MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION Sixty-eighth Session May 2, 1995 The Committee on Transportation was called to order at 1:15 p.m., on Tuesday, May 2, 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 L. Allard, Vice Chairman Mr. David Goldwater, Vice Chairman Mr. Bernie Anderson Mr. John C. Carpenter Mrs. Marcia de Braga Mr. Dennis Nolan Mrs. Genie Ohrenschall Ms. Patricia A. Tripple GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblywoman Deanna Braunlin STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Mouritsen, Senior Research Analyst Jackie Valley, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Jim Allison, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Diane Williams, Alliance For Child Care Stan Olsen, Las Vegas Metro Police Marilyn Ives, Alliance for Child Care Bruce Glover, Department of Motor Vehicle and Public Safety Eric Cooper, Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association Washoe County Sheriff ASSEMBLY BILL 187 - Revises provisions relating to disclosure of certain information contained in records of department of motor vehicles and public safety. (BDR 43-347) Chairman Batten opened the meeting asking for a vote on A.B.187. Mr. Batten stated there were three proposed amendments to A.B.187. He clarified by saying one was proposed by insurance companies, one by the press and one by Mr. Carpenter. Mr. Batten questioned the committee as to how they preferred to vote on the amendments. They responded they wanted to vote on them individually. Assemblyman Nolan requested Assemblyman Carpenter give a quick synopsis of his amendment. Mr. Batten responded copies were being made and they would be distributed. The other two amendments would be discussed while waiting for Mr. Carpenter's amendment. Assemblywoman Chowning stated she thought the committee should know who proposed each amendment and that Mr. Sparks was in the building and was going to attend the meeting. She also reported she was going to propose an amendment so non-profit organizations would also be excluded, but before she made her final decision she would like to hear from Mr. Sparks to see if, in fact, many non-profit organizations purchase the entire list. Mr. Batten stated Mr. Paul Mouritsen would be explaining the proposed amendments. Paul Mouritsen explained the amendment proposed by the insurance companies was to make sure they did not have to appear in person each time information was requested from the registration and license files. They wanted to establish an account, be assured they would have access to it and would not have to appear in person when they asked for files. The second one is a similar proposal from the press. They also wanted to be able to establish an account or a relationship and not have to appear in person. Mr. Nolan asked if Assemblyman Hettrick had seen any of these amendments and Mr. Mouritsen responded that he had not. Mr. Batten stated the amendments had been discussed with Mr. Hettrick, but he had not seen them in their current form. He also reported Mr. Hettrick did not have any problem with either of these amendments. Mr. Carpenter said he spoke with Mr. Hettrick regarding his amendment and had his approval. Mr. Carpenter also explained it just came out of bill drafting and this amendment made the information available where the proposed bill did not. This amendment applies to NRS 205.240, 205.380 and 205.445. Assemblyman Anderson questioned if in sub-section G, lines 5-10 only applied to people who were covered by 648.060 in G and not to other criteria. He also asked if it applied to everyone under No. 5 of section 1 of the bill as a whole? Did it not cover everyone who met those four conditions covered in five? Mr. Mouritsen stated the current bill in those sections cover only private investigators. He answered that his instructions in drafting the amendment were to draft something similar to what the private investigators had so he duplicated it almost exactly. Mr. Anderson questioned if those conditions were to be met only by private investigators and not insurance companies? He asked if this bill was processed, would it be the intent of the bill drafter to put the groups who are going to meet specific requirements of language into some sub-group, because they have these four special conditions and they alone meet these conditions and not the other groups as a whole? He pointed out we were setting up special conditions for private investigators under 648.060. He suggested that it was having insurance companies and the press meet those same credentials. He summarized it seemed to him to be establishing a separate category of people. Mr. Mouritsen said he was not sure that a bill drafter would do it exactly the way he did in creating a separate category.` Mr. Anderson stated he was hopeful that the conditions of 1,2,3 and 4--page 3 of the bill--would also apply to motor vehicle people so they could sub-sell the Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) list on their own. He stated he hoped it would apply to everyone. Mr. Batten asked Mr. Anderson if his concerns were with both the insurance company and the press? Mr. Anderson replied his concern was whoever had control of a list that has been purchased from DMV recognize the director shall by regulations established, personally appear before them and they have read and fully understand the conditions of all these people who might be able to buy under a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h and I. Mrs. Ohrenschall suggested perhaps Mr. Anderson's concerns could be alleviated by simply moving these four criteria to the beginning, thus making these criteria apply to all of the lists of the individuals including the governmental entities who would apply for this information. Since it is just a matter of a form that is filled out by which a person acknowledges the terms and conditions of the statute and what he can do with the information, she agreed Mr. Anderson's point was valid and there might be horizontal discrimination if these conditions were applied to some and not others. Mr. Mouritsen stated it was his understanding these were organizations who wanted access over the telephone. Mr. Goldwater suggested what would be helpful to him would be to have the sponsor of the bill shed some light as to why these two special interests made it in and how it might discriminate as Mrs. Ohrenschall pointed out. Mr. Hettrick extended his apologies for being tardy, stating he had other bills in other committees, and asked he be brought current with the discussion. He then stated he did not have a problem with either of the amendments. He thought Ms. Ohrenschall's suggestion regarding the disclaimer portion was appropriate. Mr. Hettrick also felt Mr. Mouritsen's comment was correct in that the intent was to establish a procedure for telephone requests where a signed affidavit was on file. This would facilitate people who needed to function in that fashion. He also felt any way the language needed to be simplified to satisfy concerns was appropriate. Mr. Anderson wondered if the number of years to retain the records should be five years instead of two years. Mr. Hettrick responded the original draft did state five years corresponding with the federal law which will go into effect in 1997. He felt the issue was not the number of years. He also stated the DMV would be keeping a record of this as well. Mr. Batten announced he would accept a motion on A. B. 187. ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A. B. 187. ASSEMBLYMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION Mr. Batten asked for discussion on the motion. Mr. Carpenter stated he felt the bill drafters could put the two amendments in more concise language. He also felt the length of time should be left at two years. This issue should be looked at again in two years when the federal law takes effect. Mrs. Chowning said she had mixed emotions about supporting this bill, because she felt that it was poor policy to allow personal information to be bought at all. She felt that because of revenue source, the legislature is obligated to support the current program unless an entire policy change were enacted. She agreed with the stalking issues citing a family vacationing in Las Vegas whose daughter went off with an unsavory character she met at a hotel. A family member had seen the license plate which helped expedite the daughter's return. She also mentioned the information can be obtained through the post office because of the change of address forms anyway, but she would be voting for the motion. Mr. Goldwater also stated he would reluctantly be supporting this recommendation. Mr. Hettrick explained this bill clearly defines what is legal and what is not legal with regard to obtaining the information. Mr. Nolan agreed with Mr. Hettrick it was at least a starting place with regard to defining the rules. Assemblywoman Ohrenschall said Mrs. Chowning had already voiced her concerns, but she would be supporting the bill. Mr. Anderson requested a clarification regarding another term that was to be used with regard to research vehicles on line 39. It was agreed among Mr. Hettrick, Mr. Batten and Mr. Anderson that line 39 of the first reprint of A. B. 187 should be amended to read, "research and analysis of the market." Mr. Batten commended Mr. Hettrick on a job well done and Mr. Hettrick responded by thanking the committee for its hard work on the bill. Mr. Batten called for the vote. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . Mr. Hettrick asked if the committee had heard A.J.R. 29? Mr. Batten responded they had not. Mr. Hettrick requested that because he had to go to another committee meeting, he address this resolution now. He testified this bill is coincidental in California as well as in Nevada. There was already a movement in the Lake Tahoe basin to establish a bike path around the lake and this would help transportation problems. He appealed to the committee to support this bill. ASSEMBLY BILL 530- Revises provisions regarding renewal of driver's licenses. Assemblywoman Deanna Braunlin, prime sponsor of A.B. 530, introduced Mr. Bruce Glover, Chief, Drivers License Division of DMV. She stated she appreciated being able to come before this committee to discuss A. B. 530 which would allow Nevada residents to renew a driver's license through the mail and hopefully help facilitate efficiency at the DMV and shorten their lines. She requested the time and attention of the committee while she and Mr. Glover explained A. B. 530. Mr. Glover explained A. B. 530 and the renewal by mail program meant an opportunity to change the way transactions are processed, not the number of licenses that are renewed. He further explained it is a proposal intended to reduce the lines at the DMV. There would be a processing fee of $l.50 for each driver's license renewed by mail to offset the costs of the program. Each applicant would certify as to his or her change in visual acuity or hearing impairment. Individuals with certain medical or visual restrictions on their licenses would not be included in the program. They would have to go to DMV and renew their license in person. Mrs. Chowning requested a clarification on how a decision is made when someone sends their application in by mail with regard to their visual acuity. Mr. Glover assured her the application would specifically address and certify their qualifications with regard to visual acuity and meets the standard of 20/40. He also pointed out they currently renew licenses for people in the military, students who are attending school out of state and this is just an extension of that program. The DMV surveyed 519 people who were standing in line at the Department of Motor Vehicles in Las Vegas and only 43 of them said they would not be willing to pay the $1.50 fee to register by mail. Out of 286 surveyed in Reno, 38 said they would not want to pay the $1.50 fee. Assemblyman Allard questioned the necessity of the $1.50 fee if we are shortening lines and lessening the work load. Mr. Glover asked the committee to refer to the package (Exhibit C,) that he prepared. He explained that in estimating how many people would be using this program those between the ages of 25 and 70 years of age who had less than three citations in the last four years and had no serious medical restrictions were considered. Based on these numbers and the numbers that the registration division of the DMV (who currently has a renewal by mail program), reported, it was estimated in the fiscal year 1996 there would be 2,910 people with a projected usage of the program of 121,746. The fiscal year 1997 would see 126,000 people use this license. He further explained this is a program that Idaho uses and it is similar to what other states are using. Not only that, Nevada just happened to capture one of their top administrators. He moved here and went to work so this information was available. The printing cost of the data- mailer is 24 cents each. That is $50,000 for that form. Postage cost to send this is 27 cents each-- $55,000 during the biennium. The green letter (Rejection letter) has all the reasons that would cause rejection and is 27 cents each. Fifteen percent of the users are what most of the other states are showing and the biennium cost is $49-51,000 for postage for that letter. The sticker goes on the back of the license plate. They cost 26 cents. Federal law requires voter registration to be included. These forms cost 48 cents to mail or about $49- 51,000. Total cost for the biennium for all is approximately $200,000 not including staff. Mr. Allard inquired if there were cost-savings and if there was an offset with this program. He also asked if the total cost was $1.50. Mr. Glover replied it was actually a little more than $1.50. He explained that staff was required to process the mail-in forms. The only thing that would not have to be done was the eye test, hence there would not be a reduction in staff. He also pointed out the other states surveyed that have gone to this procedure have asked for extra staff. He felt Nevada would currently have enough staff. Mr. Anderson then inquired if this procedure would offset the cost of processing requests for the new people moving into Nevada. Mr. Glover responded he felt it would. He also said the majority of the problem with long lines at the DMV occurs primarily in the southern part of the state. He remarked he would like to centrally locate the renewal by mail program in Carson City. He also explained he would like to take four people out of areas in which he was planning on saving some work and place them in areas to absorb extra work that might be generated by this program. Mrs. Braunlin commented she and Mr. Glover had been working on this since November and had discussed the fact that this program is more labor-intensive. However, it should absorb the workload of processing new Nevada residents and alleviate the need for additional staff. Mr. Glover noted this procedure lends itself to flexibility with staffing such as swing shifts. This does not necessarily reduce work, but the manner in which it is done is more customer friendly. The work still has to be done, but the customer does not have to come to the Department of Transportation. Mr. Nolan complimented Mr. Glover and Mrs. Braunlin on their work on this bill and pledged his support. Mr. Glover and Mrs. Braunlin both indicated a desire to have the gentlemen from the law enforcement community testify. Mrs. Braunlin requested the two law enforcement representatives testify. Mr. Eric Cooper testified it was his experience that when a committee was in favor of a bill, it was not prudent to oversell it! His only additional comment was that law enforcement was behind this bill. ASSEMBLYMAN BERNIE ANDERSON MOVED DO PASS ON A. B. 530. ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Allard referred to the work session list (Exhibit A) stating there would be no more votes taken on any of the bills listed as there were many of the committee members who were not there. He also stated testimony could be heard on A.J.R. 29 and opened the hearing on A.J.R. 29. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 29 - Encourages extension of existing systems and facilities for nonmotorized transportation completely around Lake Tahoe. (BDR R- 1555) Mr. Jim Allison, Associate Planner with the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) gave a presentation supporting A.J.R. 29. He pointed out a bikeway system around the lake would impact the area with environmental, recreational and economical benefits. A similar resolution has been introduced in the California Senate. Mr. Allison testified it was important to have the support of Nevada in order to recognize Nevada's participation in bikeway planning and the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) as a major player in this effort. TRPA believes this will preserve, restore and enhance the natural and human environment of the Lake Tahoe region. Cal Trans has provided a TRPA staff member who is researching and designing the bikeway facility plan for California. NDOT staff lent their professional advice during various meetings NDOT staff has attended. TRPA believes the bikeway would improve local economy, Tahoe marketing opportunities and fully supports the concept. Mr. Jim Baetge, Executive Director of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency expressed the enthusiasm the TRPA had for this project. He reiterated a similar resolution was before the California Senate. He also stressed to the committee the TRPA had received many letters of support for this bikeway. Mr. Nolan expressed his support for this resolution. Mr. Allard closed the hearing on A.J.R. 29. Mr. Allard announced there was a request from Assemblywoman Krenzer to: 1.) amend NRS 483.810 through 483.890 to provide ID cards issued to persons without driver's licenses expire on the fourth anniversary of the closest birthday of that person to whom the card is issued. This provision should be made consistent with NRS 43.380 and 2.) Require the DMV establish the regulation for a procedure for renewing an ID card by mail. Mr. Allard asked for a motion for committee introduction. ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING MOVED FOR PREPARATION OF BILL DRAFT. ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION. Mrs. Chowning told the committee this was a concern that a constituent of Mrs. Krenzer's brought forward, because once the DMV issues an ID card for those who do not drive, that ID never expires. Because these cards are used for cashing checks, etc., the constituent felt it was important to have an expiration date. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Allard presented Bill Draft Request 43-1945 that abolishes the advisory board on automotive affairs. A motion was asked for and not received. Mr. Allard presented Bill Draft Request R - 1959 which is an Assembly Concurrent Resolution expressing support for programs to mitigate traffic noise. Assemblyman Anderson moved for committee introduction of Bill Draft Request R - 1959. Assemblywoman Chowning seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Chowning clarified the reasoning behind Bill Draft Request 43-1945 stating the committee had previously decided this board had served its function and therefore needed to be abolished. She suggested a bill should be drafted and worked on in committee to perhaps change the function of the board. Mrs. Chowning reiterated it needed to be addressed one way or another. Mrs. Chowning moved for committee introduction of Bill Draft Request 43-1945. Mr. Goldwater seconded the motion. Mr. Anderson said he was in favor of having this board keep the industry from using non-regulation parts which was what the original intent of this commission was when it first came into being. He emphasized this subject picqued his interest, but he was not in favor of doing away with this commission and therefore reluctant to vote for the Bill Draft Request. Mrs. Chowning testified she had a bill dealing with auto repair fraud and possibly expansion of this board would be appropriate. Perhaps this board would serve a more useful purpose and the whole issue could be addressed. Mrs. Ohrenschall pointed out she was reluctant to vote on a bill draft request to abolish something on the theory that by introducing the bill to abolish it, then try to find a useful thing to do with it. Our purpose is to find a useful thing to do with it. Mr. Allard called for a vote on Bill Draft Request 43-1945. There was considerable opposition. Mr. Anderson, therefore, asked the committee be given more time to examine the subject matter before making a bill draft request. Mrs. Chowning rescinded her motion to have a committee introduction on Bill Draft Request 43-1945. Assemblywoman Tripple expressed concern a work session was not being held today because some members were absent, and it was an injustice to those who were there. Mr. Allard responded it was up to the call of the Chair and the reason they were not voting on those bills was because the members who were absent had concerns about these bills. Ms. Tripple replied there were two members who were not there and they chose not to be there. She was concerned about the reputation of the Transportation Committee. Her feeling was business should be taken care of as originally scheduled. Mr. Nolan stated he shared Ms. Tripple's concerns, however he knew that Mr. Carpenter was testifying on a bill in another committee and Mr. Hettrick had another obligation. He felt it was important to have fair representation when action was taken and possibly in the future meetings could be scheduled without conflicts. Mrs. Chowning said she, too, shared the concern Ms. Tripple brought up and called attention to the fact that there would now be ten bills to take action on at the next meeting. She did not feel it was fair to the public. Mr. Anderson stressed as the session progresses, it requires people be out of the room for legitimate reasons on a regular basis and that committee work should not be impaired. He stated the committee chairman needs to direct that the committee move forward with the work session. He went on to say legislators are on multiple committees along with giving testimony on their own bills in different committees. He agreed the public needed to be treated openly and fairly and it could be distressing to see legislators come in and out, but that is the way the committee system works. Mr. Allard responded by saying when he made the decision not to proceed on the work session, more than two people were out of the room and he did not want the public to have to waste their time waiting to no avail. Mrs. Chowning announced Assembly Bill No. 104 had not had an adequate hearing and that a sub-committee had been named. The members of that committee are Mr. Carpenter, Mr. Goldwater and Mrs. Ohrenschall. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Jackie Valley, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Thomas Batten, Chairman Assemblyman Vonne Chowning, Chairman Assembly Committee on Transportation May 2, 1995 Page