The Senate Committee on Transportation was called to order by Chairman William R. O'Donnell, at 1:40 p.m., on Tuesday, March 9, 1999, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator William R. O'Donnell, Chairman

Senator Mark Amodei, Vice Chairman

Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen

Senator Maurice Washington

Senator Raymond C. Shaffer

Senator Valerie Wiener

Senator Terry Care

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Joan Moseid, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairman O’Donnell announced Senate Bill (S.B.) 174 had been held and will be rescheduled for a later day and opened the work session on Senate Bill (S.B.) 202.

Chairman O’Donnell asked to be updated on the hearing for S.B. 202, since he was not present at the time the previous testimony was given.

Senator Care briefly updated Chairman O’Donnell regarding the testimony given on S.B. 202 in the last hearing. He stated there was representative from the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS) who testified, and there was no one present from any other industry to testify. Senator Care commented further that the committee had been informed by the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, "that DMV&PS currently does not collect taxes which involve the motion picture crews, and they do not have a system to calculate the taxed dollar amounts that are due." He pointed out that there were some discussions about how DMV&PS would examine these issues within other states and update the committee at a later date.

Teri Baltisberger, Tax Administrator, Motor Carrier Bureau, Registration Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS), spoke in favor of S.B. 202. She stated she would like to see this bill passed, with a certificate of delinquency, which would enable them to record with the county recorders’ offices because of the past Legislative Counsel Bureau audit. Ms. Baltisberger stated the DMV&PS had received recommendations that they should be more aggressive in collecting delinquent taxes that are past due. She stated other concerns included amending the language and informed the committee that she had inquired with other states as to what kind of monetary impact allowed these exemptions to be a part of their statutes. Ms. Baltisberger called attention to the exemptions in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 366.650 and said it is a reference to NRS 706.111, which exempts a motor carrier from obtaining registration fees. She explained that this exemption is to exempt the motor carriers from the licensing requirement of fuel taxes, but it does not exempt them from paying the fuel tax. Ms. Baltisberger said the motor carriers are required to purchase fuel commensurate to what they use in the State of Nevada, and stated if a motor carrier is not licensed it would be difficult to know if they really are not licensed. She believed the only way to enforce this law is to have it enforced on the roads by state agency; by stopping the motor carriers to check for a receipt.

Ms. Baltisberger stated that she was unable to gather any information from the State of California movie production companies and assumed that they all are registered in the State of California; although Idaho has three circus or carnival-type companies that are registered with the State of Idaho. Ms. Baltisberger stated that she had received information from these companies and was able to derive from their 1999 registrations that these three companies alone would have sent the State of Nevada a little over $14,500 in registration fees, if these exemptions had not been on the books. She iterated that this is a matter for the committee members of the hearings on Senate Concurrent Resolution 53 of the Sixty-ninth Session and Assembly Bill 204 of the Sixty-ninth Session with which she had been associated. She also believed that this was the Legislature’s intent, to allow DMV&PS to collect as much as they could collect on what was due the State of Nevada. Ms. Baltisberger commented this is what the DMV&PS would try to enforce, and bring the State of Nevada laws together with some of the other jurisdictions. She indicated that out of all the states that she had contacted there was not one state that included these exemptions into their law. Ms. Baltisberger stated that these types of companies are required to register and pay fuel taxes.

Chairman O’Donnell iterated that the Lieutenant Governor has a major concern for tracking the film industry. He stated he does not know much about the carnival, etc., but at least the film industry is being observed so that they could be taxed in the State of Nevada. Chairman O’Donnell commented he would not like to see the Legislature do anything that would dissuade people from registering and paying fuel taxes. Ms. Baltisberger stated that the DMV&PS had talked to the film commission, She said they were not aware of these issues, and the director of the commission was out of town until Wednesday, March 10, 1999. She said she was informed that she would receive a call at a later date to discuss this part of this bill.

Chairman O’Donnell requested the committee hold S.B. 202 until Paul Mouritsen, Committee Policy Analyst, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, could research section 4, paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) to find out the history behind these measures.

Senator Wiener asked for clarification of the word "eleemosynary" on page 2, line 37. Ms. Baltisberger iterated that it was another reference for "nonprofit church organizations."

Chairman O’Donnell closed the work session on S.B. 202 and opened the work session on Senate Bill (S.B.) 209.

Chairman O’Donnell opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 275.

Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Northern Nevada Senatorial District, testified in support of S.B. 275. He stated that the district engineers who control each of the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) districts are in a classified position and these position should be unclassified. Senator Rhoads believed this change would give more flexibility for NDOT to maneuver and manage the many employees that they have. He stated that Assemblyman John C. Carpenter, Elko County Assembly District No. 33, and he had received numerous complaints in their district from the employees of NDOT and businesses they called it to the attention of the director of NDOT and iterated that Jeff Fontaine, Deputy Director of NDOT was very cooperative with them. Senator Rhoads stated that he and Assemblyman Carpenter had met on several occasions with Mr. Fontaine to iron out the difficulties and felt that Mr. Fontaine is moving in the right direction, but also believed that the transportation committee would agree that some changes need to be made regarding these positions.

Assemblyman John C. Carpenter, Elko County Assembly District No. 33, agreed with Senator Rhoads’ testimony, and stated that he believed that management needs are imperative once in a while to choose who their top supervisors are going to be.

Chairman O’Donnell asked, "How big is this problem in Elko?" Senator Rhoads remarked that there are a number of problems, and they had met with several businesses who felt that they were treated unfairly on some of the mandates that NDOT had enforced upon them. His example was; "I received a call from a rancher who was moving a hundred head of cows across the highway and a highway patrolman stopped him and asked him where was his permit to cross the highway." The rancher responded, "I do not have one and did not know that I had to have a permit." Senator Rhoads said another highway patrolman approached the rancher with a permit, and the rancher stated he had never seen a permit before, then the patrolmen allowed the rancher to sign it and waived the charge.

Senator Rhoads said that they had asked the Legal Division to give them a legal opinion. The legal department explained the way the permit was interpreted, a rancher could not walk across the highway without a permit. He stated it was impossible for a rancher, every time he rode his horse across the highway or walked in a rural area, to obtain a permit. Senator Rhoads remarked he and Assemblyman Carpenter had met with the district engineers. They understood that this was a problem and called off the demand. He also stated that he and Assemblyman Carpenter met with several disgruntled employees on two different occasions; and at one time the room was packed with disgruntled employees. They complained about the management of the department and raved on and on.

Assemblyman Carpenter agreed that in the northern area there are problems with employees and construction projects that have been going on for many years; and he believed that the director or the assistant director could give the committee the details. He strongly stressed that these problems would continue to occur in other areas, as well, and NDOT could exercise their abilities to make some changes when they are warranted. Chairman O’Donnell responded, "And they cannot exercise their abilities now?" Senator Rhoads answered no, and said they cannot because the position is a classified position. Chairman O’Donnell asked what if they were transferred? Senator Rhoads commented NDOT is afraid of being sued.

Chairman O’Donnell closed the hearing on S.B. 275 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 276.

Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Northern Nevada Senatorial District, testified in support of S.B. 276. He pointed out that this bill was initiated at the same time S.B. 275 was brought forth. Senator Rhoads stated that the employees of NDOT have to travel to Reno from other districts to hold a grievance hearing. This bill requests the hearing should be held in the district that the grievance took place because the employees have to take off a day or two to travel to the hearing destination. He iterated the director of NDOT has an amendment to S.B. 276 and this should resolve the problem.

Jeff Fontaine, Deputy Director, Nevada Department of Transportation, spoke on behalf of S.B. 276. He said he does not have any amendments to offer at this time. Mr. Fontaine said this bill addresses what is called "Step 3 grievance;" and explained these are the grievances filed by employees which are heard before the director, or deputy director at NDOT, before they are filed with the employee-management committee. The Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) chapter 284, section 690, allows the director or his designee to hold a hearing; and by holding a hearing in a geographical district, the director and Mr. Fontaine believed this bill would help to resolve grievances, and preclude employees from having to go to the employee-management committee for their grievance. Mr. Fontaine stated that over 600 employees of NDOT work outside of the Reno and Carson City area. He reiterated the administrative staff strongly supports this bill and there would be a fiscal impact in terms of travel, but the NDOT can certainly absorb that cost.

Robert J. Gagnier, Lobbyist, State of Nevada Employees Association, spoke in favor of S.B. 276 and commented that he would like to see this bill applied within the State of Nevada agencies. He acknowledged that NDOT is the requesting agency before the transportation committee at this time.

Mr. Gagnier expounded that under the disciplinary procedures when the [NDOT] state hearing officer holds a hearing, he is required by law to hold it in the area of the aggrieved unless waived by joint concurrence; but this procedure is different than the one before the committee today.

Chairman O’Donnell closed the hearing on S.B. 276 and reopened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 275.

Mr. Fontaine spoke on behalf of S.B. 275 and presented, to the transportation committee, a copy of the NDOT organizational chart (Exhibit C.), a prepared testimony (Exhibit D) and proposed amendments (Exhibit E). Mr. Fontaine indicated there are 1589 employees at NDOT and only 3 of them are classified; the director, deputy director and a hearing officer who reports directly to the director’s office but does not supervise anyone. He stated the NDOT administration does not support the unclassified district engineers at NDOT. Mr. Fontaine proposed several amendments which he believed would make S.B. 275 appropriate for the Nevada Department of Transportation, while still carrying out its intent. He iterated the amendment would keep the district engineers and the classified service except for the purpose of retention, and would extend its provision to the [NDOT] assistant directors. He noted that these particular amendments could be found in NRS 408.111, subsection 2. Mr. Fontaine said that this provision has been modeled after the language found in NRS chapter 209, regarding assistant directors and prison wardens employed by the Department of Prisons. He also noted that there are statutes relating to the chief of the State Printing Division, the chief of the Building and Grounds Division, and the chief of the Purchasing Division, which provide for the classification of employees except for the purposes of removal.

Mr. Fontaine stated by keeping the district engineers and the assistant directors in a classified service it would ascertain that these positions would continue to be filled with individuals who are qualified, and also the remaining classified service district engineers and assistant directors could take other jobs at NDOT through transfers and voluntary demotions. He referred to Exhibit C, at the bottom of exhibit, and pointed out [NDOT Districts]; District I, District II, and District III; and explained all of the functions of each district engineer within each of the three districts.

Mr. Fontaine expounded that district engineers oversee construction, permits, maintenance, snow removal operations, and very large diverse geographic regions of the State of Nevada. The district engineers are responsible for managing anywhere from 260 to 340 people. The four assistant directors, as shown on the organizational chart for NDOT; i.e, Administration, Operations’ Engineering and Planning; they too are responsible for managing anywhere from 100 to 250 people. They direct millions of dollars in consulting work as well as overseeing very complex and technical functions within the department. Mr. Fontaine stated that the district engineers and the assistant directors are among the highest paid classified employees in all of the state services. It is absolutely critical that these individuals be responsive to the needs of the state and perform adequately; and if not they certainly would severely affect the department’s ability to carry out its mission. He stated that it is nearly impossible to remove a classified employee for lack of performance. It requires years of documentation, progress of disciplinary action, and all of this is subject to lengthy appeals. He said he believed these amendments would help assure that NDOT has a necessary level of responsiveness while assuring that the district engineers and assistant directors are qualified to hold the positions.

Mr. Fontaine offered two other amendments; the first one would be to clarify how NDOT is organized, and how the existing statutes do not define the districts. The proposed amendment would clarify the NDOT Board of Directors which, of course, consist of the Governor, the lieutenant governor, the attorney general, the state controller, and the three appointed members that would establish the geographical districts. Mr. Fontaine pointed out that the amendment appears in subsection 1, of NRS 408.111, and stated that the amendment would also clarify the four divisions contained in the existing statutes; the Administrative Division, the Operations Division, Engineering Division and Planning Division are major divisions. He felt that this process is needed to distinguish them from other smaller subdivisions within NDOT; "that are commonly referred to as to divisions." He iterated while the vast majority of NDOT employees work in either a district or one of the four major divisions, the subdivisions are much smaller and have separate offices which report directly to the NDOT director’s office. Mr. Fontaine gave two examples of offices; one being the Human Resources Office and the other being the Customer Services Office. He concluded by proposing another amendment that addresses the responsibilities of the department which affect the [NDOT] Transportation Planning. The amendment would be NRS 408.233, the second statute, that appears on the proposed amendments, which would simply clarify that the department and not the Planning Division, within the NDOT, is responsible for planning activities. This amendment would preclude the possibility of interpreting that NDOT’s Planning Division somehow is a separate mandate with respect to Transportation Planning.

Senator Amodei asked Mr. Fontaine if the proposal had been presented to the transportation board. Mr. Fontaine responded no. Senator Amodei asked if there were any reasons why it had not been presented. Mr. Fontaine stated that it was just a matter of timing, since the bill was drafted and there had not been a transportation board meeting in which to present the proposed the amendments. Senator Amodei commented there was going to be a transportation board meeting coming up the week following this hearing. He asked if this bill would be agendized for that meeting. Mr. Fontaine said there would be some legislative matters discussed, in general. Mr. Fontaine stated that S.B. 275 should not be a problem if they were to present it to the board of directors at the next scheduled meeting.

Tom Stephens, Director, Nevada Department of Transportation, acknowledged that NDOT does present agency-sponsored bills to the board of directors of NDOT, before presenting them to the Legislative Counsel Bureau. He iterated that S.B. 275 is not an agency-sponsored bill and the NDOT representatives usually testify, offer amendments and take positions on any bills during the course of the session. Mr. Stephens iterated that the board of directors meets quarterly, so that the situation does not lend itself to bringing the bills back to the board. He explained he was present on this day to testify on a bill that they did not know was going to be introduced when NDOT had their last board meeting. Mr. Stephens commented further that NDOT had not placed S.B. 275 on the agenda, specifically, nor have they ever placed any of NDOT’s previous bills that were heard by the Legislature.

Mr. Stephens informed the committee that the board of directors of NDOT meets quarterly and the Legislature schedules meetings weekly. NDOT could not go back and forth with presentations between the board of directors and the Legislature, unless the board should meet more frequently. Mr. Stephens said this matter has been discussed in regard to the changes with the administration of NDOT and the Governor’s Office on a day-to-day basis, in which NDOT receives their direction. He pointed out that NDOT takes positions on bills, after checking with the Governor’s Office to make sure they do not have an immediate objection. It does not mean they would not change their minds later, but the contents of these amendments offered by NDOT have been shown and agreed upon with the Governor’s office staff.

Senator Amodei commented, "With all due respect S.B. 275 is a six-line bill." He said, "If this is not an agency-sponsored amendment, he does not know what is." Senator Amodei asked Mr. Stephens if he had an objection to placing this bill on the agenda and talking with the board of directors in the next scheduled meeting, if there is still time to do that. Mr. Stephens said he does not have any objection and believed the NDOT could send out an addition to the agenda to schedule the bill to be heard in the next board of directors’ meeting. He iterated that this changes the whole process in the way NDOT works with the Legislature because NDOT has offered amendments to a lot of bills during the course of the session. He stated that he does not know any other way to handle this matter than NDOT’s current way. Mr. Stephens mentioned it is a coincidence that there will be a board of directors’ meeting next week.

Senator Amodei stressed there had been a previous discussion about the way NDOT’s bills have been handled in the past. He was under the impression that there was a reluctance and asked if it was possible that he did not hear the response correctly to move more employees into classified service. He refaced the question, and asked if he had misunderstood their communication; or if the discussion had changed between late November, 1998, when Assemblyman (Joe) Dini and he had met with Mr. Stephens in his office to discuss these various issues. Mr. Stephens replied that there was a reluctance to move employees to unclassified service and stated what this would do is leave the employees in classified service because NDOT would like to have well-qualified employees. Mr. Stephens commented, "This has put a wrinkle on the way the prison system classifies; except for the purpose of removal." Mr. Stephens stated that NDOT does not plan to remove any employee from any position. He explained when an employee is in a classified-service position, there are a couple of advantages, even though the exception of the purpose is removal.

Mr. Stephens testified that the advantages would be if an employee accepts a classified position, and then later accepts an unclassified position, the other personnel do not have any bumping rights to revert the employee. But if the employee is in a classified position and gets a promotion, then personnel could bump the employee back to the old position or they could get their old position back. He defined this was one advantage in being in a classified-service position. He remarked another advantage is that the applicant would have to meet all the minimum requirements that are within the law for the level of positions; and the qualifications are set by the state Personnel Commission. Mr. Stephens said another advantage would be, should an employee get a salary increase, and he used the Engineering Series and the Computer Series as an example for classified-service positions, and said if the employee is in the Engineering Series the employee could get a raise or be upgraded if the job has more responsibilities. He maintained there are a lot of advantages in keeping these positions classified rather than making them unclassified; but when there is an agency with 1600 employees, he believes there needs to be more than 2 people at the top who are responsive. Mr. Stephens referred to the definition of transferring and said that it is considered as an adverse personnel action if the employee does not want to be transferred to another place. There is no flexibility in a classified system if the classified employee tells personnel staff "no."

Senator Amodei asked Mr. Stephens, "What is the disadvantage of this position being classified; except for the purposes of retention? What would be the downside of that disadvantage?" Mr. Stephens commented that, an employee could be removed if they do not perform their job or the employee could be offered a voluntary demotion or transferred, but he felt this was certainly a disadvantage to the employee, because if the employee is not proficient in the work, the employee could be asked to resign, be demoted and/or transfer. He noted, except for the purposes of removal, the employee would not have the same level within the state appeal procedure. Now the employee could still go to court. He gave an example of a recent federal court decision of one of the senior employees in the prison system, who he believed was a classified employee and was removed. The employee appealed it to the federal court system. Mr. Stephens replied personnel would still handle this situation like any other agency, at the will of the employer in the private industry, if the employee felt that he or she had been terminated unreasonably in the private industry. He maintained there are all kinds of remedies that could go through the court system, but do not have the same state appeal procedures.

Senator Amodei queried, "Would this basically allow [you] Mr. Stephens to remove an employee at the deputy director level, if he is not performing in accordance with the way the director thinks he should perform?" Mr. Stephens responded, "I believe it is not so much what the director thinks or believes, it is the mission of the state." He also implied he does not operate the department on personal a level and felt it would be interfering with the mission of the department. Mr. Stephens then remarked the personnel department would have to explain the reasons for handling this matter in this order, and would have to try and prove the employee actions to the state’s personnel system which would be a lengthy process and difficult one. He explained that personnel would have to observe the district engineers, and if they are employed in a district outside of the Carson City headquarters and were not doing the job, it would be almost impossible to document their daily performance from Carson City and to be able to make a case out of it.

Senator Amodei asked, "How did this question transpire from district engineers to assistant directors?" Mr. Stephens expounded that the assistant directors are senior to the district engineers and he stated it would seem incongruent to start giving the assistant directors who handle all the classifications projection and not just engineers. He replied, "We believe that the assistant directors are the key positions in the department, in addition to the district engineers. Mr. Stephens gave an example, "There could be an assistant director who is not doing his or her job, and the first thing the personnel department would try to do is talk to them and get them to do it." He stressed "What if the employee still cannot do the job, next personnel would try to offer his/her a transfer or demotion to get them out of their key position." He expounded that these employees supervise a lot of projects.

Senator Amodei asked, "How would you describe the "morale," at NDOT, at this time. He stated since this is a personnel matter he would like to know how issues are doing in the personnel sense. Mr. Stephens replied that he thought NDOT’s personnel "morale" is about medium and he thinks that the employees are more concerned about his/her health insurance plan, and salaries. He claimed it has become difficult for NDOT to hire engineer positions because of these issues. He claimed some of the employees are leaving because salaries are not competitive.

Mr. Stephens gave an example by saying there has been an engineering position open for 7 weeks, at a Grade 41, and NDOT has not received any applications, whatsoever, for this position. Mr. Stephens commented that NDOT has advertised this position "out of house" and has doubled the size of the program. He stated, "Like any agencies with 1600 employees, I think there are good areas and bad areas and this has been something the department has tried to address." He also stated that NDOT has been working on some new incentive programs and some other matters that are not salary related to help the "morale." He insisted that the "morale" is about average for state government and would like to point out that the turnover rate has been half the rate of state agencies, as a whole. He acknowledged that the NDOT had a 5.6- percent turnover last year, and it was not a retirement turnover, but it was only considered a turnover rate that could be controlled and compared to over 11 percent for the state. Mr. Stephens noted that the turnover rate was half of what it would have been, and he knew about some of the shifts that NDOT had made priority from northern Nevada to southern Nevada.

Mr. Stephens also stressed that there are some people who would like to see NDOT spend all their efforts on the Carson City bypass because the people live in Carson City. He remarked, "Of course, NDOT has balanced their program in this regard, and NDOT will try to create a statewide program." This would cause a change in the revenue so that it would go directly to Clark County. He said that he does not know if everybody agrees with this issue, but this issue has certainly been his mandate to balance the program and to make the department more of a holistic Nevada department, than just a rural Nevada Department of Transportation.

Senator Amodei questioned section 2 of the amendment that deals with the Planning Division. He asked if the amendment was going to affect any of the ongoing litigation that has occurred in the personnel area. Mr. Stephens replied, "As far as I know it does not, and it only precludes for the future." Mr. Stephens said there is a attorney general that said the Planning Division could be reorganized, but it would be a challenge.

Mr. Stephens also outlined one of the issues that he had reviewed, after he had become employed as the director for NDOT, and added he would like to put more money into southern Nevada. He referred to the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) in southern Nevada, with whom he had dealt and elucidated that they do the planning and programming, in coordination with NDOT. He announced that they are about four levels below him, in the Planning Division. He stated that one position was the metropolitan coordinator, along with two other people who had worked within the RTC.

Mr. Stephens continued to stress how he would like to create a new division within planning to deal with program development, and suggested at one time this division was called the Planning and Program Development Division. He pointed out there were a tremendous amount of difficulties for NDOT to operate within this Planning Division. He iterated, eventually, in order to make it work for NDOT, they had to separate the Program Development Division from the Planning Division, and 10 positions were taken out of the Planning Division. Mr. Stephens pointed to Exhibit C, and stated that the Program Development Division is the one who deals with the Metropolitan Planning Organization, and the two RTCs in Washoe County and Clark County, which are the organizations that started the urban programs. He acknowledged that the U.S. 95’s major investment study was under NDOT; and also a lot of the other programs and super projects that NDOT helped develop. He remarked, "The Program Development Division is a very responsive group that reports directly to the director’s office and the people in planning still do not agree with these decisions."

Mr. Stephens indicated that grievances had been filed and NDOT had to hire a deputy attorney general to show that this decision was made properly. He asserted that this was the Program Development Division and not the Planning Division, in which the statute had addressed the Planning Division as a long- range or 20-year program. He explained that program development is where NDOT plans to spend monies within the next year, or 2 years from now.

Mr. Stephens noted that NDOT has not had any problems with the change that was made because there is an Attorney General’s Opinion that shows that the decisions made were right. He was concerned if NDOT had decided to assign a planning activity to the architect, the one who does all the maintenance on buildings, and if they were asked to formulate a plan to address the maintenance needs for the next 5 years for new buildings, and the Planning Division said no because they figured this was a planning concern. He stressed if the provision stated that the department is responsible for planning then NDOT will not run into this same problem again.

Chairman O’Donnell ask Mr. Stephens if the director of the Planning Division is a deputy director. Mr. Stephens responded "Yes, he is, but he is an assistant director for the Planning Division and he falls under these guidelines."

Mr. Stephens expounded that the deputy director could be the chief of planning and not an assistant director, because the urban areas have to have their plans done by the nonprofit organization (NPOs) in Clark County and Washoe County. He also said that NDOT is basically doing rural planning in NDOT’s Planning Division, and NDOT is not planning what is going to happen in Clark County or Washoe County. He acknowledged that planning is a smaller area than what it used to be in the department. The reason being NDOT is not dictating to the urban areas what is happening, so it might not raise this to the level of an assistant director. It could revert to the chief of planning and not be an assistant director for NDOT. Mr. Stephens said there were some concerns that this change was aimed at the head of planning, and NDOT is not looking to make any changes in this area, and would like to maintain the classified status. He iterated that this would became even less because Carson City is going to reach the NPO level with 50,000 people, so they are going to do their own planning and then coordinate with their Program Development Division. Mr. Stephens said that Lake Tahoe had just become a planning group, an NPO. The planning group does rural highway planning and coordinates airports. The airports are the rural airports and not Reno-Tahoe or McCarran. They do some railroad work as well.

Mr. Stephens repeated that planning is so much different than it was 10 or 15 years ago, and it consist of a smaller group of people. He stated maybe this position does not need to be an assistant director.

Chairman O’Donnell asked Mr. Stephens if he felt that he was losing a little bit of the control in the Las Vegas and in the Washoe County areas, or at least with the NPOs because of being are caught with the language in the law that says that there needs to be a planning organization, but the planning organizations fall outside of the nonprofit organizations.

Mr. Stephens said it depends on the old department’s policies and how NDOT used to dictate to the locals about what should be done, at which time NDOT was considered powerful. He commented that there were still a number of people within the department that do remember these old policies. He quoted, "That is not my [Mr. Stephens] attitude." NDOT would go to southern Nevada and cooperate on any project, if southern Nevada decided that they did not want to work on U.S. 95 and wanted to do another project. NDOT would redirect NDOT’s funds, unless the board of directors tells him no. He said that NDOT’s philosophy is to let the locals decide as much as possible on what they would like to do.

Chairman O’Donnell asked Mr. Stephens if the board of directors of NDOT are the ones who determine where the project funds go, or if the funds go to the NPOs, Washoe County, Clark County, Lake Tahoe, and eventually, Carson City. He also asked, if the RTCs would basically take the funds and do the local projects.

Mr. Stephens replied how everything works is that each project has a certain amount of money associated with it and it becomes project driven. There needs to be a project in order to receive monies. He commented this is not considered a budget, but it is a project. He stated that the NPO formulates a list of projects called the "Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)." Then the NPO sends the list to NDOT, and NDOT incorporates their TIP into the State Transportation Program (STP). Then they have to approve the project, and NDOT has to approve it in the state plan. He said that NDOT partially has mutual veto authority over each project, and NDOT has never exercised that procedure. He stated he could not remember if NDOT has ever vetoed a project. NDOT would have projects in their plans to maintain certain road overlays in Reno.

Chairman O’Donnell asked Mr. Stephens if NDOT establishes a priority list, where everyone competes for the same dollar, and if NDOT selects only the priority projects, or does the board of directors set priorities at that point. Mr. Stephens replied the projects are not prioritized within the given year. He explained that this process involves the local TIP; the STP and the planning is locally dictated by the federal statutes. He continued to say if monies comes from the federal DOT, it would have to be processed by the federal statutes. Mr. Stephens said every entity has to cooperate and work together on these projects, by not just taking care of the urban areas but by balancing the program so that the rural areas will be taken care of as well.

Senator Jacobsen commented to Mr. Stephens how well he liked the district idea and felt that Mr. Stephens’ idea is a concise concern for an area that might have a different concern in the overall scenario. He asked Mr. Stephens if he had seen any failures with the members who were selected for board of directors for NDOT, or if he thought these members have the expertise that is needed to run the transportation board. Senator Jacobsen acknowledged that several sessions ago, the transportation committee tried to change the way the members were selected for the board of directors for NDOT. Mr. Stephens agreed with Senator Jacobsen that the board members should have expertise in this area. He also stated that he worked very closely with the local board members at times, and does not receive 100-percent participation from the members in every meeting. Mr. Stephens announced that an NDOT board meeting was scheduled for the week following this hearing.

Chairman O’Donnell informed the committee that he had introduced S.B. 336 regarding the revised composition of the board of directors of the Nevada Department of Transportation and of certain regional transportation commissions.

Senator Washington asked Mr. Stephens if he could give more details on the prioritization of projects and also asked in what order a project is placed on a list.

Mr. Stephens explained that if a project is considered very important, NDOT would initiate a study, and place it into the local Transportation Improvement Program, and then place it into the State Transportation Program to do a study on what improvements could be done; his example was the "Spaghetti Bowl," in Reno. He stated without completely rebuilding it, this project has resulted in about a $20 million project for redesigning. The locals and NDOT both agreed on this project. Mr. Stephens stated there are 79 categories of funding with which NDOT deals.

Chairman O’Donnell responded the "squeaky wheel" theory seems get the priority, and where ever is the squeaky wheel, that projects would get a study done; his example was the Spring Mountain Overpass. He said at one point nobody really looked at it, or knew there was more traffic in this area, until some concerned constituents complained to him, and then he submitted a bill, asking NDOT to study it. The study came back saying that there was more traffic on Spring Mountain Overpass than there was on Sahara Avenue in Las Vegas; then Spring Mountain Overpass became a priority.

Mr. Stephens said that NDOT is fortunate in the way they handle projects because the State of Nevada is growing so fast. It is not hard to see what the needs are, and NDOT does have to do a big planning study to figure out that there is a huge traffic jam somewhere because they are seen everyday.

Senator Amodei asked Mr. Stephens to describe how the Spaghetti Bowl project, in Reno, was initiated. Mr. Stephens iterated that he went to the chief engineer at NDOT and asked for a study to see if some improvements were needed to fine tune the area; and the engineers put together a small study, ranging from $50,000 to $100,000. Mr. Stephens explained that first, NDOT had to agree with the Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County (RTC) for the project, and then hire a firm to do the study. He continued to explain the City of Reno, the City of Sparks and the RTC members met at various meetings, and as they met they were doing drawings and traffic analyses which involved a set of plans that was given various options for each ramp and movement, once they all agree to the improvements, it would become a full-blown design, and the construction would moved forward.

Senator Amodei noted that the discretion to initiate this process is one of the discretions that Mr. Stephens enjoys as the director of the Nevada Department of Transportation. Mr. Stephens responded that the RTC enjoys it too, the chief of engineering for NDOT enjoys it, and almost everyone else that was involved in this process, that they could bring forth a the Spaghetti Bowl project. Senator Amodei responded to Mr. Stephens, "So the answer to my question is ‘yes’." Mr. Stephens concurred.

Senator Jacobsen commended Mr. Stephens for utilizing inmate crews in NDOT’s projects. He asked If he had ever been questioned by the federal government on any activities that NDOT had used the inmates. He continued his reason for asking was because there were some projects in the past which used federal funds and they questioned whether the inmates were used properly for these projects. Mr. Stephens answered that he believed that state monies are being used to pay for inmates, and on everything the inmates have been used, NDOT has been pleased with the results.

Senator Washington inquired about the Pleasant Valley extension. He asked what happens to a project that has been prioritized and had a fiscal year interim budget (FYI) set. He asked, "What if all of a sudden, there were some unknown controlled measures that occurred?" Mr. Stephens reply was that project was being done by the RTC, and not by NDOT. He said that the RTC is waiting for a developer to provide some monies as he had understood it, but the RTC will be doing the design of this project and NDOT is reviewing the plans because it crosses the NDOT’s highway. Mr. Stephens concluded occasionally NDOT’s project does not get stopped and NDOT does continue to work on the project’s other areas.

Robert J. Gagnier, Lobbyist, State of Nevada Employees Association, testified in opposition to S.B. 275. Mr. Gagnier stated how he was a little dismayed at some of the testimonies that had been given by the NDOT representatives in regard to this bill. He explained to the committee members that they had heard a typical management statement which is, to him, a demonstration of a management that does not manage; and he does not believe it is virtually impossible to terminate a classified employee. Mr. Gagnier stated that the testimony given by NDOT is "flat-out false." He stated that he wished that the State of Nevada Employee Association’s (SNEA) lawyer was present; a staff lawyer who has been kept busy doing nothing but handling these cases and really wished that it was impossible to terminate because it is not. Mr. Gagnier stated that SNEA loses more cases than they win, and said it certainly is possible when management does it right they could win these cases; it is not impossible to get rid of a classified employee. He asserted if they are not doing their job they should be terminated, and there is a process to remove them. If the agency follows this process they would be successful and it would not take years and years. Mr. Gagnier reiterated how SNEA handles these cases ongoing and he would like to dispel this myth. He stated to him this means that the people who are in charge and supposed to be managing personnel are not really doing their job.

Mr. Gagnier mentioned that he had heard testimony given on the district engineers out in the field, and inquired how could they be supervised when there is no direct on-site supervision. He commented further, neither the bill nor the amendment would change this issue and all these proposed provisions would do is gag this group of people. Mr. Gagnier claimed the moment an employee is taken and made a subject to arbitrary removal from his/her job, they are not free to talk. He also stated that this issue implied that classified employees cannot be removed and that SNEA has been very much a part of a discussion with Senator Rhoads and Assemblyman Carpenter. He called attention to Robert E. Romer, Lobbyist, State of Nevada Employees Association, who had attended some of the meetings, as well, and does know what the problems are in this district. Mr. Gagnier emphasized that he wished that the committee members could read some of the correspondence that was sent to Senator Rhoads on S.B. 103, in dealing with the professional engineers and the NDOT’s district in Winnemucca and Elko. Winnemucca and Elko were particularly the ones who sent Senator Rhoads a number of letters. Mr. Gagnier declared that the message given to Senator Rhoads, pertaining to the operations of NDOT, are not improving and said, if anything, they are going the opposite direction. He answered Senator Amodei’s question that was asked earlier in the hearing, and said the "morale" is a matter of geography and within this district the "morale" has gone down. Mr. Gagnier asked the chairman if he could defer to Mr. Romer because of the myth that NDOT noted, "they cannot terminate classified employees." He also stated that NDOT has ample evidence to take appropriate disciplinary action in Elko and for their reason NDOT chose not to do so. Mr. Gagnier iterated if they can discipline rank-and-file employees for the things that they do, certainly they can discipline a management employee for those same things.

Robert E. Romer, Lobbyist, State of Nevada Employees Association, stated, in his 18.5 years working with SNEA, that he had seen a lot of discipline and has not seen a problem in disciplining classified employees at any level. Mr. Romer said it is very simple; it is a question of a manager doing his job in documenting the alleged wrong-doing or whatever. He referred to NDOT reprimands, suspensions, terminations, and how he has seen a suspension when someone has broken a mirror on a vehicle. This person was told to use another piece of equipment to complete a job and when he came back the piece of equipment he had left there was damaged. He got blamed for the damage and then SNEA’s attorney negotiated for this person’s retirement.

Chairman O’Donnell asked, "What about the removal?" Mr. Romer said NDOT was going to fire him because he had been involved in other accidents before within his 28 years of service, and he pointed out that the SNEA attorney would have the exact estimation of this matter. Mr. Romer stated if NDOT uses progressive discipline and starts out with an employee according to the procedures, and the employee is given a reprimand for a problem, and if there is another problem, the employee gets suspended. If the employee encounters another problem, at this point he would be terminated. Because disciplinary action is supposed to correct the employee’s behavior and if this does not work and progressive discipline has been used, then this would become a tracking record to terminate the employee.

Mr. Gagnier concluded by saying SNEA thinks that NDOT can do their job without this bill and thinks that they should do the job that they are paid to do. He asserted this has carried from one district to another and affected a lot of other people; and they are subject to arbitrary removal, just because of the problem that occurred in one district. He noted, for the committee, another myth that under the Nevada state law and the state personnel regulations, a person can geographically transfer another employee at any time with an advance notice. The only time the employee can appeal the transfer is if they maintain that it was done for harassment disciplinary purposes. Mr. Gagnier iterated that SNEA had handled some of the disciplinary cases and lost because the employee who was transferred the agency demonstrated that it was for the good of the agency. He confirmed that NDOT would win these cases.

Senator Care asked Mr. Gagnier if the problems that occurred in Elko would have risen if the engineer had been unclassified. Mr. Gagnier said if this bill, in the original form, had been in effect, the department would not have had an excuse for Senator Rhoads and Assemblyman Carpenter in not removing the individual.

Chairman O’Donnell closed the hearing on S.B. 275 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 266.

Owen Ritchie, Assistant Chief, Registration Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, testified in favor of this bill. Mr. Ritchie asked for an additional fee, so that it would be much better for people because the DMV&PS currently has a title section and a title window, at different offices in southern Nevada and northern Nevada, where dealers could go and get a title made that is not available to the general public. He believed by introducing this bill DMV&PS could accept this change for the general public. Mr. Ritchie said that other states, such as California, charge a $50 fee to get an immediate title. This title would be needed immediately to sell a vehicle because they had lost their original title or would like a duplicate title for that day. He commented this would accommodate the sellers immediately.

Chairman O’Donnell asked Mr. Ritchie if there was a 10-day or 7-week search completed before issuing a title? Mr. Ritchie stated that a search would be completed if the person only has a "Bill of Sale" or possibly for other reasons depending on the circumstances.

Chairman O’Donnell mentioned that a constituent had phoned him, to say that he had a salvage yard and he wanted to get a title to some of the cars he had. The constituent asked if DMV&PS could issue only three titles, at a time, or "What are the rules?" Mr. Ritchie stated that this was an internal policy and they are limited because there are so many dealers, salvage pools and wreckers. Otherwise, DMV&PS would have to use staff from other areas of the department to meet the 14-day turnaround time. Chairman O’Donnell asked Mr. Ritchie if DMV&PS would be initiating additional staff for these duties. Mr. Ritchie answered no, because they have staff located in the West Flamingo office in the title window and they have already calculated the cost. Chairman O’Donnell asked if this policy would cause a backlog in processing the ordinary titles, or if this process could become longer than a 14-day turnaround. He pointed out this committee, over the years, has seen a real problem with the title turnarounds, and how they would hate to see someone trained to do immediate titles, collecting a $20 fee and turnaround use of other staff in satisfying this process, and then cause the titles to backlog. Mr. Ritchie replied this policy has been tested in southern Nevada and has helped the title turnaround in northern Nevada, instead of hindering it. He stated DMV&PS is currently at a 10-day turnaround, and has been averaging 8-to 9- day turnarounds for titling.

Chairman O’Donnell asked if the dealers have a problem with the $20 fee. Mr. Ritchie answered the extra $15 fee is only charged if the dealer wants the title immediately.

Senator Care asked if the duplicate certificate look exactly like the original certificate. Mr. Ritchie answered "Yes, it does." Senator Care asked if other jurisdictions have a problem selling the same car to two different people, and endorsing the title. Senator Care implied that he does not understand why someone would want two of the same titles. Mr. Ritchie replied it could be because they have lost the original title.

Chairman O’Donnell asked Mr. Ritchie if this policy could be changed after the bill has passed, to preclude someone from being limited to three titles. Mr. Ritchie said DMV&PS only limits the titles because some dealers bring in 40 or 50 titles and would tie up the windows, the printer, and the staff that is doing the immediate titles for the dealers. He maintained that the title windows are kept busy throughout the entire day. Chairman O’Donnell explained if a dealer comes in with 40 titles, it would cost approximately $800 dollars, and DMV&PS should think like a business, and hire another staff person. Mr. Ritchie elucidated there were three employees who were pulled from the staff to just process immediate titles. Chairman O’Donnell strongly stressed that a dealer would pay this additional fee in order to get the titles they need, because they have cars that sit on lots for 2 weeks, at $10 a day, and he quoted this would cost them $120 dollars, and the dealers would rather move the cars out. Mr. Ritchie stated that they are trying to service everyone the same and do not care to tie up the staff with one person.

Chairman O’Donnell pointed out that he does not have a problem with the bill, but with the policy and commented if this policy is used, as such, DMV&PS would be able to collect the extra $15 per title, would be able to avoid the additional staff. Mr. Ritchie agreed that when this bill was submitted it was exactly what DMV&PS had reviewed.

Chairman O’Donnell closed the hearing on S.B. 266 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 267.

Owen Ritchie, Assistant Chief, Registration Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, testified in support of S.B. 267. Chairman O’Donnell asked if this was the blue-plate bill. Mr. Ritchie stated that DMV&PS would like to see these plates remanufactured, and he also outlined line 11, "then being used," and said DMV&PS no longer used this type of die, and they would like to delete the word "then." He next outlined line 12, where it says "embossed," and said DMV&PS would rather use the word "de-bossed," instead.

Chairman O’Donnell said the committee went through great lengths to pass this bill for new plates, so that this bill could be in compliance. One of the deals was when the new plates were made, the owners would receive a "blue license plate," the exact plate. He was not sure if the committee had suggested a replica or a remanufactured plate. He stated how this issue does not bother him much, but what does bother him, is not giving the exact "embossed" or "de-bossed" license plates with the exact dates, years, lines, and colors. Chairman O’Donnell iterated the committee was reassured by DMV&PS that they could do this. He stated to Mr. Ritchie that he knew he was the messenger, but the proposed amendments were not the agreement.

Chairman O’Donnell quoted that he is not willing to paint a target on the back of every committee member and asked Mr. Ritchie for another option. Mr. Ritchie suggested that DMV&PS could buy other dies.

Robert A. Ostrovsky, Lobbyist, 3M Corporation, spoke on behalf of S.B. 267. Mr. Ostrovsky stated that the 3M Corporation would be willing to replace, free of charge, any of the missing dies and he does not know if there is a whole set of missing letter or number dies. This could be an issue that would have to be discussed later. He reiterated that the 3M Corporation would provide these dies, if it would help.

Mr. Ostrovsky suggested to the committee in order to make six or nine sets of dies, they would probably have to start a year early. He testified that this money would have to be taken from the Highway Fund and replaced as the registration fees are charged. He concluded by asking if this could be done, and stated the plant would have to speak for itself.

Senator Washington asked Mr. Ostrovsky if he or DMV&PS had inventoried the dies to see what was actually missing. Mr. Ostrovsky said at this time he could not answer that question.

Clay Thomas, Assistant Chief, Motor Carrier Bureau, Registration Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, clarified by giving some background on the "blue license plate" issues that came about because of the proposed amendments. Mr. Thomas stated this law was passed last session as such, and at that time he was the assistant chief of the Registration Division, but he was not involved in the proposed amendments, per se. He explained as the timeline moved forward he became the chief of the Registration Division and at that time, he was "tasked with implementing." There were several issues that he thought created a problem for the department to produce the "blue license plates;" and brought the problems to the attention of Bruce Glover, Deputy Director of DMV&PS. Mr. Thomas noted his concerns over the existing law, at that time, was that DMV&PS would refurbish the plate and the interpretation of refurbish meant, basically, to take the plate and actually "make it look new again." He commented further the problem then was there were five styles of "old blue Nevada license plates," that were out which involved five types of dies. He said in addition, early on, when the blue license plates came into existence, they were beyond the standards for lettering and numbering, but also they were designed into different types of configurations.

Mr. Thomas stated that there are some license plates in Nevada with "7 star 11" on them, with dashes; some are wide-lettered, narrow-lettered, and some have 69 in the upper left-hand corner and some are without it. There are license plates that read Nevada" at the top, and some that do not say Nevada. He claimed the problem initiated when the bill was passed and DMV&PS was required to refurbish these license plates. They later found out that there was a problem in attempting to refurbish the license plates.

Mr. Thomas noted in addition to this problem, the tag plant which would be refurbishing the license plates would have to shut down operations, in order to retool or refurbish the requested license plates, or to refurbish various kinds of license plates. He explained that the process would take approximately 4 hours of set up and 4 hours to break down, using the five different license plate styles, without knowing how many would request the specific style license plate.

Mr. Thomas pointed out that DMV&PS had a problem with having to set this process aside, and not being able to retool the license plates, and said the set up and break down time is required for each specific license plate, as well as the four different license plates that exist. He continued, "What had happened originally is that DMV&PS asked permission to go ahead and make some changes to these statutes," to present to the Legislature. He stated that DMV&PS was not adverse to making the changes to this statute, and in addition to the problems that need to be addressed, and replied, "This is why we are here today."

Mr. Thomas stated earlier there had been some research done on the dies that were available, and DMV&PS does not have complete sets for a variety of the older license plates, as he had recalled; and there were some letters missing and another research was completed. He said he did not come prepared to speak on this bill before the committee and this was an issue which came to him, subsequent to the hearing, that there would be an issue to emboss the style or press the style of the license plates. As far as he understood it the sheeting goes on first and then is embossed, which means the letter will sink. Mr. Thomas said that DMV&PS does not have a machine that would actually put the ink into the holes without putting ink on the entire plate of sheeting. He said if they used the other method, where it would extrude and the ink would come out of the back, then there would be a color sheet that extrudes the license plate, in order to place the color over the top of it, and this would become an issue. Mr. Thomas commented further that he does not know if this is insurmountable, at this time, and DMV&PS would probably have to look at either a white background to extrude and a blue background beyond that. He concluded that he could not speak on behalf of the authority on how to reproduce these license plates.

Chairman O’Donnell asked Mr. Thomas, "Do you mean the silver background?" Mr. Thomas responded, "The blue background with the white letters." Chairman O’Donnell reconfirmed that the blue background has silver letters.

Chairman O’Donnell asked Mr. Thomas approximately how many plates have been issued and need to be restamped. He asserted that there are a lot of plates that could be painted over; that the embossing was fine, the lettering was fine, the shape of the plate is fine, but the color has been basically wiped off because it has been washed a lot of times. Chairman O’Donnell added that he is not so sure that DMV&PS would have to retool. Maybe DMV&PS should be looking at this, from the chairman’s standpoint, that the exact same plates will be given back to the people who turn them in, or otherwise, there would be a "Holy war on the Legislature’s hands." Chairman O’Donnell iterated that he does not care to see this happen. He also commented, "If we cannot give the exact same plates back then there is going to be deep trouble," and his point was the committee is going to accomplish this or do whatever it takes. Chairman O’Donnell suggested what he would like to see DMV&PS do is change the bill to allow the people to get a temporary plate for 6 months, to collect or recall the license plates and issue a temporary one; and when DMV&PS gets a certain number of the plates, DMV&PS can tool up, complete them, and retool the next set and so forth. That might be the best way to go rather than to ask the committee to undo what they had promised to do 2 years ago.

Mr. Ostrovsky stated that he would like to remind the committee the way the law had been approved in the last session did not require anyone to return the blue plate. Anyone who currently had an old blue plate with which they were satisfied of the condition and wanted to keep it, the owner did not have to return the plate. There was an estimation of 60,000 pairs of "old blue plates" in circulation statewide, based on some polling that the 3M Corporation had done. Most of them were in the rural areas and northern Nevada, and not quite as many were in southern Nevada. He said that there would only be a certain percentage of people who would actually turn the plates in and ask for new ones. Mr. Ostrovsky concluded that it would run anywhere from 10 to 20 percent, or 6,000 to 12,000 plates were estimated to be turned in. There is no way to know for sure. The law would provide the cost, and the person asking for the license plate would have to pay for it. He continued to say the plates could cost $2 or $3 dollars a plate or $5, or it might be $10 a set. He explained he had talked to some old blue plate owners" who said if the cost was $50 dollars to refurbish it, it would be okay as they wanted to keep their "old blue plate." Mr. Ostrovsky stated that this is how strongly people expressed their concerns about "old blue plates." The cost will be passed on to all "blue plate owners," to have their plates replaced.

Senator Washington stated that the committee should take this provision one step further; by using an opening date and a closing date to recall the plates so that DMV&PS could replace them. Chairman O’Donnell agreed that this would be a excellent solution to this problem.

Mr. Ostrovsky asked if there was a 30-day window to register license plates. Chairman O’Donnell said that the committee would try to accommodate DMV&PS so that they would not have to retool every single plate, 60,000 times. Chairman O’Donnell suggested that there should be an amendment that reflects a temporary plate, or a written plate with an expiration date on it. He also suggested that DMV&PS could use a placard until the license plate has been refurbished, and the license plate would not get returned to the owner unless they return the placard. Chairman O’Donnell added that the bill should be revisited and brought back to the committee with new amendments that would resolve all the problems.

Senator Wiener stated that she recalled the testimony from the Nevada Highway Patrol that the average paint life of a license plate would be 8 years maximum.

Mr. Ostrovsky said that a person would be taking his own risk, if he/she continues to use an old blue license plate, because the requirement in the law is that the plates should be readable; so many feet during the daylight hours and so many feet during the nighttime hours. His understanding, in talking to the highway patrol, is that they have not enforced this law, "but it has been cleared that some of the old blue license plates cannot be read at all." A person is at his/her own risk if the plate on the vehicle cannot be read within the required distance, by the law, at night, and this person would be subject to being stopped and given a citation. This person would become very upset because they had gone to DMV&PS to renew registration and this person were told they had to replace the old license plate with a different new license plate because DMV&PS could not refurbish the old license plate.

Senator Wiener called attention to the renewal policy of the "old blue license plates" and stated that people might become vulnerable to these issues without knowing of the requirements.

Chairman O’Donnell selected Vice Chairman Amodei and Senator Wiener to be on the subcommittee for S.B. 267.

Chairman O’Donnell closed the hearing on S.B. 267 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 268.

Ralph A. Felices, Supervising Investigator, Bureau of Enforcement, Registration Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, provided testimony on S.B. 268 and said it is a department-requested bill. Mr. Felices stated that the purpose of this bill was to amend the language of NRS 487.240 which is titled, "Appraisal of removed abandoned vehicles." He iterated that the current language requires the state agency appraise the vehicle within 10 days after the request is made. The amended language would allow the state agency 10 business days; rather than 10 calendar days. Basically this was to accommodate weekends in which the faxed transmittal for vehicles that are held in storage, wrecking yards and towing facilities occur. He said if the two weekends are subtracted on each side of a work week, it will be down to 5 or 6 days and if a holiday was added, it will be down to 5 days, and DMV&PS would process approximately 20,000 transmittals which would be increased by 10 percent annually. He emphasized that the numbers would continue to increase as the population expanded. Mr. Felices expressed that DMV&PS is currently handling the problems and are up against the problems until the last day. DMV&PS would like to make these changes to make it standard for 10 business days, so that there is no question as to what is a holiday.

Senator Jacobsen asked Mr. Felices to explain what had transpired that brought this matter to this point, or if somebody wanted a request. Mr. Felices stated that currently the vehicle information is transmitted via fax for the most part, on a transmittal form provided by the department. These vehicles are brought into wrecker’s yards and to the tow-car facilities at the request of police agencies and property owners. Then the vehicles are placed on a list by serial number, make and model; if they have a license number it is also placed on the form. The form, in return, would be taken into a teletypewriter room where all the information for each vehicle is fed into the teletypewriter system to check to see if they are stolen, the current registration, and so forth. If the vehicles are not stolen and they are not currently registered, the date would be set for the appraisal to go to the businesses and appraise the vehicle for its value.

Senator Jacobsen asked Mr. Felices if a notice is sent to the current owner. Mr. Felices responded affirmatively, if the vehicle is currently registered. Mr. Felices expounded if there was not a record of any current registration, then there would not be a notice.

Senator Care wanted to know whether DMV&PS counted the date they receive the receipts from the tow company, as one of the 10 days, or if the date started after the day of the receipt. Mr. Felices answered, "That is correct, the receipts are date stamped or fax stamped."

Senator Wiener inquired if this was on the tenth day, the eleventh day would be the started date. Mr. Felices replied, "That is correct."

Chairman O’Donnell asked if there would be a problem with abandoned vehicles statewide because DMV&PS cannot get to them right away. Mr. Felices responded that the vehicles of which DMV&PS received the transmittals have already been collected and scheduled for appraisal.

Chairman O’Donnell closed the hearing on S.B. 268.

There being no further business, the hearing was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Joan Moseid,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator William R. O'Donnell, Chairman

DATE: