MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE

on PUBLIC SAFETY/NATURAL RESOURCES/TRANSPORTATION

OF THE

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

AND THE

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

 

 

Seventy-First Session

March 1, 2001

 

 

The Joint Subcommittee on Public Safety/Natural Resources/Transportation of the Senate Committee on Finance and the Assembly Committee on Ways and Meanswas called to order by Chairman David R. Parks at 8:07 a.m., on Thursday, March 1, 2001, in Room 2134 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.

 

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mr. David R. Parks, Chairman

Mr. Bob Beers

Mrs. Vonne S. Chowning

Mrs. Marcia de Braga

Mr. John W. Marvel

Mr. Richard D. Perkins

 

SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen

Senator William R. O’Donnell

 

SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Senator Joseph M. Neal Jr.

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Gary L. Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst

Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst

Mark Krmpotic, Program Analyst

ElizaBeth Root, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Richard Kirkland, Director, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety

Virginia Lewis, Deputy Director, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety

Carol English, Assistant Chief, Administrative Services Division, Department of         Motor Vehicles and Public Safety

Russ Benzler, Administrator, Compliance Enforcement Division, Department of         Motor Vehicles and Public Safety

Donna West, Administrator, Field Services Division, Department of Motor             Vehicles and Public Safety

Dennis Colling, Chief, Administrative Services Division, Department of Motor             Vehicles and Public Safety

Dana Mathiesen, Administrator, Central Services and Records Division, Department             of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety

Jim Parsons, Environmental Management Specialist, Chairman, Advisory             Committee for the Control of Vehicle Emissions, Compliance Enforcement             Division, Department of         Motor Vehicles and Public Safety

 

 

DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND PUBLIC SAFETY

 

Richard Kirkland, Director, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS):

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee.  We are pleased to have the opportunity to present to you our series of budgets.  I would like to start with a brief overview.  The Governor gave all department heads instructions to present a budget to him, and then he manipulated that budget, as submitted in The Executive Budget.  That budget was based on what we had in the year 2001.  His directions were “fiscal year (FY) 2001 times two.”  There are “roll up” costs agencies cannot control, such as salary recommendations. 

 

The Governor’s directions also addressed areas in the operation of the division that are fee-generated and demand-driven by customers.  We could utilize any of the revenues we increased through the presentation of our services. 

 

Finally, the Governor said to DMV&PS that our budget was not to be submitted to him costing more than the total sum of the same budget in FY 2001.  We are pleased to say we have not done that.  Before we get into the specifics in our handout (Exhibit C), I would like to point out the budgets and funding you provide to us result in service we provide to our citizens.  This is the most important element of what we do.  We are pleased to share with you the resolution of some very serious problems in the motor vehicle side and its service delivery.

 

One year ago, we were anywhere from a low of 3 to 4 hours, to a high of 6 to 7 hours, depending on the branch office and delivery of services.  Thanks to the Interim Finance Committee (IFC), we are pleased to say our statewide customer wait time is now at 57 minutes.  In the South, the wait time is 58 minutes.  That is the best we have done for a one-month time count in the past 12 months to 14 months.  The number of people who move into our state and show up everyday at our windows to demand our service is increasing significantly. 

 

In January 2000, we processed 186,735 transactions, and in January 2001, we did 261,726 transactions, which is 100,000 transactions increase per month.  With the continual growth in Clark County of around 5,000 new residents a month, and another 1,500 to 2,000 in the rest of the state, the challenges continue to be large and demanding.  We have a number of recommendations before the Legislature to deal with those challenges.  We hope as the bills wind their way through, we will be able to meet our challenges through alternative services. 

 

Our e-mail and other alternative services are working very well.  We are at about 65,000 transactions over the Internet, and our mail-in and mail-out is up substantially.   

 

We have some pilot programs.  In fact today, we have started a pilot program in Clark County to allow customers to call in to make an appointment.  The main challenge is trying to control or plan for the number of customers who show up at our branch offices for window service.  Six or eight months ago, we would consistently have 200 to 225 people waiting at opening.  We are down now to only 100 or 125 waiting at opening, but continue to have to deal with that problem. 

 

We are suggesting an increase in the number of smog stations that will allow for all transactions at a smog station, which we believe is going to go a long ways towards solving this problem.  We are working with new car dealers statewide who have indicated they would be willing to participate in a pilot program. Those will be online shortly. 

 

So, it is not all doom and gloom.  There are some things on the horizon, but the main challenge to all of us is the number of customers that show-up and the number of employees at our windows to provide service to those customers.  A brief overview of that is, about one year ago, we came to IFC and requested additional staffing using the funding available at that time in our own budget.  That allowed us to target a staffing ratio of 85 percent.  The purpose is to meet what we believe is an acceptable time for delivery of service, being one hour or less.  Shooting for 85 percent means the number of trained employees is consistently at 75 percent of the number of employees authorized to provide the service.  Unfortunately, we have 260 windows statewide, and that means only 75 percent of those windows are going to be filled at any given time.  Additionally, we have to add to that equation sick leave, vacations, family medical leave, and all of the other reasons people can leave, or not be at their windows.  That is 37 percent of the time those people are not at their windows.  Those are the challenges. 

 

The budget we are presenting today will go a long way towards doing the best we can with available funding.  I want to emphasize we are not asking for additional funding from the State Highway Fund.  Our basic budget in FY 2001 was $72,814,318.  We are requesting $81,953,000 in FY 2002.  We are paying for that increase, which is 3.8 percent with increased fee revenues resulting from those additional people who are coming to our door.  I understand that Mark Krmpotic, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), does have some concerns.  He believes it may be an increase greater than that.  We will be happy to work the details out with your analyst or you.  There are a number of pass-through amounts of money that go directly to the State Highway Fund, and that is what makes it look larger than it is.

 

Chairman Parks:

I am sure there is going to be a few questions from the subcommittee.  I would like to ask they be general in nature, as opposed to specific to a budget.  July 1, 2001 is the scheduled date for the splitting of the department into two agencies.  Please respond as to how doable is a split of the department by that date. 

 

Mr. Kirkland:

Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to respond to that question as an overview.  As you know, the Governor instituted an overview of all state government through the Governor’s Steering Committee to Conduct a Fundamental Review of State Government (fundamental review).  The fundamental review report came out about two weeks ago, and one of the recommendations is to split the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and Public Safety (PS).  The short answer is we think it is very doable.  This is not the kind of reorganization the Legislature has been used to in the past.  The challenge for us was to present a split for PS away from DMV as painlessly, efficiently, and quickly as possible.  Also, this was to be completed at no additional cost. 

 

We have taken DMV as it exists today and set it aside, and taken PS as it exists today and set it aside.  The Administrative Services Division that provides all of the support services is split about 60 percent to 40 percent.  Of course, there would be a couple of new positions, but those will not be additional dollars and will be within the budget.  Administrative and Financial services can continue to be provided for each side as they are today.

 

There is some concern this should be done to save money.  When the Governor asked me to work for him, and gave me directions on what he wanted to do, in this one area, he did not indicate this was to be done to save money.  The Governor was more concerned with other issues of efficiency of operation, and to try to correct what has not been a very effective operation over the years.  A law enforcement individual must be in charge of DMV&PS by the very nature of the business.  Typically, those of us in law enforcement are geared towards law enforcement.  That is what we know and do, and generally we do not have background and training in the very complicated and difficult challenges in providing motor vehicle services.

 

We believe it will work better with a trained and experienced professional in DMV services.  They will not be competing with law enforcement, as I think they have been in the past.  I believe this is going to be fundamentally a seamless split.  Also, I believe the services provided will not only continue to be as good, but will be better.

 

Mrs. Chowning:

I would like to say “thank you” to you and all your staff all the help you have given my constituents through the interim.  I would like to say “thank you” to all the employees for doing an absolutely splendid job, when faced with the challenges we have had over these two years. 

 

I sit here listening to you say everything is wonderful; that you are not going to ask for any new dollars.  And, yet we have 100,000 more transactions to deal with.  Yes, we have plans for serving people out of the office.  Some are in the implementation stage, but they are not really where they need to be to serve people out of the office, yet.  We have the program just now getting off the ground where we work with new car dealers.  Yes, we approved more positions.  Most of those have been hired, but there has been turnover, so “85 percent of the windows are not filled.”

 

So, how can we honestly say we are going to get back to the 20-minute turnaround?  Let us be realistic, and say we are down from two hours to one hour.  But, how can we honestly say to our citizens will stay at 57 minutes, with nothing new when the number of transactions is going up, and not all of the employees are there.  Yes, it is better than it was before.  What if we funded the increase needed to keep the lines down?  We have this budget today because the Governor wants us not to increase any dollars.  We are faced with the budgeting issues, but what would be the budget if we could have it?  What would be the wish list?  I do not think we are being honest.  Yes, we have a one-hour wait, but I do not think it is going to stay at an hour.  It is going to creep up on us because of all the people coming into our state.  So, let us just give an honest picture.

 

Mr. Kirkland:

You have outlined it very well, and we certainly do not agree with all of the fundamental review recommendations.  I think you have covered all of the bases.  Obviously, we work for the Governor, and he has outlined a plan, which he wants us to implement.  Thank you for your comments about our hard-working employees.  I can tell you one answer is more people.  If we could staff all 260 windows with a relief factor, there is no question we would reduce the time element, and we would be able to maintain a balance with the new people moving into our state. That would most definitely be very expensive. 

 

We are authorized to staff at 85 percent.  We cannot because of the turnover you talked about.  We are normally staffed at about 75 percent with a 35 percent employee absence.  We would be happy to provide you with the documentation.  We know at some of the offices it is 40 percent to 45 percent; some of the offices are at 31 percent, but overall it is about 37 percent absenteeism rate on any given day.  So, with those numbers it is very difficult for us to meet the challenge of growth in this state.  On the other side of the coin, from a fiscally responsive point of view, we need to let these other options grow and find out what they are going to do. 

 

In my opinion, every smog station should have the option to have full service, and when people drive in there, they should understand they could get their car registration renewed right then and there.  If they want to pay cash they can do that, and we will eliminate a significant number of people who otherwise are standing in line.

 

Registration at the car dealership is going to have another enormous impact.  I was contacted by the state association of the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) when I first came to DMV&PS.   We talked to many who see the value of this new program, which I believe will be successful.

 

We need to increase the Internet alternatives.  In 8 months we are further along than other states that have been doing Internet service for two to three years.  So, we can be very proud of that, but there are other issues.  We are currently working with a couple of manufacturers who do kiosks, and they have developed some great technology.  It is a touch screen technology.  Part of the trouble with Internet technology is it only targets 10 percent of the population because it looks complicated.  We make that process simpler.  People using a kiosk can go to a shopping mall or a DMV facility and take care of their business. 

 

Fiscally, I think we need to do those things first, before we just throw personnel into DMV.  Increasing personnel is going to mean we will open at night, or seven days a week, or build additional buildings, which is a huge expense. 

 

Senator O’Donnell:

You have a high attrition rate, do you not?

 

Mr. Kirkland:

Yes, Sir, we certainly do.

