MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION Sixty-eighth Session March 21, 1995 The Committee on Transportation was called to order at 1:15 p.m., on Tuesday, March 21, 1995, Chairman Thomas Batten presiding in Room 331 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Thomas Batten, Chairman Mrs. Vonne Chowning, Chairman Mr. Dennis Allard, Vice Chairman Mr. David Goldwater, Vice Chairman Mr. Bernie Anderson Mr. John C. Carpenter Mrs. Marcia de Braga Mr. Dennis Nolan Ms. Genie Ohrenschall Ms. Patricia A. Tripple GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblywoman Vivian Freeman Assemblyman Larry Spitler STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Mouritsen, Research Analyst Jackie L. Valley, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Daryl Capurro, Executive Director Nevada Franchise Auto Dealers Charles Lee, Co-owner Courtesy Oldsmobile Bishop Divine Turner Doris Lawson, Licensed Practical Nurse for the State of Nevada Louise Mattlock Tom Stephens, Director of the Nevada Department of Transportation Bruce Glover, Chief, Drivers License Division Chairman Batten requested the roll be taken and all committee members were present. ASSEMBLY BILL 205 - Expands certain definitions for purposes of sale and registration of motor vehicles and establishes restrictions for sale of certain vehicles by certain long-term lessors. Assemblyman Larry Spitler, testifying on behalf of the bill, recapped the bill's past history and intent. He introduced Daryl Capurro, Executive Director of the Nevada Franchise Auto Dealers Association. Assemblyman Bernie Anderson requested clarification regarding vehicles won in raffles and the responsibility of the winner to pay the licensing and tax fees. Mr. Capurro replied this would fall under the category of a private sale and would not be subject to the bill. The winner would have the option of selling the vehicle through whatever medium it could conceivably be consigned. Mr. Anderson asked how the bill affected banking institutions. Mr. Capurro replied financial institutions such as banks or credit unions are not required to be licensed in order to sell their own repossessions, do not fall under this chapter and would not be under the restrictions that apply to automobile dealers. Mr. Anderson questioned whether this would lessen the obligation of the auto manufacturer and his representative, the dealership, in servicing the vehicle in terms of its warranty. Mr. Capurro replied the warranty is a requirement under their franchising agreements. Wherever the vehicle might have been purchased, the association has an obligation under their franchise agreement to provide warranty service on vehicles of their own line and make. In reference to sales between brokers and private individuals, Mr. Capurro stated if the dealer prep work has not been done the warranty is voided and the franchised dealer is not responsible for repairs. When a vehicle is purchased through a franchised dealership, recourse may be taken to have the prep work done. Assemblyman John Carpenter asked about the outcome should the seller not be able to meet the 2,500 mile requirement. Mr. Capurro said it is highly unlikely the 2,500 would not be met in repossession circumstances. Mr. Capurro stated the banks frequently sell such vehicles through their own auction facilities. He added a private citizen has the right to sell it to a franchised dealer, privately or to a dealer in another state. Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning asked whether brokers held any responsibility once they had purchased a car from a franchised dealer and resold it to a private individual. Mr. Capurro said the broker held no responsibility as he was categorized as a lawful licensed leasing company and can legitimately buy a vehicle from the franchiser and collect any factory rebates or customer incentives that were intended for the first retail customer. He said the association holds this practice to be unethical because the broker is aware that he is not entitled to the incentives. Charles Lee, co-owner of Courtesy Oldsmobile in Las Vegas, testified on behalf of the bill. He noted he and his partners have a total expenditure in excess of five million dollars which is spread among five franchises and employs over 200 people. As franchise dealers, they must meet General Motor's standards, whereas brokers do not have to meet these requirements. Mr. Carpenter stated he was not entirely in support of the bill maintaining passage of the bill could put auto brokers out of business. He believed in competition and hoped the brokers could amend the bill with respect to the 2,500 mile requirement. Mr. Anderson said he shared Mr. Carpenter's concerns however, he felt this was good legislation. He added the good and bad loopholes could be remedied at the next session of the Legislature. Mrs. Chowning said she shared Mr. Carpenter's concerns. She did not want to stifle competition or put a person out of business however, she felt consumers had a right to be protected. She wanted to remind the committee they were now addressing A.B. 205 in its present form. ASSEMBLYMAN JOHN CARPENTER MOVED THE MILEAGE BE REDUCED TO 1,000 MILES. Assemblywoman Ohrenschall reminded the committee that Paula Treat, on behalf of the Automobile Brokers Association, testified at an earlier meeting she did not feel auto brokers would go out of business should the bill pass. ASSEMBLYMAN DENNIS ALLARD MOVED DO PASS ON A.B. 205. ASSEMBLYWOMAN VONNE CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMAN JOHN CARPENTER OPPOSED). ********* ASSEMBLY BILL 269 - Directs department of transportation to construct or cause to be constructed sound barriers alongside U. S. Highway No. 395 in Reno. Assemblywoman Vivian Freeman testified A.B. 269 was requested by residents of the northeast corner of Reno due to noise generated by the freeway. She read a message from members of the Northeast Reno Neighborhood Council supporting the bill, (Exhibit C.) In response to Mr. Anderson's question regarding whether the association had approached the Regional Transportation Commission regarding the sound barrier wall, Mrs. Freeman replied she did not know. Bishop Divine Turner testified on behalf of the bill. She stated a 72 hour sound reading was taken in the 1980's by the transportation office in Carson City. She reported she had lived in the neighborhood for 25 years and described her present medical condition. She maintained she could not sleep due to the noise and felt some kind of compensation was in order. Doris Lawson, a Licensed Practical Nurse for the State of Nevada and a member of the Northeast Reno Advisory Committee, testified on behalf of the bill. She contended a sound barrier was very much needed as the sound carried to her house which was located two blocks away from the freeway. She was not aware of any form of contact between the association and the Regional Transportational Commission (RTC). Louise Mattlock, a resident of the neighborhood, testified on behalf of the bill. She recalled the city had promised to provide help but she could not remember the date. She maintained the noise was a nuisance and kept her from sleeping. Mrs. Chowning noted neighborhood public hearings are generally held before highway construction begins and asked whether the sound barriers were promised at that time. Ms. Turner said she contacted the city council and the mayor in the 1980's and they sent a technician to the neighborhood with sound equipment to measure the noise level, time of day and number of cars registering the sound. Tom Stephens, Director of the Department of Transportation (DOT), testified against the bill. He said in his short tenure as director he had become very familiar with some of the noise issues relating to residents adjacent to busy highways. He delivered DOT's policy on the issue and described the sound wall specifications built for areas which meet or exceed a noise level of 67 decibels. He noted the noise level for the area in question was 57 decibels. Mr. Stephens added the policy recently lowered the threshold to 66 decibels. Their policy is to consider noise mitigation for new or upgraded highways only. Mr. Stephens outlined retrofitting of existing highways with noise mitigation. He stated he was familiar with the noise level in the northeast corner of Reno having been a resident at one time. He reported his department had identified approximately 101 miles of highway needing noise walls which is estimated to cost close to 200 million dollars. The committee was directed to DOT sound wall documentation, (Exhibit D). Mr. Stephens reported addressing the 200 million dollars of needs would completely eliminate their efforts to reduce the 364 million dollar maintenance backlog. As an alternative they have proposed a less expensive sound wall to alleviate the problem. The department has recommended a project in Clark County in the amount of 300 thousand dollars to allow for the construction of experimental sound walls which might be able to address some of the worst noise areas without letting highways fall into disrepair. Assemblyman Goldwater asked whether the state promised the sound wall when the freeway in northeast Reno was constructed. Mr. Stephens replied he asked Mr. James the same question and that Mr. James had answered, "No". He stated it would be highly unlikely for the department to promise a one-mile section of sound wall in one area. If they were to upgrade the freeway in the area, the sound walls would be considered since it would be a new capacity upgrade to which federal funding would apply. In respect to projects at either end of the state, Mr. Goldwater asked what "at the expense of other areas" meant. Mr. Stephens responded by saying, "Anytime you spend money in one area, you cannot spend it in another." Mr. Stephens added maintenance and new capacity are top priorities for the state so choices have to be made. He reiterated an experimental program is in place, they are not ignoring the sound problem and they will be spending money in the future in a very modest way on retrofitting noise walls. Mr. Anderson testified he was familiar with the area in question and wondered whether there were agreements with the regional transportation groups as roads are upgraded to deal with some of the mitigating circumstances, particularly where there are off ramps. Mr. Stephens said it was constructed prior to the time the policy was instituted for noise mitigation and the area still does not meet the proper decibel level. Mr. Anderson stressed the Highway 395 lane usage has dramatically increased because of development north of the city. He asked what the traffic count increase has been over the last ten years. Mr. Stephens said he could supply that information to the committee. Mrs. Chowning asked Mr. Stephens to supply the 57 decibel report in writing to the committee as well as records from 1980 regarding the proposed highway. She stated she was very anxious to receive a copy of the minutes of the public hearing or the action from beginning to end in order to ascertain whether promises were made. Mr. Stephens stated it was not the policy to conduct hearings before 1976. He remarked there is a great deal more sensitivity to the environment, noise and people who are in the path of a highway today than there was 25 years ago. He promised to research the records as of 1980. Mrs. Chowning insisted on receiving whatever records there were regarding the section of freeway in question. Assemblyman Nolan queried Mr. Stephens on whether erecting a sound wall in the area would set a precedent and what might ensue. Mr. Stephens remarked it would set a precedent in two areas. He said it would bypass the process of communities requesting projects through the RTC and would change the state's priorities to do road maintenance and capacity improvements. He insisted they could not afford to honor the sound wall requests unless they decided to dramatically shift their priorities. Mrs. Freeman concluded this was one of the most deserving areas in Washoe County for a project of this type, whether it established a precedent or not. She hoped when DOT had money available to erect experimental sound walls they would give the area serious consideration. SENATE BILL 66- Revises provisions relating to issuance of license to operate certain motor vehicles. Bruce Glover of the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety stated the bill will allow motorcycle riders who complete an educational course approved by the Motorcycle Safety Foundation to have their driving test waived. Motorcycle riders who successfully pass the course would not then have to be retested by the Department of Motor Vehicles. He said such courses are currently being offered by the community college system and a few police and sheriff departments around the state. Mr. Batten asked whether the rider would have to take an eye examination. Mr. Glover said it was a requirement. Mr. Glover reported 2,500 driving tests were administered in 1994. He added S.B. 66 would free staff to catch up on their testing and allow more time to monitor Traffic Schools and Driving Under the Influence schools to make sure they are in compliance with regulations. Mrs. Chowning asked whether Mr. Glover would be willing to amend the bill to include the completion of a safety course as a requirement. Mr. Glover said it was their intent to keep the bill as simple as possible, however he was willing to amend the bill. Mr. Batten asked where Mrs. Chowning would insert the amendment. She suggested it be added to line 5 of the bill. Mr. Glover said he would be comfortable with the placement and offered to have his staff rework the bill. Jim Hawk, Chief of the Special Services Division, spoke on behalf of the bill. He stated the Motorcycle Safety Program was one small part of his division run by one person. He said the bill would improve safety for motorcyclists and would be positive in terms of regulatory reform and elimination of duplicative written and driving tests currently being administered and required. He stated the training program is completely paid for by motorcyclists in the interest of safety. Mrs. Ohrenschall asked whether, in the course of the Senate hearings, there had been input from motorcyclist groups concerning the bill. Mr. Hawk said there had not been, although they recently received approximately 100 letters from motorcyclists supporting the Motorcycle Safety Program. Laurel Stadler, representing Mothers Against Drunk Driving, spoke in opposition to the bill. She reiterated Mrs. Chowning's concern regarding the additional language and said her organization has no problem with the bill if amended. Mr. Allard stated rather than having the exemption in section one of the bill, he suggested the exemption be more appropriately applied to the section dealing with motorcycle drivers, section two of the bill. He agreed to meet with Mr. Glover on the bill's language. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 2:55 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Jackie Valley, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Thomas Batten, Chairman Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairman Assembly Committee on Transportation March 21, 1995 Page