MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Transportation
Seventy-Second Session
March 27, 2003
The Committee on Transportationwas called to order at 1:42 p.m., on Thursday, March 27, 2003. Chairwoman Vonne Chowning presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada, and, via simultaneous videoconference, in Room 4401 of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
Note: These minutes are compiled in the modified verbatim style. Bracketed material indicates language used to clarify and further describe testimony. Actions of the Committee are presented in the traditional legislative style.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mrs. Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall, Vice Chairwoman
Mr. Kelvin Atkinson
Mr. John C. Carpenter
Mr. Jerry D. Claborn
Mr. Tom Collins
Mr. Pete Goicoechea
Mr. Don Gustavson
Mr. Ron Knecht
Mr. Mark Manendo
Mr. John Oceguera
Mr. Rod Sherer
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Mr. David Goldwater, Assemblyman, Clark County District No. 10
Mr. David Parks, Assemblyman, Clark County District No. 41
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Marji Paslov Thomas, Committee Policy Analyst
Nancy Elder, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Jack Jeffrey, Legislative Advocate, B and E Auto Auction, Las Vegas
Tom Wright, Ewing Brothers Towing, Las Vegas
Carl Johnson, Sergeant, Department of Public Safety, Nevada Highway Patrol, Elko
Jim Nadeau, Representative, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, Reno
Ruedy Edgington, Representative, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), Carson City
Daryl Capurro, Legislative Advocate, Nevada Motor Transport Association, Las Vegas
William Carpenter, Veteran Motor Club of America, Las Vegas
Dana Mathiesen, Deputy Director, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles, Carson City
Stan Olsen, Legislative Advocate, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police, Nevada, Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association
William Stojack, Nevada Car Owners Association, Las Vegas
Jerry White, Nevada Car Owners Association, Las Vegas
Abel Carlos, Intern for Speaker Richard Perkins, District 23, Clark County
Ginny Lewis, Director, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles, Carson City
Bob Ostrovsky, Legislative Advocate, 3M Corporation; Hertz Corporation, Las Vegas
Carole Vilardo, President, Nevada Taxpayers Association, Las Vegas
Dino DiCianno, Deputy Executive Director, Nevada Department of Taxation, Carson City
Chairwoman Chowning:
The Assembly Committee on Transportation will now come to order. [Roll call was taken.] We will open the hearing on A.B. 394.
Assembly Bill 394: Revises provisions governing removal by police officer of vehicle or part of vehicle from highway to garage or other place of safekeeping. (BDR 43-1037)
Assemblyman David Goldwater, District No. 10, Clark County:
As you all know, the towing industry is an unregulated industry in our state. This bill does not propose to regulate them. Let me tell you some of the financial incentives in the towing business. When cars are towed, people are charged based on the number of miles that the tow covered. There is clearly a financial incentive to tow longer distances. Cars are towed for a number of reasons. Sometimes there is a question on the expiration of the insurance, or the registration, or wrecks, and such.
What I tried to do on A.B. 394 is to find a way to protect our constituents who have their cars towed excessive distances just because there is a financial incentive in place for the tow company. Our constituents are required to pay that money in cash. I’ll give you an example: A car had questionable insurance that had lapsed for a day. The owner paid the insurance up to date, but there was a question on the registration. The car was just past the Mt. Charleston turn on I-95. Where would you think that car would get towed? It was towed to Amargosa Valley, 1˝ hours away, which was about 75 miles. Who says it should go there?
The highway patrol has zones, and it can go anywhere the officer says. The officers and the tow companies seem to know each other pretty well, and it raises a lot of questions and could end up costing people all over town a lot of money. There are some reputable tow companies, which are good, and they have plenty of business, but there are some shady operators out there. I have stories of some people who just bought a tow truck and are out there just waiting to tow somebody. You can see the problems that can occur in our system.
What we are trying to do with A.B. 394 is put a little common sense into it. All things being equal and considering public safety, why not tow it to the closest place so our constituents will pay the least amount of money for that tow? This is not a perfect bill, but Mr. Jeffrey has offered his assistance in making it a perfect bill, and we are getting closer.
Jack Jeffrey, Legislative Advocate, B and E Auto Auction, Las Vegas:
[Introduced himself.] B and E Auto Auction also has a tow license. The owner, Bob Ellis, has been in business in Henderson for over 30 years; he is a highly reputable operator. I know of a case, which happened to my niece. Her car got bogged down on the Lee’s Canyon Road, and Indian Springs Towing was called. They picked up the car. They don’t have an impound yard in Indian Springs, so they took it to Las Vegas. Bob Ellis, whom I represent, took his truck out there to haul it back to Henderson for me. The solution that Bob and I talked about earlier was that whatever the event is that causes a car to be towed, the vehicle should be towed to the nearest impound yard. I think that would solve this problem and the public would be much better served. The people who are on call are on call throughout the county, but the car would be towed to the nearest impound yard from wherever the event was that caused the car to be towed. It would not have to go to the yard of the company on duty but to the nearest yard.
Assemblyman Oceguera:
The reason I know about this is because in my full-time job, I am a Fire Captain. We respond to accidents and burning vehicles. There is what we call the “duty tow,” and, in order to even out the competition between the tow trucks, every day a different company is called.
Chairwoman Chowning:
What would happen if the “duty tow” wanted to take the car to their own yard if their own yard was within a 10-mile radius? Would you be agreeable to that?
Jack Jeffrey:
Yes, I think it would have to be that way.
Assemblyman Goldwater:
We want our cars towed to the closest yard. How we get there legislatively can be a problem, but I will continue to work on it. These are our constituents who are dealing with these issues and paying for these tows. I don’t know if you have been down there, but they require cash, which is particularly difficult for lower income folks. It can be a rough deal sometimes.
Assemblyman Collins:
In both of the incidents you mentioned, were the vehicle owners present there, or had they left?
Assemblyman Goldwater:
In my incident, the vehicle owner was there.
Assemblyman Collins:
The law allows them to designate where to take the vehicle.
Assemblyman Goldwater:
Where in the law?
Assemblyman Collins:
By exclusion, because it says if the person’s not there or unable. In Section 1, subsection 3, it says: “Any police officer may . . . remove any vehicle,” and it gives conditions, (a), (b), and (c), (1) and (2), if “the person driving or in actual physical control of the vehicle is arrested . . . for which the officer is required by law to take the person arrested. . .” In (c) it reads, or if “the person in charge of the vehicle is unable to provide for its custody or removal.” So by them requesting a tow, they designate where it goes. We could clarify that. In the event of a disabled vehicle in a crash or a fire or whatnot, if a person is not there to designate where it goes, the towers take it as the rotation works in Clark County.
My other question: Is the Highway Patrol here today, or is somebody here that can respond to this?
Assemblyman Goldwater:
I can’t quite read in the law where you get to pick where your car goes. In my anecdotal experience, the car owner was there and asked that it be taken to Las Vegas; they said no, and it had to go where the Highway Patrol had their zones set up. It was going to Amargosa Valley no matter what the owner said. That is all I know that goes on out on the road.
Assemblyman Collins:
It was probably an error by the Highway Patrol, not the law.
Tom Wright, Ewing Brothers Towing, testifying from Las Vegas:
[Introduced himself.] We are not here in an adversarial position. We would like to help if we could. We don’t feel the bill in its present language is beneficial to us or law enforcement. It seems that you are trying to judge the whole industry by one incident in particular. It sounds like the officer was in error. Anytime we have a police call, the owner is there. They are able to let us know where they would like to have the vehicle taken, and that is exactly what we do.
Chairwoman Chowning:
We would encourage you to speak with the sponsor of the bill, Assemblyman Goldwater, and see if the amendment he is proposing is something that you can work with him on as well.
Assemblyman Sherer:
How many “safe haven” places are there in Las Vegas that you can actually put your car in?
Tom Wright:
I honestly couldn’t tell you, and I think we need a legal definition of “safe keeping.” In our case and in most tow companies’ cases, these are fenced, locked, and secure storage facilities.
Assemblyman Sherer:
How many do you have?
Tom Wright:
We have several acres of land.
Assemblyman Sherer:
Is that in one spot or two spots or five spots?
Tom Wright:
It is in one spot.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Mr. Jeffrey, would you like to state your concept of a proposed amendment in writing? It will not be acted upon today, so everyone else will have an opportunity to look at it.
Jack Jeffrey:
I talked to Bob Ellis earlier today, and he suggested an amendment that would require the vehicle to be towed to the nearest yard of the tow company that was on duty, or the nearest yard to the scene of the accident or event that caused the car to be towed. Bob told me he was meeting with somebody at Ewing Brothers to work out the language, and as soon as we get the language, we will present it to this Committee.
Tom Wright:
He spoke with Mr. Rex Ewing, and we all had a look at the language.
Chairwoman Chowning:
We are going back to Carson City where we have representatives from the Nevada Highway Patrol and Washoe County.
Kevin Tice, Lieutenant, Department of Public Safety, Nevada Highway Patrol:
[Introduced himself.] This bill is not a perfect draft, and we disagree with almost all the language in the bill. I would like to clear some things up about the incident that Assemblyman Goldwater spoke of. There is one tow company in the Indian Springs area. The owner of that tow company has been in business since 1986. He has been trying to obtain property in Indian Springs for the purpose of a storage facility and has even spent money to build one, but the Clark County Commission advised him that it was not zoned for that purpose. There was no land in Indian Springs zoned for that purpose, and they made him move a storage facility. For a time, he rented a facility in North Las Vegas, and applied to lease land near Indian Springs with BLM [Bureau of Land Management]. That has been in an inactive file since 1996. The only alternative, in his case, was to have a lot in Amargosa Valley.
The other thing that I would like to clarify is when we offer registered owners of vehicles the choice of where to tow a vehicle. We tow vehicles for many reasons: crashes, when we make arrests, when drivers are in violation of administrative rules or registration laws, driver’s license renewals, and that is what occurred in that case. In that case, those are nonconsensual tows. That means we are not towing it for that person; we are towing it because they can’t drive that vehicle.
We don’t give those people the choice of where to tow a vehicle because they are going to have to clear up some problems before they can get the vehicle back. The tow company that actually does the towing has an enormous burden to hold a vehicle in another lot or somebody else’s property just because it was the choice of the driver. In cases where people break down on the highway or towing is a voluntary thing, certainly they have the choice of where the vehicle is towed because they are accepting financial responsibility, and there are no limitations placed on them to get their vehicle back. We are a little concerned about the implication that an officer of the Highway Patrol had an inappropriate relationship with the Indian Springs tow company. Hopefully that clarifies some of what was discussed earlier.
[Lieutenant Kevin Tice continues.] Additionally the language that is enormously burdensome is the requirement of towing a vehicle to the nearest garage or storage facility within a five-mile radius. I’ll give an example. Let us say that their duty tow is Ewing Brothers in Las Vegas Valley. The Highway Patrol responds to the call. It is a crash at I-15 and State Route 160. That is well over five miles from their storage lot. If they responded to tow that vehicle or vehicles, this law would rule that they have to tow it within five miles of that location. The huge logistical nightmare that that brings upon us as a law enforcement agency, not to mention the tow companies, is that we cannot even fathom how much that would cost us, to try to meet that.
Sergeant Carl Johnson, Department of Public Safety, Nevada Highway Patrol:
[Introduced himself.] I am from the Elko area. We hold our tow companies to a high standard. If the owner of a vehicle is at the scene, he does have a choice where the car goes. If he is at the scene, for example, in Wells, and he wants the car towed to Elko by an Elko company, then we will allow an Elko company to come and tow his car. We do hold our companies to a high standard. It is kind of an insult to the companies who are doing it right. It is burdensome on the companies, and it is burdensome on the public. If you tow a car to the nearest tow yard within five miles, you are going to have two bills: a bill from the company that towed the car, and a bill from the company where the car is being stored.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
I assume payment is a part of it, too. If you tow a car and drop it off in someone else’s yard, you are probably not going to get paid.
Sergeant Carl Johnson:
Yes, that could be a problem, as long as you have the car, you are almost guaranteed that you are going to get paid, but when you drop it off at someone else’s yard, there is no guarantee you are going to get any compensation for that tow.
Chairwoman Chowning:
That is a business call, and that is why they want to take it to their own yard, because they are pretty sure they are going to get paid.
Jim Nadeau, Representative, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office:
[Introduced himself.] We have some concern with the original language in the bill. We would like to work with Assemblyman Goldwater on the language that meets our standards. We have a rotational duty that rotates on a monthly basis, and in order for them to be on that duty tow, they have to meet certain qualifications as far as storage and ability to respond and those types of things. We feel that the language that we are working toward will meet our needs and help to avoid some of those pitfalls that other people have experienced.
