MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
Assembly Committee on Ways and Means
AND THE
Senate Committee on Finance
JOINT Subcommittee on Public Safety/Natural Resources/Transportation
Seventy-Second Session
February 28, 2003
The Assembly Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance, Joint Subcommittee on Public Safety/Natural Resources/Transportation was called to order at 8:09 a.m., on Friday, February 28, 2003. Chairman David Parks presided in Room 2134 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
Assembly COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. David Parks, Chairman
Ms. Chris Giunchigliani
Mr. Josh Griffin
Ms. Sheila Leslie
Mr. John Marvel
Senate COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Bob Coffin
Senator Dean A. Rhoads
Senator Sandra Tiffany
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Speaker Richard Perkins, (excused)
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst, Assembly
Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst, Senate
Mark Krmpotic, Senior Program Analyst
Lila Clark, Committee Secretary
Carol Thomsen, Committee Secretary
Chairman Parks asked the Subcommittee secretary to note for the record which Subcommittee members were present.
MOTOR VEHICLES
DMV, DIRECTOR’S OFFICE – EXECUTIVE BUDGET PAGE DMV-1
Chairman Parks welcomed Ms. Ginny Lewis of the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). Chairman Parks asked Ms. Lewis to give a general overview of the Department before addressing each individual budget. He said there were two issues he wanted Ms. Lewis to discuss, the proposed change in statute to increase the 22 percent cap of the fees collected for the Highway Fund to 29 percent for administration, and the Department’s request for new positions in The Executive Budget. Chairman Parks asked if the Department had done any analysis as to how the Department would attempt to get the additional funding.
Ms. Ginny Lewis, Director, Department of Motor Vehicles, introduced herself. Ms. Lewis said the Department had submitted a bill draft request (BDR) to increase the 22 percent cap limitation to 29 percent. She said that during the 71st Session of the Legislature the Department supported a bill that would have eliminated the 22 percent cap. At that time she testified that the 22 percent cap was a limitation that had been in place since the 1950s, and she believed that with the growth of the state and the Department it was an arbitrary number that meant nothing. Ms. Lewis said that in light of all the enhancements and improvements the Department had made in the previous five to six years and its challenges to stay current with the growth of the state and provide services to the constituents of the state, the Department had again found itself exceeding the 22 percent cap with The Executive Budget. The 22 percent cap affected those budgets that were funded from the Highway Fund so it was not every budget in the agency that fell under the 22 percent cap. Ms. Lewis said that the cap had been exceeded with the staffing proposal submitted in The Executive Budget. Ms. Lewis pointed out that even without those positions the Department had still exceeded the 22 percent cap. Ms. Lewis said that the issue would still have to be addressed in the Department’s proposed budgets. Ms. Lewis said the Department had not submitted a bill in the current session to eliminate the cap as it had been unsuccessful in the 71st Session but the Department had calculated the percentage it believed would allow the budgets to be funded and allow the Department to get through the next biennium.
Assemblyman Marvel asked Ms. Lewis if she had given any thought to raising any of the fees such as the fee for a driver’s license. Ms. Lewis said The Executive Budget did not address the increase of any fees. She said that the Department had considered whether to increase the commission it received for its collection efforts for the Government Services Tax and the Supplemental Government Services Tax. However, that would affect the funds distributed to the counties and would result in an adverse effect to the schools, which would have a ripple effect on the Distributive School Fund. Ms. Lewis said that because of the issues facing the state the Department had backed away from that concept.
Assemblyman Marvel asked Ms. Lewis if driver’s license fees could be increased. Ms. Lewis said The Executive Budget included no increases in fees. Mr. Marvel asked Ms. Lewis if she had thought about the possibility of an increase in the driver’s license fee and she responded that she had not.
Assemblyman Marvel asked how many dollars could be generated with a $5 increase in the driver’s license fee. Ms. Lewis said she did not know if such an increase in fees would generate the revenue needed by the Department to cover its budget requests.
Assemblyman Marvel said he had a concern about “dipping into the Highway Fund” so much that there would be no funds left to repair the roads.
Ms. Lewis pointed out to the Subcommittee that the monies the Department collected for the Highway Fund far exceeded the money the Department took back from the Highway Fund.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked how Nevada’s costs for a driver’s license compared to costs for a license in other states. Ms. Lewis replied that the Department had looked at other state’s costs and determined that Nevada’s costs were in the middle between the low and high costs.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if the renewal time in Nevada had been extended. Ms. Lewis said Nevada’s renewal time had always been four years, however, a person could currently renew by mail or on the Internet for eight years. She said that the cost of a driver’s license, which was over $21 for a four-year period, was “quite a deal.” Ms. Lewis said she was unsure what increase would be needed to provide the funds the Department needed to fund its budgets. Ms. Giunchigliani said she believed the Department should calculate the numbers and Ms. Lewis agreed to do that. Ms. Giunchigliani said the Department needed to be creative on the budget and although the Department had made those attempts she would like to go further to determine the best incentives to get people out of the DMV lines.
Ms. Lewis asked if the Department should look beyond increasing the fees for a driver’s license to the possibility of increasing the vehicle registration fees. Ms. Lewis said the registration fee was $33 per year plus taxes. She said that from the public’s perspective the registration costs were very high.
Chairman Parks said that he believed people typically looked at the bottom line and no one noticed that the registration fee was only $33. Chairman Parks said he was unsure how to get that message out to the people of the state.
Chairman Parks asked if there had been any discussions between the Department and the Department of Transportation with regard to changing the 22 percent cap to 29 percent. Chairman Parks asked if anyone knew the origin of the 22 percent cap. Ms. Lewis said the Department had researched the 22 percent and determined that the 22 percent cap had been put in place in the 1950s. She said the Department had lived with it, worked with it, and stayed within that limitation but she thought the time had come to do something about the cap.
Chairman Parks asked for clarification about the bill draft request (BDR) that had been submitted to change the cap. Ms. Lewis replied that the BDR had been submitted by the Department of Administration in conjunction with the Department’s budgets that exceeded the 22 percent cap.
Senator Coffin asked how the Department could keep meeting the ratio. He asked if the ratio could be satisfied with registration fees. For instance, the higher the registration fees to DMV, the less the Department would have to draw down on the Highway Fund. Ms. Lewis said that Senator Coffin was correct. Senator Coffin said he had learned a lot during the previous session of the Legislature about how a change could be made by substantially increasing the initial registration fees. Ms. Lewis said she did not have the numbers that had been prepared in the previous legislative session but she believed that Senator Coffin had proposed increasing the first-time registration costs. Ms. Lewis said the Department’s costs for transacting a first-time driver’s license or registration far exceeded the costs on a renewal. Ms. Lewis said she did not have any calculations with her but she would calculate some hypothetical costs and provide them to the Subcommittee.
Senator Coffin said he believed a person moving into the state for the first time should be paying two, three, or even four times as much as the person who was a current resident. Senator Coffin asked what the registration fee was and Ms. Lewis responded that it was $33 per year. Senator Coffin suggested charging a newcomer to Nevada an initial fee of $100 or $150 and they could renew at the regular fee. He said the Department should think big as the newcomers had an economic impact on the state and should pay their dues when they entered the state. Senator Coffin said Nevada could not erect a fence around its borders but could charge additional fees for newcomers. Ms. Lewis said the Department would return to the Subcommittee with options that could be considered for possible fee increases.
Senator Coffin asked Ms. Lewis to do more than think about possible fee increases. He said that she was going to think about increases and provide the information to the prior session of the Legislature but that had not happened. Senator Coffin requested that the information be provided as soon as possible.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked Ms. Lewis to consider an incentive/disincentive program. If a person renewed by mail or used the Internet, the cost would be less than renewing in person. Ms. Giunchigliani asked Ms. Lewis to comment on the kiosk pilot project at some point in her presentation. She said that program had been set up for people who did not have a checking account and could only pay by cash.
Chairman Parks asked if Ms. Lewis knew the number of individuals who had moved to Nevada but decided not to register their vehicles until the registration expired from another state due to the high cost of registration. Ms. Lewis said the Department did not have any statistics on the number of people who did not register their vehicles in Nevada until their registration from another state was expired. She said that A. B. 30 was an attempt to get those people who had moved to Nevada to register their vehicles in Nevada and not let the term of their out-of-state registration expire before registering in Nevada. Ms. Lewis said there could be people who realized the cost to register in Nevada was high because of the enhancement the Department had put on the Internet during the preceding year. The enhancement on the Internet allowed a person to get a fee quote for registration. Ms. Lewis said if a person moved to Nevada and had navigated through the Web site, the person might decide to wait to register their vehicle due to the cost. Ms. Lewis said the Department and everyone on the Subcommittee knew that was a problem.
Chairman Parks stated that before he purchased a new vehicle a year before, he had gone on the DMV Web site to get an estimate of the anticipated registration costs. He said the cost shown on the Web site turned out to be the exact cost of the registration. Mr. Parks said the Web site worked very well.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said she wondered if legislation should be enacted that would require that if a public employer was going to employ someone, the public employer would ensure that the employee had a current driver’s license and registration. Ms. Giunchigliani said she would love to have the private sector join in but she would at least like to require the public sector to require a current Nevada license and registration. Ms. Giunchigliani said she meant no disrespect but she had noticed when she was in a classroom that half of the vehicles in the parking lot, if they belonged to newly hired teachers, had not changed their driver’s license or registration. Ms. Giunchigliani stated that the public employers in the state might be the place to begin. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if Ms. Lewis was aware of any pending legislation regarding that issue.
Ms. Lewis said she believed Ms. Giunchigliani’s idea regarding public employers was a great idea. She said she did not believe the DMV was the ultimate solution because it had no enforcement powers. Ms. Lewis said law enforcement agencies, with their caseloads and resources, could not respond to calls regarding someone driving on an out-of-state registration. Ms. Lewis felt that the solution was complex.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said the two major school districts had orientation days for staff. She said the schools could request that the DMV send staff on campus to assist with registration or driver’s license changes. Ms. Giunchigliani believed that would be a beautiful way to meld the two. She said that in the past if an employee had to drive a vehicle on the job, the employee was required to show identification. Ms. Giunchigliani said the school districts provided mentors that helped new staff find apartments and maybe those mentors could also make sure the new employee had his driver’s license and registration changed.
Chairman Parks said he had an ongoing concern about how the Legislature could approve the DMV budget without the change in the statute from the 22 percent cap on the Highway Fund to 29 percent. Chairman Parks asked Ms. Lewis to discuss the Department’s request for additional staffing.
Ms. Lewis introduced Mr. Clay Thomas, Administrator, Field Services Division, Department of Motor Vehicles. Ms. Lewis said that over the past several weeks the Department had continued to work on the staffing proposal. She said her commitment was to bring forward a plan that was accurate, defendable, with a logical approach to best meet the needs of the Department’s metropolitan offices, and get the Department to the point where it had optimum coverage of its service windows. Ms. Lewis said she had provided the Subcommittee with Exhibit C, a final staffing proposal that had reduced the number of employees requested from 184 positions to 159 positions. Ms. Lewis said the proposal had three components: coverage for the windows in the metropolitan offices, a staffing level that would allow for Saturday services in Carson City, and five revenue positions for the administrative functions in the five metropolitan offices.
Mr. Thomas said he would provide an overview of the staffing proposal and would be glad to supply the Subcommittee with information on the staffing package. Mr. Thomas said the major element the Department had taken into account to develop the staffing formula was the desire to expand Saturday operations in the Carson City office. According to Mr. Thomas, the Department attempted to accurately identify the number of hours customer service windows were open and available to serve customers in the metropolitan offices, to accurately identify the numbers of productive work hours in a year for a seasoned employee and a new employee, and to accurately identify the number of employees needed in each metropolitan office to operate at optimum efficiency. Mr. Thomas said that taking those elements into account, the Department developed a staffing package and staffing formula that it believed was sound, appropriate, and accurately reflected the Department’s future needs.
Chairman Parks asked Mr. Thomas to explain what was generating the need for Saturday operation of the Carson City office. Mr. Thomas said the need for the Saturday operation in Carson City was based upon the fact that it had become a metropolitan office due to population growth. The other metropolitan offices all offered Saturday operation. Mr. Thomas said that the Department believed that by extending Saturday hours to the customers in the Carson Valley some of the traffic that was going to the Reno office would go to the Carson City office. Mr. Thomas said that Saturday was one of the heaviest days of operation in the Reno office. He said the Department believed that people could go to the Carson City office on Saturday without having to travel to Reno to conduct their business and that would relieve some of the burden that was placed on the Reno office. Mr. Thomas said the Department believed the population and number of customers would warrant a Saturday operation in Carson City. Mr. Thomas pointed out that the original staffing request for Saturday operations had been cut back from 19 positions to 11 positions. Mr. Thomas said that at the present time there was not a need to have 19 positions operating on Saturday.
Chairman Parks asked if the proposal took into consideration that there would be less traffic into the Reno office if the Carson City office had Saturday operations. Mr. Thomas said the Department hoped so. He said that currently if a customer wanted to go to the DMV on Saturday the customer had to go to the Reno office and it was hoped that some of the traffic would be diverted from the Reno office.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said she did not see anything in Exhibit C that justified the need for the positions. She said she understood the concept but with the current budget restraints she felt the Department should be exploring the justification for opening some windows on Saturday in Carson City. Ms. Giunchigliani said she would scrutinize the proposal but did not see the justification for the staffing.
Mr. Thomas said the staffing proposal would be a phased-in approach. The immediacy of offering Saturday operations in Carson City was not apparent at the current time, however, the Department was planning for future growth. Mr. Thomas said having Saturday operations in Carson City would be a final phase in the Department’s plans.
Chairman Parks said the Subcommittee would need more analysis of the plan and a better justification for it. He said that if some people knew they had to go to the DMV Monday through Friday, they could rearrange their schedule to do so but if they knew they could go on Saturday they might delay their business until Saturday.
Ms. Lewis said that she wanted to add that the staffing package was a phased‑in approach. She said everyone needed to keep in mind some of the pilot projects that the Department was working on, such as the kiosk pilot project and the enhancement to the software for the analyzers on the emission stations. She said that because of the timing of those projects, no data was available for review. The package proposed to bring solutions to the Carey Office and the Sahara Office. The Department believed those to be its two most critical offices and most in need of assistance. Ms. Lewis said that once the kiosk pilot project was operating and providing data so the Department could analyze what a kiosk could actually do for the Department, and determine what the emissions stations in Clark and Washoe Counties could do, the Department would analyze the need for more staffing. Ms. Lewis said she anticipated the pilot projects would bring positive results to the Department. Ms. Lewis stated that Carson City continued to grow and if the Department achieved great results with the pilot projects and the Department was able to provide those alternatives to the customers and the customers utilized the alternatives, the Department would have to analyze the staffing plans in a year.
Chairman Parks said that according to the information provided previously to the Subcommittee, the Department had calculated that the average number of transactions per employee equaled approximately 40 per day, or 5.33 per hour, which translated to approximately 11.25 minutes per full transaction. Chairman Parks said those figures consolidated many different activities into one to arrive at those composite numbers. Chairman Parks asked if it was possible to improve on the 11.25 minutes per transaction through further enhancements to automation or was that the number the Department had to live with. Mr. Thomas said that currently the number represented a best-case scenario for the Department. However, the Department continued to review its operations and processes and worked with its Information Technology Unit to identify those areas that could expedite the use of the screens or the compression of some of the information so that the transactions could be handled faster. Mr. Thomas said that the numbers represented the best the Department could do currently but the Department was reviewing processes in an attempt to bring the numbers down.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if the contract had just gone out for the kiosk pilot project. Ms. Lewis responded that the contract had been signed in January 2003, and the vendor said to allow for a 90- to 120-day time frame to develop the software. Ms. Lewis said that the kiosk pilot project was located at the Carey Office and should be ready in May 2003. The project called for one machine that would run for one year to help the Department gather the data.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if there was a reason why only one kiosk was chosen for the pilot project and Ms. Lewis answered that only one kiosk was chosen due to the cost. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the amount paid to the vendor of the kiosk was for the purchase of the kiosk, the set-up, and the necessary software.
Mr. Dennis Colling, Chief, Administrative Services Division, Department of Motor Vehicles, introduced himself. He said the kiosk contract was structured so that the Department did not purchase the kiosk. He said the contractor would be paid on a per transaction basis and the Department estimated the number of transactions that could potentially occur in a year. Mr. Colling said that was how the Department calculated that $100,000 was needed for the pilot program.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if the customer paid the transaction fee. Mr. Colling responded that the Department would pay the fee, not the customer.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked why the customer was not being charged the fee to use the kiosk. Ms. Lewis said the kiosk would be used by cash customers and those customers who had procrastinated in getting their registrations renewed. She said the kiosk project was a means for the Department to divert those customers from a technician to a “virtual technician” and she believed there would be a great benefit to the Department.
Ms. Lewis went on to explain another concept behind the kiosk project, which she described as the “third phase,” which was not addressed in the budget. Ms. Lewis said the Department needed to be in a “24-7” environment. She said if the pilot was successful and the planned four kiosks could be added to each metropolitan office, the Department would return to the 2005 Legislature, explain the success of the program, and put the program into an “ATM-type concept.” Ms. Lewis said the machines could be added to the lobbies of the Department’s offices or the buildings could be reconfigured so that people could use the kiosk “at 2 in the morning.”
Senator Tiffany said she loved the idea of the kiosk and wished it could be put in place sooner than planned. Senator Tiffany asked if the kiosk would provide the same functions as the Department offered on the Web site and would the kiosks have the same look and feel as the Web site.
Ms. Lewis said the kiosk in the pilot project would be for registration renewal only. The kiosk would have the capability, after the pilot project was completed, to be used for driver’s license renewal, or address changes. She said it would not have the feel of the Internet; it would be easier to use. Ms. Lewis said the kiosk would have a touch screen and be easier for an individual to maneuver through.
Senator Tiffany said that she believed that the kiosks should have the same look and feel as the Web site to provide ease of use for customers. Senator Tiffany asked Ms. Lewis to think about that concept although she was not sure that the Web site could be changed to be as easy as the kiosk.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said the Department had requested $2 million and she wondered what would be done with those funds.
Mr. Colling responded that the $2 million would pay for the transactions after the kiosk pilot project was successful and expanded to four kiosks in each of the five major metropolitan offices. He said that worked out to be $100,000 per kiosk, 20 kiosks per year, equaled approximately $2 million.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said she hoped the kiosk project was successful but she was unsure the funding was justified at the current time. She said she would prefer to have the Department return to the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) with a report on the pilot project and a request for the necessary funding. She said that would give her a better comfort level with the budgeting process.
Chairman Parks asked if there was a specific time criteria set that the Department was trying to attain when it requested additional staffing. Chairman Parks said he fully realized Nevada was a growing state with 5,000 or 6,000 new registrants every month.
Mr. Thomas responded that it was the goal of the Department to have no longer than a one-hour wait time for the customers that had to come to the DMV offices. He said the additional staff would assist in reaching that goal, however, there were situations outside the control of the DMV that would have an effect on the ability to meet the wait time. Mr. Thomas said the DMV did not control the number of customers that came into an office on any given day, nor did the DMV control the number of transactions that a customer brought with him on any given day. The DMV also did not control the number of employees that came to work or did not come to work on any given day. Employees could call in sick or have a family emergency. Mr. Thomas said that those factors were considered in attempting to get the wait time down to one hour. Mr. Thomas said that, additionally, the DMV was not operating at optimum efficiency within its offices. If the DMV had windows available that had been paid for, equipped with the Q-Matic systems, and were not being used, they were operating a below-standard operation. Mr. Thomas said DMV wanted to be sure that it could utilize all the equipment, all the buildings and facilities, and all the staff to give the best customer service possible with the additional staff.
Chairman Parks said there had been some discussion in the past about having DMV windows open 87 to 88 percent of the time and that currently the percentage was much lower than that.
Mr. Thomas stated that the authorized staffing levels for DMV would have windows open 87 percent of the time. He said that currently the windows were open between 65 to 70 percent of the time because employees were away from the windows.
