MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION Sixty-eighth Session March 14, 1995 The Senate Committee on Transportation was called to order by Chairman William R. O'Donnell, at 1:50 p.m., on Tuesday, March 14, 1995, in Room 226 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator William R. O'Donnell, Chairman Senator Maurice Washington, Vice Chairman Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen Senator Jon C. Porter Senator Raymond C. Shaffer Senator O.C. Lee COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr. (Excused) STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Don O. Williams, Chief Principal Research Analyst Diane Rea, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Daryl Capurro, Executive Director, Nevada Franchised Auto Dealers Association Donna Wadey-Howell, Acting Chief, Registration Division, State of Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS) Jim Beasley, Auto Broker Paula Treat, Lobbyist, Auto Brokers Tom Fronapfel, Assistant Director, Planning and Programs, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) Major Daniel Hammack, Commander, Field Operations Bureau, Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP) Dan Joseph, Gun Owners of America Sherry Nesbitt, Proponent of S.B. 134 Stacey Wisshaur-Osloond, Proponent of S.B. 134 Rita Wisshaur, Proponent of S.B. 134 Phillip Galeoto, Reno Police Department, City of Reno Larry Stout, Assistant Chief, Bureau Enforcement, Registration Division, Department of Transportation & Public Safety (DMV&PS) Senator O'Donnell stated that he was late because he had been testifying in another meeting on a bill that was not supposed to be heard today. Senator O'Donnell introduced a Bill Draft Request (BDR) 32-532 (Exhibit C): BILL DRAFT REQUEST 32-532: Expands authorized uses of proceeds from supplemental vehicle privilege tax. Senator O'Donnell continued, "It is [authorizing a county to use the proceeds from the tax to pay the costs of moving certain persons whose primary residences are condemned for a highway]." SENATOR SHAFFER MADE A MOTION TO INTRODUCE BILL DRAFT REQUEST 32-532. SENATOR LEE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * Senator O'Donnell introduced Bill Draft Request (BDR) 43-474 (Exhibit D). BILL DRAFT REQUEST 43-474: Revises standard for determining whether operator of motor vehicle is under influence of alcohol and caused death of, or substantial bodily harm to, another person (Exhibit D). Senator O'Donnell stated that the "substantial bodily harm" has been removed. He continued, "Establishing that a person was driving under the influence of an intoxicating liquor and caused the death of substantial bodily harm to, another person if a subsequent test shows the presence of the required level of alcohol in his blood; establishing an affirmative defense ..." SENATOR JACOBSEN MADE A MOTION TO INTRODUCE BILL DRAFT REQUEST 43-474. SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * Senator O'Donnell stated that in the work session document (Exhibit E), the first bill to be discussed is SENATE BILL (S.B.) 49. SENATE BILL 49: Repeals provision authorizing dealer of vehicles to register certain number of vehicles without payment of privilege tax. (BDR 43-900) Senator O'Donnell stated that Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 482.321 (Exhibit F) has been repealed. He asked Daryl Capurro to refresh the committees memory of the two issues concerning this bill. Daryl Capurro, Executive Director, Nevada Franchised Auto Dealers Association, stated: To preference my remarks, understand that Nevada is the only state in these entire United States that has a plate like we are dealing with here. We have dealer plates, we have loaner plates and we have manufacturers plates; we have that type of citation which is endemic to virtually all states. But, the history of this plate goes back further than I have been here, or at least involved in this process and has been amended over the years; although I think the last amendment was somewhere around 16 years ago, to clarify what the intent was. Originally, the purpose of this plate, which looks like a regular county plate, there is no difference between the normal plate that you have on your personal vehicle and this plate. The difference is that the individual who uses this plate to register a vehicle, does not pay the privilege tax. Under the law, as you can see, a licensed dealer, whether new or used, is allowed 12 of these plates and the plate can be transferred any number of times. You could have one plate, transfer it 100 times; you could have 12 plates and never transfer it, or any combination in between. Simply put, what the original intent was to use those plates for eleemosynary or charitable type purposes by which I mean, vehicles that were provided to; and our franchise dealers provide vehicles to University of Nevada at Las Vegas (UNLV), University of Nevada at Reno (UNR) , the Red Cross, boys and girls clubs and so on; so that those vehicles did not have to be registered and the privilege tax paid [on them]. That was the original intent and the Legislature went along with that for years and years. What this plate is being used for now, are two things. First of all, we find this plate showing up on personal motor homes. On the listing that was provided to me through the chairman; one plate of significance is on a 1991 motor home valued at $62,500. There is no privilege tax paid on that. You and I pay privilege tax. That plate, I can guarantee you, has been on that vehicle for 5 years. It has not even been transferred. The registration is paid annually without the payment of the privilege tax. That was not what this Legislature ever intended for this plate to be used for. The other part of it is that this is the plate that is used by used car dealers acting as brokers to make a used vehicle out of a new vehicle without the payment of tax, and then selling it to the general public. There is a whole string of other problems involved with brokering which are addressed in another bill that is on the Assembly side now. This is one element of that situation that allows that vehicle to be made a used car and to be sold basically as a zero mileage used car. Again, I do not have any figures as to what the loss of revenue to the state is with respect to the use of this plate for uses that were never intended by this Legislature; such as the motor home situation that I just described to you. We only have a partial listing here and there are several instances in which it is highly questionable as to why they were used in that fashion. I am sure a full listing could be provided of all dealers who have this plate, by the DMV&PS, that would show similar sort of abuses of the use of that plate. That is essentially the reason why the department of motor vehicles, who was the prime sponsor of this bill originally brought it to the attention of the Legislature last session. It was not acted upon then and they came back. The bill itself repeals this plate all together. We had suggested, as a possible alternative, that to retain the use for eleemosynary and charitable use that you make these plates non-transferrable. You could accomplish that by striking a portion of the bill that I would be happy to outline for you; and accomplish that and it would restrict it to 12 plates. The alternative to using a dealer's special plate for those purposes, and I am talking about eleemosynary and charitable uses, is to simply use a loaner plate. So, there are alternatives for the use of this plate. If the committee decides that the abuses and the other misuses are not worth retaining the plate, we can live with the idea of repealing the law altogether. Bear in mind, franchise dealers are the largest users of these plates. We are ... by far, the largest number of plates are taken out by franchise dealers. If your feeling is that they would still serve a purpose for which the legislature can agree with, then I would suggest removing the language from the end of line 4. Put a period at the end where it says [... privilege taxes on these registrations.] Remove the rest of that sentence to the end of the period in subsection 1, so it would then say [The dealer is not subject to the payment of privilege taxes on these registrations], referring to the 12 plates. It would take away the ability to transfer those registrations. That does not hit at the problem of somebody registering their motor home or Ferrari or that sort of transaction from continuing, to be able to do that as long as you let them have 12 plates. Senator O'Donnell stated that he feels in the issue of fairness, every citizen in the State of Nevada registers their car and uses the privilege tax. He said that there is a big issue for those individuals who come to Nevada and remain in Nevada without paying the privilege tax. He stated that he would like to see the law repealed in terms of the 12 plates. He asked for a poll from the committee. Senator Porter stated that in reading through the minutes from the January 31, 1995 meeting, he was trying to decide the direction of the request. He stated that he understands that the bill would prevent the loss of $220,000 of privilege taxes per year. He requested if the committee has a problem with brokers, they should address the broker issue and address the plates as a separate issue. If people are abusing the plates, that is an enforcement problem. He continued that if people are not paying the $220,000, that is a tax problem and all those issues need to be addressed; but he asked for a history of the brokerage problem. Each issue should be addressed separately. Senator O'Donnell stated that they are two separate issues and there would be a bill dealing with brokers. Mr. Capurro stated that it is an evasion problem. He said that he is not sure the DMV&PS could tell how much of a loss of revenue there has been to the treasurer, because the plates can and are transferred. It is a substantial loss to the cities, counties and school districts because that is where the privilege tax goes. Senator Porter stated that DMV&PS gave an estimate of $220,000 of tax revenues, and they are saying that the dealers are abusing this privilege. He asked why they do not look at the enforcement of the existing system before the committee repeals the whole thing. Donna Wadey-Howell, Acting Chief, Registration Division, State of Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS), stated that the bill/legislation allows the dealers to register 12 vehicles. It does not limit the use of those plates. It does not state specifically the use. The vehicles are subject to the privilege tax if they are purchased from the dealer after their transfer. She said that the dealer could use those vehicles in any way. Senator Porter stated that the NRS is very specific as to the use of those plates. NRS 482-320 (Exhibit G) refers to special plates being required for movement of new and used vehicles and exceptions. Mr. Capurro stated that is a different section of law. The section of law, NRS 482- 321 (Exhibit H), provides 12 plates with no restrictions, except for section 4 which states that they cannot be used for work or service vehicles. That is the only restriction for their use. Senator Porter asked if NRS 482-320 has nothing to do with the plate being referred to; the issue being addressed is some abuses, and the committee should be specific as to how the plates can be used. Senator O'Donnell stated that there are groups of people that come into town and request that the franchise dealers give them a car with special plates on them, to drive for a week or so; it is a courtesy. He asked if there is a limit on the "loaner plates?" Mrs. Howell replied that the dealers can have as many as they need. Mr. Capurro stated that the dealer plate has "DLR" on it and can be used for any number of issues. The "loaner plate" would be used in the case of UNLV or UNR. He stated that some of the dealers have indicated to him that they would put a regular plate on those vehicles and pay the privilege tax, if that is the decision of the committee. The "loaner plate" is available for that type of use and would cover the types of things that were anticipated by the Legislature originally. Senator Porter asked what is the purpose of the plate and what happened in 1969 when the bill was enacted? Mrs. Howell stated that the purpose of the plate, as researched by DMV&PS, is for charitable purposes to allow the dealers to donate the vehicles to be used by charitable organizations. Senator O'Donnell stated that the frustration is that the Legislature put a law on the books in 1969, with the best of intentions to service the public in a charitable way, and over the years it has changed and gone into something else. He said that he feels there is no enforcement of the bill because there is no law prohibiting the use for other than what the plates were originally intended. Mr. Capurro stated that at the last hearing he had brought out the issue that it has been discovered that the plates are being used on short-term daily rental fleets. Mrs. Howell stated that this is being done by some of the rental car agencies to avoid paying the privilege taxes on vehicles they are renting. Senator O'Donnell stated that the chair would accept a motion. Senator Porter asked if there was anyone present from the brokerage industry? Jim Beasley from Las Vegas, representing a licensed and bonded dealer auto broker who had been in business since 1988 at the Credit Union Plaza on Sahara Avenue, came forward. Senator Porter asked what this law would do to affect Mr. Beasley's business. Mr. Beasley stated that it would probably put them out of business. He said that they have been in business for almost 8 years and they do pay the privilege tax. He stated that there may be some abusers, but he feels that should be an enforcement problem. Senator O'Donnell asked Mrs. Howell if this bill affected the auto brokers? Mrs. Howell stated that it does in the fact that the only means the auto brokers can use to register their vehicles, is to use this dealer special, making a new vehicle a used vehicle. Senator O'Donnell asked if DMV&PS would enforce the bill as "anti-broker" or essentially not allow the brokers to do what they have to do? Mrs. Howell stated that is the way the legislation reads. However, they can register the vehicle and pay the fees. There are a lot of the brokers who are using the dealer special registration. They could pay the 100 percent fees and make the vehicle a used vehicle so that they could sell it as a used vehicle. Senator O'Donnell asked if DMV&PS gives a rebate for plates that are only used on a vehicle for a short period of time and then transferred to another vehicle? Mrs. Howell stated that if they transfer the registration DMV&PS does give a credit toward the next vehicle. They do not refund, they credit. Senator O'Donnell asked Mr. Beasley if he found that objectional? Mr. Beasley stated that his company does not participate in the refund. When they sell a vehicle, all of their customers have paid the privilege tax. They do not use that plate for anything else. He said that if a consumer registers a vehicle in January and buys a new car, they can transfer the plates and get a credit. Every vehicle they sell, the buyer pays the full privilege tax for 12 months. Senator Porter asked how this affected the mobile homes? They were noted in the NRS. Mrs. Howell stated that mobile homes are not in the definition of a vehicle, and these plates are only allowed on dealer vehicles. Senator O'Donnell asked if these cars are sold as new or used? Mr. Beasely stated that they are sold as used cars by law. Senator O'Donnell asked how they became a used car? Mr. Beasley replied that is done through the process of dealers' special plates. Senator O'Donnell stated that they are not registered the way an ordinary person would register them. Mr. Beasley replied that they are registered like an ordinary person would register them. As part of their service, they go to DMV&PS and pay the fees and privilege tax for most of their customers. Senator O'Donnell asked Mrs. Howell, when DMV&PS calculates the privilege tax, is it done on the new sticker price or based upon a depreciation schedule because it is a used car? Mrs. Howell stated that DMV&PS uses the suggested retail price when the vehicle was first sold in Nevada, and then depreciates it based upon the year model. If a person was registering a 1995 year model vehicle, you would pay 100 percent privilege tax. Senator O'Donnell polled the committee again stating that this issue does not eliminate brokers, it just makes them pay the motor privilege tax. Did they want to vote on this issue or wait until the broker bill is brought in? Senator Jacobsen stated that he was prepared to make a motion with the understanding that the committee go farther and make sure that the brokers still survive. SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 49. SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION FAILED. (SENATORS WASHINGTON, LEE AND SHAFFER VOTED NO. SENATOR NEAL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * Paula Treat, Lobbyist, Auto Brokers, stated that she had called Ray Sparks and he had told her that it is not his idea to put the auto brokers out of business. He told her that there are as many, if not more, abuses from the new car dealers as there are from anybody else. She stated that she would request that a subcommittee take all the brokerage bills together and make one good regulation which the DMV&PS, the auto brokers and the new car dealers can live with. Senator O'Donnell stated that the bill did not pass because of not having a majority. He stated that he did not want to get into a broker bill. He wanted to just move on to the next bill. Senator O'Donnell opened the hearing on SENATE BILL 133. SENATE BILL 133: Revises provisions governing rate of speed for operation of motor vehicle. (BDR 43-1381) Senator O'Donnell stated that this bill has some amendments that were brought to the committee by Don O. Williams, Chief Principal Research Analyst. Mr. Williams stated: You have before you Amendment No. 42 (Exhibit I) to S.B. 133. This is Senator Washington's proposed amendment. This amendment does not repeal the existing probation against violating the national maximum speed limit; however, it does remove the 70 mile per hour (mph) maximum limit under the provisions prohibiting the unnecessary waste of a resource currently in short supply. In addition, the proposed amendment makes it unlawful to drive or operate a vehicle at a rate of speed that is not proper, giving due regard for the weather and other highway conditions. Furthermore, the amendment expands the conditions under which slower drivers are required to keep right, and to take other actions to facilitate safer passing in traffic movement on highways. The last section of the bill, section 5, pages 4 through 6 is just a technical amendment. It amends the statutes of Nevada. The statute that would have repealed the current laws if the federal courts had ruled the federal law invalid or if the federal law was overturned. So, section 5 is merely a technical amendment. Senator Washington stated that he understand that currently in the United States Congress there is a bill that has be drafted, H.R. 607 (Exhibit J) to repeal the current 55 mph speed limit. There is also an article from yesterday's Reno Gazette- Journal (Exhibit K). Senator O'Donnell stated that he understands that the amendment would still put in place the 55-mph speed limit, which satisfies the federal requirements for the State of Nevada to have a speed limit. It also takes the 70-mph wasted energy provision out, so anything over 55 mph becomes a waste of energy. There is no upper limit for waste of energy. Tom Fronapfel, Assistant Director, Planning and Programs, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) stated: To correct what Senator Washington indicated is going on at the national level, I spoke with Leo Penny, in our Washington office and also John Hastel this morning. The national bill that was being considered by the Republican caucus has been killed for this session. It is no longer being considered because of the potential ramifications of that and because of the controversy associated with it. As of now, it is a dead bill. Senator O'Donnell stated that this bill is the only thing that has any light to it. Senator Shaffer stated that he would like a further explanation on the fiscal note on the bill. Mr. Williams stated that the original fiscal note which the DMV&PS had testified to in the original hearing indicated that the state would lose $128 million in Federal Aid Highway Funds each year. Since that time, the highway patrol has also provided some information on possible revenue loss. The memo dated March 9, 1995 from Major Hammack (Exhibit L) talks about a revenue loss of $3.5 million plus per year. He said that would be lost from citations for speed violations above 70 mph and the administrative assessment that is imposed with the violations. That is the assessment under NRS 176.059 (Exhibit M). Senator Washington stated that on the fiscal note, in researching the bill prior to the enactment of the 55-mph speed limit, there was only one state in the union that was actually assessed and fined for being out of compliance with the law. That was the state of Arizona. They were fined only 1 percent of the assessment fee and that was reimbursed to them after 6 months. Senator O'Donnell said that he thought what Senator Washington is saying is that Nevada would not lose their highway funds by the introduction of this measure into law. But, Nevada will lose $3.5 million in ticket revenue to the Highway Fund. Senator Lee asked: I would like to ask the chair a procedural ... how this is proceeded to move on if certain things happen? If the numbers that I have viewed from the Nevada Highway Patrol is considered into this, and this measure is passed in that form, what happens then? Would it go to a money committee? As I understand it, there is certain portions of fines, on a prorated basis of the amount of the fine, goes towards education, some goes towards the NHP department. My question is, or why I am asking that; would this go to a money committee, because I think someone needs to know if those funds are not going to be arriving. Senator O'Donnell stated: I do not believe it would go to the money committees. The transportation committee handles all of the bills that deal with funding the Highway Fund. The Highway Fund is not a General Fund budget. It is sort of off budget and this committee deals with that off budget. I have seen, in the past, revenue bills go through Senate finance that have an effect on the Highway Fund. Senator Lee stated, "That is my question. In reference to education and the DMV&PS." Senator O'Donnell stated: The impact will be on the assessment and the assessment is collected by the counties and the counties rebate back to the state a certain portion of that assessment. They keep a certain portion of that assessment for schools and the Supplemental City-County Relief Tax (SSCRT). It will definitely have an effect. I guess the committee will have to desire the price of freedom. Mr. Hammack, you gave me that information regarding the types of tickets you write. I was amused to find that no category was outside any other category except that when you add up all the ranges of the tickets in a certain speed class; instead of saying a 100,000 tickets were given out for speeding and the next closest ticket was about 25,000. You lumped them all into from about zero to 55 and from 55 to 60. Major Daniel Hammack, Commander, Field Operations Bureau, Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP), said, "They are broke out for statistical gathering. That is the reason it is done that way." Senator O'Donnell stated "There are over four times as many tickets given out for speeding than anything else." Major Hammack said: We believe speed is a safety concern. I did provide the committee with some additional information from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (Exhibit N). That boasts that opinion; that speed is a caution factor in accidents; and yes, we do enforce the speed limit for that purpose. As far as the fine revenue loss, that is an offshoot. Our reason to be here is traffic safety. I think the numbers should be made, at least the committee be aware of the numbers that are generated off these, because it does go to the state education funds; it does go to the court system under [NRS]176, under the administrative assessment statute. Senator Shaffer asked, "Do we want to make a choice between the revenue and freedom? The highway patrol has been quite liberal in open highways and not in congested areas. I think I am of the opinion to take the money." Senator Porter stated, "It is a question of principle as apposed to revenues. I know that there are a lot of roads that would probably not be repaired with a lack of $3.5 million, which also creates another safety hazard, which could cause more accidents and more pain and suffering. I would certainly like to see us go away with the speed limit and go similar to Montana, but I do not think we can with the financial parameters." Senator Jacobsen said, "I certainly agree with Senator Shaffer ... I am just not ready to jeopardize anything. I think it is such a state of flux today that maybe the federal government says they won't come back at us in some manner, but they have that ability. I just think that the law is for everybody and should be the same for every state. I would be in favor of leaving it just like it is." Senator Porter stated: I guess there is another possibility and that would be the fight to keep the penalties in place, but not have it cause quite the problems other than from your insurance standpoint, the companies are still going to charge you for the speeding. We could still charge the same and maybe not have the cap but still collect the revenues. Senator Washington stated "that was my offer of suggestion also. Instead of making them a $5 or a nickel fine, maybe keep the fines current. I do not know what the average fine is given out per ticket. I don't know if it is $20, $30; keep the assessment on there and we could make sure, or at least guarantee that the $3.5 million would still be accessible to the counties. Eliminating the speed limit; that is not the question. The question is whether or not we want to keep the money and the answer to it is keep the fines the same, then you have the money." Senator Lee stated, "My thought along that line; we're creating two classes of people. Those of us that are retired on a fixed income cannot drive as fast as those that are working and got a full pay check." Senator O'Donnell stated that he wanted to charge Senator Washington with going down and getting another amendment to reflect that and bring it back to the committee and they will decide then. Dan Joseph, Gun Owners of America stated: As a proponent of S.B. 133, I have the privilege of being the author of this particular proposed change submitted to Senator Washington. I wanted to give the committee some information for their own personal information. In 1992 there was a landmark decision made in the United States Supreme Court that involved the state of New York vs. United States Government over federal mandates and federal funds. The supreme court very hardily handed the United States government their head. The state of New York won. They can no longer enforce any type of federal mandate upon the state, because it was classified by the supreme court as commandeering the legislative process of the state and was forbidden by the 10th Amendment. Therefore, there is no way that they can withhold any federal funds for your lack of enforcement. The only authority the federal government has is to enforce those portions that are constitutionally granted to them by the constitution specifically. All others are [all bets off]. So, in this particular case, since it is not within their constitutional granted realm of authority, they cannot withhold your federal money. There will be no loss of this $125 million in federal funds. That will come no matter what. As for the $3.5 [million] loss in fines, I would just ask that the committee consider possible other sources. Since something that really is of safety concern; whether you have your tail lights working, your headlights working. Especially, for instance a bald tire; perhaps instead of these being a straight fix-it ticket, there could be a fine associated with these types of things because these really are safety violations. I am sure that alternate sources could be located in an area of justifiable, actual safety that would replace this $3.5 million. I certainly do not want the highway patrol to come up short of funds. We need them. I just think that it would be much more productive for them to spend the time performing actual law enforcement functions and really fighting crime and not perusing what I consider, and I think a lot of other Nevadans consider, a victimless crime. It is like telling somebody [you cannot walk too fast on the sidewalk] if you are staying on your side of the sidewalk and you have no intention of bumping into anybody; I think you should be able to walk, run, ride your bike, whatever as fast as you want to. Given our highways and the condition of them, and the open space that we have; I don't really think that speeding is a problem outside of an unincorporated or a township area where there is an obvious need for a speed control. I heard a comment about freedom and safety and I would like to give the committee the comments of Ben Franklin in relation to that. He said that [any man who would trade essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither the liberty or the safety]. I would like you to kind of keep that in the back of your mind; we are talking about freedom for Nevadans. We are talking about safety also, but although speeding is a contributing factor in some accidents it is not the primary factor in accidents. By the DMV&PS's own examination, the number one cause of accidents in this state, and I think it is pretty much in all the states, is failure to yield. Which equates to lack of courtesy and I think we are all aware there is a lack of courtesy on the highway. The aspect, or the amendment to this bill, that proposes that drivers being overtaken, move to the right and show a little courtesy is excellent. However this committee chooses to handle this bill is entirely up to this committee. I am just trying to give you some information and some facts that I think have been overlooked. The fees that are going to be missed, I know can be found elsewhere; either through registration or imposing fines upon the violations, like I said before. I think that repeal of the 55 limit fly-out would be perfect, but I don't think that is going to happen in this particular case. I think lifting the cap on the waste of energy is a good viable alternative. My only concern is, and the reason that this bill was originally written in a very simple form just saying lift the 55 limit; abolish it; was that insurance companies have their own point system. To that end, of this whatever this committee comes up with, if it is a reportable offence, then the insurance companies are going to be able to pull that information out and use it to be able to raise your rates. I think that they should rate us based on actual occurrences; how many accidents, DUIs, etc. Actual occurrences and not theory and not playing the odds market. To that end, I think it would be to everybody's advantage if there was a system established that these were treated like parking tickets; that if in fact it is an energy wasting ticket, irrespective of the amount of the fine, it is deemed not a moving violation and therefore, not be treated like a parking ticket and would not show up on a read out. Therefore, the insurance companies would not have access to the information; therefore, your rates could not be increased. The fine up-front is not as bad as the 3 year fine you pay ongoing and rate increases. Senator O'Donnell opened the discussion on Senate Bill 134. SENATE BILL 134: Revises provisions governing reports of missing persons. (BDR 43-378) Senator O'Donnell stated that there is an amendment that was suggested (Exhibit O). Sherry Nesbitt stated, "I am the person that requested Senator Raggio to get a proposed bill draft for this bill." Senator O'Donnell apologized to Ms. Nesbitt for not having notified her. The committee had no idea where the bill had come from; they had understood it to be an agency bill, because it had come at the time that all the other agency bills had come forth. He stated that the committee had treated it as an agency bill for that reason. Ms. Nesbitt continued: I faxed to each of you last week, with the possibility exception of Senator Lee, because I had the wrong senator but I understand that you did get the information (Exhibit P). We have agreed to support the change from 24 to 72 hours. I believe that is reasonable and we certainly would rather have that than nothing and we do understand the burden that this puts on law enforcement (Exhibit Q). Ms. Nesbitt introduced Mrs. Stacey Wisshaur-Osloond, the sister of Katina Wisshaur and Mrs. Rita Wisshaur, Katina's mother. Mrs. Osloond read her exhibit (Exhibit R) and Mrs. Wisshaur's statement (Exhibit S) was given. Also provided were statements from Nina-Elaine Sawyer (Exhibit T) and Ann-Katherine Christensen Sawyer (Exhibit U). Phillip Galento, Reno Police Department, City of Reno, stated that they have asked for an amendment to subsection 1, page 1, line 9 to delete "all available" and insert "the complete initial report." He stated: When we read the bill and discussed this with Eric Cooper and several others, we agree without any problem at all about the 72 hours. In fact, as I understand it, our agency is currently complying with these requirements. The only concern that we had was that we felt that you could possibly read this after the fact, perhaps in litigation you might interpret this to require a police agency; remember we are talking about all police agencies in the State of Nevada, to submit any and all police reports concerning this case. Different agencies have different requirements. Some police chiefs will require their investigators to file a follow-up official police report on every single bit of information or contact they have in a high profile case. Perhaps you might have a requirement to immediately forward 25 additional follow-up reports. The real issue here is the initial report with all the pertinent information, and I think the agencies individually are going to know what subsequent reports should be forwarded. We were somewhat concerned that someone might get into a box here, during civil litigation for not having forwarded all 33 subsequent reports over a years period of time, within the proper reporting time. That was what I had asked be looked at in some form of amendment. It is not a big issue with us, we are complying. There was a brief recess due to a fire drill. Senator O'Donnell stated that the chair would accept a motion for a 72-hour amendment instead of the 24-hour amendment, changing the words "all available" and inserting "complete initial report continuance." In other words, put in "the initial report" instead of all the information. SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO AMEND S.B. 134 BY CHANGING LINE 9 OF SECTION 1 TO DELETE "ALL AVAILABLE" AND INSERT "COMPLETE INITIAL REPORT." SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * Senator O'Donnell opened the hearing on Senate Bill 186. SENATE BILL 186: Revises provisions governing fee for processing of fingerprints for applicants for licensure as vehicle transporters, manufacturers, distributors, dealers and rebuilders. (BDR 43-578) Senator O'Donnell stated that he understands there has been an agreement of the parties to do the paying of these fees. Senator Porter stated that he recalled Senator Neal's question had been, "Why do we need to fingerprint these folks?" He asked if the committee is sure these people really need to be fingerprinted? Larry Stout, Assistant Chief, Bureau Enforcement, Registration Division, Department of Motor Vehicles & Public Safety (DMV&PS) stated: The purpose of fingerprinting is consumer protection. There was a legislature's intent when we license these individuals, occupational licenses, they have a background check to ensure that people with unsuitable backgrounds, ex-felons, not obtain those occupational licenses. One of the most, the best way to do this, is through fingerprint checks, which will give us a complete criminal history; both in western states, Nevada and nationally. That is the purpose of the fingerprints; consumer protection. Senator O'Donnell called for a motion. SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 186. SENATOR JACOBSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * Senator Porter stated: In the judiciary committee, about a week ago, an issue came up about long-haul drivers in that they are ... when it comes to sexual deviance, they know that there is a track record. They can trace someone's action, their carrier, their movements to where they have narrowed it down to long-haul drivers having a tendency to be the largest, not all of them, but there seems to be a section that attract some of the deviance that we are working within judiciary. I did think that would be of interest for this committee to know that if there is any fingerprinting or processing, I think in long-haul it's an area that needs to be looked at. Apparently that is a major problem area for crime. Senator O'Donnell opened the discussion on S.B. 188. SENATE BILL 188: Authorizes department of motor vehicles and public safety to issue sample license plates. (BDR 43-898) Senator O'Donnell stated that he did not know what DMV&PS is wanting to do that they are not already authorized to do. Mrs. Howell stated: What this bill does, is it allows us to sell sample plates. As I testified to you before, we have been selling sample license plates although we do not believe we have the authority to do so. We have been selling the sample license plates for about 20 years. What we charge for them is just to recoup the cost of the production of them. As I mentioned before, the sample license plates are sold to collectors. We issue them free of charge to school children who want them for reports; we also use them ... for the commission for tourism uses them as souvenirs for conferences and things within the state. Senator O'Donnell asked if the plate states that you cannot put them on a vehicle. Mrs. Howell stated that the plate comes with a sticker on the back that says "for display purposes only." Senator O'Donnell asked if Mrs. Howell thought there is a problem with people ignoring the sticker and putting the plate on the car. Mrs. Howell stated that they do not get a validation decal with the plates. Senator O'Donnell called for a motion. SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 188. SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * Senator O'Donnell called for any other issue, bill drafts or other requests from the committee. Senator O'Donnell stated that Senator Porter has a bill draft request (Exhibit V). This BDR is for the veterans' plate to help determine how many veterans there are in, and how many are coming into, the State of Nevada. Senator O'Donnell continued, "Any remaining balance of the appropriation made by subsection 1 must be committed by expenditure after June 30, 1995, and reverts to the state Highway Fund." Senator O'Donnell stated that they have appropriated $4600 to carry out this BDR and asked if they wanted a bill so they could keep their $4600? Senator Porter said that the bill lets them continue what they have been doing. Senator O'Donnell said, "It is section 9, subsection 3 that they want changed because it expires July 1, 1995." He said that Senator Shaffer wants a bill draft to remove the expiration limitation. He called for a motion. SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO REQUEST A BILL DRAFT. SENATOR JACOBSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * Senator O'Donnell called for any other business before the committee. Senator O'Donnell adjourned the meeting at 3:25 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Diane C. Rea, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator William R. O'Donnell, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Transportation March 14, 1995 Page