort of after the fact. In other words, we need it out there now, but we are not going to put it out there until the people are out there. In other words, we don't put the DMV out there and then the people will come. It doesn't work that way. But, my point is ... after putting it in the design stage, and after building the facility, if we live within that 22 percent cap without any adjustments and any efficiencies, and never updating what we have now; in other words, status quo, we will have to take individuals from the Sahara office and the Flamingo office and put them into the Henderson office with zero net change in the number of lines. You cannot take a body away from the Flamingo office and put it in the Henderson office and call it efficient. It is not going to happen. We have to do something. Otherwise we are just mixing the oil and we take our arm out and nothing has changed. Mr. Gosnell stated: Mr. Chairman, I absolutely agree. There is a need for a facility in Henderson now, because we have a little express office down there; that has not gotten into the growth in the Henderson area that has been traumatic. Under that scenario, without making the fixes we are talking about here, all we would have done is shorten the drive for someone from Henderson to Sahara. That is a real big benefit. That is about the extent of it. The DP solution, the BPR that we are talking about in S.B. 218 (Exhibit D) and the systems re-write and the cross training that we are conducting and finishing up; all those contribute to the solution. It is not each and of ... by itself. If all this happens we will see better service and much quicker service. If it doesn't we are not any better off. Senator Porter stated, "Item number two again is the Level II budget and I want to cover these areas one more time in summary." He reviewed the information in Item Number 2 of Exhibit C. Senator Porter continued: Two of these items I would like to take a step further. The expanded services on Sahara, West Carey, West Flamingo, etc. What about in the Carson [City] and Reno area? What are your plans, anything there? Mr. Gosnell replied: Are plans now; there is no need. We are meeting the line requirements. As part of the CIP, we had asked for renovation of the Carson [City] building so we could put registration and drivers license together in one-stop office and expand the windows a little bit here in the existing facility. That will really meet out needs here for the near term. Galletti [Way] office is working very well. We simply do not have the demands and the concerns here in the north as we do in the south. This is a southern solution at this point. Senator Washington asked, "what about additional express offices? I know we have two; one located right off Peckham I believe and the other near Old Town Mall. The town seems to be growing towards the northwest as it begins expanding that area. Is there any forsite or any vision to put another one up there?" Mr. Gosnell stated: At this point, Mr. Chairman, it is not in these plans. In other words, we have not had the pressure or the need at this point to look at that. We have looked at times for relocating the Old Town [Mall] or the west side of town express office to the new area, but there simply has not been the need. Galetti [Way] is more than handling ... with that new remodeled building is more than handling the load in the Reno area. We haven't had the complaints. Ray Sparks, Acting Deputy Director, Department of Motor Vehicles & Public Safety (DMV&PS) stated: Just to elaborate on the earlier comment from Mr. Gosnell regarding the need for additional staff in the north, that is taken care of in the budget request that has been presented (Exhibit E). I want to make sure that it is understood that we do have a serious need for additional staff to deal with the title problem; but that has been addressed in the executive budget. Senator Porter asked, "The Document Imaging System (DIS) will be used here also; it will be through out the state, correct?" Senator Porter asked for any additional questions on the number two recommendation Senator Porter continued: Number three is requesting the Senate Committee ofn Fianc‚ and the Assembly Ways and Means to approve the department's 5-point plan which you have already presented to those." Mr. Gosnell replied: Nothing has been presented to the Ways and Means or Senate Finance committees. We desided to not do anything until you people could make your decissions. Senator Porter stated, "Actually the number three then, the 5-point plan, is your regular request though, correct? Is this for your budget, or this is another proposal? If you could take this time to summarize that for the committee also, please." Mr. Gosnell responded: The 5-point plan, as we are calling it, essentially is addressed in what you have been working on the last several weeks (Exhibit F). It is the data processing solution, it is the additional 80 percent windows, it is the CIP which is part of the 5-point plan, it is the crosstraining staff development which is undergoing now, and the reorganization issue which is under number four on your agenda. So, our 5-point plan has not been presented in total to the Ways and Means or Senate Finance. What they are seeing is basically the CIP because there is nothing in the budgets that deal with the betterments. That was the 22 percent budget. Senator Porter stated, "And we have attached the blue page (Exhibit G) which gets a little more detailed." Senator O'Donnell stated: I think what we are talking about here in item number three is the data processing center moving the computer system, or moving the data; actually the only thing that DIS does, really for the DMV&PS, is hold their data. The Honeywell Bowl Processing System really does all the processing and then we fire the data back down the IBM. It is interesting to note that, and I want the rest of the members of the committee to realize what we are doing here. There is $1 million a year that gets funded to the DIS. The money that we are dealing with out of this pie, of which 22 percent goes to DMV&PS, part of that 22 percent goes to data processing services. What happens is there is a tendency in state government to take some of that 22 percent, or some of that federal money and cost it out to data processing. I think if we go through some of the majority of these budgets; where we find federal dollars and where we find user fees, you will find a more than usual cost for data processing services. I sit on the Senate Finance Committee along with Senator Jacobsen and we see daily where ... the latest one is the Department of Wildlife is paying $218,000 per year for five terminals. Those are licenses for deer tags, elk, and so forth. I think what I would like to do is ... let's cut the string here, cut the embilical cord and let's do it right. The DMV&PS deserves to have their own data center very much the same way the Gaming Control Board does and the university system, the Attorney General, and a number of the other entities that are around our state goverment. The people that can manage the data processing needs of DMV&PS are the DMV&PS. That is what I think this item number three is and I would hope the committee would support it. Mrs. Chowning stated: I appologize that some of this has already been addressed because I was at another commission meeting. I agree with what Senator O'Donnell is saying and I need to know when did DMV&PS sease to be independent? Mr. Gosnell stated: We are still legally independent. What is happening is the SCR5 spirit recommendation then makes the recommendation that we be murged into DIS in the future. I do not know ... there is nothing in our budget for [19]96 and [19]97 that effects that right now, but I do know that there is maybe something in the reorganization bill that takes it. I am just not aware what is going on. But, we would loose our independence under the senario that is being recommended now. Mrs. Chowning replied: There are some of us that are doing some work on our own and trying to see how much money is generated from which form and we have been able to come up with it. It seems as though titles alone ... registration is generating $8 million. Whether that figure is correct or not, what we need to know is how much revenue is generated because of registration? How much revenue is generated because of titles? How much revenue is generated because of drivers license? And, out of these, how much is coming back to directly pay for the service; the staffing, etc., because of registration, titling, drivers license? I think that there is a lot of money out there that is being generated that is not going back to that ... to pay for that division. And, we need to know the truth, as I call it. We need to know how much is out there, how much is going back. Because it is just in a big mercky lake and before we make these decissions, I want to know that information. Mr. Gosnell replied: As part of that solution, that information we put out and presented to the Legislation this session. I think your staff has it. We use this document to base all our operating budget requests. This is their estimates of what is generated by revenue source within the DMV&PS to the penney. So, this document that fiscal staff has can give you the answers as to what money is coming in. But, we are limited to the 22 percent. So, if we're ... a good example, on privilege tax; privilege tax is going up slightly faster than registration fees. Registration is based on $33 a hit for a car. The only thing we are seeing here is demographics. Privilege tax is based on demographics as well as value of vehicles. As the value of the vehicle goes up, the counties are receiving a slightly faster increase in the monies they are getting. The 6 percent commission looks a little bigger, but we get 22 percent of 6 percent, so we are still taking a [buck three] off ... it is not a lot of money to try to run a privilege tax program. Granted, the privilege tax is an adherant part of the way we conduct a registration. It is the system and it tells you how much it is worth. There is not a lot of dramatically more work that needs to be done to collect the privilege tax than there is to do a registration at this point. It is an accounting thing. But, we do not get any benefit for it. So, we have to conduct that program at 1.3 percent. I would like to see a business do that well. I think a lot of stock holders would like to see a 99 percent return on their money. That is what we are faced with here. Mrs. Chowning said, "I don't mean to delay a decission from this body. I just mean that before making the ultimate finance decision, I want that information." Mr. Weller stated: Your estimate of about $8 million, just a real rough calculation, that is probably a fairly approximate number for the revenue generated from titles. But, there is an interesting feature there that Mr. Gosnell has been talking about; that 22 percent because we are often before the Legislature and we are asked on a new program, for example new license plates, what are our costs. We identify those costs. The Legislature may charge a fee to recoup those costs, infact the department does not get the full amount of the cost back because those fees will go into the Highway Fund; again because of the 22 percent limitation, we are subject to that maximim of the appropriation out of the Highway Fund. If you add $1 to some fee, for example, to recoup the cost of the department, we don't see that. We always lose. Mrs. Chowning responded: That is what the general public ... they need to know this. Eight million dollars is being generated, but is $8 million worth of service being able to be given back to the general public? No. We need to find these out and from that fund, then be able to put more ... if this amount of money is coming in, then surely more of that pie should be able to be given directly back to accomplish that service to the public. Mr. Gosnell said: That is part of the statute right now. NRS 408, which talks about the 22 percent says all the fees and taxes of everything that we collect goes into the Highway Fund. We are entitled to spend 22 percent and that is where the privilege tax commission came up and I started thinking this really isn't anything to do with the Highway Fund. This is really more like a property tax. Then, when we looked at it I saw a possibility that there might be someway to correct this. You are right. Titles right now, just out of the registration division, for 1996 we are estimating $8.6 million coming in just in titles. Of that $8.6 million we are entitled to get about 22 percent of that. That goes into the Highway Fund to build the roads. That is where the money goes. Senator Porter asked, "plus, you add to that those that we are not collecting because of the down time in transfer of titles; because of the inefficiency of the system ... would be millions more." Mr. Allard stated: I wanted to ask a couple of questions on the 5-point plan. In previous testimony, you have related that the $5.2 million would cover it; but yet I have not seen any documentation. Do you have any documentation to back up what the 5-plan will cost? Mr. Weller replied: That 5-point includes some of those items that are already in the executive budget are being considered separately. As far as the numbers that we provided you; if that does not answer, we will have to go back and look. Mr. Gosnell stated: The numbers we provided are the operating impacts; that is your DP impact, that is your staffing of the 80 percent windows, that is the document imaging. Those are the dollars over and above what is presently considered in the Governor's recommendations. The thing that is not in front of you is the cost of the facility in Henderson and the remodel of the other two major facilities. That is big ticket items and that is not cheep. I am not sure we would not be building a Henderson facility regardless of any of the other operating solutions. I simply think we need a facility in Henderson. Mr. Allard replied: In the 5-point plan, number one ... there is a BDR that has been submitted to reorganize into a motor vehicle branch. Does this have anything to do with the split of Public Safety and DMV? I did not think it did. Mr. Gosnell replied: Not necessarily. This bill precedes the split. This was worked on last year; we have submitted it. We would eliminate references to specific divisions within the department and make it a departmental responsibility and then we can do the field services and the headquarter services ... things we were talking about that ties into the one stop. The cross training. Then we could have a field services division so when someone comes into the window, they could do drivers license and registration off the same terminal with the same person instead of having to get into two different lines as it is now. That is our long-term goal. That is our goal within the end of two years. Mr. Allard asked, "do you feel that the proposed split is a valuable component in this for service?" Mr. Weller stated: The split of the department into the motor vehicles and the public safety branches; yes sir, I do. And the reason is, as we discussed back when, is because of the ability ... for management to focus on one area. If you, the Legislature, is so kind to us and gives us our 5- point plan, our Level II funding, etc., there is going to be a lot of work associated with that and I think that it will allow the individual, who ever that may be, supervising the motor vehicle department to focus entirely on those issues and not be drawn aside. As I said the other day, my time is torn three ways and it seems that the Veterans' Affairs is the smallest group that we have but they are taking a lot of time now. The other thing that I wanted to add is that it is my thought that if you split the department now, and had a motor vehicles and a public safety, at some point down the road, 2 to 4 years (I would suggest 4 years) that could be revisited and if things are up and running as good as we hope they will be then; I am talking about the motor vehicles side, that maybe then they could be merged with DOT [Department of Transportation] or Taxation as they are in other states. I think during that 4 year period at least, the people responsible for managing that need to be able to focus their entire attention on those issues. Mr. Allard stated, "I wanted to refresh your memory, in previous testimony it has been stated that the proposed split will do nothing to enhance service. It will not shorten lines." Mr. Weller stated: It will do nothing except allow the individual to focus. With this 5- point plan in place, he or she is going to need to focus a lot more. The split itself, will allow the individual to concentrate; to focus on those issues. If we are so lucky as to get the 5-point plan, again, more time is going to be required. Mr. Allard replied, "that must be why you did not include the proposed split in the 5-point plan." Mr. Weller replied, "no, the only reorg [reorganization] we have in the 5-point plan is to reorganization internally on the motor vehicles side. We also have something similar on the public safety side. Senator Porter stated: Before we get more into the split, because actually that is item number four; and I would like to hold on that for a moment. Back to number three, and then I will take a question from Mr. Nolan; is there any other comments on the actual 5-point plan? It is the green strategic plan. Are there any other questions about the contract with Nevada? Mr. Nolan stated that he, Mr. Goldwater, Mr. Carpenter and Mrs. DeBraga had a 3:30 p.m. committee meeting that they needed to be excused to attend. Senator Porter asked, "If at all possible, if we could discuss the split for a moment and maybe get a few votes here; have a consensus; and we will try to expedite this as quickly as we can." Senator Porter said: Number four is the reorganization. One is the authorizing the reorganization of registration and drivers license division, which we touched upon just a few moments ago. The next is the actual split of the departments; and I think that through the many meetings that we have had there is many differences of opinion as to whether this is the most effective way to address our customer service problems. I would like to open that up for just a few moments and then ask for a vote on some of these items. Senator O'Donnell said, "Let me ask the DMV&PS how many programmers do you have?" Mr. Weller stated: "We have 38 budgets; I can tell you that. Programmers we have two separate units as you know. We have data processing on the motor vehicles side and on the public safety side. We tried to put them together last session and make that combined unit available to the whole department. We were told to cease and desist. We split them up again and we have two separate managers. Senator O'Donnell asked, "Why did you try and put them together?" Mr. Weller replied, "It is a matter of economies in putting your people and being able to use the resources as they are needed throughout the department. Our goal then was to have a committee within the department that would set down and go through where the needs were, prioritize them and do that." Senator O'Donnell asked, "Could you say that for the rest of the departments; both of the departments that you have staff members that you essentially pull together and are able to move back and forth between public safety and DMV on emergency type basis?" Mr. Weller stated, "We do it on an emergency type basis. Theoretically, I guess we are wrong in doing that because we are different sources of funding; General Fund and Highway Fund. Senator O'Donnell asked: Isn't that sort of the way we really need to look at this thing? We need to be flexible instead of two different people running two different departments out of one pot of money. Fighting over every dollar, fighting over every staff member? I would just say that doing the split, in the Governor's budget puts ... we have been dealing with a lot of things this afternoon. The Governor has one position to solve the DMV&PS problem. That is all that is in the Governor's budget. There is a 22 percent cap. That is left in tact. There is one person. That one person is not going to solve what we have talked about for an hour and a half here today. It is not going to happen. I think that we are going to be doing the DMV&PS a big disservice by doing the split and then not doing anything else, because if the 22 percent cap ... if there is a bill to raise that 22 percent cap, I am here to tall you that if it comes to my committee, it is as dead as a door nail. So, if this does not go, in terms of keeping the DMV&PS together so that they can operate efficiently and make this program work, then do not try to come around the back door. Because you can have your split, but you are not going to have one more dime to do it with. And you are going to be doing the public a complete disservice. Mr. Goldwater stated: "Senator Porter, you had mentioned that we were voting on something. Is that we as a joint committee? " Senator Porter said: "Yes, for direction for the Finance Committee. What we wanted to do first was cover these areas of the agenda that were provided. For information, I would like to go back and ask for some direction on each of these particular areas." Mr. Allard stated: Since we are going to be taking a vote today, I would like to express my feeling on the split. I have done extensive study on this subject since I was cochairing the subcommittee. First of all, I would like to say that a split might not be a bad idea in the future. I think that to allow you to focus, right now ... I think there is much more pressing problems that face the DMV(&PS) and the public. I do feel that the split will be costly. I think that it will cost us something and it is going to be more than just one position. It is going to be more than one full time equivalent. I think those dollars would be better spent where they ought to be spent at this moment; on giving the customers better service. I think the customers, the citizens of Nevada want relief and they want it now. They do not want a placebo. They want real medicine. They do not want to be told that we are just going to split these two so they can focus, which gives them absolutely nothing. That is the direction I see. I think that allowing the two agencies to focus is great. I think that could be something that we should look at in the future and if we have the money to do it, do it now. But, not at the cost of customer service. I do believe there is a cost that will be bore by the split. Senator Shaffer stated: I think we have been here a short time. Mr. Weller and his staff has been looking at this for sometime. I think I have to trust the judgement of these people who have lived with this for several years now. I am in favor of the split. Senator Porter stated: I had commented at one of our earlier meetings that DMV&PS is kind of the good, the bad, the ugly. If I could share that for a moment; we have a lot of good people, a lot of bad processes and some really ugly problems. I am very much concerned about the split if that is the only thing that we do. I think the split is not going to solve the problem. I think there is a place for a split if all these other items fall into place. Unless that happens, I really cannot support the split. I think there is a need for some direct guidance in that department, but if that is all we are going to do, I cannot support it. I think it is something that we need to look at sometime down the road if these other items don't fall into place. Mrs. Chowning stated: I agree. I do not see how we can even take a vote on this today. First of all, all we would be doing, as I see this as a Committee of Transportation, is giving direction to another committee saying this is what we thing that you ought to do. I find that a very interesting procedure to say the least. It is a good idea to discuss items, but in reality our decision will mean nothing. Senator Porter stated, "The purpose was to give some consensus to the money committees that do not really have the time to do the in depth research that we have and have the public hearings that we have had to try to make our concerns knows. Certainly it is only a recommendation, but it is very helpful that we have had everyone come together to make this direction." Mrs. Chowning stated, "Secondly, I would say that whatever message that we send the money committees, I would say that we send it not part and parcel, but with the message that if the decision is make, let us do it right and provide enough staff in order so that ... and the answers. As I said, the money is coming from one source maybe more needs to go so that public service can be accomplished. It does us no good just to send a message to say [hay guys and gals, we think that you ought to go this way]. I want to make it clear that if we make a decision that we send the message that we think that it should be done right the first time; and not come back 3 years from now, 2 years from now and say [well, we said that they ought to split but they couldn't do a good job because we did not give them enough ammunition to do it with]. Senator O'Donnell stated: I think that Assemblyman Chowning makes a good point; that we would be in an advisory capacity anyway, and I know there's a number of individuals here that have to leave and go to other committees. I think that what we will do is come back in our respective committees. I plan on asking for a bill draft to put the 6 percent in as well as dealing with the split of the DMV&PS in our committee. I think what I would like to do is ask for a bill draft and put all this stuff in one. We can do that on the Senate side if you would like to entertain that on the Assembly side you can do so as well. I really appreciate the fact that you have spent all this time dealing with this issue as well as I appreciate my members of committee who have spent hours dealing with this subject called DMV. We appreciate you sitting there getting grilled day after day regarding this issue and being placed in the box; and I know you do not feel as comfortable as you usually do. Mr. Weller stated: "We just want to fix it. That is all we want to do." Senator O'Donnell stated, "I think that is an admirable position. I think that we are all in that same boat and we want to work with you and I get the sense that you want to work with us in terms of dealing with [making it work and fix it]. Mrs. Chowning stated, "I would like to echo those sentiments and say that we really appreciate the work that the Assembly side has done as well. We appreciate when we were able to tour your facility and I would encourage all of the rest of you, if you have not had the opportunity to be able to do so. Some of the leasing of this huge piece of computer equipment that is in here, that was shown to us to solve the ... to save hours of work and therefore a lot of money. I would encourage everyone to go over there and see that. Thank you for your cooperation. Mr. Gosnell commented, "One piece of paper we gave out is that little piece that does not say anything on the top but has a bunch of numbers in the columns (Exhibit H). That little message is 5 days of operations last week in the West Flamingo office; we did over 2,000 drivers licenses, almost 2,000 registrations; and officially it is not even open yet. That shows you the impact that Flamingo has already had down there and in reality I think it is directed more toward Carey than it is Sierra. Just in one week we have already brought that kind of crowd in there and have not even officially opened it as far as public announcement. Senator O'Donnell stated, "We will do what we can to help you. With that we will adjourn this joint committee and we will go back to our original committee on the Senate side. Senator O'Donnell adjourned the meeting at 3:36 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Diane C. Rea, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator William R. O'Donnell, Chairman DATE: Joint Committee on Transportation March 16, 1995 Page