 

Senator O’Donnell:

The reason why you have a high attrition rate is probably due to the workload, which is demanding.  The customers are placing undue stress on the employees because there are not enough employees to handle all the windows.  I can appreciate your efforts; but as a member of this subcommittee and of the transportation committee, this one-hour wait time is not acceptable.  People in the city of Las Vegas are used to a high level of service, or paramount service, if you will.  They have been able to walk into a DMV, get their driver’s license and registration and other business in a relatively short period of time.  I am talking about in 3 to 5 minutes waiting time. 

 

In 1995, DMV&PS “went creative.”  As time went on, our growth caught up with the number of employees we hired.  Fairly soon the wait time became longer and longer and longer.  Then we had this computer system called Genesis that was implemented.  Then everybody started to blame Genesis as the problem, and it was true that Genesis had problems and characteristics making for longer lines.  However, those problems are being resolved, due to the good work of my friend, Assemblyman Beers, and his constantly peppering you with questions as to why you were not getting there.  This gave DMV&PS the impetus to finish the job and get it done. 

 

However, I have been saying for a long time a one-hour wait at DMV is too long.  I am not trying to grandstand here.  I have said it before, and I will say it again.  It is unacceptable.  I do not mind working with you, and with the Governor, but we have to come up with something to make those lines shorter.  Now, throwing more bodies at this problem just may be the right answer.  As people move on to other jobs, as these new features that you have at DMV come online, you do not have to fill those positions.  You can have vacancy savings for the following session.  However, if we are going to plan on these pilot programs to work, and if they do not work, we are going to be looking at what Mrs. Chowning said, not a one-hour wait.  If the registration numbers are going up, we are going to have the same problem in two years that we have today.  I am sure the Governor does not want that either, and he has been hands-on with this department from day one.  We need to be smarter about what we are doing, and come up with an idea of how we can solve this problem.  I am willing to do that with you.  However, I do not believe that a one-hour waiting time is fair to the public, to us, or to the Governor.  So, we just need to put our heads together and solve the problem.

 

Mr. Kirkland:

Senator, I do not disagree with what you have stated, although we are soldiers of the Governor’s administration.  We have to march to his tune.  I am not going to tell you I do not disagree with his tune, because I do disagree with what the Governor is doing.  I do believe we have to make certain these options and alternatives will work, because if they do not, then we get put in the difficult position of determining one agency has more value than the other.  The money has to come from some place, and it is going to be a fairly significant amount.  You and Mrs. Chowning are both correct, and we agree.  We look at these numbers, and if the growth continues there is going to have to be an expansion of the services and the number of employees to deliver those services.   

 

Senator O’Donnell:

What portion of your local government services tax do you get for the transaction?

 

Mr. Kirkland:

We get 6 percent. 

 

Senator O’Donnell:

What portion of it do you get after ten years, the same 6 percent?

 

Mr. Kirkland:

It remains consistent at 6 percent. 

 

Senator O’Donnell:

What is the registration fee for a car over ten years old?

 

Mr. Kirkland:

Every car, new or old, is $33.

 

Senator O’Donnell:

You get 6 percent of that?

 

Mr. Kirkland:

The motor vehicle privilege tax varies with the value of the car.  Your standard $27,000 new car today would be about $450 in Clark County, and we get 6 percent to collect that revenue.

 

Senator O’Donnell:

The depreciation schedule for a car is ten years.  After ten years, it goes down to what amount?

 

Mr. Kirkland:

It goes down to $39.

 

Senator O’Donnell:

How much of the $39 do you get?

 

Mr. Kirkland:

We get the same 6 percent.

 

Senator O’Donnell:

Six percent of $39 is $2.34.  You get $2.34!  Has that fee ever gone up? How long has that been instituted?

 

Virginia Lewis, Deputy Director, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety:

Senator O’Donnell, I do not know how long the 6 percent has been in effect, or the depreciation schedule.

 

Senator O’Donnell:

I believe the 10-year depreciation schedule is relatively new.  However, the initial bill of $39 has been on the books since 1965.  That has been on the books since about the same year the Governor came to Nevada, and it has not changed.  Yet, the demands on DMV are more now than they have ever been.  With people’s response to wanting services, if we are going to keep the fee at $2.34, DMV will be losing money.

 

 

Mr. Kirkland:

I have inquired into that issue because I wanted to know the answer to that very issue.  We have not completed the report, but we will have those figures for you in the near future.  

 

Senator O’Donnell:

We are in a dilemma.  I am firmly convinced the Governor wants to fix this as much as you and I do.  The question is how we are going to resolve this problem.

 

In other states, there have been “Prop 13 type initiatives” that have capped the motor vehicle privilege tax.  They are rolled back because they are getting so high people are totally dissatisfied and want redress.  Can you quantify the amount of evasion we have in Nevada because people will not register their car.  They know if they go to DMV their motor vehicle privilege tax will be exorbitant. 

 

Mr. Kirkland:

We know the evasion rate, willful or accidental, in our state is quite high.  It is in the best interest of Clark County, Washoe County, and Elko County, just as it is to the state, to catch those people.  We are working on how to deal with those kinds of people.  We have initiated discussion on this issue, because if this is not enforced, the state and local governments suffer.  I cannot quantify the figure because nobody goes out to count how many out-of-state plates there are.   There is one bill draft request (BDR) that has been introduced to address this very issue.  I think it would make a fairly significant impact on us all.

 

Senator O’Donnell:

Can you tell me what that BDR does?

 

BILL DRAFT REQUEST 43-213:  Requires new Nevada resident to pay motor             vehicle privilege tax and other fees for new motor vehicle license plates at         the time application is made for Nevada driver’s license.  (Later introduced as             Assembly Bill 246.)

 

Ms. Lewis:

Assemblywoman Kathyrn A. McClain has introduced a BDR stating that when customers come in from another state, with 6 months remaining on their registration from that state, they can come into a Nevada DMV office, and get a 6‑month registration.  We have not done analysis on this, but preliminary numbers show there is a significant loss of revenue, not only to the State Highway Fund, but also to the counties through the motor vehicle privilege tax.

 

Senator O’Donnell:

That is correct, because the school districts and the counties are the ones who receive the majority of that money.  However, they are not the ones out there enforcing people driving around without proper registration.  Let us be pragmatic.  The registration fees and the motor vehicle privilege tax are too high.  We have to come up with some other way of determining what kind of schedule we are going to have, and still keep the revenue.  I have an idea, and I will share it with you.  We can solve this dilemma; however, a one-hour wait is not acceptable.  We are going to have to “put more bodies into DMV,” at least until these other processes come online.

 

 

Chairman Parks:

Is there any major problem as far as facilities, or do you see any issue on the horizon that needs to be addressed that has not been included in the budget?

 

Mr. Kirkland:

No, nothing in terms of the split into DMV and PS.  In terms of the split, four years ago you had funded a renovation of the Carson City facilities, which is about halfway done so far.  I believe when it is concluded we will have acceptable facilities. 

 

If the growth rate of this state continues, I suggest we look at the facilities of branch offices.  Advanced planning needs to be done.  Other states have moved away from the major huge offices, where customer parking is a problem, towards the smaller branch offices. 

 

Downstream, we will need to look at this issue of our facilities.  Some of the facilities we have are not good deals for DMV, such as the facility at the Carey office in North Las Vegas.  We just discovered we have roof problems at that office and the landlord will not pay for repair.  We have just spent a lot of money rebuilding it. 

 

PROPOSED DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

DMV, Director’s Office – Budget Page DMV-1 (Volume 3)

Budget Account 201-4744

 

Chairman Parks:

Let us get into the first budget account 210-4744.  Please comment on the performance indicators, specifically addressing why so many of them reflect a “not available” in the projected column.

 

Ms. Lewis:

The ones showing “not applicable” or “not available” are indicators that center around a function within the director’s office.  During that fiscal year, there was one auditor absent for most of the year.  I cannot answer what the exact number of audits were, or what his functions were, or what his actual performance was during that year.  This resulted in a “not available” indicator. 

 

There continues to be a vacancy within that small unit of the director’s office.  There has been a lack of focus and direction on what that unit should be doing.  Since we have had some turnover within the director’s office, there has been this lack of direction.

 

Mr. Kirkland:

If I could follow up, this raises the continuing issue of salary and personnel turnover.  We actually replaced that position, and the person lasted 8 days before he accepted another job making more money.  We have been unsuccessful in dealing with the complicated personnel process, which actually tests for certain skills not actually used by the person in this position.  This, again, simply points out a difficult challenge for all of us.

 

 

 

 

Chairman Parks:

We have talked about the effective date of reorganization and logistical considerations related to the department split.  I do not believe we need to belabor the issue further. 

 

Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 408.235 indicates the department may not expend more than 22 percent of the fees collected for the administration of the collection of fees for the State Highway Fund.  It appears the percentage of appropriation in this budget exceeds the 22 percent.  Could you speak to that issue?

 

Ms. Lewis:

Mr. Chairman, we are well aware our budgets exceed the 22 percent.  As I have testified in different hearings, the 22 percent is an obsolete number.  Our demand for services has far exceeded our ability to stay within 22 percent of the revenues we collect.  In coordination with the Governor, who supports the elimination of the 22 percent, we have worked with the Department of Administration to submit a BDR that would eliminate the 22 percent limit.  My feeling on this is DMV budgets are just like any other budget in the state.  We would go through the same level of scrutiny and analysis, so I am not sure a limitation of only our budgets makes sense anymore.

 

Chairman Parks:

On the flip side, there is the concern for the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT).  I presume most of the revenue that you do not keep NDOT is able to retain for their accounts.

 

Ms. Lewis:

Mr. Chairman, my only response is we are faced with a demand for service that is beyond our control, and our budgets need to support that demand.

 

Mr. Kirkland:

If we do not have the staff to collect the money, then the highway department is not going to get the $450 million we collect for them.

 

Chairman Parks:

Committee staff will be working with you on this issue.  This is something to be determined another day.  You did indicate a BDR was requested?

 

Ms. Lewis:

Yes.

 

Speaker Perkins:

I think you touched on this when you talked about the growth in Nevada and trying to manage the workload.  The percentage of your appropriations to collections is taking a steep jump in the projected biennium.  Is that due to the caseload or the number of positions?  Will that help retain your employees or keep the waiting times down?  Can you speak to that increase, because it looks as if it is going from 37 percent to almost 50 percent?

 

Mr. Kirkland:

I’ll let Ms. Lewis discuss the details, Mr. Speaker.  Because of the difficulty in retaining employees we are proud of the fact that we finally have an excellent team in our collections department.  We have gone from collecting $10,000 to $20,000 two years ago to collecting over $2 million this year.  We see that as one of the many reasons collections revenue will increase.  As with all things you start doing, you find problems.  As a result, we have found additional problems, which we think will increase the revenue even more when corrected. 

 

For example, one problem we realized is how bad checks impact the counties.  To collect on bad checks, we are authorized to send money to the counties even though the bad checks bounced.  We were doing that, but we have met with district attorneys, including those in Clark County and Washoe County.  They are going to be more aggressive in going after the people who bounced those checks, which should increase collections.

 

Ms. Lewis:

To be honest with you, I would have to work with committee staff on this.  As you are aware, IFC authorized 48 additional staff and 64 part-time.  That is why this fiscal year we did not ask for additional funding.  We were able to do that with revenue that was not obligated, such as the penalties.  So the budget request before you rolls those positions into our expenditure requests.  I cannot respond to the comment about the 50 percent increase until I look at the figures.

 

Mr. Kirkland:

Mr. Speaker, Dennis Colling, Chief, Administrative Services Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, advises me, “he thinks the total number across the agency which have a number of those $2 million additional dollar increases.  We can get the specific information to you and staff.”

 

Senator O’Donnell:

There may be some on this committee that think I am nuts for wanting a 20 minute wait, but I am not going to stand by and be satisfied with the normality of a one‑hour wait. 

 

Mr. Kirkland:

Senator, we agree, as does the Governor.  The one-hour wait is just a target that started when it was a six-hour wait.  As a matter of fact, the office located at 305 Galletti Way in Reno, Nevada, is consistently at 20 to 25 minutes waiting time.  The Galletti office has the same ratio of customer to employees.  We are working on those issues.

 

Senator O’Donnell:

Mr. Kirkland, where else in the world do you go and wait 20 minutes to hand somebody money?  Seriously, when you want to accomplish a business transaction, where else do you go and wait 25 minutes?  Why can we not have it down to 5 minutes, 6 minutes?

 

Mr. Kirkland:

No, question, I agree with you.  I think we can get the waiting time down, but it is going to take capital and personnel investment larger than the Governor’s authorized allotment.

 

Senator O’Donnell:

We need to get into this issue because it needs to be resolved.  I have a solution and I need to bring interested parties on board.  The initial reaction to my solution has been favorable.

 

Mr. Kirkland:

We will support that solution.  I do not want to send you the message we are happy with a one-hour wait.  We are not.  We are happy with it in comparison to what it was. 

 

Mr. Marvel:

You know we had the cap of 22 percent on the State Highway Funds.  With the budget your agency put together, you will be exceeding the cap.  Are you going to have a BDR to try to change the cap, or do you think you can get back under that 22 percent cap?  Do you agree with eliminating the cap?

 

Mr. Kirkland:

Mr. Marvel, I am not aware of a BDR at this point.  We tried to get back under the cap, but it was clear the magnitude of the problem would not allow it.  So, the Department of Administration is submitting a BDR to either eliminate that cap, or otherwise deal with it.

 

Ms. Lewis:

My understanding is the Governor supported eliminating the 22 percent limit and the BDR will be submitted as such. 

 

Mr. Kirkland:

To answer the question whether I agree with eliminating the cap.  The actual money we collect pays for what we have asked for outside of what we collect for the state highway department.  If it were gone right now, it would not mean we would be reaching into the highway department’s pockets to a greater extent.  The money we have asked for we collect by the fees regulated by statute.

 

DMV, Administrative Service – Budget Page DMV-4 (Volume 3)

Budget Account 201-4745

 

Chairman Parks:

There being no further questions, let us move on to budget account 201-4745. 

 

Ms. Lewis:

Mr. Chairman, this budget is the result of the proposed split of the department.  It creates an administrative services division within DMV.  It represents the transfer of existing positions from budget account 201-4714 for a stand-alone DMV, as well as one new position, which is an Administrative Services Officer.  It is a simple budget account.  It also captures the replacement of the computers for the DMV branch.  We are attempting to embark on a 25 percent replacement every year, which is crucial for the branch.  This would ensure we have functional computers so that we do not have a service window we have to close because we do not have an operational computer.

 

Senator Jacobsen:

How are you are going to determine which positions are transferred and which stay?  Is that going to be determined by qualifications?

 

Ms. Lewis:

We sat down within the department and said, “How are we going to accomplish this split to keep the process as simple and painless as possible.”  We looked at the two divisions affected, Administrative Services Division and the Director’s office.  We then said, DMV has recently reorganized, and consolidated like functions and eliminated duplicative efforts.  So, we said, “What does DMV need to be whole and stand alone?”  The Administrative Services Division that exists today has a number of revenue positions, which is totally a motor vehicle branch function.  So, we literally went through every existing position, asked what that position supported, and allocated personnel to accomplish the split.  We knew there would be some holes on the public safety side there would be some holes, and they would go through a similar exercise that DMV went through during the 1999 Legislative Session.  We considered where we could pull in fiscal personnel and other considerations, including reclassifying vacancies and eliminating duplication.

 

Senator Jacobsen:

Is cross training a party to that?

 

Ms. Lewis:

There are no cross training issues.  Our technicians are not affected.  It was strictly administrative support functions of a department.

 

Chairman Parks:

You mentioned earlier this was a 60 percent to 40 percent split.  This is roughly better than 60 percent of the staff, which corresponds to that which is DMV related.

 

Mr. Beers:

I would appreciate your addressing why the computer purchases are consolidated into one budget?

 

Ms. Lewis:

The proposed DMV is a branch, and we dealt with this philosophical approach regarding what we do during the reorganization in 1999.  So, everything occurring on the DMV side is accomplished as a branch.  We do not look at division‑by‑division functions.  The reason the new computers and replacement computers are centralized into one budget is to control the efficiency of purchasing.  We have a network support group within the DMV technology department, which supports the branch as a whole.  So, it was more efficient for us to manage by consolidating the accounts.

 

Chairman Parks:

With regards to existing equipment versus acquiring new equipment, was there any rationale given as to who would keep the old, and who would get the new?

 

Ms. Lewis:

The approach for the replacement of computers is based on a schedule we have for every computer and printer in the branch.  We isolated the acquisition dates, so we know when computers were purchased.  If we get them onto a 3-year replacement cycle, we know what we will need to purchase each year of the biennium.  We know computers and printers at our counters are high volume and it is crucial they be replaced on a reasonable schedule.  We also realize there are back office functions whose computers are also high volume.  So, once we get the replacement started on these computers, it gives us flexibility.  If we do not have backups, we are in a vulnerable position.  If a computer goes down at a counter, we do not have a backup computer.  It is not a good position to be in if we have customers standing in a DMV lobby and we have to close a window because we do not have an operational computer. 

 

Mr. Kirkland:

Mr. Chairman, whatever equipment was with a position or function went with the function.  There was no picking and choosing of equipment.  It was a clean split.  If a person chose to take a job the equipment stayed with the position because the function continues to have to be done.

 

Chairman Parks:

I am hoping I will not hear a comment made in a future IFC meeting that PS department “kept all the good stuff, and gave DMV all the bad stuff.”

 

Mr. Kirkland:

Mr. Parks I hope you do not hear that either, and you will not be hearing it from us.

 

Chairman Parks:

In FY 2002 the combined cost allocation expenditures are expected to exceed revenues by over $500,000.  In FY 2003 expenditures appear to exceed revenues by over $260,000.  Could you comment on this disparity?

 

Carol English, Assistant Chief, Administrative Services Division, Department of Administration, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety:

The cost allocation originally completed was done across all budgets the way the department exists today.  When the split modules were put into the budget, they were not balanced.  In other words, we need to redo the cost allocation.  We met with the Department of Administration yesterday.  As a result, we have developed a plan to do that, and we will have those figures to them by early next week when the budget office is due to meet with the Governor.  Currently, “the amount of cost coming in on the DMV side exceeds the amount of costs in all the divisional budgets of the department.”  That imbalance has to be corrected.  We will adjust to the amount coming into DMV through the split. 

 

Chairman Parks:

Is there a time we may expect to receive those refined figures?

 

Ms. English:

The Director of the Department of Administration is going to meet with the Governor on Tuesday.  Hopefully by the end of next week, we would be able to get that information to you.

 

Chairman Parks:

Thank you.  There being no further questions on this budget account, let us proceed to the next budget.

 

DMV, Compliance Enforcement – Budget Page DMV-7 (Volume 3)

Budget Account 201-4740

 

Russ Benzler, Administrator, Compliance Enforcement Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety:

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee.  The budget accounts subject to the Compliance Enforcement Division’s responsibility are 101‑4717 (Motor Carrier), 201-4722 (Motor Vehicle Pollution Control), 201-4690 (Salvage Wreckers/Body Shop), and, 201-4740 (Compliance and Enforcement).  

 

Budget account 201-4740 is currently staffed by 17 employees whose primary area of responsibility is to provide regulatory oversight for the automobile industry as it relates to the sale and transfer of ownership of vehicles.  Staff members routinely conduct investigations of suspected violations of laws related to vehicle sales.  They audit businesses for compliance with the laws and regulations governing sale practices.  Also, we act as advisors to vehicle dealers, manufacturers, distributors, leasors and rebuilders on methods designed to increase compliance with the statutes governing the operation of businesses. 

 

In addition to supporting regulations of the industry, budget account 201-4740 also supports the costs associated with administration of the division and its various programs.  The FY 2002 and FY 2003 base budget for this account was developed in accordance with the biennium budget instructions received from the Department of Administration.  If there are no questions on the base budget, I will proceed to the one enhancement area.

 

E-276 Working Environment & Wage – Budget Page DMV-9

 

The agency has requested funding to add 2 Compliance Investigators, along with supporting costs, to assume responsibility for regulating and monitoring the driver education schools.  Under the proposed program, the identified staff will travel the state and conduct audits and inspections of the state’s licensed driver training schools to ensure they are in compliance with NRS 483.700 to NRS 483.780, as well as the associated regulations in the Nevada Administrative Code.  In particular, those sections pertain to the licensing schools, qualifications of owners and instructors, course curriculum, content, the vehicles used in the training of drivers, and facilities used in the training. 

 

We believe there are two significant benefits to this particular request.  First, it will provide a consistent and coordinated approach to regulating these businesses, which play an important role in the state’s overall traffic safety plan.  Second, it will enhance the branch customer service by relieving field services drive examiners from this duty, which they are currently doing.  That would allow the examiners to return to their primary areas of responsibility, which is conducting drive tests and serving the public.  This was the only major enhancement request in the budget.  I would be happy to answer any questions the subcommittee has.

 

Mrs. Chowning:

Currently there are approximately 86 schools.  Do you see this number increasing?  Because I do not believe we have any legislation increasing this figure.  While the audits are a good idea, are these projected to be ongoing positions and how many audits will they be conducting?  Would that mean conducting an audit every year? 

 

Mr. Benzler:

Actually, we will be auditing them every year.  It is a requirement in the regulations and some businesses and schools are required to be audited twice a year.  There are always the ongoing matters, like the exchange of instructors and so forth.  We are putting kids in these cars, and we want to be sure the people we are allowing to instruct them are qualified and it is safe to have them in those cars with your kids.  I am not aware of any growth of schools projected as far as businesses licensed instate.  However, we are getting inquiries from businesses wanting to offer this instruction through the Internet, which will require regulation. 

 

Chairman Parks:

Could you explain what constitutes an audit?  Mr. Beers and I are thinking this involves financial numbers.  When you do an audit what does that involve?

 

Mr. Benzler:

Mr. Chairman, from the compliance standpoint, what we are doing is going in and auditing a business for possession of the proper licenses, ensuring their license is posted, and that records comply with the statutes.  We are not looking at this from a financial aspect, like our motor carrier audits. 

 

E-730 Maintenance of Bldgs & Grounds – Page DMV-10

 

Senator Jacobsen:

I do not know why but the scale caught my eye.  Did you want to demolish it and turn it out as junk?  My knowledge of scales is not too much can go wrong that could not be repaired.  I want to make sure we do not scrap something we think someone else could use.

 

Mr. Benzler:

That is an excellent point and I left the demolition of the scale completely out of my discussion.  The scale we currently have is unusable and a safety hazard.  It is broken.  I have approximately 6 tons of concrete I am concerned about as well as the people around it.  It would cost us $107,000 to repair.  It is our estimation, based on the use it was getting, it is far better to spend the $22,000 to get it out and be done with the hazard.

 

Chairman Parks:

Do you know whether there is any other possible use for the scale elsewhere throughout the state?  I presume the mechanism would be retained for some future use or salvage?

 

Mr. Benzler:

Mr. Chairman, the scale we are talking about is the one at the Galletti office, which is a drive-on scale.  The equipment would be removed and disposed of.  As far as retaining any mechanisms, there has been an interest from the Department of Business and Industry, State Bureau of Weights and Measures, about the weigh bar.  The weigh bar is an antique, and they would like to have it for historical purposes.

 

E-276 Working Environment & Wage – Page DMV-16

 

Chairman Parks:

You indicated there are 86 schools presently licensed.  Do you foresee any growth in the number of schools?

 

Mr. Benzler:

Mr. Chairman, I am not aware of any indicators showing we will have growth in this area, other than businesses expressing an interest in Internet schools.

 

 

Mr. Beers:

The audit workload on your division for Internet schools is less than it was.  Since we do not have to deal with the sequence of instructors we have to verify their ability to teach, I would think the curriculum over the Internet would only require a one-time audit and future audit burdens would be less.

 

Mr. Benzler:

I would tend to agree with you.  I think you are still going have to do some auditing, but the extent of that audit may be diminished.  I think we are going to be looking at the content there, but I do not think the on-site reviews will be necessary. 

 

DMV, Field Services – Budget Page DMV-13 (Volume 3)

Budget Account 201-4735

 

Donna West, Administrator, Field Services Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety:

I am here this morning to present the Governor’s recommended budget for our Field Services Division.  We provide the direct face-to-face customer service, issue drivers’ licenses, vehicle registrations, titles, and occupational licenses to vehicle dealerships, their salesman and emission control stations.  As you know, we have 21 branch locations throughout the state.  We are currently authorized 580 positions, and we are the largest and most visible division in DMV. 

 

Our base budget was prepared and submitted following the budget instructions, and if the subcommittee has no questions on the base budget, I would like to proceed to the key enhancements.

 

E-275 Working Environment & Wage – Page DMV-16

 

Decision unit E-275 provides necessary funding for continuation of the 48 positions approved by the IFC in February 2000.  Staffing has been our biggest challenge.  We thank you, again, for granting the positions.  Having those deployed has helped us make a difference in our service.  However, we continue to struggle to provide adequate customer service to an ever-growing customer population.  Since 1994, the state has grown 38 percent.  The Field Services Division is the one state agency all new residents must visit shortly after moving into the state. 

 

I would like to commend our staff at all of our field office locations for their continued dedication and commitment to providing all residents with courteous and helpful service.  Forty-eight positions were requested in our effort to efficiently serve customers within the one-hour wait.  Again, we do not agree a one-hour wait time is the best we should be doing, but it is the best we can hope for right now given current conditions.  Customer wait times are the key indicator of service of our department.  Before we added those positions, we had 3-hour to 5-hour waits, but those waiting times were based on estimates and assumptions, and on customer perceptions.  At that time only two of our large offices had the Q-Matic "take a number system," also referred to as the Q-Matic Lobby Management Systems (Q-Matic).  Those two offices were at 2701 E. Sahara Avenue in Las Vegas, and at 1399 American Pacific Drive in Henderson.

 

This past year, we added Q-Matic to the offices at 4021 W. Carey Avenue in North Las Vegas, 305 Galletti Way in Reno, and 8250 W. Flamingo Road in Las Vegas.  We now have better data to determine wait times to make improvements to service and measure the improvements we implement.  Adding these 48 positions and bringing authorized staffing to 85 percent, we are now serving about 60 to 70 percent of our customers in the Las Vegas offices in an hour or less.  However, many customers continue to wait a one hour and 15 minutes to two hours or longer. 

 

There are many factors beyond staffing that impact customer flow, such as when customers choose to visit a facility, what type of transaction they need to conduct and how prepared they are to do business with DMV.  Again, we are still seeing about 100 customers lined up at every major facility before we open the doors in the morning.  Many customers choose to visit us at our peak times, the beginning of the day, the end of the day, lunch time, the beginning or the end of the month, and the day after a holiday. 

 

Today we are beginning a pilot on customer appointments, starting at our Flamingo office.  We are providing an opportunity for the customer to come in for services that cannot be accomplished through the Internet, telephone, or by mail.  We are providing an opportunity for the customer to register that new car, or, as a new resident coming to the state, to come in to conduct their business.  We believe this will provide more predicable service for the customer.  It will let them manage their time, and it will help us better manage part of our customer flow.  So, we are anxious to see how we do in this pilot program, and at our ability to roll this out for all of our major offices.

 

Some days we see customers with a lot of simple transactions.  People still coming in with renewals and changes.  Other days we have many new residents, and with one-stop service, we often work with a married couple with 3 vehicles and we are providing 2 drivers licenses and 3 registrations at one window.  Yet, again, we seem to see a lot of days where we have a greater number of customers coming in with suspended drivers’ licenses.  So, what customers come to do is unpredictable.  Appointments will help us with this problem, but it is not going to capture our entire customer base. 

 

We are striving to provide our customers better information on conducting their business.  We have improved our Internet site, and have a toll-free call center for customers around the state, but still customers come in unprepared, and we still have to turn customers away.  All of those factors, together with staffing levels and our staff scheduling, lend our success or failure on providing satisfactory wait times and service to our customers.

 

Using the Q-Matic data, we continue to improve and impact the factors we can control, such as scheduling of employees.  The past 7 months, the managers, supervisors, and staff have worked together to try a number of different schedules, like bringing all the employees in at 8 a.m., bringing some in at 8:30 a.m., going to three staggered shifts, and even going to 4-day, 10-hour (4-10) work schedules.  Those schedules were piloted at the Henderson and Sahara offices and are working.   It provides us with consistent window coverage, and it gives our employees much needed time off.  Before we instituted the 4-10 work pilot schedule, our employees who worked Saturdays, had Sunday, and then another day off during the week, splitting their days off.  It simply did not give them sufficient time to recover from their demanding jobs before returning back to work.  The Flamingo office is now preparing a 4-10 work schedule to be instituted this spring. 

 

Even with innovative work schedules, our employees are still away from their service window’s an average of 37 percent of the time.  That includes their regular days off, their vacation days, their sick leave, their needed training, and the behind-the-scenes tasks we do, such as prepare titles and special plates.  Windows do close and customers observe that closure.  We continue to experience high employee turnover.  We are loosing experienced, knowledgeable employees who leave for better paying jobs, either in state service or back to the private sector.  In southern Nevada, we are holding a new hire academy nearly every month to train new employees being hired to replace those leaving.

 

With these added 48 positions, more customers are satisfied with our service, but we are still barely making the grade.  We now have customer comment cards in all of our facilities.  These cards enable our customers to evaluate not only our wait time, but also our employees regarding their knowledge and helpfulness.  Customers provide us with their comments and recommendations, and they may request a member of our management team contact them.  We call them back the next day and are able to learn about their complaints and compliments about our staff, as well as their suggestions for how DMV can improve.  We use this as an opportunity to provide them with information to more efficiently conduct business with us.  In the past two months, we have had over 2800 customers complete these cards.  We have called back 367 customers, or 13 percent.  Our customer satisfaction rating is at 88 percent.  It is essential we retain these 48 positions to help us maintain our current service levels.  Are there any questions on this module?

 

Senator O’Donnell:

Ms. West, you were in the Las Vegas office that oversaw all of the offices regarding DMV transactions.  What was your best year and wait time?

 

Ms. West:

You are absolutely right.  We had 20-minute average wait times in 1995 and 1996.

 

Senator O’Donnell:

Why did we have 15 minute wait times?

 

Ms. West:

We had a program we put together called “level two” that increased our staffing, and we expanded our hours of operation.  We were open 12 hours a day.  It was during the “level two” program we added our current Saturday service.

 

Senator O’Donnell:

That Saturday service is gone now, is it not?

 

Ms. West:

We do not have adequate staff to cover our 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. office hours, let alone look at expanding hours.  It would thin out the staff too much to provide adequate service. 

 

 

 

Senator O’Donnell:

In the next two years, do you think this waiting time problem is going to get worse?

 

Ms. West:

Yes, Sir.

 

Chairman Parks:

I know there were 48 positions approved in February 2000.  However, there were also 64 part-time positions approved recently in December 2000 by the IFC.  Could you tell me how many of those have been filled?

 

Ms. West:

We originally filled the 12 positions at the Sahara office.  Those employees were hired on January 3.  We put them through a brief, intense training program.  We put them on the service windows as quickly as January 8.  We have already lost 3 of those people.  Working part-time at DMV is not the same as working another part-time job.  It is not the same as working in a fast food or retail business for 4 hours a day.  You still have a vast amount of knowledge our employees have to have in order to serve customers, even in limited-service areas.  So, we have people who are leaving because it is simply too demanding.  Currently, the Sahara office has 9 of the 12 employees we originally hired.  We attempted to hire 13 of the authorized positions for the Carey office.  Only 11 people accepted those jobs.  Of those 11 employees, one has left.  We put them through training and they started on their service window this past Monday.  We are in the process of finishing recruitment for 12 positions at the Flamingo office.  We are going to bring them on-board in mid-March and have them on the service windows by the first of April.  We have no problems recruiting employees.  However, we are having difficulty retaining employees because of the demands of the jobs at DMV, and the knowledge our employees have to have.

 

Mr. Beers:

Ms. West, how long is the training program and how soon does that employee hit the window?

 

Ms. West:

For full-time employees, we have an 8-week training program.  An employee spends part of that time in the classroom, and part of the time on the service window.  After 8 weeks the employee goes to the public service window.  With these part-time positions, the program designed for them is to put them in the areas not requiring “a full 8 weeks of knowledge.”  We put them on our camera station, the written test area, and in areas processing renewals, with the idea our full time, existing experienced employees can deal with more complex customers.  We experimented with a 3-day training period for our original group of part-time employees, which was not sufficient.  For our second group, we tried 2 weeks, and we will see how that works.  But, even after 2 weeks of training, we feel there is a month to two months of mentoring and hands-on work by the trainers that is needed.  This is because you might be working the camera, and we can teach you how to take pictures, but we have to teach you how to check paperwork, answer all of the questions and provide the correct forms.  So, we cannot just teach one thing, we have to teach these part-time employees about the business of DMV.

 

 

Mr. Beers:

What about full-time employee training periods?

 

Ms. West:

Full-time employees go through 8 weeks of training.

 

Mr. Beers:

How much of this training time is law and procedure training versus computer training?

 

Ms. West:

I would say about half.  They spend about half of their time in the classroom.  Part of the time is customer service training.  We provide 8 hours of classroom customer service training.  We are providing all of the statutory background and procedural background.  We balance that by taking staff off the windows and working with them, so they can see how to apply the laws and procedures they are learning, as well as getting the hands-on time with the computer system.  They have computer training in the classroom, but when you add the customer to the mix, it is an entirely different environment.  So, we spend those 8 weeks working it back and forth between the classroom and DMV public counter.

 

Mr. Beers:

Is the amount of computer time less than you thought it would be two years ago?

 

Ms. West:

Yes.

 

Mr. Beers:

Initially, I recall discussion we were seeing a phenomenon of employees who did not have experience with the Legacy system came up to speed faster than the ones who did.  It was almost a handicap to realize there was an easier way to do it.  Probably because it made people mad they had to go the harder way.

 

Ms. West:

That is true, Mr. Beers.  When we are interviewing employees, we are looking for people with personal computer (PC) skills who know how to navigate, use a mouse and so forth.  That helps them coming in, and they do not have the old days of the heads down, Legacy system, just beat at the keyboard and not have to look at the screen.  The new employees do not have to overcome this hurdle of navigation with Genesis.

 

Mr. Beers:

We have a Genesis budget.  I am probably premature in asking these questions.

 

Ms. West:

There is no Genesis budget.

 

Mr. Beers:

Do we still have enhancement plans for Genesis, or a list of specific things to add? 

 

Ms. Lewis:

The Motor Vehicles Information Technology (MVIT) budget addresses resources needed to continue to grow in the field of technology.

 

Senator Jacobsen:

Ms. West, you said there are 21 branch locations throughout Nevada.  I would appreciate a chart showing the branches and how many employees at each location.  I ask this because I am interested in the rural areas.

 

Ms. West:

We will be happy to provide that information.  When we were allocated the 48 staff a year ago, we took some of those positions and placed them in those rural areas that experienced growth and had a need for additional service.

 

Chairman Parks:

Could you submit a staffing compliment for those facilities, as well as the volume numbers?  I am sure the types of transactions you conduct at each of the branches will vary, but something showing the basic volume would be helpful.

 

Mr. Beers:

I would request a list of performance indicators and the percentage of the transactions completed with alternative technologies.

 

Mrs. Chowning:

I would like to speak to the issue of serving customers out of the office.  In 10 months of last year, DMV had 445,000 walk-in renewals.  That is 445,000 that did not have to walk in.  What kind of dollars are you asking for to keep that from happening?  Maybe education over the television is needed to let people know about alternative ways of transacting DMV business.  People say everyone is going to pay his or her mortgage over the Internet.  Well, everyone is not going to pay his or her mortgage over the Internet, but more people are making their mortgage payment over the Internet.  What can be done to make people realize this option and increase their comfort level about conducting DMV business outside the DMV office?  There are increasing number of computers at senior centers, at libraries, and other facilities.  Where are we going wrong that we cannot encourage people to feel comfortable to not have to walk into a DMV office? 

 

Is there a legislative limit on the number of smog stations?  Are you doing something to increase that business?  Do you have a BDR to increase the number of smog stations to permit one-stop business functions?

 

Mr. Kirkland:

Let me give a brief overview, and I will have Ms. Lewis address some of the issues you have presented.  We are addressing the issues you mentioned, and we are making headway.  My comment is to remind everyone we have done a lot of intensive investigation of these issues and are surprised by the high number of walk-in customers.  We cannot understand why this is happening.  It needs to be understood that Nevada citizens are unique.  We have a large volume of cash customers that have a fear of government records.  These customers, because they live on tokes and for a variety of other reasons, do not relish this kind of change.  That is why they wait to the last day, of the last month, of the last hour, and come in with cash to transact their business.  I asked similar questions along this area.  After being educated through research and talking to customers, it is really not an easy situation to address.  We need to understand that trait about Nevada citizens. 

 

I will have Ms. Lewis give a brief overview, but yes, we are aggressively addressing those issues.

 

Mrs. Chowning:

I just received a suggestion from one of my colleagues.  What about offering a discount for transacting business in another fashion, other than by walk in business?

 

Mr. Kirkland:

We are open to any suggestions, although that one may have a statutory issue.  For instance, we have one suggestion about giving credit for early, out-of-office, transacting of business.  We are not opposed to that recommendation, although the financial element might take some thought to work out.  Ms. Lewis will give you an overview of what DMV is doing about advertising alternative methods and about any increase in smog stations.

 

Ms. Lewis:

I would like to give you a few statistics about these issues.  This fiscal year to date we have processed 44 percent of the registration renewals by mail; 4 percent of the customers are using the Internet for registration renewals, and 2 percent are using the telephone for registration renewals.

 

Thirty-six percent of the drivers’ license renewals are being processed by mail; 5 percent of those are being processed by the Internet, and 2 percent by telephone.  When we started last May, things took off because we did media advertising and education to the public.  We realize that advertising is vital.  We exhausted our funding resources last year, and came back to you in December 2000 with another relatively large media campaign request, well over $100,000.  You will start to see advertising increase in the next few months.  We are working with state purchasing and focusing on television, billboard, and new inserts into renewal notices.  Again, customers have to be reminded our services exist.  So, it is important we continue.  We cannot just let the technologies take care of themselves. 

 

Regarding emission stations, we have submitted a BDR and the wording is currently being drafted.  We are adjusting the language and drafting regulations to make it easier for smog stations to come into compliance and to allow them to provide needed services.

 

Mr. Kirkland:

Mrs. Chowning, it would be very helpful for members of this subcommittee and others to remind your fellow legislators this business of advertising is a continual request.  If it were not necessary to continually advertise, we would never see another beer or car commercial.  This is something that has to occur all the time or the citizens of Nevada forget.  It is the cost of doing business.

 

Mrs. Chowning:

Mr. Chairman I am requesting we have DMV work with committee staff, and work toward a BDR regarding discounts for customers doing business in a method other than walking into a DMV office.  If we could offer financial incentive, then people would naturally pay greater attention.  In the long run we will not have to expend so many dollars in other ways.

 

Mr. Kirkland:

There are other issues relating to discounts.  Certainly the use of credit card incurs a cost to the legislature.  We spent $100,000 a month, which is a lot of money that could be applied for discounts, if we could overcome other problems.  That is being presented to you, and I think we need to do that as well.

 

Chairman Parks:

One of DMV’s performance indicators listed the actual wait time in FY 2000 at 44 minutes, with projections to decrease to 27 minutes and 22 minutes in FY 2002 and FY 2003, respectively.  I am presuming that needs to be updated.

 

Ms. West:

Wait time, as noted in these indicators, was based solely on the Q-Matic data.  We were only looking at the wait time from the time the customer got the ticket to when that person got to the window.  We know the customer will wait anywhere from 5 minutes to an hour, and about 15 minutes at our information counter to have their documents checked and get the ticket issued.  Our transaction time is somewhere between 11 minutes and 14 minutes, with an average of 13 minutes.  So, the wait time data is different from the total time and the projections we provided were obviously overly optimistic.  We need to rework those figures based on what we are discussing now and on the actual data we are getting.  Currently, all the major offices are on board with their Q-Matic systems.

 

Mr. Kirkland:

I want to make sure we are clear on that issue.  In reality, we are meeting these projections.  We were not just counting the total time.  It means being more specific in our meaning when we say “wait time.”  We will do that and provide you the data.

 

Mr. Beers:

I would also remind the subcommittee that in comparing current wait times to historical wait times, we need to remember those historical wait times typically involve multiple trips through a line for someone new to the state.  They could have had two waits, because we actually had them go to different counters for registration and drivers’ licenses. 

 

Chairman Parks:

Regarding the Q-Matic system, the FY 2000 budget included an appropriation for almost $300,000 for additional installations.  Are you quite satisfied with this system?  Is it extensive throughout all your major facilities at this time?

 

Ms. West:

We have the Q-Matic system installed in our five major, metropolitan branches.  We are very happy with the system.  We continue to learn more every day about how to look at the data, how to analyze the data and how to use the data.  There is still more we can do.  There are a number of things that could be done to take the technology use even further.  We have talked to many DMV’s in other jurisdictions, regarding what they are doing.  The Q-Matics can be networked so someone may sit in the director’s office, or in my office in Las Vegas, and look at data real time, and know what is happening in all the branches.  It is an amazing technology.  If the wait time goes over an hour, the system could even page me and let me know one of my offices is over that time.  So, although there is more that can be done with Q-Matic, we are very satisfied with the system, not only from the customer’s perspective of not standing in line, but from our perspective of having better data to manage operations.

 

Mr. Kirkland:

I have been thinking about putting that on the Internet.  When a customer wants to either do business over the Internet, or go down to a DMV branch, that person would be able to log on and see how much branch activity there is.  The problem with this would be a scenario in which we double our windows from 260 to 520.  One day a branch that had 35 would now have 70 windows.  What do we do if 300 people show up?  If 300 people do show up, the total transaction takes an hour.  It is a matter of managing who shows up, and how, when and where.  If we get more information out to the public, they can manage that, and say, “Hey there is 100 people there, and I am not going.” If people who show up at 8 a.m. would wait until 10 a.m., their business would be transacted in 15 minutes.  It is a matter of using this technology, which is great.  We need to keep it and expand it, in my opinion.

 

Chairman Parks:

Did DMV have both letters and numbers on the Q-Matic tickets?  Do some of the customers find that confusing?

 

Ms. West:

Our customers have come a long way with the use of Q-Matics.  They do get letters and numbers, and they have figured what those mean.  They know whether or not we are serving more “A” tickets, which are renewals, than “G” tickets, which are originals.  They will ask us why we are not calling “A” tickets.  So, they have learned a lot about the system.  They help us monitor it in the back office with our PC’s and our staff reader boards.  We can monitor how many renewals are waiting and the average wait time for those renewals.  Customers are getting accustomed to it. 

 

We have customers who are disabled and ask for the “H” ticket because we have a special service area for them.  So, it was a big jump for all of us, but now everyone is more adapted and likes the system very well.

 

Chairman Parks:

Would you comment on the 10-hour workday, as far as its overall effectiveness on your numbers of staffing?  Are you transforming your five major branches into 10‑hour work schedules?

 

Ms. West:

Mr. Chairman, we have offered the opportunity for 4-10 work shifts at all five of our major branches.  In three of those branches there are enough employees who have approved this schedule, and have either gone, or will go to, that work schedule.  In two of those branch locations, the employees do not feel they want to work 10-hour days for a number of reasons.  It does result in a longer day for them.  They have personal reasons they do not want to work that schedule.  If there are not enough people to staff, it will not work successfully.  If 50 percent of the employees in a branch do not approve it, that shift schedule will not benefit.  We have to let the employees tell us what they can do. 

 

Historically, we have had a lot of overtime.  Customers may come into a DMV branch until 5:00 p.m., when the doors close.  Then, we close the doors and serve everyone waiting, and we have always done business that way.  A year ago we had customers and employees in branches until 9 p.m. or 9:30 p.m. or even later that night.  With the 4-10 work schedule, we get everyone to come in at the same time.  Employees come in at 7:55 a.m., the doors open at 8:00 a.m. and they are there, including lunch hour, for 11 hours.  There is no overtime. 

 

We get everyone taken care of, the employees have a more predictable life, and the windows are staffed.  It is a win-win solution on both sides of the counter.  We have seen sick leave decrease because employees are getting the down time they need to recover.  They are able to take care of their doctor’s visits and other personal matters on the extra day off, rather than taking time away from the office.  It is increasing staffing in a number of different ways and improving morale.  We implemented a pilot in each office.  Henderson went for two months.  Then we went back to the employees and asked, “Based on your two months of experience, do you want to continue this schedule?”  They have said, “Yes, lets do it for another six months, and ask us again.”  So, that is how we are experimenting with that schedule in our branches.

 

Chairman Parks:

We had heard at an IFC meeting toward the end of last year you were having problems created by shutdowns and interruptions of transactions because of overload on the computers.  Can you address this issue?

 

Ms. West:

Mr. Chairman, you may be talking about our “Dr. Watson” problem.  We had a problem with this, and it had to do with the Microsoft Windows and Powerbuilder software that we used on our Genesis application.  We were getting kicked out of the system 12 or 13 times a day per employee.  Thanks to our information technology (IT) staff and with IFC approval, we had funding to buy Microsoft Windows 2000 for all counter PCs and our behind-the-scenes PCs have been upgraded.  We have killed off “Dr. Watson.”  We still have some issues with errors in the system that will cause an occasional problem, as well as downtime situations, but I believe with MVIT working closely with us, those problems will be resolved and the system will remain running, available and working better for us.

 

Mr. Beers:

I believe “Dr. Watson” is still there.  It is a memory management-monitoring tool, and it is still there waiting for something to go wrong.  What was going wrong frequently is no longer going wrong, so they do not see “Dr. Watson.”

 

Mr. Kirkland:

This ended up increasing by 15 percent the number of transactions each window technician was able to perform on a daily basis.  When you multiply that times the number, this was a significant improvement.  We appreciate your understanding and helping us to improve both the 2000 NT and the Powerbuilder program.  It did result in a significant improvement in our service.

 

Mr. Beers:

It also improved customer satisfaction, because there is nothing more frustrating than standing in line for an hour and a half, getting up to a window, and finding the computer locks up while you are there.  Now the customer has to go through the long and involved re-boot process.  So, there is definitely a customer satisfaction improvement with this.

 

Mr. Kirkland:

True.  The employee would get kicked off after having asked the customer all the information.  Then the employee would have to start all over again.  That was a very frustrating situation for the customer.

 

E-280 Working Environment & Wage – Page PS-17

 

Chairman Parks:

You have included in your budget a line item for overtime, shift differential, and call back pay under E-280 at $256,410.  Are you fairly confident this is a realistic figure?

 

Ms. West:

Yes, we are confident.  As I said, with the offices having gone to the 4-10 work schedule, we have seen a drastic reduction in overtime.  Also, before we got the added staff, waiting time was an hour and a half to two hours at night.  It is now 15 to 45 minutes.  It has definitely decreased, and we are comfortable this amount will provide us with sufficient overtime pay.

 

E-300 Maximize Internet & Technology – Page PS-17

 

Mrs. Chowning:

I would like to jump to enhancement E-300.  This regards a lease for nearly $500,000 for bilingual testing equipment to administer commercial and noncommercial driver licensing knowledge examinations.  How much would it cost to purchase versus lease it, and why is this not being proposed for the regular drivers’ license examinations?  Is there a high need for bilingual testing? Perhaps it could be proposed for regular drivers license examinations as well.  Further, is the automation for the bilingual element, or is it a combination of both, because there are many people who think government should not be spending dollars to make it easier for people to not speak English.  This is a public safety area, and it is my feeling it is best to be able to provide the testing so people can get out on the road and be safe drivers.  If they cannot pass the test, then they are going to be out there, and we do not know if they are driving safely or not. 

 

I know I have asked a lot of questions.  If you cannot answer, just provide those responses to our staff.

 

Ms. West:

Let me just take you through automated testing, and where we have been and where we are going.  When commercial drivers’ licensing (CDL) came on board about 10 years ago, we purchased our first automated test to help expedite all the testing required for CDL.  This fiscal year we were authorized to go out and replace that equipment with updated technology at our 3 major commercial offices.  This funding is to continue the lease of those units we will have in place by May 2001, and to add automated test equipment.  This is not just for bilingual, but for all drivers in our major facilities in Las Vegas, the noncommercial facilities, and northern Nevada, at the Galletti office, in Carson City, and in Winnemucca where we have enough volume.  Automated testing is a good tool, especially for the customers. 

 

We find, especially with new drivers, they are very comfortable.  It lets us provide a more comprehensive test.  Right now if a person takes the paper-and-pen test and misses a question, it is very time consuming for our staff to take that person through what was missed and what the correct answer is.  Yet, as you said, the whole idea of testing is to improve highway safety.  When a person misses a question, this program will correct the test and tell the customer what the correct answer is.  We feel that is important for our customers so that they know what the correct driving laws are when they leave our office.  It does provide bilingual testing to foreign speaking customers.  This is an issue because we see a growing number of Hispanic-speaking customers in our offices.  Also a lot of other people are moving here. 

 

It is also a slight reduction in the staff.  We still have to have someone in a testing room, assigning test equipment, proctoring the test, answering questions, dealing with the equipment, but we do not have to score, save, and microfilm as we had to do with the hand completed test.

 

Regarding purchase cost versus leasing cost, we will have to get back to you.  We are dealing with technology and this is an area that continues to change and improve.  I feel if we lease, we will be able to stay up with the new banks of questions, and other improvements.  They added audio testing and those kinds of things.  So, there is a lot of good improvement coming in this particular area for motor vehicles agencies.

 

Mrs. Chowning:

Does the bilingual program component add significantly to the cost?  We will get a lot of criticism in spending this amount just for that, so we will make that clear.  Thank you.

 

Ms. West:

It is rolled into our budget.

 

Chairman Parks:

I want to revisit the 64 part-time positions.  What is your long-range view?  Do you see these positions continuing indefinitely?  Will you transition them into the full work force? Do you see this as a viable alternative employment method?

 

Mr. Kirkland:

The purpose of doing that is for these types of employees to help with pilot projects.  It is the trial of different components so we come to the point at which none of us can be criticized for not having tried something.  To answer your question, using part-time employees is one of the many trials we are trying.  I do not think it is not a long-term program.  We may be surprised, and there will be a small number of people who would be willing to work part-time.  Some of our pilot programs will stay, and some will terminate.  When we are done, though, we will be able to say we have tested many pilot programs and will know what has, and has not, proven successful.  It will allow us to present to you a fairly significant body of evidence reflecting historical figures.  Then, the final decision will be made about the ultimate issue, which is what is an appropriate ratio or level of staffing.  To some degree having part-time employees has been a success.

 

 

 

Ms. West:

Let me explain our vision and what we are doing at DMV.  Senator Rawson made a wise suggestion at the December 2000 IFC meeting when we requested these positions.  It was to roll them out one office at a time, look at that operation, and determine whether we need them, where we need them, when we need them, and what they are going to do.  That is exactly what we have been doing. 

 

The Sahara office was in serious trouble, and we added those 12 positions and are seeing an improvement.  These staff position came onboard the beginning of January 2001, and two months later we are seeing an improvement.  If you compare the Sahara office in September 2000 to February 2001, we have seen the total customer wait time reduced by 35 percent, from an average 1 hour and 48 minutes to 1 hour and 6 minutes.  We have seen a 20 percent increase in the number of hours the 28 service windows at the Sahara office are open, up from 194 hours to 232 hours a day.  Each window is now open an extra hour and a half a day, because we have the part-time staff.  This means an extra six to nine customers are being served at each of our windows in that branch every day.  When customers see a window open versus closed, we have a calmer, happier customer coming to talk to our staff at the window.  They are not saying, “You have all of this equipment and windows, where are your employees?”  So, when the customers come in and see the windows open and staffed and the lines are moving, everyone is a lot calmer and happier.  We have been very pleased with what we have seen so far at the Sahara office.  We believe we will also see that at the Carey office. 

 

Our next focus is on at the West Flamingo office.  Our Henderson office is doing well regarding service numbers.  It is the shining star in southern Nevada regarding wait time.  If you look at the 4-10 work shifts in that office, the number of staff, the physical layout of the facility, the management approach, and the dedication of the employees, Henderson has pulled everything together. 

 

The director talked about the Galletti office, which is now doing very well.  We asked for staff for those offices.  We are now in a position to go back and say, “Maybe they do not need them, or maybe they do not need all of them.”  But the Sahara office still needs help.  The Carey office still needs help.  We need to have the funding and the flexibility of the 64 part-time employees to put them where they are needed and keep them.  The windows are open to improve the wait time and to work towards improving the image and showing our customers we are committed to customer service.  We are doing everything we can to help our customers get in and out of our offices as quickly as possible.

 

Chairman Parks:

According to the charts provided in Exhibit C, the Carey office was one that seemed to have “hit a low, favorable point in the August time window,” and then has gradually gotten worse.  Are there any factors affect the Carey office, other than staffing, that have created this condition?

 

Ms. West:

We have seen a growing trend in increased customer volume at the Carey office.  Since you are from Las Vegas you know that end of the valley is a growing area.  Henderson is getting built up, and we are heading out toward Mt. Charleston and all those new “growth starts” are out there.  We have a lot more customers that see this as their local office.  When we remodeled that office, we went to the seated counters and put a Q-Matic in.  They do not have to stand in line.  It is a fairly convenient location.  So, a lot more customers are coming in and the volume has gone up from 800 to 1100 or more.  With no added staff, that office has become a problem.  Currently, we are seeing an increase in original transactions in that office.

 

Ms. Lewis:

I believe the lease for the Carey office expires in 2005.  It will be a capital improvement project (CIP) request in the next biennium.  If growth continues at that level at this end of the valley, I think it would be a perfect opportunity to address how we design the building, expand window service, and other matters.

 

Chairman Parks:

Has consideration been given to placing a DMV office on the road to Mt. Charleston where the new growth is?

 

Ms. West:

The proposed location is further north, past where we are now.  So, the proposed location is projected for a northern site.  That will accommodate the people we see building homes in this area.

 

Senator O’Donnell:

The building in question is where?

 

Ms. West:

It is on Smoke Ranch and Rancho Drive.

 

Senator O’Donnell:

The lease runs out when?  Is it a land lease?  What is the story there?

 

Mr. Kirkland:

It is not a good story.

 

Dennis Colling, Chief, Administrative Services Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety:

The Carey building is a leased facility and the lease expires in 2005.  We have looked at developing a CIP to replace that building with a state-owned facility.  We have looked at the current design of the Henderson building as a base to use for our proposed design.  Henderson appears to be a good facility and we would like to reuse that design.  We have looked at the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) property available in that area, up around Interstate 215, directly north of town.  We have had numerous discussions with BLM about a parcel up in that area that would be appropriate both for a new facility just for registration and drivers licenses, and also to have an additional CDL course, which we desperately need there.

 

Senator O’Donnell:

Is the facility we are leasing coming up for renewal?  Have you talked to the owner about a renewal rate?  Is that facility too small, or not conducive to transacting business?  Who built the building?

 

 

 

Mr. Colling:

This is a bad lease for DMV.  Anything that happens we have to pay for.  As an example, there was a leak underneath the floor of the building and the floor collapsed.  Under our contract it is not the owner’s responsibility, but DMV’s responsibility to repair.  We have to come up with the money to replace and/or repair that problem.  Senator, I do not know who built the building or whose responsibility it is.  I just know we had to pay for that problem in accordance with our lease agreement. 

 

Senator O’Donnell:

Somebody built the building and you just moved into it?  Was the building built especially for DMV?

 

Mr. Colling:

This lease was done years ago, long before I got to this position. 

 

Senator O’Donnell:

Was the building built especially for DMV?

 

Mr. Kirkland:

Yes.  We are told the history is the building was built by developers to be leased to DMV.  As soon as I got to DMV, I found we were in the middle of rebuilding it.  We have had a number of problems with this building and have been paying for every single element of repair, renovation and maintenance.  The lessor did contact me wanting to know whether DMV is going to renew the lease.  I laughed and said, “Well if I were you, I would want renewal as well, but I do not think so.”

 

Senator O’Donnell:

Do you have money in the CIP budget for this new building in 2003?  Obviously, you are not going to wait until 2005 and then look around for the building to be automatically available and built to your specifications, are you?

 

Mr. Kirkland:

No, we are not. 

 

Mr. Colling:

In our discussions with the Department of Administration and the State Public Works Board, they indicated to us that if a CIP is approved in the FY 2003 legislative session, the building can be built in time for us to move into it.

 

Senator O’Donnell:

Do you have any contingency plans if the building is not available at the time you need to relocate?

 

Mr. Kirkland:

Senator, we have forcefully brought this issue to people’s attention.  Perhaps it needs a little more attention during this session to get some direction, because we agree.  I do not know whether we could do something planning wise.  It is, of course, a money issue, but we are not asking for money at this point.  There needs to be some specific direction, or there will be some difficulty.  You know Las Vegas better than I do and whether our opportunities are there.

 

 

Senator O’Donnell:

What you need to do is work with our committee staff to get the necessary design money allocated, because there is no way you will have a building finished from start to finish in two years, especially one of that size and complexity.  There are utilities and underground wiring issues.  It is going to cost you a lot of time and effort to get communications lines wherever you are going to be.  I do a lot of building in Las Vegas, and I can tell you that it takes a year just to get a small, insignificant shell building completed.  It is going to take you a lot longer than that to get a DMV building finished.  I think you are aware of that.

 

Chairman Parks:

I would like to discuss the DMV position vacancies.  We were provided with some background information showing varying numbers for vacancies by branch.  Vacancies were somewhat lower than the five percent built into supporting calculations.  March 2000 to early February 2001 the percentages were as high as 3.6 percent, but sometimes as low as 1 percent.  Could you comment on that statistic?

 

Ms. Lewis:

The vacancy rate for the branch offices has significantly been reduced, in great part because of the dedicated training positions that we were authorized in February 2000.  At that point, we had a very high vacancy rate.  From last Spring until currently, we were at a 2.8 percent vacancy rate for the branch as a whole.  Certainly the Field Services account is our largest budget with the most number of employees.  Even in the field with authorized staffing of 570, there were six vacancies.  I consider that excellent because we were committed to keeping those positions vacant.  When we came before the IFC last February, we had anticipated a goal of 5 percent vacancy rate.  So, we have exceeded that figure.

 

Senator O’Donnell:

Just to make a point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Kirkland how his highway patrol building is coming.

 

Mr. Kirkland:

The one that was going to be up and built, Senator?  We are still waiting for a land swap deal to be made on that.  As for the Carey building, we are told this is a land swap with BLM and that there Hughes Corporation is involved.  I am told it is a three-way swap including the Airport and Hughes Corporation. 

 

DMV, Central Services – Budget Page PS-21 (Volume 3)

Budget Account 201-4741

 

Chairman Parks:

Let us move forward to the next budget, which is Central Services.  I would like you to comment on the turn-around time for mail-in renewals, as well as for titles.

 

I have a question relative to title backlog and how it is trending.   Also, DMV has experienced significant error rates and how is that improving?

 

Dana Mathiesen, Administrator, Central Services and Records Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety:

We have come a long way with the titles backlog.  In April 2000, we were over a 50-day issuance period for titles, and we have reduced that to between 17 and 21 days.  We have been current with that since January 2001.  We had several backlogs of 9,000 associated with computer problems.  Our computer section set up a program that would allow our staff to resolve those problems and those problems have been resolved and the titles issued. 

 

We still have 93 individual title problems that need to be resolved by the computer section, but the average turn-around time for a title transaction is between 17 and 21 days, and it has been steady at that figure.  The error rate from the field offices is something I do not have.  I know it has decreased significantly.  The errors made by the field offices and by central headquarters are being corrected within the 17 to 21 day period.

 

Chairman Parks:

Are all titles issued from the Carson City office?

 

Ms. Mathiesen:

No, that process was decentralized when the department was reorganized.  Last year we issued 514,585 titles; the Central Services Division issued 377,526, and Field Services Division issued 137,059.

 

Mr. Beers:

I thought the data entry was decentralized, but the titles themselves were printed in Carson City and mailed from there.

 

Ms. Mathiesen:

It is kind of a mixed process right now.  Donna West and I have been working on trying to get the process completely decentralized or completely centralized, depending on whose staff is doing them.  Right now, the field offices can print titles in three offices, as well as issue titles to customers.  They can also do a batch transaction in a field office.  For field offices that do not have a title printer the title can be printed in Carson City from that field office.  In that case, Carson City waits for the backup from the field offices, matches the paperwork and mails the title from Carson City.  So, it is kind of a mixed process right now.

 

Ms. Lewis:

Just to clarify this matter, we have title printers as Ms. Mathiesen indicated, in some of the field offices.  That is not for the majority of the titles, but for expedited service.  The titles for the most part are printed in Carson City.  You are correct.  The data entry does occur in the field offices and Carson City has the mailing responsibility.  At this point, Carson City also maintains the quality control effort.

 

Mr. Beers:

The credit unions in Las Vegas, and perhaps statewide, are putting together a program to privately fund a computer system that they hope will help automate titling processes.  Are you familiar with this project, and how is it going to work?

 

Ms. Lewis:

We are on board with this process, which is the electronic titling, and it is clearly a part of our process that we want to move into the future with.  We have been in contact with Randy Baldwin, who is with the Las Vegas Federal Credit Union.  Our part will be the interface that we have with the credit unions that choose to go this route, but this is the way of the future.  Anything to eliminate the paper process on a title is what DMV needs to do.  So, this is one of the large projects in the next 2 to 3 years that we will work with them on.  Again, it is critical on our DMV technology side that we get the resources to implement these technological innovative projects.

 

Chairman Parks:

Let us talk about the microfilm section, and what you are seeing on the horizon there.  You are requesting 11 new positions, 10 Microfilm Operators and 1 Program Assistant.  The question is whether you want to expand with another microfilming setup in this day and age of optical character recognition.  Is this the smartest move at this time?

 

E-275 Working Environment & Wage – Page DMV-24

E-276 Working Environment & Wage – Page DMV-25

E-721 New Equipment  – Page DMV-26

 

Ms. Mathiesen:

This budget had already been developed when I was selected for this position.  I reviewed the budget and looked at that enhancement module, recompiled the data, and concluded an alternative method would better address the workload and backlog.  I have made modifications to decision units E-275, E-276 and E-721.  They have been submitted to the Governor’s office, but due to his schedule we have not yet received a response. 

 

In response to your question, I believe you are talking about document imaging.  We did look into the document imaging, and when we were researching that, we got a letter from Robert Van Stratton, the State Records Manager.  I would like to read a portion of that letter to you, which dissuaded us from continuing to consider document imaging.  He stated:

 

Technically, it will be illegal for your agency to stop using microfilm for the security storage of long-term records.  Your agency would be in violation of Nevada Revised Statutes 239.051, and Nevada Administrative Code 239.845.  The use of scanned images is legal and very useful, but the security and preservation of the information requires storage onto a more reliable format than magnetic tapes, CD ROM, or optical disc platters. 

 

Chairman Parks:

I would like to ask that a copy of that letter be submitted to Assemblyman Beers and staff, for their review. 

 

Mr. Kirkland:

For the record, we agree with what you said.  We do not agree with what is said in that letter.  We would like to go in the direction of technological advancement.  If there may be help dissuading this, or changing the law, we would back that 100 percent.  Microfilming is not the smartest, quickest, best way to go.

 

Chairman Parks:

Well, we have two transportation committee chairpersons sitting here, so with their assistance we might be able to look into that and see what we can do.  It is a technology that has certainly been around a few years, and I have not heard clamoring on how perishable it might be.

 

Would you comment on how you envision the 11 new positions to be used?  If one or two operators are required for each camera, and there are a total of three cameras to be used, would the department use the additional microfilm operators to create a second shift?  How is that all envisioned?

 

Ms. Mathiesen:

I have submitted a modification to the Governor’s office.  The modification would eliminate the request for the microfilm equipment, both camera and OCR.  Instead of that, we wanted to request one-time funding to outsource the microfilm backlog. 

 

We have reduced the request for the 10 Microfilm Operators and one Program Assistant to 8 Microfilm Operators and 1 Program Assistant, and 1 additional Microfilm Operator for FY 2003.  Those microfilm operators would be used to establish a second shift.  Right now we have two cameras and OCR’s and we are not utilizing them effectively.  They are only being operated 8-1/2 hours a day.  We would like to establish a night shift that would allow us to keep up with the ongoing workload. 

 

Chairman Parks:

All of that is being done in Carson City?

 

Ms. Mathiesen:

Yes, Sir.

 

Mrs. Chowning:

I just want everyone to know that we toured that facility.  Those employees do excellent work in conditions that are less than optimum.  So, they deserve a lot of credit.

 

Chairman Parks:

Would you comment on the Data Integrity Section within the Central Services Division?

 

Ms. Mathiesen:

Yes, Sir.  The Data Integrity Section currently has a staff of 8 employees.  They have not had a staffing increase since 1981.  They generally enter driver-related documents received from other agencies, such as courts, traffic safety schools, and law enforcement agencies.  As a result of the tremendous increase in population over the past several years, this section is no longer able to keep up with the corresponding increase in workload.  In calendar year 2000, the employees in this section worked 795 hours of overtime and entered about 1.5 million documents.  A current backlog of 190,000 documents still exists. 

 

Additionally, there is a backlog of over 500,000 other related documents that are not currently being entered.  We wanted to assign those documents to this division to get the computer entry process completed.  We are requesting 9 Data Entry Operators and 1 Program Assistant in the Data Integrity Section.  Our modification request to the Governor suggested that 5 of those positions sunset in FY 2003, once the backlog has been eliminated.

 

 

 

 

Chairman Parks:

It would seem there would be consequences created by the department’s failure to get updates done, whether it is a conviction or credit for attending traffic safety school.  Am I correct?

 

Mr. Kirkland:

You are correct, Mr. Chairman.  Even though we refer to these as back-office operations, this is a very fundamental process.  It is an important element of our entire system.  If this information does not get produced and cannot be delivered, then all the things that the Legislature, the criminal justice system, and the civil system all put into effect does not work.  This information about people’s driving records has got to be immediately and readily available for the rest of the system to work.  Currently, the system is not working properly because the work is backlogged.  A tremendous amount of hand searching goes on which is extremely ineffective.  There is no question in my mind we are missing pieces of information that are material for a thousand different reasons.  This is extremely important.

 

Chairman Parks:

One matter we want to pursue is the optical character reader issue.  That offers tremendous opportunity for saving on labor and having the retrievable capacity that it affords.

 

Mr. Kirkland:

Mr. Chairman, we agree completely.

 

DMV Management Services – Budget Page DMV-29 (Volume 3)

Budget Account 201-4742

 

Jim Parsons, Environmental Management Specialist, Chairman, Advisory Committee for the Control of Vehicle Emissions, Compliance Enforcement Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety:

This division was established by the 1999 Legislature.  The division provides support for the other divisions within DMV in areas of strategic planning, research, legislative interaction, fiscal management, development of policies, procedures, regulations, draft legislation, training, surveys, forms, the development of requests for proposals, and project management.  The division is authorized 34 full-time staff.  We cover vehicle programs, driver programs, occupational licensing and business programs, fiscal programs, emission control programs, and employee development.

 

The base budget was prepared and submitted according to the budget instructions.  If the members of the subcommittee have no questions, I would like to present the two major enhancement units.

 

E-276 Working Environment & Wage – Page DMV-33

 

Chairman Parks:

Let us start with the E-276, a request for 5 positions.  Could you go into detail as to how they would be used and why you feel you need those positions?

 

Mr. Parsons:

We are requesting the 5 additional staff for driver vehicle and business programs to assist existing personnel with programs, policies, and procedures and to ensure they are delivered in a cohesive and coordinated manner.  The positions are required to allow the division to be proactive instead of reactive with the support of the other divisions.  We are requesting 3 Management Analysts II.  Those positions would develop, review, and revise procedures to ensure program integrity, establish and facilitate cross functional teams, identify training needs and revenue, and evaluate department concepts and approaches and the delivery of service by conducting long-range planning. 

 

We are also requesting 2 Program Assistants to prepare technical documentations, statistics, and reports, to prepare research documents, to arrange for hearings, to facilitate focus groups, to employ meetings, and assist managers and analysts with policy and procedure development.  We have identified 11 new projects that we need to approach. One of those projects has already started, and my driver programs manager has embarked upon this project of digitized drivers’ licenses.  That, for her, is become a full-time job, as well as the information technology staff that is co-chairing that with her. 

 

The other programs we would like to look at are the following: implementation of Vision Rx, which is an eye test that can be conducted by a PC at the station where an employee is sitting, instead of the old technology equipment that we have; automated licensing of drive, driving under the influence (DUI), and traffic safety schools; intelligent transportation systems for commercial vehicle operations; electronic lien and title, which is the one that Assemblyman Beers brought up; digitized decal printing that would allow us to produce our own decals for license plates, instead of relying on a vendor. 

 

We are also looking at the following: the National Motor Vehicle Title Information System, which is a project in conjunction with American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), that shares information with other states on title and registration programs; enhancements to our alternate service delivery systems, which is the Internet; interactive voice response (IVR); programs where address changes can be conducted on the system; programs allowing us to search for the personalized plate that a customer might want to have or driver license information for people trying to get jobs; private party partnerships with registration and title processing companies, such as the new car dealers that register cars having fleets, instead of coming into a DMV branch. 

 

Chairman Parks:

I think that making the computer go faster is considered major technology, but there is a lot of other things that can enhance the speed, accuracy and effectiveness of your operation.

 

I would like to talk about digitized photo licensing.  Under Nevada Revised Statutes you are allowed to charge up to $1 for the photo.  From your input it appears that the cost to move to a digitized photo licensing is going to double.  Have you given thoughts as to how you recoup that cost?

 

Ms. Lewis:

Mr. Chairman, the direction we are taking on funding the digitized photo licensing is to not pass additional cost on to the consumer, which is the direction from the Governor, but to offset the increased cost from the State Highway Fund. 

 

 

Chairman Parks:

Is that scheduled to go into effect February 2002?

 

Ms. Lewis:

You are correct.  At this point in time the project is scheduled to go online in April 2002.  That is barring unforeseen obstacles. The contract has been let with Polaroid and the project is underway.

 

Chairman Parks:

This will be a statewide program?

 

Ms. Lewis:

Yes, this is statewide; however, it will be phased office by office. 

 

Chairman Parks:

With regards to this being funded by the State Highway Fund, we will take that under consideration.

 

E-275 Working Environment & Wage – Page DMV-32

 

There were 2 positions created in February 2000 by the IFC dedicated to providing training to department employees.  Have these proven beneficial?  Are you are asking to keep those positions?

 

Mr. Parsons:

Yes, we are asking to continue the funding for those 2 positions, and they are contained in E-275.  From July 2000 to the end of January 2001, those 2 individuals have completed 27 training classes. Of those classes, it was 508 hours of training to 225 employees.  The number of hours for development of training courses was 409, and the number of hours to prepare the course was 670.  These two employees have put a tremendous amount of time and effort into bringing this program online, and keeping our employees going through, so that we can utilize them to provide the customer service that we need to.

 

E-350 Service At Level Closest to People – Page DMV-33

 

Chairman Parks:

I would like to discuss your module E-350, which is a request for $70,000 over the biennium for a contract with the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV).  My question is what will the UNLV Cannon Center do that cannot be done with DMVs comment cards?

 

Mr. Parsons:

This is our opportunity to have an outside source evaluate what we are doing, how we are doing it, and how well we are doing it.  The comment cards and the surveys that are done in-house are very narrowly focused to specific issues.  This would allow us to evaluate our whole program area within DMV.

 

 

Ms. Lewis:

Mr. Chairman, it is very important for the branch to be evaluated from a third party.  As Mr. Parsons has said, we have completed surveys in-house.  They are very labor intensive and narrow in scope.  While they gave us some indication of how we were doing, I think that the Legislature, the Governor, and management need a report card.  We need to truly know that what we are doing with the pilot programs, and the programs DMV wants to undertake are making a difference.  UNLV brings statisticians that we do not have with the in-house skills to really work with the data, and give people a true quantified evaluation of our customer service.

 

Chairman Parks:

I am informed that IFC approved funding for a survey in December 2000.  What is the status of that survey?

 

Ms. Lewis:

I am not aware of the survey.   After Project Genesis went online, we committed that we would have a post implementation survey done of the project.  Is that what you are referring to?

 

Chairman Parks:

I think we were confused, but it was this past December 4 meeting of the IFC.

 

Ms. Lewis:

I apologize, and will check into that survey and provide that information to you and committee staff.

 

Chairman Parks:

Obviously we do not want duplication, but if this is out of that sphere, we would like to know the status of that survey.  If you could also provide details on the program you would like UNLV Cannon Center to do, and the goals you hope to achieve, that would be helpful.

 

Ms. Lewis:

We developed a proposal when we were doing the budget of what UNLV would provide with this funding.  We can certainly make that available.

 

Mr. Beers:

Were your 11 projects listed in priority order?

 

Mr. Parsons:

No, Sir.  They are in priority order based upon program areas.  Do you have one specifically that you think is important, but did not hear?

 

Mr. Beers:

Yes.  One of the ways we get around the inefficiencies of having to take your hand off what you are doing and put it on the mouse is called “keyboard equivalents.”  In Microsoft Word, for example, you can hit “Alt F” in actually any Windows program, and the same thing will happen as if you had moved your mouse up to the “File” at the top of the menu structure, and the “File” menu will pop up.  You should take a look at any opportunities you have to build some “keyboard equivalents” into Genesis in the hopes we can reduce that rather significant transaction processing time.  That would get more people through.

Ms. Lewis:

I agree.  There are a lot of things we can do, and I am going to make a broad plea in our DMV IT budget to say that resources for technology are absolutely crucial for DMV.  If we do not get those resources, we cannot start looking at all these other innovations.  To keep pace with other DMVs around the country and to move forward, we need resources.  We have a foundation, and if we do not expand on it, shame on us.  Technology is where we have to go.

 

Mr. Kirkland:

Mr. Chairman, we will make a list of things that we do not have time today to tell you about.  But, we have been doing good things, including speeding up the process.  We may not understand it ourselves, but we will make a report available to you and staff, because we are doing those things. 

 

Mr. Beers:

Could you get that list to staff, as well?  They have expressed an interest in this information.  I would be willing to bet keyboard equivalents are already there, and what we need to do is to train your trainers to train your staff, rather than have to do any program modification.  It was an innovation eight years ago.

 

Mr. Kirkland:

I suspect you are correct.

 

Senator O’Donnell:

Budget account 201-4742 dealing with Management Services Division.  Could you explain the request for drivers’ license photos for $516,358 in FY 2001 and FY 2002.  The Governor recommends it at $1.1 million and we just got through talking about the cost that was going to be in order to facilitate these drivers’ licenses.  Correct?

 

Ms. Lewis

The statement I made before was correct.  We have a fee in place to charge and that offsets the total cost of issuing the drivers’ license; however, with the digitized photos that cost goes up.  That means an increase in appropriation from the State Highway Fund for this technology.

 

Senator O’Donnell:

For the edification of the committee, how much this will cost the State Highway Fund?

 

Ms. English:

We have a request to the Governor’s office to fix this decision unit.  Actually, the costs in the decision unit in the first year are too high.  In The Executive Budget the costs are reflected to go up for the whole year.  They do not really go up until the last quarter of the year, when we implement the digitized photos.  So, the revenue was also estimated too high in the first year.  We are actually going to request a decrease in State Highway Funds of about $400,000 to fix this decision unit in FY 2002.  In FY 2003, we are going to be requesting about $170,000 increase in State Highway Funds.

 

M-200 Demographics/Caseload Changes – Page DMV-30

 

Senator O’Donnell:

Okay, in M-200, you have $686,000 in additional cost.  Is that what the cost is going to be?

 

 

Ms. English:

That is what was is in the Governor’s budget, but that is incorrect.  We are in the process of fixing that figure and apologize for the confusion.

 

Senator O’Donnell:

Mr. Chairman, I would ask the staff of DMV to tell me how many people they are going to need to get to the 1995 level of service for the DMV, and I want to know the costs.  You can also provide how much it costs us to get this information, so I know how many hours are spent on it.

 

Mr. Kirkland:

We will be happy to provide that information, Sir.

 

Chairman Parks:

We will have a few extra questions when we meet on another day.  So, we invite Mr. Parson back to join us and we will have to reschedule the following budgets:

 

DMV, Motor Carrier – Budget Page DMV-38 (Volume 3)

Budget Account 201-4717

 

DMV, Verification of Insurance – Budget Page DMV-50 (Volume 3)

Budget Account 201-4731

 

DMV, Motor Vehicle Pollution Control – Budget Page DMV-55 (Volume 3)

Budget Account 101-4722

 

DMV, Automation– Budget Page DMV-68 (Volume 3)

Budget Account 201-4715

 

Chairman Parks adjourned the hearing at 10:58 a.m.

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

ElizaBeth Root

Committee Secretary

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

                       

Mr. David R. Parks, Chairman

 

DATE:           

 

 

                       

Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen

 

DATE: