The Committee on Ways and Means was called to order at 3:45 p.m., on Thursday, March 11, 1999. Chairman Morse Arberry Jr. presided in Room 3137 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman

Ms. Jan Evans, Vice Chair

Mr. Bob Beers

Mrs. Barbara Cegavske

Mrs. Vonne Chowning

Mrs. Marcia de Braga

Mr. Joseph Dini, Jr.

Mr. Lynn Hettrick

Mr. David Parks

Mr. Richard Perkins

Mr. Robert Price

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani (Excused)

Mr. David Goldwater (Excused)

Mr. John Marvel (Excused)

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Carlos Concha, Chief of the Division of Parole and Probation (P&P), explained A.B. 343 would appropriate funding necessary for the division’s 5-year automation plan. He directed attention to Exhibit C, "Automation Systems One-Shot Funding," which identified prior one-shots and money the division had in its automation program. Page 1 of Exhibit C identified two positions, a computer program analyst and a systems programmer, granted by the 1995 Legislative Session, under A.B. 236. The two positions were hired by the division to begin the automation process. In FY 1998, the two positions were transferred to the Department of Information Services.

Mr. Concha said during the first year of the automation, FY 1997, $332,464 was appropriated and $315,456 was spent. In that year, the department’s public safety technology unit started Joint Application Design (JAD) sessions for P&P’s Business Processing Reengineering (BPR). Throughout the process the unit worked with P&P staff to determine what was needed for automation. As a result of the shooting of Larry Johnson, a Sparks police officer, the Dangerous Offender Notification System (DONS) was quickly installed. If a police officer stopped an offender anywhere in the state, the officer would be provided with information if the offender was a convicted person under the supervision of P&P. For example, if an offender was stopped with a child and was a pedophile who was not allowed to be with children, DONS would inform the officer, who could take action and notify P&P.

Mr. Concha said page 1 of Exhibit C also showed for 1997 the quantity of automation items that were purchased and installed. The equipment was used for building networking requirements statewide, such as wiring buildings, racks, routers, and hubs. In addition, a number of personal computers were installed and software was developed for personnel, training, and equipment inventory.

Mr. Concha said page 2 of Exhibit C showed P&P expended $312,930 from the appropriated one-shot of $595,782. The remaining balance was scheduled to be used in FY 1999. In 1998, P&P purchased 129 computers, software, and color scanners and printers. Although $282,852 was appropriated, the division had not yet used that money. The division had submitted work programs and should purchase equipment by July 1999.

Mr. Concha explained the division had the one-shot appropriation in A.B. 343 remaining, which would be the 5-year automation plan’s final phase. P&P purchased another 59 computers and software. Automation was scheduled to be completed and fully operational by July 2000. He directed attention to page 4 of Exhibit C, which listed all the division’s computer purchases and reflected one-shot new positions, and replacement equipment. The purchases were shown by area in the state so the committee could see where most of the division’s computer equipment was located.

Mr. Price asked Mr. Concha to explain where division’s district offices were located. Mr. Concha explained District One’s main office was located in Carson City, with sub-offices in Minden and Fallon. District Two was Washoe County. District Three’s main office was located in Elko, with sub-offices in Winnemucca, Ely, Tonopah, and Pahrump. District Four’s main office was located in Las Vegas, with sub-offices in Henderson.

With no further questions or comments, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on A.B. 343 closed.

Rick Gimlin introduced himself as the Administrative Services Officer for the Division of Agriculture. A.B. 344 requested $12,000 in a supplemental appropriation to make up for a personnel shortfall, which was primarily due to a technical error during the budget preparation. Additionally, a clerical position had been reclassified during that time. The division estimated it would need an additional $1,764 and asked the amount be amended in the supplemental appropriation to $13,764.

Chairman Arberry asked the reason for the change. Mr. Gimlin reiterated a clerical position had been reclassified after the estimate had been presented to the Budget Division.

With no further questions or comments, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on A.B. 344 closed.

Frank Revell introduced himself as the Chief of the State Motor Pool. He explained A.B. 346 was an appropriation for additional vehicles requested by various agencies throughout the state to be added to the fleet over the next biennium. The bill requested $815,627 to purchase 47 vehicles. He noticed there was one anomaly in the request form. The request showed three vehicles scheduled to go to the Division of Child and Family Services in Las Vegas. Apparently someone had been unaware those would have to be alternative fuel vehicles, which would increase the cost of the vehicles by approximately $5,000 each. Therefore, approximately $830,000 would be needed to purchase vehicles. The adjustment would have to be made, but the state mandated, under Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 486A, the vehicles would have to be alternative fuel vehicles.

Chairman Arberry asked if the vehicles would be electric. Mr. Revell replied no, as electric vehicles were quite expensive and there was currently a lot of controversy regarding battery life. Electric vehicles cost $35,000 plus an additional $12,000 to $14,000 within 3 years to replace the batteries. Electric vehicles would not meet the state’s needs, due to lack of range and inability to use them anywhere in the state. Chairman Arberry asked Mr. Revell if he would need more vehicles at a later time. Mr. Revell replied he received requests for 229 vehicles, costing over $4 million for the biennium. Those requests were cut by the Budget Division to 47 vehicles. He did not necessarily get involved in the reasons departments needed vehicles; his job was to purchase and issue vehicles.

Mr. Stevens said Amendment 31 to The Executive Budget recommended including additional vehicles in the one-shot appropriation. Mr. Revell said he was not aware of the amendment, but every year amendments were made and additional vehicles were persuaded into the Motor Pool’s budget.

Chairman Arberry asked who was present from the Budget Division. With no one from the division present, he said the hearing on A.B. 346 would have to be rescheduled because someone needed to explain the discrepancies.

Mr. Price asked if state vehicles were bought in bulk and whether the state got a better price for bulk purchases. Mr. Revell said yes, vehicles were sent out to bid near the end of the year, received in December, and the vehicles were purchased in January. The state saved $2,000 to $5,000 per vehicle due to the competitive bidding process.

Mr. Parks asked if the request was for all new vehicles or were some replacement vehicles. Mr. Revell replied the vehicles were all new additions to the fleet.

With no further questions or comments Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on A.B. 346 closed.

Pete English introduced himself as Chief of the Registration Division of the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV/PS). A.B. 341 requested a one-shot appropriation to fund the purchase and installation of electronic customer queuing systems in the West Flamingo, Carey, and Galetti Way offices.

Chairman Arberry asked Mr. English to explain the Q-matic system to the committee. Mr. English explained Q-matic was a computerized system. When a customer entered the Department of Motor Vehicles, the customer entered on a keypad the type of transaction for which he or she was present. A ticket was issued which placed the customer in the queuing system and directed him or her to the appropriate counter for the service requested. When the window became available, the customer’s number was announced and displayed visually.

Chairman Arberry asked how the Q-matic system worked in the Sahara and Henderson offices. Mr. English replied the Q-matic system had been used effectively in both offices. Customer wait time had been reduced and they did not have to stand in line for service. Q-matic also helped ensure customers received the appropriate level of service.

Chairman Arberry asked by how much had the customer wait time been reduced. Mr. English replied he did not have figures on hand for the Sahara office, but for the Henderson office, 50 percent of customers were serviced in 15 minutes or less, from the time the customer took the ticket until they were out the door. Chairman Arberry asked if there were performance indicators to show the effectiveness of the system. The committee needed to make sure the system actually cut down on customer wait time and was worthwhile before the system was installed in more offices. Mr. English said he would provide that information to the committee.

Mr. Price said he had recently used the Q-matic system at a DMV location and thought it worked well.

With no further questions or comments, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on A.B. 341 closed.

Mr. English, Chief of the Registration Division, said A.B. 342 was a request for a one-shot appropriation to fund the refurbishment of blue license plates, and redesign existing license plates, which would be issued beginning January 2001, and funding for special plates for eligible interests where 250 or more applications had been received. In reviewing the request, areas had been identified that could reduce the request by approximately $600,000. Mr. English introduced Bruce Manning, the plant manager of the license plate factory, and Eric Scheetz, the Registration Division’s Fiscal Analyst.

Chairman Arberry asked how the division established the amount necessary for refurbishing the blue license plates. Mr. Scheetz said the division had taken an unsophisticated survey of vehicles with blue license plates in Nevada. The survey consisted of a sample of vehicles in Las Vegas. The division derived the estimate of 60,000 license plates from that survey.

Chairman Arberry said A.B. 342 did not address 60,000 license plates, but requested $431,000 for refurbishment. He asked how refurbishing would be conducted and would people leave their plates and be issued a temporary plate. Mr. Manning said the proposal was to have people turn in their plates, because there were five different styles of plates. A temporary license-plate-sized permit would be issued until the plates were remanufactured. Chairman Arberry said, as he understood, the person would be given back their original license plate after it had been refurbished. Mr. Manning replied that was correct, except the license plate would be remanufactured. Chairman Arberry asked if the refurbished plates would be the same blue color as the original plates, and Mr. Manning replied they would.

Chairman Arberry said he understood prison industry received 50 cents for each license plate issued. He asked if prison industry would also receive 50 cents for each reissued license plate. Mr. Manning said the prison industry program received 50 cents for every plate manufactured and used on the highway. Chairman Arberry asked if 50 cents came off the top of the price for the license plate. Mr. Manning replied the customer would be charged 50 cents.

Mr. Hettrick asked if people would be charged for the refurbishment of their license plates or would the state fund the entire $431,000 for the refurbishment. Mr. Scheetz said he believed the owners of the license plates would be charged replacement costs for the refurbishment, so the state would recoup some of the cost. Mr. Hettrick asked how much the state would recover. Mr. Scheetz said it depended on how many people brought in plates for refurbishment. Mr. Hettrick said, as he understood, the division would receive funding for the entire project and would recover some or all of the cost. Mr. Scheetz replied that was correct, but the division would probably receive only a small portion of the project’s cost.

Mr. Hettrick said Mr. English stated the request could be reduced by $600,000 and asked in what areas the reduction would be made. Mr. Scheetz said he would provide that information to staff.

Mr. Price stated he was in favor of restoring the blue plates.

Cheryl Blomstrom stated she was present to represent Associated General Contractors (AGC). She said she had three blue license plates and would pay to refurbish them. She was concerned, as was AGC, about the expenditure of Highway Fund dollars for refurbishment of license plates. The Highway Fund would have significant shortfalls over the next decade. She felt the Highway Fund was the skeleton of everything else done in the state and those monies should be spent on Nevada’s roads.

Mrs. Chowning said she would like it clarified by DMV whether $431,000 was necessary for refurbishing the blue license plates. She agreed to support A.B. 342 only because she thought people would not be required to bring in their blue license plates to the DMV. If a person’s blue plate was illegible, the person would be pulled over by a police officer and forced to refurbish their plate or get a new type of plate. She did not think very many people would be forced to refurbish their plates. Therefore, not everyone with a blue license plate would have to have it refurbished. She asked if the amount could be reduced.

Chairman Arberry informed Mrs. Chowning that before she arrived, Mr. Scheetz said he would be providing that information to staff.

Ray Sparks introduced himself as the Deputy Director for DMV/PS and said he would like to answer Mrs. Chowning’s question. The division would be providing an amended amount for the refurbishment, which should be a reduction of approximately $200,000. The largest expense in refurbishing or re-manufacturing license plates would be the purchase of necessary equipment and dyes. That would be an expense whether the division refurbished 1 plate or 60,000 plates. The division planned on charging people $10 to refurbish blue license plates, which was the same amount charged for replacement plates. It was not known whether enough revenue would be received from the public to offset the cost of refurbishment. It depended on the number of people who would bring in their plates for refurbishment. He did not know whether law enforcement officers would aggressively enforce the law requiring illegible license plates be replaced. If the anticipated number of people had license plates refurbished, the division should be able to recoup the cost.

Mrs. Cegavske said as she understood, if a person’s license plate was illegible, the person would be forced to refurbish the plate. Mr. Sparks replied the law had been in place for a long time and required license plates to be legible and free from foreign material. If a person’s plate was so faded that it was illegible, the person would be in violation of existing statute and could receive a citation.

Mr. Hettrick said he thought people would be willing to pay more than a standard plate replacement fee to refurbish blue license plates. He did not want to be unfair to people who had blue plates, but the state needed to recoup the cost of refurbishment because it would not be fair to have the cost subsidized by people who took regular plates. He thought people would be willing to pay $20 without complaint to have their blue license plates refurbished.

Mr. Sparks said he agreed. He thought legislation passed for the refurbishment contained language stating the fee would essentially be the cost of the refurbishment. If the legislature wanted the division to charge more than its cost, which was currently speculative, the division would review the legislation. Mr. Hettrick said because no one knew how many plates would be refurbished, the $10 fee seemed too low. Mr. Sparks agreed.

Chairman Arberry said the committee needed to know how the division derived its figures, because it was a little unclear. Mr. Sparks said the division had a detailed cost breakdown for each of the three components of A.B. 342, and would provide it to the committee.

Mr. English said his testimony that stated the total expenditure for the refurbishment would be able to be reduced by $600,000, was in reference to the $4.9 million request. He clarified when Mr. Sparks said the refurbishment portion of the bill could be reduced by $200,000, it was specific only to that part of the bill.

Raymond McAllister said he was present representing the Professional Firefighters of Nevada. He addressed the section of A.B. 342 that appropriated $103,000 for special plates. He informed the committee it was a money-making proposition. If the state invested $103,000 to produce special license plates, it would be returned three- to four-fold. For example, according to DMV figures, approximately 10,000 sets of Lake Tahoe plates were produced. Thirty-five dollars went to the Highway Fund, and nothing went back to the DMV for the plates’ cost. At $35 per set, $350,000 was received and the cost to produce the plates was a little over $20,000. Therefore, the Department of Transportation’s Highway Fund received over $300,000 for the Lake Tahoe license plates.

Mr. McAllister said he had an interest in A.B. 342 because in the 1997 Legislative Session, a bill was passed for professional firefighters’ license plates. Money had still not been appropriated to produce the plates. The necessary signatures were submitted in June 1997 and the Professional Firefighters of Nevada were waiting patiently. He had been told it would cost approximately $11,000 to produce the plates. A conservative estimate was 1,000 to 2,000 would be sold in the first year, which would produce $35,000 to $70,000. The Professional Firefighters of Nevada requested the profit that normally went to a specified cause be returned to the DMV. If $45 were charged for the special plates, as was normally done, $35,000 to $70,000 would be received by the Highway Fund, when it only took $11,000 to produce the plates.

With no further questions or comments, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on A.B. 342 closed.

Don Hataway, Deputy Director of the Budget Division, explained, regarding A.B. 346, Amendment 31 to The Executive Budget recommended amending the bill by $214,867 to add 14 additional P&P vehicles. The amendment was related to another amendment concerning the reduction of officer to offender caseload from 75 offenders per officer to 70 offenders per officer. He requested the committee give consideration to Amendment 31. Chairman Arberry said Mr. Revell had not been aware of the amendment. Mr. Hataway apologized and said the situation would be remedied.

There being no further business before the committee, Chairman Arberry adjourned the meeting at 4:25 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Christina Alfonso,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman

DATE: