MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING OF

      SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

      AND

      ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      February 15, 1993

 

 

 

The joint meeting of the Senate Committee on Finance and the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means was called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio, at 8:10 a.m., on Monday, February 15, 1993, in Room 119 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman

Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen

Senator Bob Coffin

Senator Diana M. Glomb

Senator William R. O'Donnell

Senator Matthew Q. Callister

 

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mr.  Morse Arberry, Jr., Chairman

Mr.  Larry L. Spitler, Vice Chairman

Mrs. Vonne Chowning

Mr.  Joseph E. Dini, Jr.

Mrs. Jan Evans

Ms.  Christina R. Giunchigliani

Mr.  Dean A. Heller

Mr.  David E. Humke

Mr.  John W. Marvel

Mr.  Richard Perkins

Mr.  Robert E. Price

Ms.  Sandra Tiffany

Mrs. Myrna T. Williams

 

SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Vice Chairman, Excused

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Daniel G. Miles, Fiscal Analyst

Mark W. Stevens, Fiscal Analyst

Robert A. Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst

Gary Ghiggeri, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst

Birgit K. Baker, Program Analyst

Jeanne Botts, Program Analyst

Joan McConnell, Committee Secretary

Keri Putnam, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Garth F. Dull, Director, Department of Transportation

Judy Matteucci, Director, Department of Administration

James P. Weller, Director, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public    Safety

Donna Varin, Chief, Driver's License Division, Department of Motor    Vehicles and Public Safety

Robert G. Anselmo, Deputy Director, Department of Motor Vehicles     and Public Safety, Las Vegas

 

Raymond L. Sparks, Chief, Registration Division, Department of       Motor Vehicles and Public Safety

Jan Capaldi, Assistant to the Director, Department of Motor          Vehicles and Public Safety

William S. Gosnell, Chief, Administrative Services Division,         Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety

Marlen Schultz, Highway Safety Coordinator, Office of Traffic        Safety, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety

Colonel William J. Yukish, Chief, Highway Patrol Division,           Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety

Ray E. Blehm, Jr., State Fire Marshal, State Fire Marshal Division,    Department of Commerce

Eugene L. Williams, Deputy State Fire Marshal, State Fire            Marshal Division, Department of Commerce

Michael Meizel, Administrator, Buildings and Grounds Division,       Department of General Services

Marvin Carr, Director, Emergency Management Safety, Lyon County

John Drew, Deputy Chief, Investigation Division, Department of       Motor Vehicles and Public Safety

Mary Lynne Evans, Administrator, Office of Narcotics Control         Assistance, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety

Larry Stout, Chief, Peace Officers Standards and Training            (P.O.S.T.)/Nevada Law Enforcement Academy, Department of Motor     Vehicles and Public Safety

 

Department of Transportation (DOT) - Administration - Page 1639

 

Garth F. Dull, Director, Department of Transportation, distributed a Department of Transportation Comparative Statement of Revenues and Receipts (Exhibit C) and a Department of Transportation Budget Summary, 1993-1995 Biennium (Exhibit D. Original is on file in the Research Library.), and began to read from his written testimony (Exhibit E).

 

Senator Raggio remarked:

 

      The attention being given to highways of national significance, as I understand, is a deviation from the original thrust to construct the interstate system.  How will this new change impact Nevada?  What highways do we have of that character, and how will it affect our state?

 

Mr. Dull replied:

 

      It's going to change things considerably.  The National Highway System will take the present 850,000 miles nationwide, which encompasses the interstate primary, secondary, and urban systems.  Out of the 850,000 only 155,000 miles, plus or minus 15 percent, will be designated as part of the National Highway System.  This is not a new reconstruction program.  It just takes the present system that we have and redesignates it.

 

Senator Raggio asked, "What criteria will they use to do that?"

 

Mr. Dull responded:

 

      It's a functional classification... all of the interstate will be included, 43,000 miles....  An awful lot of the primary system, which is the major arterial, will be part of it.  But, basically it takes that system of 850,000 miles, reduces it to 155,000 miles.  In Nevada, for instance, it will include 545 miles of interstate, and about 1,260 miles of the primary system.

 

      That means in Nevada, out of the 5,430 miles we presently have on the federal-aid system, about 1,800 miles of it will be part of the National Highway System, again including the interstate system, and the rest of it, 3,600 miles will go into what we call the surface transportation program.  That is a program that does not require as much in the way of federal oversight, or federal standards, and gives us much more flexibility.  The money can be used on transit, highways, or on anything the local entities or the state feels is necessary to move people and goods.

 

Mr. Dull continued to read from Exhibit E.

 

Mrs. Evans mentioned she had attended an economic development conference about a year ago, and had a briefing on ISTEA (Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act).  One of the goals of ISTEA was to concentrate on building more highways running north and south across the country.  The interstate system has been designed to facilitate east-west movement for many years, but because of a trade agreement with Canada and Mexico more things are flowing north and south necessitating expansion of that network.

 

Another goal mentioned was to put more emphasis on arterials, which would improve access and encourage visitation to various parks and recreational facilities.

 

Mr. Dull commented that his agency was in the process of developing Nevada's plan for inclusion into the National Highway System.  Nevada expects to get approximately 1,800 miles designated on the National Highway System, including routes such as U.S. 93, U.S. 95, all of the interstate system and parks, if not all, of U.S. 50.  He added:

 

      Our problem is we are a large state, sparsely populated, and it will be very difficult to get enough miles on the National Highway System in Nevada to provide for that inter-connectivity you are describing.  We are arguing that rather than 155,000 miles nationwide, it should be at least 200,000 miles nationwide, plus or minus 15 percent.  We think that would provide for more inter-connectivity between states, provide for defense access routes, and our principal arterials.  Right now we think it's just a little bit light.

 

Mrs. Evans asked, "Who's making these plans and these decisions?"

 

Mr. Dull explained congress will have to approve the National Highway System by 1994.  "Within the state, we are taking the responsibility to draft it.  It will go to our transportation board for approval before we ship it off to congress."

 

Mrs. Evans requested a viewing of the preliminary draft of the proposal.  Mr. Dull stated the draft should be completed and available by the end of February, or early March. 

 

Mr. Dull, referring to the budget, said he was requesting five new positions, four in Las Vegas, one in Carson City, which are more fully explained in the Budget Summary (Exhibit D).  He continued to discuss the budget, reading from Exhibit E.

 

Mr. Arberry questioned the effect of the transfer of 31 positions out of DOT's computer area to the Information Technology Services Division in the Department of Administration.

 

Mr. Dull replied, "I understand we are going to be able to argue to keep all of the positions that we've got now, even with the centralization of data processing."

 

Mr. Arberry suggested there will be a savings attributable to reorganization of $1.1 million.  "How would that affect the budget if you keep these 31 positions?"

 

Mr. Dull responded, "We're still going to have to pay data processing for the service they provide."  He was unsure about any savings directly to DOT.

 

Mr. Arberry inquired about the Washington office.  "You have a consultant that...locates funding for the State of Nevada, dealing with transportation.  How effective has that consultant been in the past?"

 

Mr. Dull commented the consultant has been very helpful in communications with the congressional delegation.

 

      This is the Washington consultant, and we've paid somewhere in the neighborhood of $100,000 a year for [his services].  His expertise is primarily in analyzing and following legislation, giving us advice on what opportunities are available for additional funding, and implementing that.  So far, we think we've been very successful....The record speaks for itself.

 

      Even as a result of ISTEA, I think we've gotten about $105 million additional.  Even before ISTEA we've gotten several million dollars additional in special funding.

 

Mr. Arberry asked, "Do you feel we would have received the funding without this person?"

 

Mr. Dull remarked:

 

      I think we would have certainly received some funding, but I think this makes it much easier to communicate with our congressional delegation back there, [to] have somebody on staff, and give us the expertise of his experience.

 

Mr. Arberry requested a list of general contractors and subcontractors who have been awarded bids over the past 5 years. 

He further requested that contractors and subcontractors who are minorities and women be noted.

 

Ms. Tiffany stated she is looking for cost savings, efficiencies, and performance indicators and asked, "How are you planning to coordinate the growth internally versus using the private sector?"

 

Mr. Dull responded:

 

      If you look at the number of positions we have now, about 1,488.  That's about the same number of positions we had in 1972, yet the population has more than doubled since then.  We've used a lot more consultants as a result of that.  Not only for design and construction, but internally for various functions that we simply don't have the manpower for.

 

Ms. Tiffany asked, "Do you have any performance indicators, or any method of looking at that, to say this is the break even point where we need to go out versus where we need to stay in?"

 

Mr. Dull stated:

 

      We do look at that on an individual basis, whether it's additional help in accounting, or design, or whatever.  We look at the program we've got to get out.  For instance, in design, if we have authority from the federal government to spend $100 million, you get that only for that year.  And if you lapse it, or don't use it, you certainly are not going to get it back...I don't think we have ever lapsed any funds.

 

Ms. Tiffany commented, "So you feel real comfortable with work load versus program versus using the private sector."  Mr. Dull agreed.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani requested copies of the contracts with the outside consultants, "as well as how you determine whether or not they have actually provided something in addition, other than what you would have normally gotten just through the budgeting process, through the use of our congressional people."

 

Mr. Dull said he would provide a judgment call and an analysis on the performance of contractors.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani added, "You bore the entire cost of the increase for the Washington office, rather than tourism and economic development.  Are you getting that much more this time to justify your department picking up that increase?"

 

Mr. Dull replied:

 

      We think we've always gotten very good help out of the Washington office, and of course the judgment to take all of that increase, I think we were getting more than we were paying for in the past.  I have no problem with the additional increase coming from DOT.  I think most of his work is working closely with DOT.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked about the large increase in the budget for costs for the attorney general's office.

 

Mr. Dull said, "The way I understood it from the budget office is that perhaps we were undercharged in the past for that, and this represents the actual time they have spent supporting the staff in DOT."

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked what types of inspections are conducted out-of-state.                   

 

Mr. Dull replied, "A lot of the inspections and audits for out-of-state is for manufacturing of bridge beams.  We send people there for quality-control inspections.  Those are project-related costs.  They're not really discretionary."

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked Mr. Dull to provide a detail of how the costs are broken out.  She added:

 

      The computer equipment is going on-line.  This is the second to the last phase of finishing that.  Yet the employees are scheduled for transfer, but they're not really going to be transferred.  But there's going to be about a million dollars cost savings, but we don't know where it's at?...Maybe you and the budget department can get together and give us some indication of where the costs savings really is, and why we're doing a reorg [reorganization], but not really a reorg.

 

Ms. Matteucci remarked:

 

      I think, and hopefully your staff has shown you the detail information for the ITS [Information Technology Services] budget, because that shows you the savings.  By consolidating all of the various data processing positions statewide, you can eliminate administrative positions in the data processing area, data processing managers and those types.

 

      When we combined them then, what we essentially did is got a savings per individual that was transferred from the various budgets.  We reduced the data processing transfer by the amount, I think it's $6,200 the first year and $12,000 the second year.  That's where the savings are.  You transfer a whole bunch of positions from a whole bunch of areas...

 

Ms. Giunchigliani interjected, "Assign them a value, and then that value generates the savings."

 

Ms. Matteucci said:

 

      No, no. This one is that you actually target the managerial positions that are to be removed.  Then you have a total cost pool...that cost pool is less than all of those positions were before, and then you allocate out those savings back to the vying agencies.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani mentioned, "So the 31 individuals technically scheduled for transfer are just on-line people.  They're not managerial people."

 

Ms. Matteucci stated there are some managerial people.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked, "Could you separate for us the managerial positions versus the actual people doing the work, so we can get a handle on where the differential is between the alleged cost savings?"

 

Ms. Matteucci told Ms. Giunchigliani everything should be much clearer after tomorrow's meeting.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked Mr. Dull, "Did the weigh stations previously come under your budget, the ones that used to be open at the borders for equipment coming in, lumber and that type of thing?"

 

Mr. Dull replied:

 

      Yes.  We do have several weigh stations around the state that are operated sometimes jointly by us and DMV [Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety], sometimes individually by us, because we have a plan for size and weight monitoring of heavy equipment.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani mentioned, "There's been a lot of criticism from the private sector that some of them were closed out, and between Utah and here there's a lot of transfer materials not collecting tax...."

 

Mr. Dull commented, "As a result of a request from the legislature, we did a benefit-cost analysis of implementing ports of entry for the spaces they were talking about."

 

Senator Raggio urged the committee to move along.

 

Mr. Spitler asked, "Garth [Dull], on your expenditures for honor-camp payment, does that take into consideration the projected closure of honor camps?"

 

Mr. Dull responded, "I don't believe that takes in the projected closure."

 

Mr. Spitler commented, "That number might, in fact, change depending on what happens legislatively."  Mr. Spitler recalled that Senate Bill 441 of the Sixty-sixth Session required the transportation board to oversee major purchases of equipment used to either construct or maintain roads.  "That board now has delegated that responsibility to you, is that right?" asked Mr. Spitler.

 

SENATE BILL 441

OF THE SIXTY-SIXTH SESSION:   Increases certain taxes on motor vehicle fuel and increases certain fees relating to motor vehicles.

 

Mr. Dull replied, "It was delegated before then, but still we take our budget to the transportation board.  On equipment, we have a list of projected equipment purchases that we go over with the board."

 

Mr. Spitler commented, "So, they have not delegated that responsibility from their own."

 

Mr. Dull remarked, "Not exactly, no.  We don't go back to them each time...and ask for permission to purchase, say, a 10-wheeler, or whatever."

 

Mr. Price asked, "On highway funds that are federal funds, are there any restrictions that come with them that the money has to be spent in highway-related matters?"

 

Mr. Dull stated there are restrictions on all federal funds.  The new legislation provides more flexibility in how the funds are spent, particularly the Surface Transportation Program allows spending funds on highways and mass transit.  Even 50 percent of the National Highway System money can be transferred to the Surface Transportation Program, but there are specific rules or require-ments for spending federal money.

 

Mr. Price commented:

 

      The reason I ask is that one of the transfers into the Department of Transportation is from the Agriculture Department, Weights and Measures...As I recall, of the work that they do, only a small portion of it may be related to checking gas pumps and those things that would be considered highway [related].  Because a lot of the testing, I thought, has to do with markets and all kinds of other things that have no direct relation to the highway.

 

      I was wondering, if you move someone into the department and then you're sending them out there to Raley's and wherever to check their scales, and other types of things I think they do besides just measurements.  Would there be any potential of improper use of money that's highway [funds]?

 

 

Mr. Dull responded:

 

      It's our understanding we can't use any of the dedicated state revenue that we receive now, and we certainly can't use any federal revenue on that.  They [Weights and Measures} would have to increase their fees to cover their costs.  As we understand, that's about $240,000, maybe more.

 

Department of Motor Vehicles - Drivers License - Page 1315

 

Mr. James P. Weller, Director, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS), remarked:

 

      Under the proposed DMV[and PS] budgets to be presented to you first, you'll find the Registration Division, Driver's License, Office of Traffic Safety, Administrative Services Division, and the Director's Office.  Sub-programs include Commercial Driver's License, Mandatory Insurance, Data Processing, Records, certain regulatory responsibilities.

 

      I thought it would be appropriate at this time to make the following general comments with respect to the Governor's reorganization proposal.  I support the reorganization concept.  On 4/8/92, after my first 2 months on the job, I presented an intra-departmental reorganization program plan to the Governor.  There were three short-term goals, 2 to 3 years, and during that 2 to 3 year period, we planned on looking at the department as a whole, and coming up with a long-term plan.  I wasn't able to get that plan in front of the IFC [Interim Finance Committee], and as some of you know, I took it upon myself to initiate certain action which I deemed was appropriate and didn't need IFC approval.

 

      Our department, as it currently exists, did participate in the Peat Marwick study, and to a degree in the final plan as it came out of the budget office.  We appreciate the opportunity to be a part of that plan.  My personal input involved two 1-hour meetings with the Peat Marwick group, and some follow-up.  The chief of the Driver's License Division had input on the motor vehicles side, and Mr. Gosnell, our Administrative Services Division Chief, had input with the budget office in determining how to break down the current Administrative Services Division into two separate administrative services divisions, one for motor vehicles and one for public safety.  There was disagreement, I can tell you that.

 

      My understanding, and we've seen nothing in detailed writing yet, concerning the reorganization, the positions identified as being eliminated are listed as such for dollar value only.  The new directors will have the latitude to make up the savings wherever they see fit, and operationally organize the department as they deem appropriate.

 

      With respect to the reorganization plans proposed by the Governor, we are now doing an internal analysis on the motor vehicle and the public safety sides, and we're focusing on three general areas:  Number one, implementing the reorganization plan as it was given to us.  Number two, identifying concerns and making recommendations, which in our professional judgment would enhance the proposed plan and/or point out potential shortcomings.  The third area of focus of our internal analysis is that in the event there is no reorganization we want to propose certain legislation, take certain action, budget consolidations, etcetera, which would more effectively and efficiently serve the public.

 

      If you decide to go forward with only a part of the plan, we would be glad to work with you and the Governor's office in doing so.  I can assure you that whatever is decided, I will give my best, and I know my staff will, to move forward.

 

      The last thing pertaining to reorganization deals with the newspaper articles which appeared yesterday.  The theme of one article dealt with the Governor orchestrating comments of the department heads.  The second theme dealt with us, department heads trying to gag our employees.  I disagree with both themes.

 

      As in the case with other departments, we've spent a significant amount of time since June, in addition to our day-to-day responsibilities, putting these budgets together.  They fit under the 22 percent cap for the biennium, and the General Fund guidelines as provided by the budget office.  The other program budgets are self-funded, based on current levels plus whatever demographics or minor enhancements are recommended.  The revenue projections have been provided to your staff previously and reflect a more conservative approach than in the previous years.

 

      As alluded to earlier, covering the 22 percent cap for the next biennium, the 95-97 biennium, as we are currently organized is of concern to us.  By memorandum dated December 18, 1992, we provided the budget office suggested fee-based revenue enhancements, not new taxes.

 

Senator Raggio asked Mr. Weller to clarify the difference between revenue enhancements and new taxes.

 

Mr. Weller stated, "In this case I'm referring to fees.  Fees we charge for licensing, that type of thing, as opposed to a new tax on your car, or an additional tax of whatever."

 

Senator Raggio suggested, "Some would argue with that distinction."

 

Mr. Weller stated, "That's the way I've been identifying it."

 

Drivers License - Page 1315

 

Donna Varin, Chief, Driver's License Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, provided an overview (Exhibit F) of the Driver's License Division.

 

Senator Raggio asked if Saturday service is being provided in the Reno central office.

 

Ms. Varin said there is no Saturday service, and the staffing level would have to be increased if Saturday service was initiated.  There will only be one office in Las Vegas open on Saturday in the next biennium.

 

Mrs. Williams did not feel an analogy could be made between the northern office and the southern office.  The southern area of the state is nearing a million people.  Geographically it is quite a distance between the northern office and the southern office.  She said many people work weekdays and are available only on Saturdays to handle DMV&PS transactions.  Mrs. Williams questioned whether or not a driver's license could be obtained at the high schools.

 

Ms. Varin explained the written test can be given at the high school, but not the actual driving test.  Ms. Varin added, "I understand your concerns about Las Vegas, and we wish that we were providing the optimum service in Las Vegas also."  She thinks the staffing pattern will be based on what the projections are of the amount of time it takes to serve customers.  Saturday services allowed an opportunity to split full-time positions to half-time positions, and use them for peak-hour employees.  For 4 days a week those employees, who worked on Saturday, worked in the regular field offices and were used during peak hours, particularly between and 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. to alleviate the rush hour.

 

      One of the things we have to work in are the constraints of the 22 percent cap of the highway fund.  If we were not working with that restraint we would ask for the additional positions for Cimmaron and not close the North Las Vegas [office on Saturdays].  But, with the cap of the 22 percent, it was one of the tradeoffs that we had to make.  And, since that was the newest of the Saturday services, we felt that would have the least impact.

 

Mr. Price asked, "Could you explain the 22 percent cap?"  Mr. Price also requested the location of the new Cimmaron office.

 

Robert G. Anselmo, Deputy Director, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, Las Vegas, informed Mr. Price the new Cimmaron office will be located on the corner of Cimmaron and Flamingo.

 

Mr. Weller explained:

 

      We have certain of our budgets that are impacted by a 22 percent cap.  What that means in general, in layman's terms, is every dollar we bring in we can only spend 22 percent of it.  The balance of it goes to the highway fund.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked, "Are all of the offices open from 8 to 5?  And, have you looked at staggering the schedules so that you have evening offices rather than just the standard 8 to 5?"

 

Ms. Varin stated most of the DMV&PS offices are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.  The express offices are 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.  There had been staggered hours in the main branch in Las Vegas, opening earlier, until recently.  There were not sufficient employees to fully staff the office when it opened, which was the busiest time of the day, creating the biggest impact on lines.  Ms. Varin added, "I don't think there is any doubt, if we had the flexibility and staffing, having expanded hours and evening office hours would be beneficial."

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked Ms. Varin to provide the status of Assembly Bill (A.B.) 385 of the Sixty-sixth Session, if and how it was promoted.  She also wanted to know if the DMV&PS has any auto-mobiles with handicap accessories enabling handicapped people to take the driving test.

 

 

 

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 385

OF THE SIXTY-SIXTH SESSION:   Requires director of department of motor vehicles and public safety to render certain services of department at locations other than office of department.

 

Ms. Varin gave an interim report (Exhibit G) on Assembly Bill 385 of the Sixty-sixth Session.  Ms. Varin stated the DMV&PS does not provide vehicles to anyone for a driving test.  The licensee is licensed to drive his or her own particular vehicle.

 

Commercial Drivers License - Page 1322

 

Ms. Varin began reading from Exhibit H.

 

Senator Raggio mentioned substantially less licenses will be issued during the next biennium, as a result of having met the federal requirement by April 1, 1992; 19,000 plus fewer drivers in 1994, almost 14,000 fewer in 1995.  "Why do you need the same level of staffing?"

 

Ms. Varin stated her appreciation for Senator Raggio's question and replied:

 

      We looked at that ourselves in making the determination of what we wanted to do for our driver licensing program.  I think, first off, you have to look at the driver licensing program as a whole, not just the commercial driver licensing program funding...Secondly, if you think about the driver's licenses being a 4-year process...when we initially license somebody, they are not required to renew for 4 more years.  We are going to have peaks and valleys.

 

      There are still significant times spent with our customers, because of the commercial driver licensing process.  We will still be licensing drivers coming in from other states.  We will still be licensing drivers who are reinstating a suspended or revoked license.  We will still be doing change of addresses, because that's mandatory they keep that up-to-date.  And, then any upgrades of licenses, because each upgrade of a license requires different testing.

 

      In addition to that, there are other programs we are bringing up right now that are more administrative rather than customer oriented.  One of those is the third-party testing program.  Currently we have 35 employers, who we have licensed and certified to do a portion of the testing for us for their employers.  That takes a significant approval process, as well as an auditing process on an annual basis, to keep them certified for the national standards.

 

Senator Raggio referred to the Performance Indicators on page 1326, which do not indicate any significant change.

 

Ms. Varin explained the auditing process does not start until this year.  She stated the staff is cross-trained to assist when there is another big peak in 1995, when people come back in for renewal.

Ms. Varin asked for the opportunity to explain and justify the positions to the subcommittee, because she feels it extremely valid to keep them hired.

 

Registration - Page 1327

 

Raymond L. Sparks, Chief, Registration Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, read from his written testimony (Exhibit I).

 

Senator Raggio asked the reasoning behind having the DMV&PS handle boat registrations and inquired if it was more cost effective to have DMV&PS handle the boat registrations instead of the Department of Wildlife, who had handled them previously.

 

Mr. Sparks did not have the answer to either question.

 

Mr. Weller remarked:

 

      In Carson City, right now, we give space up to the [Department of] Wildlife to do boating registrations.  And some of the comments I've had from the people, it's just more convenient for them to come to one place to do all their registrations.

 

Ms. Matteucci said:

 

      Director Weller has it exactly correct.  When the consultants were looking at the activities being conducted, first of all the Registration Division is more set up to register motor vehicles, or boats on motor- vehicle trailers, than is the Department of Wildlife.  Many people bring in their boats to be measured.  They simply don't have the access at the Department of Wildlife.  That's why I believe they made this recommendation.  It's really a convenience for the boating public.

 

Senator Raggio inquired about the positions being transferred into this budget.  Six from the Department of Wildlife, and another 16 from the Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Program.

 

Mr. Sparks remarked:

 

      Those 16 positions that are being transferred from the Pollution Control Budget are current positions in the Registration Division.  Because the reorganization provides for the Emission Control Program to be transferred to the Environmental Protection Division...the 16 positions, which are actually driver motor-vehicle technicians, who are actually performing customer, counter service, are simply being transferred from the Pollution Control Budget into Budget Account 4718.

 

Senator Raggio asked if the six positions being transferred from (Department of) Wildlife were existing positions.

 

Ms. Matteucci stated, "It's a straight transfer.  There are six positions currently doing the registration.  They're just coming into this budget."

 

Senator O'Donnell asked, "Are there 26 additional positions?"

 

Mr. Sparks replied, "That's right.  Those 26 positions are new positions in the second year of the biennium, specifically to staff the new Cimmaron office in Las Vegas."

 

 

Senator O'Donnell inquired, "What about the 38 positions that are still unfilled?"

 

Mr. Sparks indicated the 38 vacant positions are in various stages of recruitment, and the 26 positions would be in addition to those [38] positions.

 

Mr. Weller commented, "When we open the Cimmaron office, we plan to close the Jones Street Express Office and transfer some of those positions, both in Drivers License and Registrations to the Cimmaron facility."

 

Senator O'Donnell asked, "Do you have the money to fill all those positions right now?"

 

Mr. Sparks replied, "Yes, sir.  We're funded for those current vacancies.  Those 38 positions are division-wide, so they're showing up in all of our budget accounts."

 

Senator Glomb asked about the County Registration Fees?"

 

Mr. Sparks responded, "Under the Boat Registration Program a portion of those registration fees goes back to the county for some purpose.  It's a transfer back to the county from the revenues collected for boat registrations."

 

Senator Raggio noted there is a transfer back to the Department of Wildlife of $280,000 each year.  He asked, "Is that a cut, or is that the usual amount going back to the program?"

 

Ms. Matteucci replied:

 

      That's the usual net amount they end up retaining after they pay for all of the expenditures they've had in their boating account.  What this does is bring all the registration fees in, subtract the cost of the six positions, then make the appropriate transfers back to the agency.

 

Senator Raggio expressed his concern about the possibility of problems funding the Department of Wildlife.  He asked, "Is this the net they normally realize?"  Ms. Matteucci agreed.  Senator Raggio asked staff to double-check.

 

Senator O'Donnell asked if the needed software for registration of the boats was in place or if there would be an additional alloca-tion of funding required.

 

Mr. Sparks said he was not quite sure of the automation system currently in use by the Department of Wildlife.  "It appears in our budget there is a significant expenditure for Data Processing charges, which I assume are related to that automation program."

 

Senator O'Donnell inquired where in the budget does it show the additional money given to DMV&PS for software and computer expenses for registration of boats.

 

Mr. Sparks referred Senator O'Donnell to page 1327 under the Data Processing category.  There is an Agency Request of $12,700 and the Governor's Recommendation of $86,400.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked, "Do you currently hire any kind of inspectors that go out to look for unregistered vehicles for Nevada, such as the job sites where people are coming in from out of state and not registering their vehicle?"

 

Mr. Sparks replied in the negative.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani continued:

 

      If I look at your Performance Indicators, if you look at the number of active vehicle registrations, you're in the millions.  And if you look at the number of mail-ins processed, that alone says that we need to create an incentive for mail-ins and a disincentive for the actual walk-ins.

 

      I'm also thinking that if we were to put some money into some inspectors to go to your more volatile sites, such as construction, gaming, even schools, and try to issue citations or something.  You might actually be able to collect additional revenue that way.

 

Mr. Weller remarked, "The highway patrol has a program where they are trying to do that, when they have some free time for us."

 

Mr. Marvel commented there are many Oregon, Idaho and Wyoming license plates in areas with mines.

 

Mr. Spitler asked, "There has been some talk that you're thinking of repealing the requirement to license the auto salesmen.  Is that a part of this budget?"

 

Mr. Sparks said:

 

      Yes.  That's included in this budget request.  The budget contemplates the elimination of four positions in the Bureau of Enforcement.  Two positions are investigators, and two positions are staff, or clerical, positions.  That is predicated upon the passage of legislation to eliminate that requirement that vehicle salesmen be licensed by the department.

 

Mr. Spitler said, "I should think, Mr. Chairman, when that does come through, we'll have lots of questions."

 

Mrs. Evans asked, "What is the policy regarding licenses to vehicle dealers?...Is there any limitation on how long you can drive around in a car that says loaner on it?"

 

Mr. Sparks stated there is no specific limitation as to the length of time.  There is a limitation as to the use of those loaner plates.  They can not be used indiscriminately.

 

Mrs. Evans wanted to know how much the automobile dealers pay for the loaner plates.

 

Mr. Sparks said the dealer plate costs $12.00 and assumed the loaner plate would be in the same price range.  "The vehicles are not registered, so there are no registration fees or privilege taxes collected.  There is simply the fee for the plate itself."

 

Mrs. Evans asked, "How do you decide how many a dealer gets?"

 

Mr. Sparks replied:

 

      That's been an issue that we really haven't come to a good resolution at this point.  We would like, by regulation, to address the number of dealer plates that could be issued.  One rule of thumb that we have been going by, we haven't formalized this yet, is the number of licensed salesmen that a dealership has determines the number of dealer plates issued.  The rationale there would be that if they only have 10 salesmen, it would be very difficult for them to be test-driving 11 vehicles at one time.  So they wouldn't need any more than 10 dealer plates.

 

      As far as the loaner plates, I'm not sure what a reasonable standard would be on that.  Those, typically, are used when someone's car is in for service, and the business is providing an alternate vehicle for a brief period of time.

 

Mrs. Evans stated she is convinced there is some serious abuse going on.  "I think those two categories of the dealer and the loaner plates...I would hope that your agency will take a close look at how that is being carried out."

 

Senator Raggio asked Mr. Sparks to furnish a list of the dealer and loaner plates now issued and a statement of his current policy on these plates to the subcommittee.

 

Mr. Sparks said:

 

      I might just put in a plug for a bill that we have in that will address what is called Dealer Special Registrations...Senate Bill 40, that will be heard before taxation next week, proposes to repeal the dealer special registration privilege.

 

SENATE BILL 40:   Repeals provision exempting from vehicle privilege tax certain vehicles registered by dealer.

 

Forfeitures - Registration Division - Page 1334

 

Mr. Sparks explained the budget account was simply an authorization for the division to be able to account for any assets that might be seized in their investigation and enforcement program.

 

Motor Carrier - Page 1336

 

Mr. Sparks referred to page 9 of Exhibit I.

 

Senator Raggio asked Mr. Sparks to explain the impact of the new, International Registration Plan (IRP) and the International Fuel Tax Administration (IFTA) program.

 

Mr. Sparks indicated both of the programs, IRP and IFTA, are national programs and referred to as base state agreements.  The IRP deals with the actual vehicle registration of commercial vehicles.  The IFTA deals with special fuel-tax collection.  Under a base state agreement, the motor carriers based in a particular state will pay all of the fees and taxes due, to every state through which the carrier travels, to their base state.  The base state then apportions those fees to the states through which the carrier travels.  In addition, the base state is responsible for doing the audit of the carriers based in their state.

 

Mr. Sparks noted the base state determines the amount to be apportioned based on the percentage of the carrier's total miles traveled in each of the states.

 

Senator Raggio asked, "Who actually does the apportionment, the base state?"

 

Mr. Sparks replied:

 

      We have a computer system called Vista, which we contract with Lockhead to provide, and the actual programming of all of the tax and fee rates from the various states are actually done by the contractor.  But, yes, we will enter the data into the system for a Nevada-based carrier, and it will calculate the fees that are due in the states through which the carrier travels.

 

Senator Raggio asked, "Does that cause us to get more or less revenue from motor carriers?"

 

Mr. Sparks responded:

 

      In theory, it should not change the revenue collection one way or another.  The carriers, prior to Nevada being involved in the International Registration Plan, for example, that were traveling through Nevada, should have been paying those same amounts of fees directly to us.  The significance of the plan is that we don't have to deal with those foreign-based carriers.  They'll pay that money to their home state, and their home state will remit it to us.

 

      In practice we've seen a decrease in the revenues in the motor carrier bureau, and we're not quite sure what the explanation of that is.  We're trying to analyze that right now.  One possible explanation might be that because Nevada's registration fee is one of the higher registration fees in the country, there may be an incentive for carriers to underreport the amount of miles traveled in Nevada and overreport the miles traveled in the state that has a lower registration fee.

 

Senator Raggio inquired if this process alleviated the necessity for weigh stations, and wondered how they are operated in other states.

 

Mr. Sparks commented:

 

      The idea of the ports of entry, in terms of a registration program, are that the state would have the ability, through a port of entry, to actually identify a particular carrier's vehicle as being in the state.  Those types of contact records that would be accumulated through a port of entry can then be used in the audit program, where we would go back and look at the carrier's mileage that he has declared he has traveled in Nevada.  Look at his records, and if we have a contact of a vehicle through a port of entry that isn't showing up on his records, then obviously we have reason to believe there is some problem with the report.

 

Senator Raggio asked, "Are any of those operating in this state?"

 

Mr. Sparks replied, "We have no ports of entry."

 

Salvage Wreckers/Body Shops - Page 1342

 

Mr. Sparks explained, "The Salvage Pool, Wrecker and Body Shop is a special fund that received revenue from the license fee that is imposed on automobile wreckers, salvage pools and body shops.  Currently that's a $300 fee."

 

Senator Raggio asked, "How is it funded?"

 

Mr. Sparks replied, "Simply through that $300 fee on those businesses."  The initial fee is $300.  The annual renewal fee is $300.

 

Senator Raggio wanted to know the purpose of creating this fund.  "Didn't the people in the industry come in and request this?"

 

Mr. Sparks thought it was perhaps in 1987.  "There was some concern on the part of the industry themselves that there should be some regulation and licensing of these different industry segments to protect the public."

 

Senator Raggio asked, "Wasn't there an advisory board that was created?  Is that functioning?"

 

Mr. Sparks stated he is a member of the advisory board and added:

 

      There were three specific statutory charges that the board was given by the legislature in the enabling legislation, and the board has addressed those three issues.  At this point, it remains to be seen whether the board will continue to look at other issues or not.

 

      As a member of that board, I know that the body shop industry, particularly was interested in seeing that board continue, because they thought it was a leveling influence between them and their dealings with the insurance industry.  It gave them a forum where they could address some of their concerns with the automobile insurance industry.

 

Senator Raggio noted there are only three positions in this budget, and asked, "What do those three people do?"

 

Mr. Sparks replied:

 

      They are investigators.  They will perform background investigations for license applications from body shops, wreckers, and salvage pools.  They will follow up and perform investigations on any consumer complaints.  We do try to audit some of these businesses to make sure they're complying with laws and regulations.

 

      The licensee count at the end of Fiscal 92 was 254 body shops, 143 automobile wreckers, and 6 salvage pools.

 

Senator Raggio inquired if the licensees were fingerprinted.

 

Mr. Sparks responded, "We will be fingerprinting them.  We received the authorization to do that in the last legislative session, and we're ready to start doing that now."

 

Senator Raggio asked, "How does this agency function with respect to stolen vehicles?"

 

Mr. Sparks commented:

 

      I think that was probably one of the rationales behind the establishment of this program.  For two reasons...the linkage of body shops with the use of stolen vehicle parts, by having some type of oversight of body shop activities, that it might be feasible for the state to identify some of those problems.  And also through the regulation and the oversight of the dismantling and wrecking yards, we could identify stolen vehicles.

 

Senator Raggio asked, "How is that working?"

 

Mr. Sparks said, "We do, in fact, identify stolen vehicles from time to time."

 

Senator Raggio stated:

 

      I would suggest that we are not overly impressed with the information we are being provided on the existence of this program.  Perhaps you could furnish us, or have the advisory board furnish us more in the way of justification for keeping this going.  Is it still something the industry feels is necessary?  And is it really providing a service?

 

Senator Callister stated he shares Senator Raggio's concern.

 

Mrs. Williams was concerned about the delay in the fingerprinting program.

 

At Senator Raggio's urging, Mr. Sparks said he would provide written information on the development of the fingerprinting program.

 

Verification of Insurance - Page 1346

 

Mr. Sparks read page 11 of Exhibit I.

 

Senator Raggio asked, "Is it just on cancellation or is it failure to renew, when you receive the notice?"

 

Mr. Sparks responded:

 

      Any termination, the insurer is required to notify the department of that termination.  In many cases, it's simply a matter that the insured has shopped around and found a less expensive premium and changed carriers.  In many cases it's because the insurer was delinquent on a payment, and the insurance company terminated the insurance for that reason.

 

      When we're notified of a termination we send a request to the registered owner to verify who his current insurance company is.  We ask them to provide us the name of the insurer and the policy number.  Tell us on this date who your insurance company...If we receive no response we send a second letter, which is a certified letter, and if we receive no response to that, after 30 days we suspend the registration.

 

Mr. Dini said, "Under the Performance Indicators, I don't see any verified percentage of people...what's the downside on this, how many people are not covered with insurance?"

 

Mr. Sparks replied:

 

      In the spring of 1991, we contracted with a consultant to perform a statewide study to determine the rate of uninsured motorists.  That study looked at a sampling of about 1,500 registered Nevada motor vehicle owners, and they determined an uninsured rate of just a little bit under 6 percent, I believe.

 

      I need to caution you in interpreting that figure, because of the limitation on the sampling, we were only able to look at vehicles that were currently registered in Nevada.  If someone were living in the state, but running around with a California license plate, and he was uninsured, we weren't able to identify and sample that population.  Of the currently registered vehicles in Nevada, it was less than a 6 percent uninsured rate, which compared to other states' statistics is reasonably good.

 

Mr. Dini asked, "Is any other state doing better than Nevada on that?"

 

Mr. Sparks did not have comparison figures, but said he would get some statistics and inform the committee.

 

Senator Glomb stated the Performance Indicators did not make sense to her.  "You have projected 150,000 verification notices processed for 1992, yet you only did 68,000 and in 1993 you are back up to 150,000.  What is the realistic number?"

 

Mr. Sparks replied:

 

      The 150,000.  The explanation for the actual number in Fiscal 92 was that 150,000 projection was based on the additional staff that had been authorized in the last legislative session.  Because of the hiring freeze and the delay in bringing those positions on, we didn't have the staff to process the termination notices from the insurance companies.  That staff is now on board, and we think the 150,000 is reasonable.  In fact, we are expecting in the next biennium to increase that.

 

Senator Glomb asked, "This isn't a General Fund budget?"

 

Mr. Sparks responded, "It's a special fund.  It's entirely funded by the fees paid for reinstatements from suspended registrations."

 

Mr. Humke remarked, "It states in your program description that you sample not more than 5 percent of all registered vehicles.  Where does that requirement come from, not more than 5 percent."

 

Mr. Sparks remarked the requirement is statutory.

 

Mr. Price commented:

 

      If you're going to follow up on Speaker Dini's request on looking at how we fare with other states, I would be interested to know...I was under the impression, in fact some states that do not require insurance, number one.  Secondly, most states who do require insurance also regulate the rates, which we do not.  I'd be interested in seeing that.

 

      A number of years ago, I know that one state...had a plan whereby they had an administrative fee or fine, and constitutionally we're limited on our fines, but this money went into a statewide pool.  At the end of each year, they rebated money back to safe drivers, or something of that nature...I would be curious to know if that were still going.

 

Senator O'Donnell asked, "Are all insurance companies complying with the reporting?"

 

Mr. Sparks replied, "We don't believe so."  He added:

 

      We also have a bill draft request that will address the reinstatement fees that are charged in some cases...If the registration is suspended pursuant to this program, and the individual was suspended for not having insurance, but simply because he failed to respond to the request to verify his insurance, our bill draft would reduce that reinstatement fee from the current $100 down to $50.  It won't have an impact on the ability to fund this program, however. 

 

Administration - Administrative Services Division - Page 1350

 

Mr. Weller stated:

 

      Under the proposed reorganization there would be two departments.  One, motor vehicles, and one public safety.  What we're looking at under this area is the motor vehicle administrative services division and the administration of that department, the director's office.

 

Jan Capaldi, Assistant to the Director, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, gave an overview of the Director's Office Budget, as it is in Fiscal Year 1993, and as it will be under the proposed reorganization.

 

      The Director's Office presently has 30 employees in Budget Account 4706, which is highway fund money.  These employees consist of the Director's Office, Legal, Hearings, and Personnel.  The employees we have in this division are located, 19 in Carson City, nine in Las Vegas, and two in Elko.  The primary function of the Director's Office is to oversee the administrative and technical activities of the department.

 

      The director formulates policies and regulations, supervises administrative hearings, legal representation, personal services, research on issues and complaints from the public, internal affairs, and internal audits.  In addition, the director serves on, or has oversight responsibility for the substance abuse commission and program coordinator, the committee on testing for intoxication, the office of narcotics control, and the Governor's drug forum.

 

Senator Raggio requested Ms. Capaldi explain what is contemplated under the reorganization with this office as it now exists, how it would be divided, where the people are going to go, what functions remain, and what functions will be transferred.

 

Ms. Capaldi continued:

 

      There are no new programs or employees requested for this budget, except for one personnel tech [technician] in Fiscal Year 95, which will be in Las Vegas, when the Cimmaron facility opens.  The Maintenance increases are for salaries of deputies attorney general [deputy attorneys general], increased lab costs for the committee on testing for intoxication, and personal computers.

 

      The main goal of this division is to implement reorganization as approved by the legislature.  Under the reorganization, the existing director's office and administrative services division have been divided between the two new departments, and then combined into one new budget account in each department.

 

      The new Budget Account 4714 will be designated director's office and administrative services in the Department of Motor Vehicles.  This budget account will include a net of 39 positions of which 38 are funded.  The positions are from the previous director's officer, administrative services, and two positions from another operating division within the department.

 

William S. Gosnell, Chief, Administrative Services Division, explained part of that configuration was the other part of Administrative Services was moving over to the new 4700.  Of the 30 existing positions, 18 will remain with the DMV function, and 12 will move to the new Public Safety side.

 

Currently Admin Services provides the fiscal and accounting support for the department.  It also provides mail, inventory, warehouse, ordering of forms, and all the support functions that normally make up an Administrative Services Division.

 

Mr. Gosnell noted under the reorganization, most of the work load, regarding revenues was generated on the DMV side, and a good portion of the expenditures, vouchers payable, etcetera, are also on the DMV side.

 

Senator Raggio asked, "Do any of these positions go into the budget on page 1474, which is Budget Account 4700?"

 

Mr. Gosnell replied, "Yes.  Twelve come from the existing 4714 admin services budget, and another 14 come from the old director's budget...that we're not dealing with anymore."

 

Senator Raggio mentioned, "They're being shown as Base budget.  That's only 26 out of 35 in the new Law Enforcement Administration.  Where do the others come from?"

 

Mr. Gosnell answered:

 

      New positions coming into the Public Safety side, the law enforcement side, you have two from military, two from emergency management, and four from the patrol budget that are primarily support functions, like inventory clerks and account techs.

 

Senator Raggio said, "I think we need to understand what you're splitting up into the two new administration budgets."

 

Automation - Page 1357

 

Mr. Gosnell stated:

 

      The Automation Budget represents the data processing staff that has traditionally been in the DMV portion of the department.  Under reorganization these positions are moved over to the new ITS [Information Technology Services] Division, within the Department of Administration, and we retain the funding that would enable us to continue the services, on the basis of being charged for those services.  The whole department is affected by 59 positions that are under that reorganization proposal, 15 of which are telecommunications.  The remainder are these DDP [Department of Data Processing] positions, and within the Automated Services Division, 22 of those positions are affected.

 

Mr. Arberry asked, "Let's revisit the issue that took place September 16, before interim finance, about combining the highway patrol and P.O.S.T. [Peace Officers Standards and Training]."

 

Mr. Weller responded:

 

      There were two issues that surfaced, either during or as a result of that appearance before the IFC [Interim Finance Committee].  One was putting together the Highway Patrol Academy with the P.O.S.T. Academy...The first academy class will graduate this week, Friday.   That was done, again pursuant to the attorney general's opinion that I had the authority to do that.

 

      The second issue dealt with data processing.  What we tried to do there was combine our data processing resources in the department into one unit and have them service the whole department.

 

Mr. Arberry commented:

 

      I understand that the Department of Administration asked you to put this on hold until the outcome of the study of the Governor's Commission on Reorganization.  I guess you just went on and implemented it anyway.

 

Mr. Weller asked, "Which aspect of that, the data processing area, or the highway patrol academy?"

 

Mr. Arberry replied:

 

      Both.  I understand right now, the attorney general's opinion only gave you information saying you were in compliance with the NRS [Nevada Revised Statutes] only if dealing with the combined training of the highway patrol and the P.O.S.T. Academy.  But, I understand there is nothing in the letter from the attorney general's office giving you authorization to combine the information services, computer operation and automation services.  How can you implement this without some guidance from either interim finance or the legislature?

 

Mr. Weller responded:

 

      What we did initially was pool all our data processing resources in the department into one operational entity.  We left the budget authority, we left the administrative authority, hiring, firing, etcetera, with the respective division chiefs.  We did this for operational purposes.  At the time I did it, the language in the communications was nebulous, or somewhat confusing.

 

      Since that September 16 meeting, we have gone back and issued other documents which, again, keeps it operationally one unit, but the budget authority, the administrative authority, etcetera, remains with the respective division chief.  However, the coordinator of that operational entity reports directly to the chief of the highway patrol.  At this juncture, we don't believe we are in conflict with any statute.

 

 

Mr. Arberry remarked:

 

      I know you feel that you believe that way, but our legal staff has given us written information stating we feel that you are in violation on both issues with the highway patrol and also with the data processing.  It might be at some point along the way before we adjourn this session that we need to put you on hold right now, until there is some type of an agreement between our legal and the attorney general's interpretation.

 

      Because for you to implement this, and do such a thing, is sort of setting a bad precedent that all directors of any agency might decide to go ahead and implement something, go ahead and do it, and hope the attorney general will give some sort of consideration saying they agree with them.

 

      If we don't stop you now, it's like we're losing control as a legislature, and we would like to keep all of us under one umbrella, and not separate entities.  So, hopefully meeting with you and Ms. Matteucci we can do something about this.  But, right now I think you should ...graduate your first class...and then we put everything on hold, until we come to some agreement, because our legal [staff] is disagreeing with your legal [staff].

 

Senator Raggio asked about the 22 positions that are recommended to be transferred to the new Information Technology Services Division, and if the Department of Motor Vehicles would have the capacity it needs and the services that are required to realize the full service and assistance they have presently.

 

Ms. Matteucci responded:

 

      Yes, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate your asking the question.  Again, I'm not a computer whiz either, but Karen Kavanau [Director, Department of Data Processing] is and will be here tomorrow and can talk to you about what the benefits are, as well as the services that can be assured to the varying using agencies, next time under the ITS.  What has been done in all of the data processing instances is...these positions were transferred into the central pool, managing-type positions....

 

Mr. Price asked, "During the time that Peat Marwick...were interviewing, and doing whatever they did in putting together their report...did they, at any time, spend any time with you and your department?"

 

Mr. Weller stated he had spent 2 hours on two separate occasions with the Peat Marwick group and some follow-up time with them, as well.  Donna Varin spent some time with them.  "On the data processing issue, time was spent with that group by several people from our department on at least three occasions that I am aware of."

 

Mr. Heller stated he agrees with Mr. Arberry, there is a conflict in the legal opinion coming from our staff, and the legal opinion coming from the attorney general's office.  He did compliment Mr. Weller for some of the changes he had implemented.  Mr. Heller received positive feedback from the administration on Mr. Weller's successful changes.

 

Mr. Arberry said it is not his intention to belittle any director. 

      We want our directors to be creative and ambitious, but when I feel they are overstepping the bounds between houses, between our legal and their legal, then I feel we need to get a grip here, and make sure this doesn't happen again.

 

Records Search - Page 1362

 

Mr. Gosnell stated:

 

      Records Search is the unit that responds to the insurance industry and other private citizens regarding information on their driver's and registration records.  The program is self-funded.  We have an administrative fee of $5...The money in excess of the budget reverts to the Highway Fund and becomes part of the revenue calculation for the 22 percent cap.  The budget itself for the upcoming biennium is a current level budget and is suggested for demographic increases in terms of 3 percent.  Other than that, it's just the continuation of an existing program.

 

Senator Raggio inquired as to where the funding comes from for this program.

 

Mr. Gosnell replied:

 

      The insurance industry or other nonpublic users that have legal access to the data.  For instance, an insurance company needs some information on a driver that wants to insure with that company, they will ask for that information, and we provide the records that will enable them to make a decision whether the individual should be insured or not.  They'll pay $5 per transaction.  Public safety sector, public agencies that have a legitimate access to the data will not pay the $5 fee...the effect of that is about a million transactions that we respond to.  If an individual goes in and asks for his own records, we don't charge him anything.  He's entitled to that.

 

Senator Raggio asked, "Can anyone request this information?"

 

Mr. Gosnell replied, "No, sir.  It's got to be a legitimate business reason...We have some controls on it as to what is released and what isn't."  Mr. Gosnell mentioned last month's statistics showed 68,000 transactions, of which 8,800 were non-fee based.

 

Senator Raggio commented:

 

      One of the concerns we shared in previous sessions were complaints from the public that these lists were being made available, and people didn't want to be on these lists.  We imposed some limitations.  What limitations are there, if any?

 

Mr. Gosnell stated he tried to get a BDR through to limit the access to the information.

 

      The bill that came out of the LCB [Legislative Counsel Bureau] didn't suit our needs, so we have withdrawn it at

      this point and figured it would be picked up by the committee.

 

      My concern is this.  You as a driver, or citizen, come in and give us certain information, a lot of personal information, and with few exceptions somebody can come in and get that information on you.  I think you give that to us in confidence, and there's some duty on our part to keep that in confidence.  For law enforcement agencies, other government agencies, etcetera, there's a need for it.  Insurance companies.  But, beyond that I have some question.

 

Mrs. Williams remarked, "Did I hear you correctly?  Did you say you only give it out for legitimate business reasons?  And, if so, do you have criteria established?  What kind of information do you give?"

 

Mr. Gosnell said the answer is not a blanket carte blanche response.  "Insurance companies have legitimate business reasons.  And, that's what I was discussing."

 

Mrs. Williams asked, "For personal information?"

 

Mr. Gosnell replied:

 

      No, only for the information dealing with their record, as far as their registration or driver's license records.  We have established criteria, procedures, and policies within the department which limits who can have access to it, and what is releasable.

 

Senator Raggio asked, "Don't you provide mailing lists?"

 

Mr. Weller commented, "We will get requests, for instance, from an insurance company that's trying to sell life insurance to everybody over 65."

 

Mr. Price said, "This subject matter has been controversial, almost as long as you and I have been here, and I do get a lot of complaints about those mailing lists going out.  But they generate dollars."

 

Senator Raggio thought the mailing lists had been limited.

 

Traffic Safety - Page 1366

 

Marlen Schultz, Highway Safety Coordinator, Office of Traffic Safety, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, read from written testimony (Exhibit J).  She added:

 

      Our federal monies are separated into the 402 allocation, where based upon population and vehicle miles traveled, we believe we'll receive about $650,000.  We also have some carry-over funding, which means that projects not able to start on October 1....Those monies will get rolled over into the following year's highway safety plan activities.

 

Senator Raggio asked, "Do you have a list of the types of grants, sub-grants, that you have made to the cities, counties, and state agencies?"

 

Ms. Schultz said she would supply a list of all the grants, and it is on file at all the public libraries in the highway safety plan.  She continued her testimony:

 

      As I mentioned, the seven priority areas are the areas we look at to fund.  Such as the training officer position that we are funding with P.O.S.T.  We are funding a social worker position with the state Welfare Division.  They will be implementing a pilot project in the Las Vegas area, dealing with low-income families to teach those families how to correctly use child safety restraints, to give those families those seats and show they can be correctly used.

 

      A lot of statistical information will be collected for us from that source, and based upon that we will direct further activities.  We'll also be performing a baseline survey in order to collect child safety restraint information.  Our last survey was performed in 1988, showing only 66 percent of infants in child restraints, and only 33 percent of toddlers in child safety restraints.  We believe this is an area that needs to be targeted, especially with the increasing population we are exhibiting in the Las Vegas area.

 

Senator Raggio asked, "How did you determine the allocation to be given with the enhanced funding to the cities?  Is that the same proportion you are presently allocating funds or aid?"

 

Ms. Schultz stated:

 

      We are limited by some federal strings to those monies.  For example, for the 410 money, which is alcohol incentive money and goes to supplement our normal 402 functions in that area.  We're to look at enhancing law enforcement's ability to apprehend the DUI [Driving Under the Influence] suspect by giving them monies to purchase video equipment to be used in car, or on the scene of sobriety checkpoints.

 

Senator Raggio asked, "Are there some specific mandates within those federal grants as to whom they go and for what purpose."

 

Ms. Schultz replied, "Not to whom they go, but for what purpose they go.  We still rely upon the proposal submission process."

 

Senator Raggio asked, "When can you furnish this list, so we can see specifically what's being done with this money?"

 

Ms. Schultz assured Senator Raggio she would supply the list tomorrow.

 

Senator Glomb inquired, "What is the discrepancy between the Agency Request and the Governor Recommends?"

 

Ms. Schultz replied:

 

      The budget office chose to limit our authority to receive money into the state.  However, it is my understanding that if additional monies become available, we would be able to do a work program and receive additional authority to bring those monies in.

 

Senator Glomb said, "But you contemplate that you could bring in over a million dollars in federal funds as a grant."  Ms. Schultz agreed.

 

Ms. Matteucci remarked:

 

      Senator Glomb, I'm being told by the analyst that there was additional information received on the '93 grant.  It was received after the agency submitted their budget request, and we adjusted it accordingly in accordance with the agency.

 

Senator Glomb stated, "I'm concerned about your compliance with child safety-belt...is there a way for you to channel this money with specific instructions that it be used to educate for child safety?"

 

Ms. Schultz replied:

 

      Education is one of the major factors in our grant awards.  As a matter of fact, 153 incentive monies, which are for helmet and safety restraint use, we have just submitted our application for second-year funding, and we will be...with approval...dedicating all of that funding towards law enforcement efforts in the safety restraint area.  And it will be awarded based upon population in the various communities to raise the seat-belt level to 70 percent, so we don't risk losing any incentive monies.  And to raise the correct usage of safety restraint use.

 

Senator Glomb said she is aware there are many families who cannot afford to buy safety seats for their children.

 

Ms. Schultz informed Senator Glomb the program will actually purchase the seats for low-income families.

 

Senator Raggio asked Ms. Schultz for the list of grants, the name, the purpose and the amount.

 

Mr. Heller asked:

 

      Ms. Schultz, are you going to address this committee, not only on this particular budget but also Highway Safety Plan & Administration, Bicycle Safety Program, and Motorcycle Safety Program?  Ms. Schultz replied she would be addressing the committee on these subjects.

 

      Safety is something that is very measurable, and I don't see any Performance Indicators measuring the safety and the extent of success you are having with this program.

 

Ms. Schultz responded, "You are absolutely right.  I was unable to change the Performance Indicators.  We were mandated to use the ones selected in prior years.  If it were up to me I would change those Performance Indicators."

 

Mr. Heller requested the Performance Indicators be prepared and submitted to him for discussion in DOT/DMV [Department of Transportation/Department of Motor Vehicles] subcommittee.

 

Highway Safety Plan & Administration - Page 1368

 

Ms. Schultz stated she has seven employees under this budget:  Two highway safety representatives now classified as grants project analysts II, a senior accountant, an account clerk, a management assistant, and a fatal accident reporting statistician.

 

Senator Raggio asked if the reorganization affects any of these budgets, and if there were any reorganization savings.  Ms. Schultz said there were none.

 

Mr. Weller remarked:

 

      With respect to reorganization, it's proposed that this office, the Office of Traffic Safety, be reassigned to the new Department of Motor Vehicles.  In fact that was one of the suggestions I discussed with the Peat Marwick group.  Since that time, we've received a letter from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regional office in California, and their recommendation is that this office stay with the public safety department.

 

Mr. Weller submitted a copy of a letter from National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA], dated February 1, 1993 (Exhibit K).

 

Ms. Matteucci commented, "The department hasn't shared that letter with us, so we'll have to evaluate whether it's a suggestion or a requirement...We'll be happy to take a look at it and discuss it with the director."

 

Senator Raggio remarked, "So we would be looking at the entire Office of Traffic Safety perhaps being under the new proposed Department of Public Safety?"

 

Ms. Schultz presented her concerns:

 

      Presently the state contributes approximately 7.7 percent from the highway fund towards the operations in our office.  The other monies that are required by NHTSA are what we call a soft match.  We're required to match about 25 percent of our operating costs.  That 25 percent is a soft match that is shown out of the Highway Patrol, because the Highway Patrol is engaged in traffic safety functions and are very measurable functions.  We can measure the citations issued on child safety seats.  We can measure the citations on speed enforcement.  Those are directly contributory to the traffic safety plan, and to our mission.

 

      It's my concern that if my office were to be moved over just into the DMV sector...there would not be a comparable soft match available, and the state may have to, in fact, come up with some money.

 

Mr. Gosnell pointed out the $40,000 is the required 7.7 percent hard match the state comes up with.  The soft match is in the Highway Patrol's budget.

 

Senator Raggio asked, "What difference does it make where this administrative office is?"

 

Mr. Gosnell replied, "The first I've heard of whether or not this should be a cause of the soft-match requirement was this morning, when I talked to Marlen [Schultz] when we came in.  We need to take a look at that and see what the legal linkage is."

 

Senator Raggio requested Mr. Gosnell look into the situation today.

 

Bicycle Safety Program - Page 1373

 

Ms. Schultz stated the one position in this budget was filled on December 21, 1992.  The program is underway to do a comprehensive, pedestrian bicycle program.  Refer to Exhibit J.  She added:

 

      We were able to hire that position utilizing a 35 percent share of $.50 fee imposed on driver's licenses.  Initial objectives in that program are to include developing a bicycle education program for implementation into the elementary school system, which I believe was a legislative priority addressed by several resolutions adopted during the '91 session.  Our staff is also working very closely with the NDOT [Nevada Department of Transportation] position that was the 65 percent of that fee.  The Bicycle Advisory Board is trying to coordinate their efforts and integrate safer facilities into the project.

 

Senator Callister wanted to know what headway has been made in comprehensive planning involving a statewide system, especially in municipal areas, for increased utilization of bicycles for intra-community transportation, and also on the recreational aspect, what has been done in terms of developing recreational trails?

 

Ms. Schultz informed Senator Callister the Facilities Planner position was filled in March of 1992.  A member of Ms. Schultz's staff is in Las Vegas this weekend, has taken her bike with her, and is riding the streets to determine some of the safety hazards.  She mentioned the most dangerous streets for bicyclists are Charleston, Flamingo and Sahara.

 

Motorcycle Safety Program - Page 1378

 

Ms. Schultz stated this budget is funded from a $6 fee imposed upon the registration of motorcycles, yielding $104,000 the first year.  Refer to Exhibit J. 

 

Senator Raggio asked, "How will you disseminate the information you are developing in this program?"

 

Ms. Schultz replied:

 

      We will be offering incentive programs throughout the state.  Literature will be developed.  Billboards will be developed.  We will have a complete public information campaign developed along these lines.  It's been researched very accurately that most rider training is by word of mouth.

 

Senator Coffin wanted to know if any legislation is pending to bring mopeds into the registration system and regulate them as well as motorcycles.  Ms. Schultz knew of nothing on the books.

 

Mr. Weller commented, "I know the sheriffs and chiefs were talking about these 4-wheel all-terrain vehicles you see running around in the desert.  At one time there was some discussion about mopeds, but as to where that is, I don't know."

 

Mr. Perkins referred back to the Executive Budget - page 1342, Salvage Wreckers/Body Shops, Performance Indicators and thought it might be helpful to have the number of recovered stolen vehicles, and the number of investigations commenced and brought to successful conclusion.

 

Mr. Weller said he would accommodate Mr. Perkins' request.

 

Senator Raggio recessed the committee until 1:00 p.m.

 

The committee reconvened at 1:06 p.m.

 

Highway Patrol - Page 1383

 

Colonel William J. Yukish, Chief, Highway Patrol Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, read from written testimony (Exhibit L).

 

Senator Jacobsen asked where the 10 new positions will be based.

 

Colonel Yukish said the new positions, six the first year and four the second year, will be based as follows:  one lieutenant the first year will be in Las Vegas, and one lieutenant the second year is planned for Ely, because there is no command staff located there, two sergeants will go to Las Vegas, and one to the northern area of the state.  He added one supervisor would probably go to an area of new growth.  In addition, the communications position would either be Las Vegas or Reno, and the equipment mechanics would be one Las Vegas and one Reno.

 

Senator Jacobsen asked if there was a possibity that more troopers would be placed in the rural areas.

 

Colonel Yukish responded Budget Account 4712 has additional troopers who will be going into the rural areas.

 

Mr. Marvel asked, "Of these 42 vacancies you have, are they frozen or can you recruit?"

 

Colonel Yukish replied:

 

      No, sir.  They are, at this point in time, in the process of being in the budget office, either for approval, and some of them we have approval to hire.  In our troop positions, I believe we have about eight of them approved currently, and all we're waiting for is the academy to start, and we are in the process of hiring at this time.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if overtime is an actual budget item within the budget, and if so, where would it be?

 

Colonel Yukish noted overtime is recommended at $668,000 in this budget.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani inquired, "Will the exempt-merit class have any impact or effect on that?"

 

Colonel Yukish answered:

 

      In this particular budget, yes, the exempt-merit class would have an effect on it, because all of our supervisory positions are in [Budget Account] 4713 [Highway Patrol].  In our other budget accounts, all the troopers that are there have always received time and half.

 

      We've had a policy on the highway patrol for a long period of time, because we're a 24-hour-a-day, 365-day-a-year organization, and we call our people up for emergencies, riot control, and things like that on an ongoing basis...We normally go to a 12-hour day with our command staff, and we have paid our command staff either straight time or compensatory time for as long as I can remember.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if PERS (Public Employees' Retirement System) is paid on the people who get overtime.  Colonel Yukish said that it is.

 

Mrs. Evans pointed out there are some staggering sums in Highway Patrol for what is owed for overtime.

 

Colonel Yukish responded the amount personnel was putting together is the amount they are paying retroactively under a lawsuit.  "The actual ongoing, we don't perceive as being that big of an impact on us."  Colonel Yukish stated the holidays are the times of most impact in getting people safely from one destination to another, and everybody's days off are canceled.

 

Mrs. Williams stated, "I notice that you are interfacing with other states now with a criminal history repository.  How long has that been possible?"

 

Colonel Yukish responded:

 

      As you well know, when we came to this body and we implemented the criminal history repository, part of that was the AFIS [Automated Fingerprint Information System]. We have connection with them through the state message switcher at all times, and it is a sharing of the criminal history records.

 

      I think we have about eight or nine states now connected to it.  We have been told there are another three states that want to connect to it in the next year-and-a-half to 2 years.

 

Mrs. Williams asked, "Are you able to access the FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation] now?"  Colonel Yukish said he was.  Mrs. Williams also wanted to know how he was doing on his affirmative action recruiting.

 

Colonel Yukish stated:

 

      I think we're doing quite well with it...Currently the highway patrol is comprised of 35 percent minorities, approximately 16 percent when you look at the sworn ranks, the commissioned [officers], and that was the area we really had problems in before, also 67 percent of the civilians are a minority.  We have 4 percent black males at this time that are sworn [officers].  We have 5 percent Hispanic males that are sworn.  We have 2 percent Asian males, 1 percent Indian male, 6 percent white female that are commissioned, .4 black female, and .8 Hispanic female in our overall commission.

 

Senator Raggio asked Colonel Yukish to comment on the combining of the academies.

 

Colonel Yukish replied:

 

      Mr. Chairman, I've been a state employee for 18 years.  I believe I'm a very capable law enforcement administrator, and I do the job that I'm told to do.  The decision to combine the academies was made by my new boss, the director.  We're making it work, and we're evaluating it to see what effect it will have.

 

Colonel Yukish noted the costs for the academy are in the budget under training.  The Governor Recommended $99,000 for the first year of the biennium, and $96,000 for the second year of the biennium.

 

Mr. Arberry had a concern about trucks carrying dirt and rocks uncovered, allowing them to fall onto the road.  There is a law against not covering dirt and rocks.  He wanted to know how the law can be enforced.

 

Colonel Yukish advised Mr. Arberry the highway patrol should be notified when there is a problem.

 

Mr. Arberry stated he would like to ban such trucks from the freeways from 6:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., because they are creating havoc on the roads.

 

Senator Raggio asked if, according to the Performance Indicators, the expected number of citations is 161,000 to 173,000.  Colonel Yukish confirmed those figures.  Senator Raggio asked, "What's the increase or decrease in DUI citations?"

 

Colonel Yukish stated the highway patrol has an increase in the number of DUI arrests.  Last year there were approximately 2,800 DUI arrests, and currently the number is running about 3,600, which is a 10 percent to 15 percent increase.

 

Mrs. Williams asked if the increase in DUIs is attributed to better identification of DUIs or more drunks on the road.

 

Colonel Yukish stated it was a combination of both.

 

Highway Patrol Special - Page 1390

 

Colonel Yukish read from Exhibit L.  A brief discussion ensued.

 

Hazardous Materials - Page 1396

 

Colonel Yukish read from Exhibit L.  Discussion ensued.

 

Senator Raggio requested performance indicators be provided particularly referencing the Hazardous Materials violations.

 

Colonel Yukish informed Senator Raggio the requested information will be provided.

 

Senator Coffin asked that the types of violations and the severity of them be incorporated in the performance indicators Senator Raggio had requested.

 

Mrs. Williams was concerned about unmarked trucks entering the State of Nevada carrying dangerous materials and wondered if Colonel Yukish's officers could recognize the various hazardous materials upon inspection.

 

Colonel Yukish explained if a toxic, or hazardous material spill or leak was identified, the perimeter would be sealed off, and the proper authority would be notified to come and put the material in the proper containers and transport it to an appropriate dump site. Then the driver would be cited.

 

Mrs. Williams requested information as to what kind of sanctions are placed against the driver, the company, whether they are financial...what are the penalties and fines?  Colonel Yukish agreed to provide the data.

 

Senator Raggio pointed out the fact trucks cannot be stopped unless there is an obvious leak, or material is being carried improperly.  Colonel Yukish agreed.

 

Senator Raggio stated, "Staff has indicated we have a funding problem with the way the funds are now going into the General Fund, and I'm going to ask that staff request a bill draft to correct that."

 

Criminal History Repository - Page 1401

 

Colonel Yukish read from Exhibit L.  Discussion ensued.

 

Ms. Tiffany requested a budgetary estimate for incident reporting.

 

Colonel Yukish assured Ms. Tiffany he would supply a written response.

 

Mr. Marvel asked, "Colonel, how are you funding this budget?  Are you using any administrative assessment fees at all?"

 

Colonel Yukish replied, "Yes, sir.  I believe the [Budget Account] 4709 is funded completely...based upon administrative assessment."

 

Senator Raggio commented it is very important to get dispositions on cases.  He added:

 

      I'd like to have you come back with some idea as to how you can perfect this system to also show the dispositions of cases.  That's true with the FBI and everybody else.  They seem to have a great interest in reflecting when somebody has been arrested, but nobody cares about the disposition.  And, that to me is of really little consequence without that.  I'd like to see Nevada take the lead on that.

 

Colonel Yukish commented, "I believe that's the way we are working, and we'll get a response back to you."

 

Ms. Giunchigliani remarked:

 

      If you could provide, for the subcommittee...if legisla-tion is needed, so that the school district and the state department are utilizing your data rather than making people take two more sets, or be charged for another two sets of fingerprints.

 

Mrs. Chowning questioned the possibility of a typographical error on the Performance Indicators, number 2, number of inquiries processed 29,000 to 137,000.

 

Colonel Yukish responded:

 

      I would say your figures are wrong.  I show the number of inquiries on Performance Indicators, as we projected for Fiscal 91-92, 101,328.  We actually processed 137,231 which is a plus 35 percent...We also projected for fiscal year now that we're into 101,328.  If our projections are correct...we are going to be above the 137,000.

 

Mrs. Chowning commented:

 

      So, probably the projected was 129,000.  Then again, in previous budgets also in the Highway Patrol Division, I'm wondering why our actual figure is so much larger than projected.  If we're successful, why are we projecting downward?  Is that because of cutback in positions?

 

Colonel Yukish replied, "I would believe so."

 

Crimes Against Children - Page 1405

 

Colonel Yukish read from Exhibit L.

 

Senator Raggio asked, "Is this fingerprinting mandatory?  Are the employers required to submit these fingerprints?"

 

Colonel Yukish replied:

 

      Teachers are.  Agencies that regulate and deal with children are mandated to do it.  Other employers are not mandated to do it, but what we're seeing is an increase in employers that want to run their people, because of the sensitivity of the jobs they have, such as gaming, that want to run their people through the fingerprint checks, and assure that their people don't have criminal records.

 

Senator Raggio asked, "What is the usual time frame in receiving the clearance, or not, after the fingerprint card has been submitted?"

 

Colonel Yukish responded:

 

      Once the fingerprint card has been received by the repository, we have less than a 5-day actual turnaround time and that card has gone back out and checked against our repository.  It's my understanding, from talking to our staff, that we're still talking from 35- to 60-day turnaround time with the FBI.

 

Mr. Weller commented the next two budgets will be handled by people who are currently outside the department, the fire marshal's office and the Capitol Police.  He added:

 

      Under the proposed reorganization the military depart-ment, the Division of Emergency Management, parole and probation, including the parole board budgets will all be presented to you separately, independent of today's presentation.

 

Fire Marshal - Page 1409

 

Ray E. Blehm, Jr., State Fire Marshal, State Fire Marshal Division, Department of Commerce, spoke on one of two budget accounts he deals with, budget account 3816, which deals with the State Fire Marshal's operational side:

 

      This particular budget receives about a third of its funding from the General Fund.  The other two-thirds are generated from fee-based programs for plans review and permitting systems that we operate.  It has 13 FTEs [Full Time Equivalency] budgeted for the coming biennium, eight of which are currently classified as law enforcement officers.

 

      We do a variety of things in this budget.  We develop and adopt the state fire code, and other various admin-istrative rules that support the licensing activities....

 

      We license fire protection sales and service companies, and the blasters industry is licensed by us, with some exceptions.  We conduct fire safety plans, reviews for state buildings, and public occupancies in the 14 rural

 

      counties.  We conduct fire investigations, be they of a suspicious or non-suspicious nature, and do follow-up investigations, of course, if they are arson.

 

      We conduct vendor investigations for the people that service the fire protection equipment industry, in order to try and keep that industry operating safely and above board.  We perform fire investigations of state buildings in all the counties and of public buildings in the rural counties.  We perform a variety of liaison activities from the State Emergency Response Commission, local law and fire agencies, and quite a few of the other local agencies.

 

      We have members on the Petroleum Tank Insurance Board, and we have quite a bit of direct contact with various state agencies, including Environmental Protection, Division for Enforcement Industrial Safety and Health, Division of Emergency Management, which certifies some of our courses for law enforcement training, and various other state agencies, some of which we perform inspections for, such as when you have a day-care center out there, and there is a license involved we perform fire safety inspections as part of that licensing procedure.

 

      That's a general overview of what we do, and I would be happy to try and answer questions.

 

Senator Raggio commented, "You are now at 13 positions, so you lost three in the budget revision.  Will you be able to adequately perform your duties with the existing staff?"

 

Mr. Blehm replied:

 

      Our agency has traditionally been tasked with more duties than what there has ever been bodies to completely absorb.  So, we have routinely, over the span of our existence, prioritized our activities to try and address those things which appear to be the most pressing at the time, what are the highest safety considerations, what may have the most public impact.  From that standpoint we are doing our job with the current level of employees that we have.

 

      One of the kinds of impacts we get, we lost two clerical positions, so now most of us do our own typing, which tends to be a somewhat inefficient way to go about doing these things.  We do our own filing.  We do all the things you would normally relate to clerical types of duties...The other position we lost was a plans review position.  The plans review revenue was high enough at the time when we lost it to maybe have supported it.  But, currently we'd probably have to be cutting it, because plans review levels are down.

 

Senator Raggio asked, "Where do you get the plans from?  The rural counties, or all over?"

 

Mr. Blehm replied:

 

      We get a combination of things.  All state buildings that are built are reviewed for finalized safety.  School buildings in some counties that are built with state funds, that are not in the real county, such as Clark County, we're doing fire-safety plans review.  For public buildings in the 14 rural counties, that would be a casino, a fire station, a multiple-family housing unit, we review for fire safety considerations, exiting and that sort of thing.

 

Mr. Humke stated, "We had testimony from the [State] Public Works Board that there is going to be a requirement, or perhaps a requirement exists that state buildings of 5,000 square feet, or more, will have to be sprinklered.  Is that correct?"

 

Mr. Blehm answered:

 

      Yes.  The previous state fire marshal adopted a regula-tion that required all state buildings over 5,000 square feet, without any considerations, to be sprinklered by 1997.  I have evaluated that particular administrative rule, and find it to be several things.  One, it's cost prohibitive.  Two, I find it to be inefficient inasmuch as it could require vacant storage space in a non-essential building with no people inside it to be sprinklered.  I have, to everybody that's asked, stated that particular revision will be amended in the coming administrative rule adoption round.

 

      There are at least two particular things I plan to do.  One is to do away with that deadline date.  And the other is to evaluate it on the basis of particular occupancies.  I don't think you can make a rule like this and just make it as broad brushed as the current rule is, and do it sensibly.

 

      What we've done, in cooperation with the [State] Public Works Board, is do an evaluation process on the facilities. We've taken a look at places where people are incarcerated, or incapacitated, or have some other kind of high risk factor involved and said we can come up with a priority of what buildings really deserve to have retrofit, and there are some other ones, maybe not as critical, that we can schedule down the road.  There are some of these that probably make sense to never do.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani mentioned there had been a recommendation from the previous state fire marshal, per Ms. Giunchigliani's request, after there had been a fire in one of the school portables.  Clark County seems to continue to build its portables with two sets of stairs, rather than a set of stairs and a ramp, prohibiting handicap accessibility, and is still a fire hazard.  She added:

 

      It is my understanding they have not amended any of those recommendations.  Perhaps you can take a look at that.

 

      Second thing, is could you just provide to the committee, if your deputy is deleted, what duties do they do, and how would you compensate, or offset that.  And you can provide it in writing.

 

Mrs. Williams said she has some concerns over the Blasco building on the Southern Nevada Mental Health Campus, which was a privately-funded facility but is located on state property, dealing with people who are in custody of the state.  She asked Mr. Blehm to research what the previous state fire marshal had recommended and initiated at this facility after inspection.

 

 

Senator Jacobsen asked if buildings under construction are inspected routinely for fire hazards, such as excessive trash accumulating. 

 

Mr. Blehm said buildings are inspected on a regular scheduled basis.

 

Senator Raggio asked, "What's the significance of the indicator that says the investigation for the loss-per-fire investigator, $25,000?  What does that mean?"

 

Mr. Blehm replied:

 

      It would be the average loss per fire investigated.  Generally speaking, we get reports from all kinds of fires.  We try to do a level of pre-screening.  Oftentimes we're dealing with an inexperienced agency that's not sure whether they really want us out or not, but they want to talk to somebody.  If it's a real low dollar loss, and it's a clearly cut accidental fire and the other factors are right, oftentimes we're going to basically explain to them how to fill out the report and not send somebody halfway across the state to do that.

 

Eugene Williams, Deputy State Fire Marshal, State Fire Marshal Division, Department of Commerce, commented:

 

      Approximately half of the fires we are called to investigate are arson.  We are called by local jurisdictions to investigate for fire deaths, wherever a fatality happens, for suspicious fires, for those they cannot determine a cause for, and for those they note to be arson.

 

Capitol Police - Page 1413

 

Michael Meizel, Administrator, Buildings and Grounds Division, Department of General Services, stated:

 

      The Capitol Police provide security services now in Carson City in the Stewart Complex.  The Base budget's comprised of 13 officers, two of those 13 are sergeants and one is the chief.  We provide 24-hour security at the Capitol Building, and also throughout the complex.  We also have officers on duty most of the time at the Supreme Court throughout the day and weekend.

 

      The Base budget, as it was, on your Enhancement page, we're requesting additional officers for the new state office building in Las Vegas that is to be built in January of 1995.  This would give us six officers, including a sergeant, who would be the chief of those officers.  That building is slated to be over 200,000 square feet and would be the largest state building we have in Las Vegas, and it's in a particular part of town that has a lot of people in it.  We've recommended a security system pretty much identical to what you see in the Supreme Court, so that's the Enhancement to that budget, those six officers.

 

The revenue for this budget is funded from rents out of the state-owned building rents, Buildings and Grounds budget.

 

Senator Raggio asked, "Are there any vacancies now?"  Mr. Meizel said there were none.

 

Mr. Heller commented, "I noticed there are no Performance Indicators on this particular budget.  Could those be developed and submitted to the subcommittee when this is heard?"

 

Mr. Meizel replied, "Yes.  The reason they [Performance Indicators] probably weren't [included], they're probably within the Buildings and Grounds.  They are the same Performance Indicators, for instance the amount of buildings we have, and things of that nature."

 

Senator Jacobsen, referring to the Stewart Complex, asked, "Do you think it would be to our advantage to deputize one of our maintenance people.  I realize we have the one security person that lives there."

 

Mr. Meizel replied, "There's better than 120 acres, some occupied, mostly unoccupied buildings.  That would be an advantage.  The vandalism is almost more than one individual can keep up with."

 

Hazardous Material Training Center - Page 1440

 

Mr. Blehm stated:

 

      This year's coming budget, we'll have 13 full-time employees, funded with some of the other considerations in it.  This budget generally comes roughly one-third from a hazardous materials permitting system the State Fire Marshal runs.  The other two-thirds comes from the Beatty hazardous waste fees that are levied by statute for support of the program.

 

      It has a couple of major thrusts.  Oftentimes we suffer from the fact it is called the Hazardous Material Training Center, when in fact this center actually deals with fire service training and hazardous material responder training.

 

      There are roughly 21 standard courses, plus a lot of specialized courses that we bring into the field and also here in Carson City.  We carry on a reasonably active liaison activity with the fire service and working on existing programs for certification and certifying new programs for certification.  An example of a couple we are working on currently are fire prevention officer certification, and fire officer certification for both paid and volunteer departments.

 

      We certify not only our own training, but we will review training by other agencies.

 

Mr. Perkins said, "You said that part of your funding comes from the Beatty dump site fees.  Do we have any idea where we're going to get those monies after that site is no longer bringing those fees in."

 

Mr. Blehm stated there is no projected replacement mechanism currently in place.  "We do recognize it as a problem and have asked that it be addressed."

 

Discussion continued on page 1440.

 

Marvin Carr, Director, Emergency Management Safety, Lyon County, stated:

 

      I can tell you quite frankly that had it not been for the efforts of the State Emergency Response Commission and the pass-through money that comes through the contingency fund down to the rural people, without that support and without that funding we would not have progress near what we have.

 

      The State Emergency Response Commission is a very good marriage between state and local government, between industry, with all aspects in training with the state fire marshal's office.  The State Emergency Response Commission is working very well and very efficiently.

 

      Without getting into further budget things, I guess it would be appropriate at this time to tell you that this is the third budget [Emergency Response Commission], as far as the reorganization, that has been zeroed out entirely.  We're very concerned about that, obviously.

 

      We are in a position to hopefully ask this committee to restore that budget.

 

Ms. Matteucci remarked:

 

      The [State] Emergency Response Commission was Budget 4729, as shown on page 1693 of your budget book, in one of the eliminated budgets.  What's happened is that SERC [State Emergency Response Commission] and [Division of] Emergency Management have been combined.  SERC has not been eliminated.  You'll probably want to hold off really reviewing that until you talk about [Division of] Emergency Management, but those two budgets are put together.

 

Senator Raggio asked, "Can you respond to his concern?  Is it eliminated or not?"

 

Ms. Matteucci responded, "No, it has not.  It is combined with [Division of] Emergency Management."

 

Senator Raggio asked, "Is it diminished?"

 

Ms. Matteucci replied:

 

      No.  That's going to be a matter of his opinion and my opinion.  But, essentially we've moved the administration of the SERC program over into [Division of] Emergency Management.  We've combined the two programs.  The SERC board stays, and the distribution of the funds for the locals still stay.

 

Senator Raggio asked Mr. Carr, "Does that alleviate your concern?"

 

Mr. Carr replied, "No, sir.  It really doesn't.  And I'm sure that Ms. Matteucci is right, and it probably should more appropriately be addressed when the Division of Emergency Management budget is heard."

 

Senator Raggio asked the staff to remind the committee at the time [Division of] Emergency Management Budget is heard.

 

Mr. Blehm referred to the elimination of the funding from the Beatty site, stating there previously were two sources of funding. One was from the low-level radioactive portion of the Beatty site, which was phased out and is not in the current budget.

The hazardous material portion (chemicals, not radioactive) is projected for a few more years.

 

Senator Raggio asked, "Was the $100,000 in General Fund restored?"

 

Mr. Blehm stated:

 

      That was start-up funds for the original...the budget actually provided that it be paid back, and it was paid back.  Since there are adequate funds in the reserve portion of this budget now, there is no need for any General Fund appropriation any longer.

 

Senator Raggio commented, "So, we're carrying about $450,000 in the reserve?"

 

Mr. Blehm said, "Right.  A good portion of that is due to the hiring freeze and some of those other conditions in place during the current biennium."

 

Investigations - Page 1416

 

John Drew, Deputy Chief, Investigation Division, distributed a Division of Investigation's Annual Report (Exhibit M. Original is on file in the Research Library.), a fact sheet (Exhibit N), which gives an idea of the types and amounts of controlled substances seized in the State of Nevada, as well as the arrests and forfeitures.  Also provided were four pages of maps of the State of Nevada (Exhibit O), breaking down the types of task forces the division is involved in, and automated programs.  He stated, "The budget we have submitted is primarily in support of our two primary goals...the task forces and the two automated programs [Exhibit O]."  Mr. Drew continued his review of Exhibits M, N, and O.  Discussion ensued.

 

Senator Raggio asked if Mr. Drew would be able to carry out his program, as outlined, with the reduction in funds.

 

Mr. Drew stated he would, if the U.S. Congress continues funding these task forces at the rate they are.

 

Narcotics Control - Page 1421

 

Mr. Drew mentioned this budget is federally funded, while the previous budget is General Fund.

 

Mr. Marvel asked if there would be an impact on the rural groups with the cutback in the contract lab monies.

 

Mr. Drew said there would be an impact, because in the past the Investigation Division was able to pick up the costs.  Washoe County sent letters to all the agencies utilizing their facilities and has given them a cost breakdown of what it is going to cost them to continue using the Washoe County Lab.  It is uncertain how much each individual entity will be impacted, but they will be impacted.

 

Mr. Marvel requested Mr. Drew obtain further information on the actual impact and submit it to him.  Mr. Drew agreed to do so.

 

Senator Raggio commented 2 years ago there was a great deal heard about the Commission on Substance Abuse Education, Prevention, Enforcement and Treatment, which was funded by the state.  He wondered how it fit into the Narcotics Control program.

 

 

Mary Lynne Evans, Administrator, Office of Narcotics Control Assistance, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, remarked the commission, as well as the substance abuse coordinator, will be transferred to the Department of Human Resources.

 

Senator Raggio thought the transfer to be inappropriate.

 

Forfeitures - Law Enforcement - Page 1426

 

Mr. Price asked, "Have we had any cases where property has been confiscated, but there never is a conviction?"

 

Mr. Drew was not aware of such a case at the state level.  However there was, as part of a plea negotiation, a case that took place in Reno on a Porsche, where the original charges were pled down, and the owner of the car appealed saying the charges he pled to no longer made his vehicle subject to forfeiture.  Mr. Drew was unaware of the outcome.

 

Mr. Weller commented there have been similar cases where, on the federal level, the car would be kept.

 

Mr. Perkins noted, in the Base budget, training monies were nonexistent.

 

Mr. Drew explained the federal grants and some of the forfeiture funds have been utilized for the training, to make sure the officers get at least 24-hours-a-year training.

 

Mrs. Chowning referred to page 2 of Exhibit M, Long Term Goals, which she would like to see in the Performance Indicators.  She mentioned the heavy impact of California gangs in southern Nevada and noted a software package was recently purchased to assist in collection of narcotic information.  She mentioned the new software upgrade that would allow access to California gang activity and wondered if it is included in the current budget, and if not when is it anticipated it will occur.

 

Mr. Drew stated:

 

      When they developed the gang reporting automated program in Los Angeles, and we first started into this back in 1990, we had developed a way that we would receive a daily download from the Los Angeles area as to their data.  They since changed their entire program to a software package called Advance Revelations.

 

Mr. Drew advised they are now in the process of purchasing the software package Advance Revelations, which will be distributed to all the agencies already involved in this program.  If the training and installation goes well, it should be on line before July 1 of this year.

 

Justice Assistance Act - Page 1429

 

Ms. (Mary Lynne) Evans explained the Justice Assistance grant is simply a pass-through account, which the BJA (Bureau of Justice Assistance) money goes through to pay the state and local agencies.

She stated the types of programs they fund throughout the state include DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education).  She mentioned 5 percent of their money has to go to criminal history improvement programs.  She stated most of the money in this program goes to local governments.

 

Ms. (Mary Lynne) Evans said the reorganization does not really affect them to any great extent.

 

Senator Raggio asked for a listing of the grants the agency has made during the current year.

 

Ms. (Mary Lynne) Evans said she would provide the list, adding they have 36 grants open right now.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani requested a copy of the federal grant application to determine how the funds must be used.

 

Ms. (Mary Lynne) Evans stated she has 21 program areas she can give Ms. Giunchigliani.

 

Peace Officers Standards & Training - Page 1431

 

Larry Stout, Chief, Peace Officers Standards and Training (P.O.S.T.)/Nevada Law Enforcement Academy, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, stated P.O.S.T. has two primary functions.  One as a regulatory agency, and via the P.O.S.T. committee they set the professional standards for law enforcement and establish the regulations for that profession through minimum standards for employment, certification and decertification of peace officers in the state academies...and education courses.

 

As a training agency, P.O.S.T. operations of the Nevada Law Enforcement Academy, provides basic law enforcement training throughout the state.  It also has an ongoing, continuing education program.

 

Chief Stout commented the ongoing goals of the P.O.S.T. program are to ensure all peace officers in the state meet and comply with the high standards established by the P.O.S.T. committee and to provide, on a timely basis, high quality, basic police education in a continuing education program.

 

Senator Raggio asked if this budget anticipates a much greater level of administrative assessment coming into it.

 

Chief Stout commented his budget reflects during the current biennium $410,828 in administrative assessment was available.  In Fiscal Year 94 it is recommended to receive up to $450,004.

 

Ms. Matteucci remarked:

 

      We're anticipating in the Base budget $454,000 in court assessment in '94, and $498,000 in '95.  If you look to Demographics/Caseload Changes, you'll see another $36,950 in court admin [administration] assessment.  You see that on page 1432...The actual receipts in FY 92 were $410,000 and the work program is $429,000.

 

Senator Raggio asked if Ms. Matteucci thought those were realistic amounts.

 

Ms. Matteucci answered, "Yes.  We've essentially reallocated some of the court admin assessment into this account.  It reduces the General Fund."

 

Law Enforcement Administration - Page 1474

 

Ms. Capaldi spoke about the director's office under reorganization:

 

      This morning I mentioned the new Department of Motor Vehicles, and now I'll speak to you about the proposed Department of Public Safety.

 

 

      The new Budget Account is 4700, Director's Office/Administrative Services Budget in the new Department of Public Safety.  It is supported with highway funds.  Budget Account 4700 has a total of 37 positions of which 31 are funded.  This budget is made up of the residual of the Director's Office and Administra-tive Services Division.  Some positions were added from other agencies, which are proposed to be brought into the new Department of Public Safety.  These positions are from the military and emergency management.

 

Senator Raggio asked, "What about parole and probation?"

 

Mr. Gosnell replied, "It's my understanding that parole and probation will be brought over as basically an administrative stand alone.  They have their existing administrative support staff, and they'll continue to do that in the future."

 

Senator Raggio commented there is a significant amount built into the budget for reorganization savings, equivalent to six mid-management, supervisory positions.  "Do you want to comment on that?"

 

Mr. Weller stated with the proposed reorganization, it is his understanding the positions identified are merely there for dollar value only.

 

Senator Raggio asked, "How will you be able to function with the staff reorganized?  Will you be able to provide the administrative services anticipated in this new department with this staff?"

 

Mr. Weller replied:

 

      With the latitude that I mentioned, and the fact that the organizational charts, both functional and operational that came out of the budget office, I think we can.  There are going to be some people who are going to be laid off.  There are some savings there.

 

Senator Raggio remarked:

 

      Let me alert you to what I think will be a matter of concern, and I guess I'm talking to you as representative of all the agency heads.  Two years from now, if we're flush with money, we don't expect people to come in and say, well, we should never have cut out all that money from these budgets.  We did the reorganization.  Now we need to restore all these positions.  That isn't the way we're approaching this budget.  If it's necessary, we want to know now. 

 

Mr. Weller anticipates when the legislation comes out that supports

the reorganization effort, it will enable him to supply a stronger answer.

 

Senator Raggio asked where the departments will be located physically.

 

Ms. Matteucci replied, "The Department of Public Safety will largely be out at Stewart, which is where most of the training facilities are...The Department of Motor Vehicles will be, generally speaking, in their current locations."

 

 

There being no further business before the committee, Senator Raggio adjourned the meeting at 3:59 p.m.

 

                        RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                                                

                        Joan McConnell,

                        Committee Secretary

 

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

 

                                   

Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman

 

 

DATE:                              

 

 

 

 

                                       

Assemblyman Morse Arberry, Jr., Chairman

 

 

DATE:                                  

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Senate Committee on Finance

Assembly Committee on Ways and Means

February 15, 1993

Page 1