MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION Sixty-eighth Session June 6, 1995 The Senate Committee on Transportation was called to order by Chairman William R. O'Donnell, at 2:18 p.m., on Tuesday, June 6, 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 Joseph M. Neal, Jr. Senator Raymond C. Shaffer Senator O. C. Lee STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Don O. Williams, Chief Principal Research Analyst Diane Rea, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Larry Stout, Assistant Chief, Registration Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS) Chad Dornsife, Lobbyist, National Motorist Association Don Mello, Director, Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), Supreme Court Rose McKinney-James, Director, Department of Business and Industry Sandy Avants, Administrator, Washoe County Taxicab Authority Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens Major Daniel Hammack, Commander, Field Operations Bureau, Nevada Highway Patrol Division (NHP), Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS) Gregory Harwell, Lobbyist, California State Auto Association (CSAA) Elizabeth King, Assistant Chief, Drivers' License Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS) Tom Grady, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities Doug Dickerson, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas Donna Wadey-Howell, Acting Chief, Registration Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS) Senator O'Donnell opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 231. SENATE BILL 231: Reduces period within which new resident is required to obtain drivers' license and register his motor vehicle in Nevada. (BDR 43-41) Senator O'Donnell said this bill gives the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS) the power to subpoena those individuals who do not have the proper registration. He said he had spoken with Senator Kathy Augustine and she said she would like to change the bill from 45 days to 30 days. This will require a person to get a vehicle licensed 15 days sooner than what the present law states. SENATOR SHAFFER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 231. SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS PORTER AND NEAL WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * Senator O'Donnell opened the hearing on Senate Bill 397. SENATE BILL 397: Prohibits department of motor vehicles and public safety from requiring submission of certain information for renewal of special license plates for person with permanent disability which limits or impairs his ability to walk. (BDR 43-1040) Senator O'Donnell said this is Senator Mark James' bill. He said he had talked with Senator James about not having a permanent plate, but a permanent placard. Larry Stout, Assistant Chief, Registration Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS), said the permit can be changed from a permanent plate to a permanent placard with a permanent physician's note of disability. He presented the proposed amendment (Exhibit C). Senator O'Donnell said if a person is using someone else's placard, there should be a stiffer penalty. Chad Dornsife, Lobbyist, National Motorist Association, testified regarding California statutes. He said if a person is permanently disabled, he is automatically sent a new placard every 2 years. If a family member, other than the disabled person, is caught using the placard, the disabled person loses the placard. He said that is the penalty in that state. Don Mello, Director, Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), Supreme Court, suggested that a notarized statement stating every 2 years that the disabled person is still alive, should be sufficient to justify the continuation of that placard. Senator O'Donnell asked what the fine is for parking in a handicapped parking space? Mr. Stout replied that he believes it is $100. Senator O'Donnell asked if the fine can be raised to $300 for using a placard when a person is not handicapped. Mr. Mello said there should be some confirmation every 2 years that the person is still living. Mr. Stout said that the verification every 2 years to the DMV&PS will be acceptable. He said the additional fine will also be helpful. If somebody was discovered misusing the placard, the department could take away the placard, besides the fine. Senator O'Donnell asked Mr. Stout to speak with Senator James' office and make clear the desire of all parties concerned for this bill. Senator Jacobsen asked Mr. Stout to bring an application for the placards to the next meeting when this bill is heard Senator O'Donnell closed the hearing on S.B. 397. Senator O'Donnell opened the hearing on Senate Bill 467. SENATE BILL 467: Revises provisions governing use of devices for restraining children in motor vehicles. (BDR 43-1037) Senator O'Donnell said this is Senator Kathy Augustine's bill. This bill is for the rental of the car seats. There has been a suggested amendment (Exhibit D). Don O. Williams, Chief Principal Research Analyst, stated it is Amendment No. 706. SENATOR SHAFFER MOVED TO AMEND, WITH AMENDMENT NO. 706 AND DO PASS S.B. 467. SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS PORTER AND NEAL WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * Senator O'Donnell opened the hearing 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 said these sample plates are given away as souvenirs. The amendment was passed out to the committee members (Exhibit E). He asked Mr. Stout if he understood why the Assembly had amended the bill to inscribe the plate with the word "SAMPLE?" Mr. Stout said that he did not know. He had not been in the Assembly hearings. Senator Jacobsen asked why a person would want a plate with SAMPLE on it? Senator O'Donnell replied that they are used for just a gift. They are designated by the ABC on the plate. SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO NOT CONCUR WITH AMENDMENT NO. 484 TO S.B. 188. SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * Senator O'Donnell opened the hearing on S.B. 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 passed an amendment (Exhibit F) to the committee members. Mr. Stout explained that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has raised their rates $1 to do the fingerprints. DMV&PS is asking permission to raise their rate to meet this additional cost. SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED TO CONCUR WITH AMENDMENT NO. 486 TO S.B. 186. SENATOR LEE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * Senator O'Donnell opened the hearing on S.B. 189. SENATE BILL 189: Revises provisions relating to disposal of certain property acquired by department of transportation. (BDR 35-829) Senator O'Donnell said this bill deals with real estate property held by the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT). He explained the proposed amendment (Exhibit G). SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO NOT CONCUR WITH AMENDMENT NO. 618 TO S.B. 189. SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * Senator O'Donnell presented Bill Draft Request (BDR) S-1891 to the committee. BILL DRAFTS REQUEST S-1891: Repeals prospective expiration of provisions requiring solicitation of certain information concerning veterans when issuing or renewing drivers' licenses. SENATOR SHAFFER MOVED FOR INTRODUCTION OF BDR S-1891. SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * Senator O'Donnell briefly recessed the meeting. Senator O'Donnell called the meeting back to order at 3:25 p.m. He requested: The committee takes a look at an interim study for the Taxicab Authority (TA) to determine . . . and its position in state government. We have got a decennium right now. The Public Service Commission of Nevada (PSC) handles the TA in the northern end of the state and the TA is handled differently in the southern part of the state. I would like to request, with the approval of the Director of the Department of Business and Industry, a bill draft to study during the interim, the facets and location of where the TA; whether it be in the PSC or a stand-alone agency all by itself. Rose McKinney-James, Director, Department of Business and Industry, testified she will concur with Senator O'Donnell's recommendation. She said the TA administrator does a wonderful job, but it is time to look at the entire state for the framework of the operation. A physical and structural study needs to be done for the entire state. Senator Washington asked if this will include Senior Rides, etc.? Ms. McKinney-James responded that is a program that will be considered. The focus of the study will be the overall regulatory framework for taxis in the state. The individual programs will be an ancillary issue. Senator Jacobsen asked if a complete study included opening up the medallions? Senator O'Donnell said there is a court case that clearly defines that issue. Senator Jacobsen stated that in riding in the taxicabs in the southern part of the state, he usually asks if everything is running all right, and he has not gotten any complaints. Ms. McKinney-James replied: In the southern part of the state, the TA and its administration has been set forth as a model for the regulation of taxis in the United States. The reality is that taxis are regulated differently in Washoe County than they are in Clark County. This is something that we will substantiate needs to be continued for whatever reason, or we will determine if there is some benefit toward looking statewide at one regulatory scheme. If the debate is properly structured and we have the input from the industry that is affected, I think we can go some distance toward responding to your concerns. Senator O'Donnell asked if it is true that three taxicabs have been taken away from every cab company in Las Vegas? Sandy Avants, Administrator, Washoe County Taxicab Authority, replied that the hearing in October determined that three of the 24-hour cabs would be taken away from each company. Senator O'Donnell said there is no rational reason to pull three of the permanent cabs and leave three temporary cabs in service. He said he has to question this action. Senator Porter stated this discussion is in reference to S.B. 349. SENATE BILL 349: Requires regional transportation commission in certain counties to develop transportation plans and programs in compliance with federal law. (BDR 32-1953) Senator Porter asked what the purpose was to take those medallions? Senator O'Donnell said the committee is trying to get taxi service in Boulder City and the board is cutting the number of cabs available. Ms. Avants replied she is not sure what the logic is. She said she thinks there is a concern to be fair to the riding public, the cab drivers, and the companies. SENATOR LEE MOVED TO PROPOSE AN INTERIM STUDY. SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS NEAL AND SHAFFER WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * Senator O'Donnell opened the hearing on S.B. 133. SENATE BILL 133: Revises provisions governing rate of speed for operation of motor vehicle. (BDR 43- 1381) Senator O'Donnell introduced Amendment No. 431 (Exhibit H) and Amendment No. 451 (Exhibit I) to the committee and stated that he is not happy with either of these amendments. He said the committee had moved to include a fine of $100 for over 70 miles- per-hour (MPH). Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens, testified and presented her proposed amendment (Exhibit J) to the committee. She suggested that there has to be a point at which the speed is no longer reasonable. She said the committee should set that maximum. Senator Porter said he had voted for the full amendments to be brought back to the committee for consideration. Statistics may show the quantity of accidents may be reduced, but severity does increase at higher speeds. He said he does not think it is appropriate for insurance fees to be raised as a penalty for not paying a fee. Insurance bases its rates on the risk. He said Nevada should not set aside logic for rights. He said: Voting on this would send an appearance of a conflict and I won't be voting on this today. I would like to state my ultimate concerns that, the person that breaks the law should pay appropriately, and not be penalized by using some outside source. Senator Porter encouraged the committee to look closely at all people who are driving between the ages of 16 and 100. Senator O'Donnell asked for a consensus to look at . . . Major Daniel Hammack, Commander, Field Operations Bureau, Nevada Highway Patrol Division (NHP), Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS), interjected: If I can address Ms. Lusk's amendment, the NHP and DMV&PS does not support any movement currently in increasing the speed limit; purely as a traffic safety issue. We concur with Senator Porter's analogy. The higher the speed, the greater the severity of the accidents that are going to occur on Nevada's highways. In looking at Ms. Lusk's amendment, [set the Nevada maximum speed limit at 75], you are raising it 10 miles an hour above the current. I do think there is going to be an injury and crash rate increase on the severity side in conjunction with that. You get into the national 65 limit, and you jeopardize DOT (Department of Transportation) funding of the $128 million source, when you do the 75. The consideration, as far as the unpaid fines; that is probably the only thing that the highway patrol liked in the amendments, because it actually gives us . . . I don't believe it was requirement for insurance reporting. The amendment stated on page 3, subsection 3, that would be deemed a moving traffic violation, only if they did not pay the fine, which put it into a drivers' license points reporting. I think that was the intent of Senator Washington, to give us a little bit more penalty phase on the people that would not be responsible and pay the fines, so it actually went to a warrant. That would give us a little more to collect those errant drivers out there that do not pay for the fines and warrants. As far as the provision down below, as far as the slow moving drivers, I think we concurred with that; that was a good section of the bill. Senator O'Donnell asked: Number one, for one thing, do we all agree to keep the provision in there whereby the slower traffic, the 55 mile-an-hour speed limit in the fast lane, the impeding traffic section? Can we all agree to keep the impeding traffic section in the bill? Major Hammack and the committee members said yes. Senator O'Donnell asked: What if we keep the 55 mile-an-hour speed limit and raise the wasting energy speed limit to 75? Anywhere in there, that 20 mile-per-hour range is wasting energy. Above that you get tickets, points ... Actually below that you get tickets, but you do not get any points. How does the committee feel about that? Senator Lee said he thinks it is very detrimental to have an 85- year old driving at 55 and a young person who is driving 75 mph. He said the speed limit should be set at 70. Senator Washington said if the speed limit is set at 65, no one will drive at 65. He said the average rate of speed is between 75 and 80. Cars and highways are built for that speed. People are going to do that speed anyway. Senator Porter said rates are determined by the driver's age, residence, driving record, and the type of car. The reason for differentiating in these areas is because they do make a difference in the risk. Mr. Dornsife said the reason the bill was drafted the way it was originally was to protect the Highway Fund. The committee wanted the bill to be revenue neutral and the $100 was supposed to do that. The key element to the law is safe driving for the conditions present at the time. He said when speed limits are changed, the speed at which people travel does not change. The only thing that changes is the number of people who comply with the law. The average speeds in the state will increase 1 to 2 miles more. Senator Shaffer stated it is up to the highway patrol officers to determine what is safe. The safe speed limit should be posted on curves. Senator Washington stated: I am reading over the amendment again, and I think the amendment basically speaks to everything we have been talking about for the past 20-30 minutes. Subsection 2 of section 3, says [a fine is $5 for any person not exceeding 70 miles-per-hour. If you exceed 70 miles- per-hour, then the fine is not in excess of $100] to cover for the county revenue. We have not done away with the 70 mile-an-hour speed limit. It is still intact. We are saying from 55 to 70 it is $5. Anything over 70, the fine could be imposed up to $100. We have not done away with the 70 mile-an-hour speed limit. All we are saying is if you drive in excess of 70 and you are pulled over, it is not safe and prudent, you may be fined ... you may get a moving violation and demerits. If you are safe and prudent, it is still a fuel energy wasting ticket. My motion is that we move to do pass with the amendment. Can I do that mr. chairman? Senator O'Donnell said, "Yes, do I have a second?" SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 133. SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION. Senator Porter asked, on page 2 of the amendment, number 4, if there is any other reason for not having the demerits other than increasing the insurance rates? Senator O'Donnell replied that the demerits are directly proportional to the insurance rate. Senator Washington said if a person gets the ticket and the demerits, then the insurance premiums go up because of the moving violation. He said they are getting punished twice. Mr.. Dornsife said vehicles traveling faster than average are the low-risk vehicles. Currently the insurance companies are penalizing people for the low-risk behavior. The bill says "safe for conditions", therefore there should be no penalty for driving "safe for conditions" as long as the driver is only wasting fuel. Gregory Harwell, Lobbyist, California State Auto Association (CSAA), testified a moving violation, for whatever reason, factors into setting the rates. If the speed limits are raised, (without being able to rate the drivers who violate the higher speed limits higher), whatever extra is generated will be spread over every person's rates. Senator O'Donnell said there are two issues; the points that go on a person's driver's license and the reportability to the insurance company. He said he does not know how the DMV&PS will be able to differentiate the two. Mr. Harwell said his understanding is that the rates are based not only on the demerit points assigned by DMV&PS, but the various section that is violated. Different violations carry different levels of demerit points. Senator Lee said the bill is doing an unfunded mandate on insurance companies. When the speed limit was lowered a few years ago, the insurance companies did not cut his rates. If the speed limit is opened up, he said he believes everyone's rates will be raised. Senator Washington asked to rescind his motion and make a new motion to amend the bill to accept or have the provision in it for impeding the right of way; having traffic move to the right hand side? Senator O'Donnell said the impeding traffic clause should be put in the bill. SENATOR LEE MOVED TO AMEND THE BILL TO INCLUDE THE IMPEDING TRAFFIC CLAUSE. SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR PORTER ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE. SENATOR NEAL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * Senator O'Donnell said the second issue is whether or not to incorporate points or no points reportability to the insurance companies. He asked how everyone feels about that? Senator Lee said he can concur if the speed limit is left at 65, but if it is raised to 90, he cannot concur. Senator O'Donnell said if the speed limit cannot be raised, leave it at 55 miles per hour, and asked the committee if they have a problem with raising the wasting energy portion of the fine up to 75 miles per hour (MPH)? After 70 MPH, that will get reported. He asked, "If we kept the law the way it is, how many of you guys feel raising the wasting energy to 75 would be an okay thing to do?" Senator Washington said currently, with the state of the bill, he will accept 75 MPH. Senator Lee said he likes 70 MPH. Senator Jacobsen said he likes 70 MPH, also. Senator Shaffer said he will go 75. Senator Porter said he is abstaining. Senator Jacobsen said he can live with 75. Mr. Mello stated that the younger drivers should receive the demerits. SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO RAISE THE ENERGY WASTING LEVEL TO 75 MILES PER HOUR. SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS PORTER AND LEE ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE. SENATOR NEAL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * Senator O'Donnell said the next part is whether they should do away with the reportability to the insurance companies. Senator Shaffer said he does not think a driver should be prejudged based on his age or ability to drive. Once they have an accident, the insurance companies take over. SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED THAT IT IS A FUEL WASTING TICKET UP TO 75 MILES PER HOUR. AFTER 75 MPH, IT BECOMES A MOVING VIOLATION. SENATOR LEE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR PORTER ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE. SENATOR NEAL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * Senator Jacobsen asked if all violations are looked at in the same sense? Senator Porter responded the insurance companies are precluded from charging for wasting energy as a moving violation. Elizabeth King, Assistant Chief, Drivers' License Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS), testified that the waste of energy tickets are not considered a moving violation and are not put on a person's record. Senator Lee asked if the $100 fine has been changed? Senator O'Donnell said the fee structure has not changed. Major Hammack stated the assessments do not change. Ms. Lusk asked for an understanding of the motions just passed. She asked if the threshold will be raised to 75 MPH and will be an energy wasting ticket subject to the $5 fine, not subject to demerits? The rest of the law essentially remains the same? Over the threshold, there will be demerits and reporting? She asked if the unpaid fines for under the threshold will be reported? Senator O'Donnell answered, "yes" to all the questions and explained that the reporting for the unpaid fines will not be taken out of the current law. Senator Washington said he feels the committee needs to take into consideration the federal government rescinding the 55-MPH speed limit. Senator O'Donnell said that is already a law and section 7 makes it automatic if Congress repeals it. Mr. Dornsife stated: The new law, when Congress passes it; ... is recommending engineering studies for the establishment of speed limits. Therefore, on a section of interstate where a higher speed is safer, it will probably be posted higher by state officials. Each road will then be looked at, by the state, for posting appropriate to the conditions they find. If that would become the new title, whatever, in the federal law that we have to comply with, we would probably switch to that. Senator Lee stated somebody has decided that portions of this revenue are going for schools and education in this state. The Senate Committee on Finance needs to give a few million dollars to this cause. He said he has a problem with replacing those funds from somewhere else in the system. Mr. Dornsife stated that if the law officials adopted a flow management policy, or go after people for following too close, improper turn signal use, improper lane change, and impeding traffic (going back to the way law enforcement was before), the number of fines will be shifted and there would not be that big a reduction in fines. Senator Washington said in section 7 of the amendment, if the speed limit is repealed by Congress, the intent of this section was for the state to set its own speed limits according to the conditions of the roads. Senator O'Donnell said on page 3, [a rate of speed greater than is reasonable or proper, having due regard for the traffic, surface and width of the highways.] The weather and the highway conditions were added by someone; but he did not think anyone had a problem with that language. He asked for a motion to keep that language in. SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO KEEP THE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE IN THE BILL. SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR PORTER ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE. SENATOR NEAL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * Senator O'Donnell asked if the committee wanted to amend and do pass with the appropriate amendments. SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS WITH THE APPROPRIATE AMENDMENTS. SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR PORTER ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE. SENATOR NEAL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * Senator O'Donnell opened the hearing on S.B. 441. SENATE BILL 441: Prohibits department of motor vehicles and public safety from renewing registration of motor vehicles if fines for certain traffic violations have not been paid. (BDR 43-668) Tom Grady, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities, stated this is their bill. He said they would like to see this bill passed with one minor amendment to take care of a problem that the City of Las Vegas has. Doug Dickerson, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, testified the bill only applied to criminal parking fines. The amendment will include civil parking fines (Exhibit K). Donna Wadey-Howell, Acting Chief, Registration Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS), testified she had going through the Drivers' License Division data processing section to produce the revised draft (Exhibit L). She explained the difference in cost for the program. Mr. Dickerson stated that the amendment to include all traffic citations is simple. There is a need to include a mechanism for the department and for the court administrator to communicate to the Board of Regents on any outstanding fines and assessments (Exhibit M) so that grades and records can be held up. Senator O'Donnell asked if the parking violations and moving violations will produce about $59,500? Ms. Wadey-Howell said that is correct. Senator O'Donnell asked about the FTAs (failure to appear)? Ms. Wadey-Howell stated, "Only FTAs for moving violations. There are other FTAs that DMV&PS does not want to get involved in." Senator O'Donnell asked: "Will the $6 will cover the needs? Can the money come out of the Highway Fund to do this?" Ms. Wadey-Howell stated it is more appropriate to come out of the General Fund. Senator O'Donnell said, "So, we would need $305,622 start up for you, and ..." Ms. Wadey-Howell replied: That is correct. That was why I proposed that maybe we need, for the second year of the biennium, to raise that fee to more than $6. Six dollars obviously we think is going to cover our cost, but maybe we need to raise it higher to cover those initial costs. Senator O'Donnell asked if they went to $10, that would allow DMV&PS to recoup the first year and then come back in 2 years and adjust it down? Ms. Wadey-Howell responded: "That is correct." Senator O'Donnell asked how much this will generate for the courts? Mr. Mello responded for the FTAs and assessments, the Legislative Auditors estimated there is $2.4 million annually that could be collected. Senator O'Donnell asked if he needs a BDR (bill draft request) for the $10 assessment fee and then ... it could be put into S.B. 441. Mr. Mello proposed some changes in the packet he provided for the committee (Exhibit N) to include all traffic matters, including parking. Ms. King stated that if the language gets moved into S.B. 441 to include the FTAs, DMV&PS would want to stipulate that the Registration Division will collect on the parking tickets and Drivers' License Division will collect on the FTAs. She said they had some problems with the language, as it is set up with the renewal of drivers rather than the suspension process, which is what they do now. Senator O'Donnell said a person will have to be directed to a one-stop window to deal with this stuff. Ms. Wadey-Howell stated that the FTAs will have to be handled under the Drivers' License Division. Originally this bill dealt with just the parking fines which will be handled by the Registration Division. Mr. Mello asked if the court were to send a license number to DMV&PS, could they not collect an FTA? Senator Porter encouraged that S.B. 441 stay as written, as far as the intent, because of stopping, standing and parking. Local government is nervous about any major changes, other than parking. There is a movement to change the funding of all the courts in the smaller communities. Senator O'Donnell asked if Mr. Dickerson minds if the FTAs be eliminated from the bill? Mr. Dickerson stated this is a bill for the City of Las Vegas and they are trying to collect their parking tickets. That is their interest. Senator O'Donnell asked about the $16 million in FTAs? Mr. Dickerson stated he thinks there is another bill that will take care of that. Senator O'Donnell said the fiscal note is for both the parking and the FTAs. He asked if handling both sides is a big deal to DMV&PS? Ms. Wadey-Howell responded the fiscal note was built with the idea that drivers' licenses and the FTAs, are going to have a minimal impact. The biggest impact will be the parking fines. They are already entering those into the computer. Mr. Dickerson stated this should not have a fiscal impact on the local governments, other than to improve and constitute more money that is not being collected right now. This is a collection method and should not take any money away from them. Mr. Grady stated their concern is that they do not want to hold this bill up for a problem that could be corrected on another bill. They just want to get this bill passed and have it pave the way for S.B. 495. SENATE BILL 495: Makes various changes to provisions governing collection of fines and assessments. (BDR 1-2008) Ms. Wadey-Howell stated the other concern of the DMV&PS is with bench warrants. Some of the judges want to see those people. If DMV&PS just collects the money, there will still be an outstanding warrant and there will still be the FTA. Mr. Mello said once the bill is paid, there will no longer be a need for the person to appear. Senator O'Donnell said: Tom [Mr. Grady], you just want to do traffic tickets. You say there is a slight problem with the FTAs that still needs to be worked out. The fiscal note is based upon two different ... FTA and parking tickets. The fiscal note will have to be revised, and the dollar amount to pay for the cost of collecting the stuff will have to go up. In your zeal to speed this bill along, we are going to have to hold this for a fiscal note that ... to determine how much the fee should be so we can put it in the bill. Mr. Grady said the bill just says fees. It does not address an amount. Ms. Wadey-Howell said section 3, subsection 4, does not set the fees; it just says an administrative fee to defray the cost. She noted that Mr. Grady is right; DMV&PS could just set a fee. She said the concern she has is the last sentence which says, "the administrative fee must not exceed the cost of that collection." She said that part would have to be removed so that they can exceed the cost in order to pay back the setup money. If the fee is not set in the bill, there will have to be an administrative hearing to set those fees. Senator O'Donnell asked if the DMV&PS gets an FTA and the person wants to be seen by the judge, cannot the DMV&PS just tell them to go see the judge before registering the vehicle? Ms. King said the FTAs are handled through the Drivers' License Division, not registration. The person's driver's license is actually suspended when the court requests it. If the court does not want it handled that way, they do not forward the notice for DMV&PS to take action on that FTA. Senator O'Donnell said he wants to hold the bill until the Thursday hearing, and requested a fiscal note for just the parking tickets. He said the committee will deal with just the parking tickets and get the bill processed. Senator O'Donnell adjourned the meeting at 5:10 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Diane C. Rea, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator William R. O'Donnell, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Transportation June 6, 1995 Page