Chairman Parks asked for Department comments on the performance indicators for Budget Account 201-4744, Director’s Office. He asked for comments on the increased funding for the public awareness campaign and increased use of alternative technologies. He asked that the staff explain the costs for developing the message.
Ms. Lewis stated that E-300 requested $100,000 each year to fund a public education campaign for sustained delivery of information to DMV’s customers that would allow them to make a choice on how they chose to conduct business. Ms. Lewis said DMV had appeared before the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) on two separate occasions. The first meeting with IFC occurred in December 2000 to request funds for a customer service, communications, and image plan. That campaign launched in June and July 2001. The use of the Web for registration renewals shot up to 10 percent in August 2001, from what had been a monthly average of 7 percent. The DMV again went to the IFC in September 2002, and were approved to use savings from the credit card category for an ongoing media campaign in northern and southern Nevada. Ms. Lewis said the question to be answered was whether the investment in a public education campaign provided the results that the DMV had hoped for.
Ms. Lewis referred the Subcommittee to Exhibit C, “DMV Web and IVR Transaction Monthly Comparison.” She said the graph contained important information and if November 2002 was compared with November 2001, there was a 28 percent increase in registration and driver’s license use of the Web. Ms. Lewis said December showed even greater results with a 52 percent increase over the same month in 2001. She said January 2003 had a 62 percent increase over January 2002. Ms. Lewis said the February statistics were not completed but through February 23, there had been 14,290 transactions on the Web. That number far surpassed the 12,775 that occurred in a full month in February 2002. Ms. Lewis said she believed the numbers were impressive and indicated that the message was getting out to the public and the public was listening. She thought that perhaps the public finally realized there was a better way to spend its time than waiting in the DMV office for service. Ms. Lewis said that once the public tried the Web, the feedback received by the DMV was overwhelmingly positive. She said the public believed using the Web was simple and fast. Ms. Lewis believed that a sustained media campaign had proven to be effective and she was committed that ongoing public education had to be part of what the DMV did. Ms. Lewis said that the DMV had done two different campaigns. The one in 2000 was developed as a “one time shot” and she believed it had not been as effective as ongoing use of television, radio, and newspaper print.
Ms. Lewis said the DMV currently had a public information officer who was extremely beneficial to the Department during the sustained media campaign. She said the public information officer had done all of the design work, and the logo, “You’re just a click away from being first in line.” Ms. Lewis said that quite often an agency might use an outside advertising company at a very high cost but the Department had been able to develop the ad campaign in-house. Ms. Lewis said the television spot that had been done was coordinated by the public information officer, and a Reno television station did it for no cost. She said the Department was finding inexpensive ways to put a good message out to the public.
Chairman Parks asked what the $100,000 included each year in the budget would be used for. Ms. Lewis said it would be used for “media buy.”
Senator Tiffany said that the Department probably got communications from everyone it served and she wondered if the DMV collected e-mail addresses so that information could be posted on the Web site and a periodic e-mailing could be done with updated information.
Ms. Lewis answered that the Department collected customers’ e-mail addresses with their permission. She said the Department sent the customers a reminder prior to their next renewal notice going out in the mail. The e-mail was automatically transmitted and advised customers to share the site with other customers. Ms. Lewis said the Department had received positive feedback regarding the e-mails.
Senator Tiffany said she thought an e-mail newsletter might be a good idea and was very inexpensive.
Ms. Lewis said she thought a newsletter would be a good idea and agreed that it was a very inexpensive method to share information. She said she would pursue the idea further.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked where the advertising campaign was broadcast. Ms. Lewis responded that the advertising campaign had been in newspaper print, aired on television, and on the radio. The campaign was aired in northern Nevada and southern Nevada in alternating months starting November 2002.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said that newsprint was not very much read, especially in southern Nevada. She said there was approximately 31 percent readership. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if customers were queried when they used the Internet as to where they heard about the Web site.
Ms. Lewis said the Department did not currently query the customers as to where they learned about the Department’s Web site. She stated that she had found that the newspaper advertising was expensive. Ms. Lewis said the Department ran the ads in the newspapers on Wednesdays and Sundays, which were the highest read days of the week. Ms. Lewis believed that the best value for the Department was radio, where you had a captive audience while the customers were commuting. Ms. Lewis said the Department was in the process of adjusting its buys to do more radio because print was too “pricey.”
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said the Subcommittee was reviewing the effectiveness of advertising in all the budgets. She suggested that the public information officer might talk to Sprint, SBC, and other telecommunications companies. She said those companies did public service inserts at no cost and that might be a good way to get the information out. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the Department’s public information officer could compare the radio buys versus use of newspaper or television.
Chairman Parks said he wanted Ms. Giunchigliani to know that just prior to the meeting he told Ms. Lewis that “stuffers in mail billings don’t work.” Chairman Parks indicated he was unsure whether they worked but they had not worked for him. He said the Department had a stuffer that was included with the registration renewal that did work. He said he thought that doing the traffic reports, especially in southern Nevada, on radio or television helped convey a message. Chairman Parks said that sometimes a person could not be sure if he was getting an ad sandwiched in the middle of a traffic report and people tended to be a little more attentive.
Chairman Parks stated that not everyone had a computer and he wondered if the Department had researched the possibility of the public using computers in public libraries to conduct business with the Department.
Ms. Lewis replied that recently she had spoken to Mr. Scott Sisco, Interim Director, Department of Cultural Affairs, about the DMV and the Division of State Library and Archives putting together a partnership for the use of computers in the public libraries. Ms. Lewis said the Department needed to reach out to find ways customers could access the Web site and she believed the library was a very logical choice for that.
Chairman Parks said that the IFC had approved a transfer of $150,000 in September 2002 for the advertising campaign, and he wondered why the Department had only expended $42,000 of the funds. Ms. Lewis said a second work program had just been submitted. Instead of using $150,000 at one time, the Department had decided a more reasonable approach was to use $50,000 at a time.
Chairman Parks asked Ms. Lewis how well the reorganization was working. Ms. Lewis stated that E-909 requested the budgetary transfer of the Personnel Unit from Administrative Services to the Director’s Office. She said the realignment allowed the Personnel Officer direct access to the Director and the Deputy Director. She said the prior reporting structure created a less than equitable role for that Personnel Officer in carrying out his responsibility to provide counsel to all the divisions. Ms. Lewis said the reorganization was working very well and she believed the Personnel Unit was appropriately placed in the Director’s Office. Ms. Lewis said she had observed over the many years with the Department that Personnel seemed to move from the Director’s Office to Administrative Services but her preference as Director of the agency was that the Personnel staff report directly to her.
Chairman Parks closed the discussion on Budget Account 201-4744 and opened the discussion on Budget Account 201-4745, Administrative Services.
MOTOR VEHICLES
DMV, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES – EXECUTIVE BUDGET PAGE DMV-9
Mr. Dennis Colling, Chief, Administrative Services Division, Department of Motor Vehicles, said he would present information on Budget Account 201‑ 4745. Mr. Colling referred the Subcommittee to Exhibit D, “Administrative Services Division, B/A 4745, Statistical Data.” Mr. Colling said the Division was comprised of four sections including Fiscal Services, Personnel, Budget Analysis, and Facilities Management. The Fiscal Services Section was comprised of five units: Revenue, Purchasing, Warehouse and Mail Service, Accounts Payable, Bad Debt, and Payroll. Those units provided revenue collection and distribution, purchasing, warehousing, inventory, mail service, travel service, bad debt collection, and payroll services.
Mr. Colling said the Personnel Section, which was moving to Budget Account 4744 in the reorganization, was a designated agency from State Personnel. It handled and coordinated all personnel services for the Department. Mr. Colling explained that the Budget Analysis Section developed revenue projections, cost estimates, assisted in the preparation of the Department’s biennial budgets, provided financial analysis, and reported to the Director. Mr. Colling said the Facilities Management Section provided statewide coordination for all department facilities, oversaw capital improvement projects, coordinated all contracts and interlocal agreements administered by the Department, and coordinated all the telecommunications for the Department. Mr. Colling said the Division was funded primarily through the Highway Fund with two pass-through items and a cost allocation.
Mr. Colling stated that enhancement unit E-275 requested a Chief Accountant position for the Department. He said the Department expected to collect and distribute over $850 million in fiscal year 2003 with appropriate increases in FY2004-05. The amounts being collected and distributed were triple what they were eight to ten years ago. Mr. Colling referred the Subcommittee to Exhibit D for information on the Department’s historical revenue collections and the projections through FY2005. Mr. Colling said, “One of my goals in life is to be able to say that we collect a billion dollars.” He thought that would happen very soon.
Mr. Colling went on to say that one of the two major functions of the Department was to collect and distribute the enormous sum of revenue. Those revenues went to the state, cities and counties, and to local school districts. At the present time the Department did not have a single accountant position. He said the Department had accounting assistants, account technicians, but no accountants. In June 2001, a Legislative Counsel Bureau audit was presented that criticized the Department for its reconciliation, or lack of reconciliation, of the Motor Vehicle Fund. One of the major responsibilities for that position would be the reconciliation of that fund. Other duties that the Department anticipated the position to perform were the supervision of the Revenue and the Bad Debt Section. Mr. Colling said there were approximately 25 employees in those sections. The Chief Accountant would also maintain and monitor for compliance the various revenue systems within the Department to ensure the necessary documentation for all revenue transactions was present and available for the appropriate audit trail as required. The Chief Accountant would also prepare periodic fiscal reports for federal, state, and local use to include such items as Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) reports, monthly distribution reports, and any other ad hoc reports that were needed or required. The position would provide revenue forecasts for the Department and the state for the revenue streams that the Department currently had or may add in the future. Mr. Colling said the position would ensure that the Department’s receivables were maintained, collected, and written off in a timely and coherent manner. Mr. Colling said that each of the duties he had described were of an accounting nature and needed the expertise that a Chief Accountant would have. Mr. Colling said the Department currently had an Administrative Services Officer IV as the Chief of the Division.
Mr. Marvel asked if the Chief Accountant position would be filled with a Certified Public Accountant (CPA). He also asked if the $88,000 included in the budget would be sufficient to attract a CPA to the position.
Mr. Colling responded that the Chief Accountant position would be filled with a CPA. He said the Department had asked that the position be funded at a Step 9, not at a Step 1. Mr. Colling said he did not believe the Department could hire a CPA at the salary provided for a Step 1 position.
Mr. Marvel said that all the duties planned for the position would be an awesome task.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked why the General Ledger (GL) project had not been started. Mr. Colling said the General Ledger project had been in process for over a year. The Department was in the final testing phase but the Department did not want to use the program until they were sure it worked well. Mr. Colling said the Department was running parallel tests and it was very close to completion. He said he would have liked it to be operational six months previously but he could only say that it would be operational as soon as possible. Mr. Colling said he was very optimistic that it would be operational in the following two weeks. Mr. Colling said that when the program was “turned on” it would go back to July 1, 2002, and be used for FY2003.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated that the Department had said that the GL would be what was needed in order to correct problems identified in the audit but now the Department had requested a Chief Accountant, Grade 41, Step 9, position. Ms. Giunchigliani said she was curious why the Department changed its request.
Mr. Colling said he did not believe the request for a Chief Accountant was a change from what the Department had said previously. He said the GL project was a mechanism, or tool, that would be used as part of the process of reconciliation. Mr. Colling said the Department would assign many other duties to the Chief Accountant as well. Mr. Colling reminded the Subcommittee that the Department was collecting triple the amount of funds it had collected six to eight years ago.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani read the following into the record and identified it as Ms. Lewis’ response to the audit. She said, “The General Ledger project currently underway within the Department addresses the reconciliation of the Motor Vehicle Fund and once implemented will resolve the recommendations.” Ms. Giunchigliani said there was no reference to the need for a Chief Accountant in response to the audit. Ms. Giunchigliani said she was hoping for a response from Mr. Colling, but the lack of an answer might have meant there was no answer.
Mr. Colling stated that there was an answer. He said the statement Ms. Giunchigliani read into the record was correct. Mr. Colling said the GL project was a tool that would be used to eliminate the Department’s use of the manual spreadsheets that it had previously used to keep track of the funds. The use of manual spreadsheets was “touchy and dangerous.” He said a slight “tweak” could result in revenues going “every which way.” Mr. Colling said the GL would be the mechanism used to reconcile the Motor Vehicle Fund on a regular basis and was a tool the Chief Accountant would use.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said that there was no justification for the new Chief Accountant position other than putting in a new manager to oversee people that were already in place in the Bad Debt Section. She said the Department already had an Administrative Services Officer (ASO) IV position, an ASO II position, and an ASO III position and she believed the Chief Accountant position would duplicate duties of those positions. She said she did not see how adding the Chief Accountant position would improve collections.
Mr. Colling clarified that currently the Department’s highest designated Revenue position within the Department was a Grade 32, Account Technician II position. He said the collections were over $900 million each year of the biennium and it was the Department’s position that the Chief Accountant position was needed within the Department to help manage the revenue.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said that in reviewing the Department’s flow chart, she could see that there were “quite a few” individuals doing the work and it had never been raised in any other hearing. Now in response to a one-time audit in which the Legislature had been told that the GL project should correct the problem, a new Grade 41 position was being requested. Ms. Giunchigliani said she would like to review the Department’s position statement and the management organizational chart because she felt the Department might be attempting to take advantage of an audit recommendation to add additional staff that might not necessarily collect additional dollars.
Senator Coffin asked how long it would take to implement an increase in the first-time registration fee. Senator Coffin said he was nervous about increasing the 22 percent cap on the Highway Fund.
Mr. Colling answered that a change in the registration fee would require a change in the DMV application and that would take approximately three months.
Senator Coffin asked if the renewal registrations would have to be reprinted or changed.
Ms. Lewis answered that it would be necessary to make changes in the system. Also, wherever the fees were printed would have to be changed. Ms. Lewis said necessary changes to the Web site would be easy to make. She said the main change would be on the internal application that would have to be adjusted for the calculation.
Senator Coffin asked Ms. Lewis to provide information to the Subcommittee on how much money could be generated with fee increases.
Ms. Lewis said the Department would provide all options for staying under the 22 percent cap on the Highway Fund.
Assemblyman Marvel asked if the new Chief Accountant position and the GL project would help in distributing funds to the counties faster.
Mr. Colling said that the GL project would be tied directly into the Integrated Financial System (IFS) and transfers could be made from the Motor Vehicle Fund directly to other funds. Mr. Colling said the Department was looking into the possibility of advancing the system to include the electronic transfer of funds wherever possible.
Mr. Marvel asked if the problem with slow distributions to the counties had been remedied.
Mr. Colling stated that the first phase of the GL project was to develop the reconciliation processes. The Department was very limited in what it could do currently but other improvements would be considered for future phases of the project.
Chairman Parks asked if the proposed Chief Accountant position would supervise the Administrative Officer (ASO) II position.
Mr. Colling replied that the current ASO II position managed the development of the GL project as its sole function. He said those individual duties that were remaining in the Payroll Section, the Accounts Payable Section, the Warehouse Inventory and Mail Section, and Purchasing Section had been assigned directly to Mr. Colling temporarily. Mr. Colling said that the Chief Accountant’s position would manage the Revenue and Bad Debt Sections. The ASO II position would handle the Payroll Section, the Accounts Payable Section, the Warehouse Inventory and Mail Section, and the Purchasing Section. Mr. Colling said the ASO II position would not report to the Chief Accountant, it would report to Mr. Colling, ASO IV.
Chairman Parks said that staff of the Fiscal Division would request additional information from the Department on the justification for the Chief Accountant’s position.
Mr. Colling said that decision unit E-276 requested a Personnel Analyst. The position would be responsible for processing all requests for reclassifications in the Department and would also be responsible for establishing a system of tracking and ensuring completion of employee evaluations and maintaining current work performance standards. The position would also develop and provide reports on Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and labor force comparisons, grievances, vacancy turnover statistics, and other labor management reporting as required. Those tasks were either untimely completed or not completed because of the work demands of the Department’s Personnel Officer. The position would be transferred to the Director’s Office if funded.
Chairman Parks asked for clarification regarding the placement of the position in the Director’s Office. He said the Personnel Unit had been moved to the Director’s Office although the budget was still Budget Account 201-4745, Administrative Services. Mr. Colling said the Department had a transfer unit within 4745 to move the budget from 4745 to 4744.
Chairman Parks remarked that it did not appear to him that the duties Mr. Colling had described represented any new responsibilities. He thought the duties were more a continuation of responsibilities. Chairman Parks said he had heard Mr. Colling say that the employee’s evaluations tended to be tardy and that was a concern to him. He asked the Department to comment further on the employee appraisal process and what the problems were with it.
Ms. Lewis stated that the Personnel Analyst position was being requested because the workload was more than the current Personnel Unit could handle. She said the Department was working very hard to bring all evaluations current but she believed one of the key functions the position would provide was the establishment of a tracking mechanism and the position could work closely with all the Divisions to ensure that the staff knew when every employee evaluation was due. The position would monitor the progress and provide follow-up to the process. Ms. Lewis said the Department employed over 1,100 employees and had 7 personnel staff between northern and southern Nevada. She said it was everything the personnel staff could do to stay current. Ms. Lewis said the Personnel Officer II position in the Department had taken on additional tasks at her request. She said there were reports she would like prepared to help her with management decisions but there were no resources within the Department to compile those reports. She said the size of the agency and the demand for information was critical and had driven the need for the Personnel Analyst position. The new Personnel Analyst position would also allow the Personnel Officer the time to work on larger issues such as the grievances and the EEOC issues.
Chairman Parks asked if the state had a ratio established regarding the number of personnel positions necessary for a certain number of employees. Ms. Lewis said that the Personnel Officer had completed the research on the appropriate ratios but she did not recall the outcome. Ms. Lewis said there was a standard ratio set by the state and she would supply the information to the Subcommittee.
Chairman Parks said he realized that different types of activities demanded a greater number of personnel positions.
Ms. Lewis said the Department had a delegation agreement with State Personnel whereby the Department handled in-house all requests for reclassification of job classifications unique to DMV. She believed that was a unique task that some of the other agencies did not have.
Chairman Parks asked how many reclassification requests had been made and Ms. Lewis said she would provide that information to the Subcommittee.
Mr. Colling stated that enhancement unit E-278 was a request for funding to purchase ergonomically appropriate equipment to meet worker’s compensation program demands, disabled employee’s needs, and allowed an aggressive worker injury program. Mr. Colling said the Department was requesting $25,000 per year to meet those needs. The State Administrative Manual and the practices of the worker’s compensation program had shifted the costs for certain corrective equipment to each Department. The Department needed the funding to meet the requirements of the State Administrative Manual and the demands of the Governor’s Executive Order of June 27, 2002, to minimize the frequency and severity of work-related illness and injury.
Chairman Parks asked what type of equipment would be purchased with the funding. Mr. Colling said the Department would provide the information to the Subcommittee.
Chairman Parks said he supported the purchase of appropriate chairs for the employees because if they did not have proper equipment, they would have health-related problems, which translated into use of sick leave.
Chairman Parks asked the Department to discuss the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project to reconstruct the improperly constructed counters at the Sahara Office. He said it appeared that the State Public Works Board had identified the project to be handled in the 2005-06 biennium.
Ms. Lewis said the request that had been brought forward through the State Public Works Board addressed the workstation area at the Sahara Office. She said that currently every workstation window was 48 inches wide and with the computer, printer, and other necessary equipment present, the area was ergonomically substandard. The goal of the project was to expand the windows to allow more work area. Ms. Lewis said the Sahara Office statistics showed they had the highest number of claims such as carpel tunnel injury claims. She said the work areas were not an efficient size for the technicians. Ms. Lewis said each work area would be expanded to 72 inches and that would allow for the computer, printer, and the technician’s supply cart.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked when had the remodel of the Sahara Office been completed. Ms. Lewis answered that she believed the Sahara Office remodel had been done in the early 1990s. Ms. Giunchigliani said she was curious why the size of the workstations was not considered at the time of the remodel.
Ms. Lewis said she was unable to respond as to why the workstation issues were not addressed during the major remodel of the Sahara Office. She said she hoped that as the Department worked with the Public Works Board on any building that the ergonomics of a work site would be addressed.
Chairman Parks said he believed that the last major remodel of the Sahara Office was completed toward the end of 1996. Chairman Parks said he remembered doing a registration at the Sahara Office and the Department was using modular offices at the side of the building while major remodeling was being done inside the building. Chairman Parks said that as of the previous year, when he was last in the Sahara Office, it looked awkward for each of the individuals at their workstations. Chairman Parks thought that the workstation windows had been in place for a minimum of seven or eight years and he believed some remodel definitely needed to be done.
Ms. Lewis said that when the Department’s employees demonstrated that they did not have the proper tools and an efficient workspace, the Department’s responsibility was to modify the workspace and provide what the employees needed. That would result in a reduction of workers’ compensation claims that would have to be dealt with by the state.
Mr. Colling said that decision unit E-351 was a request for five additional positions within the Revenue Section, Administrative Services Division. Mr. Colling said that decision unit E-351 along with E-352, which was a request to convert a half-time position to a full-time position, were companion requests to the Field Services staffing request and should be addressed with that request. Mr. Colling said that the Department wanted to put a third person in the Revenue Section of each of the Department’s metropolitan offices to provide two employees during the hours between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. He said that currently the offices opened at 7 a.m. with one employee and two employees started work at 10 a.m. Mr. Colling stated that with the increase in the personnel requested for Field Services, the Department felt it was necessary to have the offices manned six days a week with two employees. Mr. Colling said that on Saturday there was currently only one employee working. He said that one person handling money, credit cards, and checks was not conducive to good fiscal controls.
Chairman Parks asked Mr. Colling to comment on the methodology used to determine the need for staffing. Mr. Colling responded that the Department looked at the needs in two separate ways. First, he said the Department felt a third person was needed to handle the ongoing Saturday service. Secondly, the Department looked at developing a formula. He said he had provided a copy of the formula to the LCB staff. He said he had looked at the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. on a normal workday. With three employees working, one would start at 7 a.m., the second person would start at 8 a.m., and the third person would start at 10 a.m. He said there would be a time period at the beginning of the day and at the end of the day when there would be only one employee present. That employee would open and close the office. Mr. Colling said that during the day there would be three hours with three employees present and the remainder of the time there would be two employees present. Mr. Colling said he could provide to the Fiscal Division the formula he used to calculate the number of staff needed but Chairman Parks said that would not be necessary if he had previously submitted the formula to the Fiscal Division.
Chairman Parks closed the discussion on Budget Account 201-4745 and opened the discussion on Budget Account 201-4740, Compliance Enforcement.
MOTOR VEHICLES
DMV, COMPLIANCE ENFORCEMENT – EXECUTIVE BUDGET PAGE DMV-21
Mr. Russ Benzler, Administrator, Compliance Enforcement Division, introduced himself. Mr. Benzler said the Compliance Enforcement Division included three primary enhancement units requested in The Executive Budget. Mr. Benzler said that decision unit E-500 sought additional funds from the Highway Fund to support the addition of personnel that would allow the Department to address the internal and external fraudulent uses of its processes, particularly as those processes related to identification and vehicle title fraud. Mr. Benzler said that identification fraud had been identified as the number one problem facing all jurisdictions charged with the responsibility of issuing driver’s licenses and identification (ID) cards. Mr. Benzler said the events of September 11, 2001, served to heighten the nation’s awareness of the identification fraud problem; the problems associated with fraudulent IDs had been around for years and were growing.
Mr. Benzler said that in addition to the economic consequences, which would heavily impact the economy, identity theft had an even more insidious and immediate impact on the public. Mr. Benzler said that every day identity thieves were able to secure fraudulent identification cards and licenses from Departments of Motor Vehicles around the country allowing them to either conceal their own identities or to assume the identity of someone else. Mr. Benzler said that once identity thieves had subverted the very processes that were initially put in place to protect the public, those thieves were able to open credit card accounts in unsuspecting victims’ names, they were able to drain banking accounts, they were able to evade apprehension for prior criminal acts, and that even applied to misdemeanor traffic citations. Mr. Benzler gave an example that an identify thief might be stopped, cited for a violation and use a false ID. Two months later, the person whose ID was used would be unaware of the citation, be stopped by the police, and find out there had been a warrant issued. That person would have become an unsuspecting victim of the identity thief.
Mr. Benzler said false IDs allowed criminals to evade detection while they were traveling around the country, it allowed them to take illegal advantage of citizenship privileges, and they could evade parental support responsibilities. Mr. Benzler said that unfortunately, all too often and despite the best follow-up efforts of law enforcement and the court systems, by the time the thieves’ acts were discovered the damage had already been done. At that point it would be up to the victim or victims to unravel the sometimes catastrophic consequences of the thieves’ acts. Mr. Benzler stated that in some cases the restoration process could take years of aggravation to complete on the part of the victim. He said that Nevada was not immune from the effects of identify theft that the other jurisdictions around the United States were experiencing.
Mr. Benzler stated that in the previous year documented cases of internal fraud had surfaced in the news, particularly in southern Nevada. Mr. Benzler said that in one instance alone, a former Department employee was alleged to have issued an estimated 1,392 fraudulent driver’s licenses or ID cards. Mr. Benzler said the employee was no longer employed by the Division and there was prosecution pending against the individual, however, the damage had already been done and it would be many years before the final effects were known.
Mr. Benzler said that the Department had recently begun an anti-fraud pilot program in the Reno Office. Under that program, DMV technicians, who had been complaining about the problem for years, began referring suspected fraudulent transactions to Division investigators for follow-up action. Within a relatively short period of time, 68 such incidents were referred out of one office. Subsequent investigations showed that of the 68 cases, 66 cases were positively identified as fraudulent, resulting in 16 arrests and 7 warrant referrals to the district attorney’s office. Mr. Benzler said that due to a lack of sufficient information, which was caused when the suspects abandoned their paperwork and fled the area, the other cases could not be pursued even though they were fraudulent. He said pursuing those cases was like investigating a ghost, you did not know who you were trying to identify.
Mr. Benzler said that based on the pilot program in the Reno Office and the emerging details coming out of the Las Vegas area, including those relating to title fraud, the Department believed that the fraudulent uses of its DMV processes were occurring regularly and the problem was growing. To address the problem, the Department proposed to add one supervisory Compliance Enforcement Investigator, five non-sworn Compliance Investigators, and two Program Officers to the Division. Mr. Benzler said that under the Department’s proposal, the new investigative positions would assume the lower level administrative functions of the Division’s current sworn investigators. Once those duties had been assumed, existing sworn staff, in addition to handling the more serious cases the Department already had for the automobile industry, would be redirected to pursue any suspected fraudulent transactions submitted to the Department. Those positions would also work very closely with the Attorney General’s Office to identify and aggressively prosecute any employee found committing fraudulent acts in connection with their employment. In addition to the assistance provided by diligent line technicians, the investigators in the unit would be aided by the efforts of the new Program Officers, who would be trained and certified as document examiners. Their task would be to routinely sample transactions submitted to the Department for the purpose of authenticating documents and transactions and identifying any patterns of fraud or suspected fraudulent transactions. Mr. Benzler said at that point they would refer those cases to the Investigative Unit for follow-up.
Mr. Benzler described the project as small in scale but the Department believed that the “front end intervention approach,” when coupled with aggressive prosecution, would provide a viable deterrent to would-be cheats. The Department also firmly believed that a specialized unit, thoroughly familiar with all departmental processes and under the control of the DMV Director, was the most efficient and effective way to control the growing problem.
Assemblyman Marvel asked if the Department had trouble with “chop shops.” Mr. Benzler said that would fall under the jurisdiction of the Nevada Department of Investigation (NDI).
Assemblyman Marvel asked how many sworn officers the Department had. Mr. Benzler said there were six line investigators who were sworn. Mr. Benzler said the officers were Category 2 and that meant they were not first responders.
Chairman Parks asked for clarification on the number of employees the Department was requesting in the biennium budget. Mr. Benzler said the Department currently had six sworn officers and was requesting five non-sworn employees to do the administrative tasks. Mr. Benzler clarified that the supervisor that had been requested would be a sworn officer and the other five employees requested were not sworn officers.
Chairman Parks asked if the positions would provide full-time coverage for the major offices any time they were open. Mr. Benzler responded in the affirmative and said that the intent of the plan was to assign the positions to the major metropolitan offices.
Chairman Parks asked if the Department had detected any fraudulent activity that was taking place at the satellite offices. Mr. Benzler said the Department had received documents from all the offices and virtually all the offices had fraudulent transactions taking place. Mr. Benzler said the proposal sought to concentrate on the major metropolitan areas. The concern was that once a control had been put in place in the metropolitan offices, the thief would “scurry” out to the path of least resistance.
Chairman Parks asked if a customer was ever turned away from a satellite office because his documents did not “look right.”
Ms. Lewis said that front-line technicians had all been sent through fraudulent document training as that was the first contact point at which the documents were examined. She said there was no way that Compliance Enforcement staff could be in every one of the Department’s 21 locations as that was not practical. Ms. Lewis stated that the Department was attempting to focus on the big offices where the problem was probably larger. She said the Department could ensure that the front-line technicians in every office were comfortable with the documents that they were handed each and every day. Ms. Lewis asked, “Are they going to catch every fraudulent document that comes across, no, but at least we’re elevating their awareness of what a fraudulent document looks like and that, at this point, is all that we can do; work with those techs, give them the training on fraud docs, and keep refreshing them.”
Chairman Parks asked if there was any possibility of receiving federal grants that would support the cost of the program in light of the new Homeland Security Program.
Mr. Benzler said he was not familiar enough with the program to answer the question but he would look into the possibility. He said that with identification fraud being one of the issues that affected homeland security there might be some funding available.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if the Department would be doing low level administrative investigations also. Mr. Benzler answered affirmatively and said that was why the Department needed the additional five non-sworn employees.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said that would mean another level of investigators and she wondered why the suspected crimes would not just be referred to the Nevada Division of Investigation.
Mr. Benzler said the Department was attempting to get “front-end” intervention. He said the Department could refer the crimes but he did not know what effect that would have because you would be trying to chase someone that you had no idea who they were. Mr. Benzler said the Department believed that becoming involved in the problem at the front-end of the fraud was the best way to deter it.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said she appreciated that and she believed that training the technicians was an excellent way to do that. She said it was a good, proactive approach to take but that was why the Department had been split and she did not have a comfort level for hiring more investigators. Ms. Giunchigliani said that part of what the Department should do is to refer suspicious documentation to NDI. Ms. Giunchigliani said she did not believe there should be “mini-investigation groups” in the agencies. She said she had discomfort with that.
Ms. Lewis stated that the Department was trying to ensure that the DMV processes were not abused. She said the investigators and the document examiners should have an intimate knowledge of title transactions and title documents and driver’s license transactions and driver’s license documents. Ms. Lewis said NDI had in the past assisted the Department but when the NDI came in to assist there was a learning curve and NDI had to learn how the DMV processes worked.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said she appreciated what Ms. Lewis said but if a specialized investigative unit were created in every public agency, it would get out of hand, it would cost too much money, and it would be a duplication of effort. She said that if the investigators were good investigators they were trained to adapt to new situations. Ms. Giunchigliani said she did not see in the Department’s performance indicators, or any place else, a breakdown of what the potential fraud cases were to justify the creation of the unit.
Chairman Parks asked if the positions would be created to prevent fraud amongst the employees or would head off the proliferation of fraudulent documents by assisting front line counter employees.
Mr. Benzler responded that the primary purpose of the unit would be to intercept those fraudulent transactions that were submitted at the counters. Secondarily, when the Department identified cases where an employee had been involved in internal fraud the Attorney General’s Office would be involved to ensure that the employee was both identified and prosecuted.
Chairman Parks said the Subcommittee would like the Department to provide more information on the request for the investigative positions and might have additional questions for the Department.
Mr. Benzler said decision units E-923 and E-927 were interrelated and would be treated as one subject. He said the Department was asking to transfer positions within the Central Services Division and the Field Services Division, that were strictly associated with occupational licensing, from those divisions into the Compliance Enforcement Division. The reason for the transfer was that the Department had evaluated the 1999 reorganization where those positions were moved from what was then the Bureau of Enforcement and Occupational Licensing and placed within the Central Services Division and the Field Services Division. Mr. Benzler said the rationale behind moving the positions was that those employees dealt with customer service and therefore they would be better placed in the Field Services Offices and the Central Services Offices. In evaluating that move, the Department had found over the preceding three years that the Occupational Licensing group was more closely associated with, and an integral part of, the industry regulatory program, which the Division administered. Mr. Benzler said it was felt that those positions would be better suited in the Division so there would be a consistent application of the laws and regulations that applied to the industry. The move would also allow the Division administrators of the Central Services Division and the Field Services Division to concentrate on their primary goals of customer service and reduced wait times.
Chairman Parks said there seemed to be a departure from the Department’s previous philosophy regarding where the positions should be housed. He asked how the recommended transfer of the positions would improve the overall operation of the Department.
Ms. Lewis stated that when the Department went through a major reorganization in 1999 it had been based on a theory that put all employees with direct customer contact into the Field Services Division. Ms. Lewis said her responsibility as a manager of the operation was to constantly evaluate whether the Department was providing the most efficient and effective service to the public. She said she had learned that there were certain “tweaks” that needed to be made to the organizational structure that was put in place in 1999. Ms. Lewis stated that the organizational changes that the Department had put into place were appropriate to ensure that the Department was delivering the best service to the customers who walked into a field office or to the industries that the Department licensed and regulated. Ms. Lewis said the industries needed to get the same message from the same division and if the industries were to be regulated they needed to be educated and have the same licensing procedures in place. She said the benefit should be clear to the industry that the Department regulated.
Chairman Parks said the Subcommittee’s concern was with how service would improve with the transfer of the positions.
Mr. Benzler stated that the transfer of the positions would ensure that the laws and regulations would be applied consistently. For example, the Department would ensure that there would not be someone granting a permit to someone that would infringe on an existing franchise. The employees should know that when someone came into the office to submit a business application there would be consistent procedures that applied. He said that if the employee accepted the county business license at the counter the Department could accept that to begin the licensing process and the customer would not be told that they had to wait until the county issued the final city/county business license.
Chairman Parks asked Mr. Benzler to discuss the change in funding for the fingerprint expenses. Mr. Benzler said the Department was attempting to get away from the current process where every year the Department appropriated an amount for fingerprint expenses for applicants within the industry. He said that every year the amount was exceeded and a supplemental appropriation had to be requested to cover the shortfall. Mr. Benzler said the shortfall was not caused because the fees were not collected. He said the Department collected the fees for every applicant and the fees were sent to the Motor Vehicle Fund. The applicant’s fingerprints and application were then forwarded to the Criminal History Repository who then charged the Department for processing. Mr. Benzler said the problem was that there were more applicants than appropriated funds and the shortfall or imbalance was created. Mr. Benzler said that the proposal was for a pass-through account, similar to what had been done with placards.
Chairman Parks asked who was getting fingerprinted and what the costs were. Mr. Benzler said that the yearly appropriation was based on a projection of the number of salesmen anticipated. That projection was based on the number of salesmen from the previous year plus the growth factor. Each year there tended to be more applicants than existing salesmen. He said that number varied and created the imbalance. Mr. Benzler said that although the applicants paid fees, the fees went to the Motor Vehicle Fund but the Department got billed from the Criminal History Repository.
Chairman Parks asked if the Department was attempting to set up a revolving fund for the fingerprint fees.
Ms. Lewis responded that the funding mechanism would be similar to the funding mechanism used for the driver’s license contracts for photo identification cards. The Department collected $2.25 above the licensing fee for every card that was issued. Those monies were used to offset the contract. Ms. Lewis said the Department was attempting to get away from an appropriation and have the fees for the background and fingerprint checks used to offset the costs to the Repository.
Chairman Parks said that sounded like a revolving fund where the funds would be collected and the Repository would be paid from those funds collected.
Chairman Parks closed the discussion on Budget Account 201-4740 and opened the discussion on Budget Account 201-4735, Field Services.
MOTOR VEHICLES
DMV, FIELD SERVICES – EXECUTIVE BUDGET PAGE DMV-29
Mr. Clay Thomas, Administrator, Field Services Division, said the Division almost exclusively received its funding from the Highway Fund and commissions stemming from the collection efforts involving Government Services Tax. The budget contained only one minor appropriation and that was from the General Fund for the administration of the Motor Voter Program. Mr. Thomas said the Field Services Division was responsible for direct customer service operations for driver’s licenses and vehicle registration functions. That included, but was not limited to, registration of vehicles, ensuring that only safe, knowledgeable drivers received and maintained privileges to drive on Nevada’s streets and highways, issuing certificates of ownership, collecting required fees and taxes associated with ownership and operation of vehicles, providing insurance verification program service, and registration for voters through the Motor Voter Program.
Mr. Thomas said the Division maintained 21 offices throughout the state. Those offices were divided into six geographical branch units. In addition to the offices, the Division had travel teams from Elko and Winnemucca that provided driver’s licensing services to Wendover, Wells, Jackpot, Lovelock, and Battle Mountain.
Mr. Thomas reported that the Field Services Division currently had 609 full-time positions, approximately 406 of those performed transactions statewide and approximately 337 of those were assigned to the 5 offices equipped with the Q‑Matic lobby management system. Those offices were also identified as the Department’s metropolitan offices. During calendar year 2002, the 5 metropolitan offices served over 1.4 million customers, conducted over 2.5 million DMV transactions, had an average customer wait time of approximately 71 minutes, and had an average maximum customer wait time of approximately 1 hour and 47 minutes. The Reno Office served an average of 745 customers per day while each of the Las Vegas metropolitan offices served an average of 1,001 customers per day.
Mr. Thomas said the base budget had been prepared and submitted according to the budget instructions. He said his presentation would concentrate on those issues that had the most impact on the Division’s ability to devote itself to providing quality customer service. Mr. Thomas said decision unit E-275 requested the addition of one motor vehicle appraiser for the Reno Office. Pursuant to the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) motor vehicle appraisals were required to be completed within ten business days after the Department was in receipt of the written request. There was only one motor vehicle appraiser assigned to the Reno Office whose area of responsibility covered Washoe County, Carson City, Douglas County, Storey County, Lyon County, Mineral County, Esmeralda County, Churchill County, Pershing County, and northern Nye County. That individual’s workload exceeded that of the motor vehicle appraisers assigned to southern Nevada, whose areas of responsibility consisted of Clark County, southern Lincoln County, and southern Nye County. Mr. Thomas said that in the preceding year the Reno appraiser was unable to meet the statutory mandate on numerous occasions and additional staff had to be called upon to assist. Those actions created a ripple effect that ultimately led to less staff being able to operate customer windows. In addition, when the appraiser was unavailable due to sick leave, annual leave, or other circumstances, staff from the office must fill in, thus preventing or delaying them from handling their normal duty assignments. An additional motor vehicle appraiser at the Galletti Office would enable the Division to meet its mandated service deadline.
Chairman Parks asked how the geographic area for the motor vehicle appraiser was determined. Mr. Thomas said the Department had another appraiser who was assigned to the Elko Office. That individual was responsible for Humboldt County, Lander County, Elko County, White Pine County, and Eureka County. The state had been divided geographically resulting in the northern appraisers handling very large areas.
Chairman Parks asked if the appraisers did the appraisals in the field. Mr. Thomas responded affirmatively.
Chairman Parks asked the Department to explain the rationale behind the statutory requirement to complete an appraisal within ten business days. Mr. Thomas said the statute was NRS 487.240, which stated that when an agency received a request to have a vehicle appraised the agency had ten days from the time the written request was received to conduct the appraisal.
Mr. Thomas said that decision unit E-276 requested the addition of one driver’s examiner for the Fallon Office. That office currently had one examiner assigned. Mr. Thomas said that over the previous two years, 2000 to 2002, the Fallon Office experienced a 20 percent increase in the number of transactions processed. The state demographer estimated that Churchill County and the Fallon area would continue to experience an average growth rate of 8 percent a year in the coming decade. Growth had affected the Fallon Office’s ability to provide timely testing and service. The wait times in the Fallon Office for drive tests were currently being booked two weeks in advance. The Fallon Office needed to provide at least 18 drive tests per day to keep pace with the demand. However, due to the current examiner assigned to office coverage, that office was only able to offer an average of 11 drive tests each workday. When the examiner was absent from the job, the supervisor was required to provide coverage, which then caused her to fall behind in her job duties. An additional examiner position in Fallon would elevate the services that were needed in the Fallon area.
Mr. Thomas went on to explain decision unit E-300. That decision unit requested funding to enable the Field Services Division to network the Division’s five individual Q-Matic Lobby Management Systems with the headquarters office in Carson City. The networking of the Q-Matic System would enable the Administrator and staff to monitor customer wait times and generate reports without the intervention of the branch office managers. Currently, branch office managers had to manually program reports, print them, and fax them to the Administrator’s office each day. Staff in the Administrator’s office then had to re-enter the data into spreadsheets to compile statewide and comparative data reports. Implementation of the project would improve the efficiency of the data collection and accuracy of the reporting by and to the Division Administrator’s office. The implementation of a network system would also afford management the ability to monitor and evaluate the activities in each office in a real time environment from a centralized location.
Chairman Parks said the Subcommittee was concerned with the Motor Carrier Program’s support, the kiosk pilot project, and the increased staffing in the major metropolitan field offices.
Mr. Thomas said the decision units pertaining to the kiosk project were E-305 and E-306. Mr. Thomas said that the Department was requesting funding for the continuation of the kiosk pilot project, which was currently underway. Mr. Thomas said the Interim Finance Committee approved the use of excess credit card funds to begin the project. After evaluation of the project, the Department was hopeful that the data would support expansion to Phase II, which provided for additional kiosks to be placed in the metropolitan offices in order to provide renewal services to customers. Mr. Thomas said that on any given day approximately 30 percent of the customers in line at the metropolitan offices required services that could be delivered through the mail, through the use of the telephone, or through the use of the Internet. He said the Department had worked and continued to work hard at trying to educate and convince those customers to use those alternative methods rather than visit a DMV office.
Chairman Parks asked whether the Department had developed milestones in order to determine whether the kiosk pilot project would be deemed a success or a failure.
Ms. Lewis responded that the intent of the kiosk pilot project was to determine the feasibility of the kiosk concept. She said the pilot project would allow the Department to gather data and interview some of the customers using the kiosk. Ms. Lewis said she believed it was important for the Department to find out how the concept would be received by the public. She said it was a new concept for delivering service and while in previous testimony she had said that she could not control a customer going into the office, the customers could be controlled once inside the office. She said that in theory that “may sound great” and she would say that a cash customer there to renew a registration would be directed to a kiosk without any choice, but she did not know if the concept would be totally accepted by the public. Ms. Lewis said that was the evaluation process the Department wanted to be able to do with the one pilot kiosk at the Carey Office.
Chairman Parks asked what anticipated benefits would result from the Motor Carrier support transfer. Ms. Lewis said that Mr. Benzler would address the question in the upcoming testimony on Budget Account 4717. Ms. Lewis said the Division on the receiving end of the transfer would explain the benefit of those transfers to the Department.
Chairman Parks asked if the Department was requesting 88 hours of training per employee each year. Ms. Lewis answered in the affirmative.
Chairman Parks said he noticed that a technician’s productive hours were approximately 1,408 hours per year. He asked if that number was used in the calculation of employee training hours needed.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if the employees received the same training over and over each year. Ms. Lewis said the 88 hours per year represented a breakdown of seven training courses that the Department had identified that were critical for the employees. Ms. Lewis stated that when the Department went through the Project Genesis, it had some training modules referred to as “Quest for Gold” and “Quest for Silver.” She said management had talked to employees and team leaders in the field offices and asked what they needed “to better do” their jobs. The technicians on the front line were asking for refresher training on some of the processes that they struggled with. Examples were titles, insurance reinstatements, driver’s license reinstatements, or some of the complex first-time registration transactions. Ms. Lewis said the Department’s focus currently and for the next two years would be to provide the technicians the training they had asked for. They wanted training on the core processes they did day in and day out.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if the training would equate to approximately 11 days per year that the technicians were off assignment; Ms. Lewis responded affirmatively. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the customer service refresher course would take 24 hours each year. Ms. Lewis stated that currently the time allocated for the customer service module was 24 hours. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if anyone had reviewed the modules to determine if they were up-to-date and appropriate. Ms. Lewis answered that the Management Services Division that oversaw the training for the Department was constantly reviewing and updating all the modules they were responsible for.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if the Department had customer satisfaction cards that were filled out by customers regarding individual technicians. Ms. Lewis said the Department had customer service comment cards in the field offices as well as the many complaints or compliments that the Department received from the public each day.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said her understanding was that the fraudulent documents course was 8 hours and the registration refresher and driver’s license refresher courses were 16 hours each. She asked if the Department had made so many changes to those two areas that the changes would warrant 16 hours each of training.
Ms. Lewis said that when the Department made a change in the application that would mean that the technicians also would have to be trained on any changes in completing the transaction on the computer. Ms. Lewis said that while the laws were not changing, the processes did change.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked the reason for the changes. Ms. Lewis responded that as the Information Technology staff was able to modify screens to make them more efficient for the technicians the technicians would have to be trained on how to utilize the screens. Ms. Giunchigliani said she thought that it was a large number of training hours requested for training on minor application changes. She said she wanted to be certain that the training hours were actually needed and that employees who did not need the training were not forced to attend unnecessary training.
Mr. Thomas stated that the training was a part of what the Department did to attempt to reduce the wait time for customers. He said the Department continually reevaluated the processes and attempted to find ways to expedite the computer screens and the methodology behind the screens. Therefore, when changes were made by the Information Technology staff the training was done immediately so it had a benefit to the customers.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said that what Mr. Thomas said made good sense but then there should be less staff requested if the screens were constantly updated to make them more efficient, and she did not see that reflected in the budget.
Mr. Thomas said that if one looked over a two-year time period, customer counts had increased, DMV transactions had increased, and the number of staff had not. He said that indicated that the Department was more efficient with what it had. Mr. Thomas said there would come a time when that efficiency would reach the break-even point, there was only so much that could be done internally, and as customer counts continued to climb there was a need to add additional staff. Ms. Giunchigliani stated that there had been approximately 6,000 people moving to southern Nevada each month and that had declined to approximately 4,000 people per month. She said that approximately 1,200 people left the state each month.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani restated that if the Department was more efficient, there should be less staff required although increased staff would always be necessary as the volume increased. She said the Department had not provided statistics to support the need for positions.
Chairman Parks asked if the Department’s management surveyed its employees to determine if they were satisfied with the amount and type of training they received.
Ms. Lewis answered that information was gathered from employees in two ways on the type of training needed. She said managers went to the offices twice a year to discuss with staff what type of training was needed. Information was also collected from the Employee Management Committee that met with the Director and the Deputy Director on a quarterly basis. She said those were the voices of the employees when they talked to management and represented their offices. Ms. Lewis said those meetings provided an opportunity for her to hear what the employees said they needed to do a better job.
Chairman Parks asked if the figure of 88 hours of training yearly was developed as a result of those meetings. Ms. Lewis answered affirmatively and said that she had also realized that continuous improvement and team building was not the training that would best benefit the employees in the next few years. She reiterated that the employees wanted training on the core processes required for their jobs. She believed that if an employee was confident that they had the knowledge they needed to perform their job that would improve customer service. Ms. Lewis said confidence was critical for the employees and she did not want the employees to be struggling because the Department did not provide the training that they had asked for that would improve the service that would be delivered.
Chairman Parks asked how the new training positions would impact the proposed training for each field service employee. Ms. Lewis responded that the Management Services and Programs Division budget would be discussed later in the presentation and that question would be answered at that time.
Chairman Parks asked if the Governor supported the change in the Highway Fund formula from the 22 percent cap to 29 percent cap for spending on administration. Ms. Lewis responded that the Governor “absolutely supports” the change.
Chairman Parks asked how the Genesis System was currently performing. He asked if the Department was satisfied with the system. Ms. Lewis said that in the previous three years the DMV application had come a long way. The program had been stabilized and the Information Technology staff had improved the database and the screens. Ms. Lewis said there were still improvements that needed to be made. The transactions times indicated on the Q-Matic reports showed that the transaction time had leveled off to approximately 11 minutes per transaction. Ms. Lewis stated that it was a very complex computer application and the Information Technology staff’s goal was to continue to make the screens more efficient for the technicians. She said that would be an ongoing evolution of a very complicated application.
Chairman Parks said that the statistics for the Sahara Office seemed to show that the customer wait time had increased. Mr. Thomas stated that the wait times had increased. He said the Q-Matic System was a very good tool because the Department could look at what was occurring in each office and then try to determine why that was occurring. Mr. Thomas said the Department had done some research on the Sahara Office and had found that it had the highest percent of technicians with less than one year of experience. Mr. Thomas said the Department believed the increased wait times were a direct reflection of the inexperience of the technicians.
Chairman Parks asked if the Department tracked employee turnover by facility. Mr. Thomas said that information was not tracked but he could gather the information and make it available to the Subcommittee.
Chairman Parks asked for the status of current projects in process, specifically the vehicle registration renewal integration with the emission test analyzers.
Mr. Jim Parsons, Administrator, Management Services and Programs Division, introduced himself. Mr. Parsons said that project had recently been “kicked off.” He said the Department had a meeting two to three weeks previously with the equipment vendor who would be developing the software along with the Department’s software staff. Mr. Parsons said the Department had ongoing weekly meetings in-house while developing the project and it appeared the project would go online in 60 to 90 days. Mr. Parsons said the program looked “very hopeful.”
Chairman Parks closed the discussion on Budget Account 201-4735 and opened the discussion on Budget Account 201-4742, Management Services. Chairman Parks asked the Department to discuss the request for new training positions.
MOTOR VEHICLES
DMV, MANAGEMENT SERVICES – EXECUTIVE BUDGET PAGE DMV-58
Mr. Parsons said that decision unit E-275 requested six new Program Officer III positions to provide training to meet the increased training requests identified during the current biennium. The requests for internal and external training had increased and Management Services training resources were unable to meet the demands. Mr. Parsons said that two of the positions would be utilized to conduct workshops to inform licensees and other external customers, such as financial institutions, of changes and updates relating to procedures and rules affecting their requirements. Mr. Parsons said that new dealerships were moving to Nevada from other states and were requesting training for their employees to ensure compliance with Nevada statutes relative to title and paperwork processing. He said that financial institutions were requesting guidelines and training relative to title and odometer requirements. Mr. Parsons said that some of the companies that had requested training from the Department were auto auctions, Nevada Taxpayer’s Association, attorneys’ offices, credit unions, new and used car dealerships, and Father Joe’s Village, who did vehicle donations. Mr. Parsons said that laws, rules, regulations, and procedures were complicated at times and training was needed to help prevent the Department’s external customers from violating laws, being sanctioned or fined, and to ensure compliance with Department guidelines to promote understanding of the DMV processes. Mr. Parsons said that as a direct result of providing the outside business with training the number of customer complaints to the Department should decrease as well as the number of fines and sanctions imposed by the Department.
Mr. Parsons continued his presentation by saying that four positions would be used to enhance the Department’s current training staff to provide required training for new employees and refresher training for existing employees without utilizing field staff. He said that with the current staff the Department could only maintain its new-hire training manual and provide selected training related to the computer application and the procedures required to complete a transaction. Mr. Parsons said that over the current biennium the training focus had been on the Field Services Division because that staff had the most exposure when it came to customer service. Mr. Parsons stated that there were other divisions within the Department that had the same requirements for new employee training and refresher training. Those divisions had not had the same training manuals and procedure training development due to the lack of staff in the Management Services Division. The staff in Management Services had, over the current biennium, conducted meetings with supervisory staff within the Department and evaluated surveys sent to supervisory staff and line staff to identify training needs to improve job related skills. He said that some of the curricula identified were computer application refresher training for driver’s license and vehicle registration as well as title processing, insurance verification, and driver’s license reinstatement. It was also identified that the new-hire training was not standardized throughout the state. That situation resulted from training not being delivered consistently and not utilizing the same training material. Mr. Parsons said that since the problem had been identified the training manuals were being maintained by the Employee Development Unit. Along with standardizing the training materials the additional training staff would provide consistent training. Mr. Parsons said that the Department also requested that the Training Unit take over new-hire training and eliminate the use of Field Services supervisors and allow them to do the tasks they were hired to complete.
Mr. Parsons stated that the issue of inconsistent training manuals and new-hire training being conducted by the Employee Development Unit was also identified by the Audit Division in the Department of Administration. The preliminary findings by the Audit Division indicated that Management Services should be responsible for all new-hire training. Mr. Parsons said that in order to complete all of the tasks identified, dedicated training personnel were needed to conduct those invaluable workshops and training for external and internal customers. Mr. Parsons said that in addition documentation must be constantly updated and provided to DMV staff and external customers. He said the Department’s knowledge base would also be a valuable tool in ensuring that the front line technicians were properly trained on the application within the Department’s system. Mr. Parsons said the Department’s goal was to provide the best possible service to its internal and external customers. He said that without the requested additional trainers the Department was unable to meet its vision to provide exceptional governmental services to all customers, both private and corporate. The core element of delivering exceptional customer service was ensuring that the employees had the knowledge and confidence to perform their jobs. He said that as managers the Department had the obligation to give the employees those tools.
Chairman Parks asked how many hours of training were provided to non-state employees such as auto dealers. Mr. Parsons said the Department did not currently have the staff to provide training to non-state entities. He said the Department received many requests for such training from other state agencies as well as non-state entities. Mr. Parsons said that Nevada State Welfare, Sierra Pacific Power Company, and other private and public entities had requested the fraud documents training. He said that the Department was currently unable to provide such training because it had to focus on Department staff.
Chairman Parks asked if the Department would be able to provide training to others outside the Department if the Legislature approved the Department’s request for training positions. Chairman Parks asked if the training would be prioritized so that other state agencies received the training prior to the general public.
Mr. Parsons said the priority for training would be the Department’s staff first, followed by other state agencies and county agencies, and then private entities.
Chairman Parks said that the Subcommittee had no further questions at that time but would have additional questions to be submitted through the staff of the Legislative Fiscal Division. Chairman Parks stated that he believed there had been a decision made by the Department not to institute a charge for the use of credit cards because the Department did not want to discourage the use of Internet and other alternate methods of registration renewal.
Ms. Lewis said that discussion had been going on for many years and the Department felt that it did not want to have any type of disincentive for customers using the Internet, thereby resulting in an appropriation from the Highway Fund to cover the cost of the credit card fees.
Chairman Parks asked Ms. Lewis if her position remained the same as it had been on the credit card fees and she responded affirmatively.
Chairman Parks closed the discussion of Budget Account 201-4742 and opened the discussion on Budget Account 201-4717, Motor Carrier.
MOTOR VEHICLES
DMV, MOTOR CARRIER – DMV-65
Mr. Benzler, Administrator, Compliance Enforcement Division, said Budget Account 4717 supported the Division’s Motor Carrier Section, which was charged with the responsibility for administering Nevada’s fuel tax and motor carrier laws and regulations. The 45 employees currently supported by that budget account were responsible for ensuring compliance with those laws as they related to the imposition and collection of motor fuel taxes and carrier registration fees to ensure that Nevada received the maximum amount of revenues available. Mr. Benzler said those revenues went to support the state’s highway construction and maintenance program as well as local government infrastructure needs. The staff was also responsible for ensuring that Nevada, as a member jurisdiction, remained in compliance with the International Registration Plan and the International Fuel Tax Agreement.
Mr. Benzler stated that in fiscal year 2002, as a result of acquiring the program from the Department of Taxation, the section collected and distributed $84.7 million in motor fuel taxes to the Highway Fund and an additional $84 million to local governments through Local Government Option Taxes. Mr. Benzler said that when combined with the motor fuel taxes collected and distributed by the Department of Taxation during the first half of the fiscal year, the total revenue to the Highway Fund for motor fuel taxes was $169.9 million, which represented a 4.2 percent increase over the previous fiscal year. Mr. Benzler said that to date the collection of motor fuel taxes was at a level of $89.3 million, representing an approximate 4.6 percent increase over the previous fiscal year.
Mr. Benzler said the section also collected $69.4 million for distribution to the Highway Fund in special fuel taxes and that represented a .6 percent decrease over the previous fiscal year. He said that to date in fiscal year 2003, special fuel tax revenue was $28.6 million and that represented a 14.5 percent increase over the same period the previous year.
Mr. Benzler reported that in addition to the fuel taxes collected another $27.5 million was distributed to the Highway Fund through the collection of motor carrier registration fees during FY2002. In FY2003 to date the registration collections were at $10.5 million, which represented a 4.4 percent increase over the same period in the previous year.
Mr. Benzler said that in total the Motor Carrier Section successfully collected and distributed over $400 million of revenue to the state’s Highway Fund and local government entities. The cost was approximately $3 million and that represented a return of approximately $133 for every dollar spent by the state. Mr. Benzler said the 2004-05 base budget recommended the continued funding of the permanent positions and their associated operating costs for the upcoming biennium.
Assemblyman Marvel asked if gasoline was currently taxed at the rack as diesel fuel was. Mr. Benzler responded affirmatively, that it was taxed at the supplier level. Mr. Marvel asked if the Department had noticed any increase similar to the increase noted when the tax on diesel was changed to collection at the rack. Mr. Marvel said there was a gain of approximately $10 million the first year after the change on diesel. Mr. Benzler said the Department had not noticed that type of gain; the increase was approximately 4.2 percent over the previous year.
Chairman Parks asked what the duties of the Management Analyst position would be relative to other support the Section received from the Management Services and Programs Division.
Mr. Benzler said decision unit E-125 requested a Management Analyst be assigned directly to the Motor Carrier Section in order to complete the detailed analyses on the statistical reports the unit used to direct its resources. Mr. Benzler said the difference between the position requested and the position in Management Services was that the one in Management Services assisted the Section with policies and procedures, chairing programs such as the C-Vision Program. The Management Services analyst position did not provide the detailed analyses of fuel reporting and tax reports.
Chairman Parks asked if the Section currently had a position that performed the analyses. Mr. Benzler responded that currently the managers and supervisors provided the analyses but if the position was approved the position would provide the required analyses and the managers and supervisors would have more time to perform their normal duties.
Chairman Parks asked what the consequences would be should the position not be approved. Mr. Benzler said the consequences would be that the Section would rely on the managers to attempt to do the required analyses and at the same time manage their sections.
Chairman Parks said he had a hard time understanding why the Dyed Fuel Program was not in the Motor Carrier Division and wondered if Mr. Benzler cared to comment.
Mr. Benzler said he had been informed that there was a bill draft request concerning that issue. He said he had received some information from the Highway Patrol within the previous few days that reported approximately 3,700 tank testings were done during FY2002 and only 22 violations were found.
Assemblyman Marvel asked what the costs had been for the gasoline tax collections. Mr. Benzler asked if Mr. Marvel was referring to cost allocation for the counties versus the state’s costs. Mr. Benzler said the Department had determined what it believed to be a reasonable split between what the counties paid and what the state paid.
Chairman Parks said the Subcommittee might ask the staff of the Fiscal Division to further explore some of the technical issues related to allocation within the Department regarding the administration of gasoline taxes.
Ms. Lewis communicated that she was very impressed with how the Subcommittee got through all of the budgets. She said she had expressed to her staff that the Subcommittee could not complete all the budgets but she believed the Subcommittee had done an outstanding job.
Chairman Parks asked if there was any public comment and there being none, he adjourned the meeting at 10:49 a.m.
Lila Clark
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman David Parks, Chairman
DATE:
______________________________________________
Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Chairman
DATE: