MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION Sixty-eighth Session May 18, 1995 The Committee on Transportation was called to order at 1:15 p.m., on Thursday, May 18, 1995, Chairman Vonne Chowning 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: Mrs. Vonne Chowning, Chairman Mr. David Goldwater, Vice Chairman Mr. John Carpenter Mrs. Marcia de Braga Ms. Genie Ohrenschall Ms. Patricia Tripple COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED: Mr. David Allard, Vice Chairman Mr. Thomas Batten, Chairman STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Mouritsen, Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Ms. Carolyn Cramer, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Transportation John P. Crawford, Chief Right of Way Agent, Department of Transportation L. Stout, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety The hearing was opened on Senate Bill 119. SENATE BILL 119 - Revises provisions relating to disclosure of odometer reading of motor vehicle and certain other information when ownership of motor vehicle is transferred. Mr. Artie Valentine, Autoland Used Cars, Sparks, Nevada, discussed S.B. 119 stating there are presently two odometer laws in Nevada. The first is a federal law applying to any vehicle nine model years old and newer, which requires action by the seller, buyer and the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). S.B. 119 gives the state the authority to enforce the federal odometer law. The second odometer law applies to vehicles ten years old and older. S.B. 119 proposes to repeal the second law. The ten year old or older automobile should be viewed as having 100,000 miles on it, according to Mr. Valentine. The law states the seller shall furnish the buyer a copy of an odometer law which can be said to be the actual miles in excess of the limitation of the odometer or mileage unknown. To not do this is a civil penalty. To Mr. Valentine's knowledge no case has been brought by anyone in the twenty years the law has been in effect. Other states are repealing the law. Mr. Valentine recommended repealing the state law and just using the federal law. The major portion of the odometer law has been left in effect in Nevada. It prohibits rolling back odometers, driving vehicles when the odometer was inoperative and not permit any device which would alter the true mileage of the vehicle. Assemblyman Anderson asked if the proposal would effect statutes relative to those who purposely roll back odometers. Mr. Valentine explained the odometer rollback clause was being left in the law. Mr. Anderson asked if it made it more difficult for the DMV to follow up on complaints. Mr. Larry Stout, Assistant Chief, Registration Division, Nevada State Department of Motor Vehicles, said although there would still be some potential for odometer fraud and rollback on ten year or older vehicles, it is not significant. Typically vehicles four to five years old are the ones where odometer rollback is seen. These account for ninety percent of rollback vehicles. Ten years of "paper trail" exist for investigation. Mr. Anderson asked what happens when an owner sells a vehicle less than ten years of age to another person in a private party sale, and the wrong odometer reading is given to DMV. The car is sold again a few months later with a true odometer reading. Mr. Anderson asked about misdemeanors for the "middle" person or if problems were created for DMV. Mr. Stout agreed it was possible. He stated an odometer statement is required when the vehicle is registered. Mr. Stout felt it would not be a problem. Mr. Valentine stated there are fallacies in the way most odometer laws are written particularly when they say "in excess of". In the 1971 session Mr. Valentine wanted to introduce a bill requiring a million mile odometer. At the time Nevada was not large enough to force automobile makers to comply. Assemblyman Ohrenschall asked if she would lose commercial advantage if she sold her 1974 Dodge Charger with 70,000 miles on it. Mr. Valentine stated low mileage increases the value of the vehicle. The used car dealer would probably take an odometer statement from Ms. Ohrenschall to verify the mileage and to ensure more profit for her in the sale. Older vehicles with less than 100,000 miles on them do exist but not many. Chairman Chowning asked if DMV saw any problems with the bill. Mr. Stout replied they did not. Mr. Daryl Capurro, Executive Director, Nevada Franchised Auto Dealers Association, testified in support of S.B. 119. The hearing was closed on S.B. 119. The hearing was opened on S.B. 189. SENATE BILL 189 - Revises provisions relating to disposal of certain property acquired by department of transportation. Ms. Carolyn Cramer, Deputy Attorney General, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), testified in favor of S.B. 189. She stated the bill allows NDOT to be able to hire a real estate agent to aid in the disposal of surplus property which has not sold at public auction or by closed bid. It would give NDOT another alternative for property disposal. Mr. John Crawford, Chief Right of Way Agent, Nevada Department of Transportation, explained why NDOT wished the law to be changed. Currently the law, in Section 2, provides NDOT offer property for sale at public auction to the highest bidder. Some properties have to go to auction several times and cannot be sold. The revised bill would provide NDOT the alternative, where the property could not be auctioned at its fair market value at public auction, to turn the property over to a professional real estate agent for listing and sale. Chairman Chowning asked if NDOT would be tied to a certain time period in statute so assurances could be made the property was not turned over to the real estate agent too quickly. Mr. Crawford said NDOT attempts to dispose of all surplus properties accrued with rights of way acquisition within two years after the project is opened to traffic. Mr. Crawford stated he could not foresee circumstances when this would be used as a mechanism to feed properties to brokers for sale. Assemblyman Carpenter discussed the wording on Page 2, Section 1, Lines 23-33. He felt the language needed clarification. Mr. Crawford explained the language was created in Senate committees. The intent is to make sure the properties are offered to the public first at their fair market value. Mr. Anderson and Mr. Crawford discussed an example of the situation. Mr. Carpenter stated he understood what Mr. Crawford was trying to accomplish but still felt the language was unclear. Ms. Cramer suggested clarification occurred further down in the section. Mr. Anderson pointed out most buyers who attend auctions attempt to purchase because they feel they can buy cheaper than on the open market place. The fair market value is being asked, yet changes have occurred to the property by virtue of roads or other work by NDOT. He felt buyers would want to acquire property at the best possible price. S.B. 189 allows NDOT to withhold the property from sale and turn it over to a realtor when the supposed fair market value was not obtained at auction. Ms. Cramer said Mr. Anderson was correct. The problem with being able to sell at less than fair market value is the taxpayers have a reasonable expectation to be able to get the money expended for the property. It is not a matter of disposing of something of lesser quality, but of recouping taxpayer dollars. Mr. Anderson stated he understood. An issue of constant concern is that of eminent domain which is predicated on the belief more than is needed will not be taken. Mr. Anderson discussed taking more property than needed under eminent domain then selling it under the guise of being fair to the taxpayer. Ms. Cramer stated NDOT strives to take only property needed. Occasionally, however, design, engineering, or safety changes occur and modifications must be made. Landowners sometimes ask NDOT to purchase remaining parcels and they have done so when it has been to the taxpayers benefit to do so. NDOT would like the ability to use this tool. Often real estate people can better market property. Ms. Cramer reminded the committee NDOT does not market property. Mr. Anderson said he did not disagree with the idea if no bidders could be found. However bidders at auction do not usually pay a "price tag" price. An auction is based upon the fact those people present will have the opportunity to get the merchandise at a lower price. Mr. Crawford stated part of the solution would be in how the auction value is established. He stated there was latitude in the first part of the statute where NDOT could offer the property for sale at public auction based on an appraised, probable selling price. If the bidding reached fair market value, the property would be sold, pursuant to statute. If not, proceed with marketing through a licensed broker. He stated a concern had existed for some time on the setting of minimum bids for public auction and if only one low minimum bid is received, the issue of whether or not NDOT is obliged, as a public agency, to sell at that value, which may be well below the real value. Mr. Anderson, referring to Page 2, Line 33, asked what happens if the property is listed with a realtor, a fair market value is set, and the best offer received is $1,000 less than fair market value. Would this preclude the realtor from selling the property. Ms. Cramer reminded the committee fair market value is not an exact science. It is based on appraisers, which is a "best guesstimate" of someone with business and experience in the area of real estate appraisal. NDOT may have to develop internal guidelines to say they would be willing to go up or down in price by certain percentages. The bill would allow the ability for NDOT to use listing with a realtor as a possible mechanism so property would not have to be sent to auction over and over. Mr. Anderson asked how the realtor issue was different from auction, noting each time property is auctioned, different things happen. Ms. Cramer agreed the circumstances under which the sale is conducted is different. She noted sometimes there is no interest at auction or some people enter into situations in an attempt to drive the price down. NDOT hopes to enter into the real estate market as any other seller and would be able to withdraw if necessary. Mr. Carpenter stated the bill needed to contain some discretion so if three bidders submitted bids and they got within a certain percentage of fair market value, NDOT needed to be able to accept the highest bid. Mr. Crawford agreed with Mr. Carpenter, stating the Board of Directors of the Highway Board authorizes the sale and disposal of properties and the manner of disposal. Methods of disposal can include direct sale or public auction and could include a definition from staff as to what fair market value is going to be. He agreed a reasonable interpretation of "fair market value" needed to be included in the bill. Mr. Carpenter stated he believed the language was wrong on Page 2, Lines 23-27. Mr. Crawford indicated NDOT had no objection to revising the language. Chairman Chowning noted legal opinion would need to be obtained as to whether she and Mr. Carpenter could vote on the bill. She noted fair market value is usually what willing buyer and willing seller agree upon. Mrs. Chowning cautioned against allowing too much latitude where a price is purposely auctioned down. She suggested giving the authority to sell the property within ten percent of appraised value. Mr. Crawford stated he had no problem with the suggestion. Ms. Cramer noted the price received could be within ten percent of the appraised value and then a six percent real estate commission would be paid. So the price received for the property would be sixteen percent below the appraised value. Ms. Chowning explained a real estate commission is usually between six and ten percent. She asked Ms. Cramer and Mr. Crawford to work on additional language to bring back to the committee. The hearing on S.B. 189 was closed. No action was taken on S.B. 189. The hearing was reopened on S.B. 119. ASSEMBLYMAN TRIPPLE MOVED DO PASS S.B. 119. ASSEMBLYMAN ALLARD SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Anderson noted it was important to remember S.B. 119 matches federal guidelines. Chairman Chowning agreed and stated it was an excellent consumer issue. THE MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Chowning opened a work session on Assembly Bill 413. ASSEMBLY BILL 413 - Authorizes local governments and department of transportation to establish toll roads and toll bridges. Mr. Paul Mouritsen, Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, discussed A.B. 413, reminding the committee the bill was supported by Mr. Wayne R. Teglia, Nevada Department of Transportation, for installation of the bridge and approach road crossing the Colorado River near Hoover Dam. Two amendments were proposed and are outlined on (Exhibit C). ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 413. ASSEMBLYMAN ALLARD SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Anderson, referring to Chairman Chowning's amendment on (Exhibit C), expressed concern regarding the deletion of "if practicable" on Page 1, Section 3, Line 10, relative to the parallel, non-toll road. A new toll road may be replacing an older road which may be more poorly engineered. By leaving in "practicable" it would be asking to parallel the road if it was in the best interest of feasibility. He felt the intent of two parallel roads was an important factor. Chairman Chowning stated her intent was to address the non-toll. The bill did not give the same provisions to a privately funded road as for a publicly funded road. Many people communicated to Mrs. Chowning they did not wish the opportunity for a toll road to be put in place without a non-toll way of traveling. In the Parumph area, the toll road would save travelers 35 miles. Many people were upset by having the toll road as the only road to travel. Mr. Anderson discussed the feasibility of an exact parallel between the roads. He noted if time and distance were of no concern, the parallel argument makes sense. If time and distance are of value, the toll road would be the most direct route. Chairman Chowning agreed, noting the word "parallel" troubled her. She was unsure of appropriate wording. Assemblyman de Braga noted the proposed toll road was to raise money to pay for a certain project, but two roads would still have to be maintained. Chairman Chowning stated she would withdraw her amendment because the insertion of Mr. Carpenter's amendment raises her comfort level with the bill. ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER WITHDREW HIS MOTION. ASSEMBLYMAN ALLARD WITHDREW HIS SECOND. ******* ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOTIONED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 413 WITH AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO, LISTED ON (EXHIBIT C). ASSEMBLYMAN ALLARD SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Chowning requested a committee introduction of Bill Draft Request 21- 1858. BILL DRAFT REQUEST 21-1858 - Revises provisions governing regulation of taxicabs in cities. ASSEMBLYMAN ALLARD MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF B.D.R. 21-1858. ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Chowning explained a committee introduction was needed for Bill Draft Request 43-1927, requested by Assemblywoman Ohrenschall. BILL DRAFT REQUEST 43-1927 - Prohibits certain vehicles from traveling in lane farthest to left under certain circumstances. ASSEMBLYMAN ALLARD MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRO- DUCTION OF B.D.R. 43-1927. ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 3:20 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Barbara Prudic, Committee Secretary Assembly Committee on Transportation May 18, 1995 Page