Chairwoman Chowning:
We appreciate everyone working together. We have a very short period of time to resolve this problem due to our 120-day deadline, so everyone has to work together quickly.
Ruedy Edgington, Representative, Nevada Department of Transportation:
[Introduced himself.] I will answer any questions if there are any for the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT). I just wanted to make sure that they were going to tow vehicles that were blocking our roads.
Chairwoman Chowning:
That is a very good point. If there are abandoned vehicles, that is part of the duty of the Highway Patrol or the local officer to call the towing company on duty to respond.
Daryl Capurro, Representative, Nevada Motor Transport Association:
[Introduces himself.] Maybe I could set your mind at ease. When towing was deregulated, it was first-party tows. Those are tows that are initiated by the owner or the operator of the vehicle, and they have total control of where that vehicle might go. There is no rotational feature about where it would go at this point. This section deals strictly with nonconsensual third-party tows; those are regulated by the Transportation Services Authority (TSA), and there are tariffs on file. We used to publish tariffs and the tow car tariff, in which we had most of the tow cars in the state of Nevada. The rate for the first 25 miles of the tow is no different than it was beyond that up to 25 miles. After that there was an increase if it had to be taken substantially farther than that. It is regulated, those rates are on file, and they are required to be filed.
The Highway Patrol and all other agencies that have these rotational tows have strict standards. Therefore, if it is a tow company that cannot meet the standards either as to its equipment or as to its impound facility, that company is not on that rotational list. You could have a situation in the way the bill was written that would have required a registered tow company to take the vehicle to an unregistered facility.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Thank you very much for that information. Mr. Capurro is like a resident expert. He brought up a very good point about the Transportation Services Authority because that is a state agency where people go to voice a complaint if something wrong occurs with a nonconsensual tow. We don’t have to change that law, as it is already in place. We will close the hearing on A.B. 394, and we will open the hearing on A.B. 239.
Assembly Bill 239: Provides for issuance of special permit to display vintage license plate on front of certain motor vehicles. (BDR 43-126)
William Carpenter, Veteran Motor Car Club of America, Las Vegas:
[Introduced himself.] The purpose of A.B. 239 is to allow the owners of antique cars to register their vehicles with the appropriate Nevada license plates that are applicable to the year of their cars. I want to bring your attention to some legal plates from different states in the country. [He displays license plates from other states.] This one is from California, and you have probably seen it on Nevada highways. There is another one here from Massachusetts where it is perfectly legal. This plate is from 1908. One other is from New Hampshire; they also allow the year of manufacture on vintage registrations. I propose to be able to use plates such as this. This is a Nevada 1929 plate, which could be mounted on a Nevada automobile, such as a 1929 Model A Ford, and used as a registration for that vehicle in this state. Here is one from 1926 and another from 1927. Note that all of these plates do have legitimate Nevada numbers on them and the year. This bill would propose that a vehicle manufactured in 1923 would be able to be registered with an authentic 1923 plate. Would you like me to cover the amendment or my initial intent at this time? [A copy of the proposed amendment (Exhibit C) was handed out to the Committee members.]
Chairwoman Chowning:
We all have your amendment, so please proceed.
William Carpenter:
Section 1, subsection 1, “The Department shall establish a procedure pursuant to which an owner of a motor vehicle that is at least 25 years old.” We got that language from standards of most of the antique car clubs in the country to include the VMCCA (Veteran Motor Car Club of America), Antique Auto Club of America, Horseless Carriage Club of America, and such. Their standard of 25 years old is what constitutes an antique vehicle. They may display vintage license plates on the motor vehicle. Somehow it got construed to mean that the vintage plate was only going to be allowed on the front, and a modern plate would have to be on the back, but that is not the intent of the bill at all. Subsection 2 stands as written, except for subsection (c), where it says “motor vehicle”; change that to plural. I would like to strike subsection 3 entirely, because it is redundant, and there is no purpose for it. I am for the fees in subsection 4. I understand they thought this would reflect fundraiser plates, such as the arts plate or the UNLV plate, but this would not raise funds for a particular organization, so the renewal fee would not really have a place here.
In subsection 5, I would strike (a), which does not apply. I would like an addition to subsection 5 of Section 1. I would say a plate would be of the same year of issuance as the year of the vehicle to which it is affixed. That would prevent people from putting a 1918 plate on a 1970 automobile. That is not the purpose of this bill. Item b should read that it is “An authentic Nevada plate restored, reproduced, or original of the exact color, design, and size as the original.” Item c should read that it must be “In a condition that allows easy identification of the entire plate.” This would be for identification of a vehicle. I would also add at the end of subsection 7 of Section 1 that all vintage license plates must be presented to the Department of Motor Vehicles, or it could be changed to the sheriff’s department if that would be more appropriate, for inspection of authenticity and legibility, and confirmation that the plate number is not currently issued to another active registration. The last sentence, below item c, states that vintage plates must not be transferred to another vehicle except one that meets all of the requirements of this NRS (Nevada Revised Statutes).
Chairwoman Chowning:
Basically, the goal of this bill is to put a vintage license plate on a vintage automobile, and allow it for use as the registered plate for that automobile. Mr. Carpenter, how many vehicles do you think this bill will apply to? Would it be 25,000 or only 25?
William Carpenter:
It would probably only be a few hundred. According to the Department of Motor Vehicles, the quantity of vehicles registered in Nevada that are pre-World War II is about 1,500. This might increase that because some vehicles are not registered as antique vehicles. Most of the antique vehicles are only driven as show cars or driven once in a while. There are not a substantial number on the highways. Think of the last time you saw a Model A Ford on the highway, and that is about the impact it would have.
Assemblyman Gustavson:
I do like this bill, but I have a question on the dates here, since I wasn’t around in 1942. In the new language under Section 5, you say the same year of issuance as the year of the motor vehicle to which it is being affixed. Is this because there was a license plate issued each year in that period?
William Carpenter:
Yes, Nevada started issuing plates in 1916, and every year there has been either a plate or date strip that has gone with that plate for that year. You might find a car that has a 1965 plate, that has a 1966 tab affixed to it, but that would be the extent of it. The purpose of this bill is to increase the historical value of the vehicle and to let us celebrate our heritage a little.
Assemblyman Sherer:
It says there would be no effect on local or state government. How are they going to make these plates? Did we already get the DMV to okay doing something like this? Do you know what the colors were for each year?
William Carpenter:
Yes, Mr. Sherer. The intent of this bill is not to have the state produce any more plates. These plates would be plates that would be either found or restored by the owner of the plate or it would be a plate that would be reproduced in the exact likeness of that plate for that year. The entire cost of that plate would be borne by the owner of it. Does that answer your question?
Chairwoman Chowning:
These people find these plates at shows and in garages. Because they spend a lot of money and time refurbishing the automobile, they do the same with the plates. As you can see, these plates are in mint condition.
Assemblyman Claborn:
Is the money that is going to be raised going to a charitable contribution?
Chairwoman Chowning:
No, this is not a specialty plate. This would be a Nevada plate on a Nevada vehicle. It is just that the plates are from years such as 1929.
Dana Mathiesen, Director, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles:
We spoke to Mr. Carpenter several times while he was working on his amendment, and while we appreciate the amendment, we still have some concerns with the bill. Primarily, these plates would be against the statute of NRS 482.270, which sets the standards on reflectivity and visibility requirements. That statute states that all license plates must be treated to reflect light and to be at least 100 times brighter than conventional plates. This statute was entered into law in 1931. All the plates that are currently on the road and are produced by the Department meet these requirements.
In his new language, Mr. Carpenter indicated an authentic Nevada license plate that is restored or reproduced or an original of the exact color and design of the original. If these are to be reproduced by private vendors, we are concerned about our current numbering system, standardization, if different vendors are used, and fraud resulting from lack of control and the number of plates produced and issued by private vendors. It also states that vintage plates must be presented in person for an inspection for authenticity and legibility, and like Mr. Gustavson, we were not around prior to 1942, and I don’t know how the entire staff is going to know what the authentic colors and designs were on plates that were manufactured before 1942.
Chairwoman Chowning:
I have a list in my office that someone has provided to me after all these years of chairing this Committee. The document is a history of Nevada license plates, and it shows the color for every year of the Nevada license plate.
Dana Mathiesen:
It says, “exact color.” Also on DMV record information, all plates that are produced by the department are currently identified by style and background on the computer system. Mr. Carpenter indicated that every year prior to 1942 a different plate was issued. That means if a person brings a plate into the Department and wants to register their antique car, if we can determine the color and style and design, and if we don’t care that it doesn’t meet the reflectivity requirements, we would need to program the computer to identify that particular plate, style, and color so that it could be entered into the computer system, so it could be identified if and when a check is run against the registration, so that law enforcement officers would know that the plate is authentic and registered with the DMV.
I also wanted to point out that there are three plates currently produced by the Department that pertain to antique vehicles. There is the ‘Horseless Carriage’ plate, which is issued to vehicles manufactured during or before 1915. There is the ‘Old Timer’ antique vehicle plate, which is issued to vehicles that were manufactured more than 40 years before the date of application. There is an antique vehicle plate that is issued to trucks and truck tractors that are 25 years old or older. We also issue a special use permit for unregistered vehicles to use in connection with special events.
Chairwoman Chowning:
I do want to have a point clarified. The old blue license plates don’t seem to have the reflectivity that the current plates have. Do they?
Dana Mathiesen:
Yes, they do. They were produced in accordance with the law that required those standards. They may not reflect as much as the newer plates, but they do meet the requirements.
Assemblyman Gustavson:
Have you ever been to Hot August Nights?
Dana Mathiesen:
No, I have not.
Assemblyman Gustavson:
Many of us have been, and to car shows throughout the county, and we have seen these license plates on vehicles many times. I was just wondering why this would really be a problem. You would only have up to 1,500 maximum. Is it really a problem to program this data into the computer?
Dana Mathiesen:
No, the programming would not be a problem. It would be more inconvenient for the customer than it would be for us. When the customer presents us with an original plate, we would have to take that plate and enter all of the information such as the color and style, and the customer would need to wait until all that was completed.
Assemblyman Gustavson:
I don’t think the owners of antique vehicles would mind waiting.
Chairwoman Chowning:
I have been to a number of car shows and have seen these plates. I wonder how states such as California manage to offer this option without a problem?
Dana Mathiesen:
I do not know.
Assemblyman Claborn:
Do you have to make the license plates for these vehicles?
Dana Mathiesen:
The bill specifically states that these plates are not produced by the Department.
Stan Olsen, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department; Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association:
[Introduced himself.] I also talked to the proponent of the bill and told him that we were in opposition to his bill. In talking to the proponent of the bill, this plate has no reflective qualities, which makes it totally unacceptable to law enforcement.
A license plate is not an artistic expression of your vehicle; it is an identifier of your vehicle, and a safety issue for law enforcement. Nonreflective plates are a very big issue for law enforcement, especially when they are out in the middle of nowhere. Having a vehicle plate that is not identifiable as to what state it is from is a safety issue for officers and also an issue for victims of crime.
Chairwoman Chowning:
It does say Nevada on it, so it would be identifiable.
Stan Olsen:
The problem lies with this being a nonreflective license plate. They light it up with lights at night, and you cannot identify it. If there is a victim of a crime, they cannot identify it because they cannot see it either.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Why do you think that Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and California, have allowed this, and they don’t seem to have a problem with it?
Stan Olsen:
Law enforcement does have a problem with it, even in Massachusetts and California. California has always done things a little differently than this state.
Assemblyman Gustavson:
My question is for Mr. Carpenter. Can the manufacturers of replacement-type plates make this reflective feature available to these antique plates?
William Carpenter:
Everything is available for a price. The purpose for the reflectivity is to aid law enforcement, and I understand and appreciate that. However, as far as the concept of reflectivity goes, it was not an issue on the plate. You will never find someone, in the application of these plates, painting cars flame red or hot pink. These plates are for vintage automobiles that have been properly restored. Many things in these cars do not meet current standards, such as the brake systems, lights, taillights, and turn signals.
These cars fit into a different category than muscle cars. These people don’t want to punch holes in the plate or to decorate the plate. You will find the people who have these cars are not lawbreakers. As an example, insurance companies have actuaries that determine the amount of liability. With a perfect driving record, my quarterly insurance is almost $500 per quarter, but my antique car insurance, for two cars worth a $300,000 single limit, has no deductibles, and my cost for insurance is only $150 per year. I don’t think you will find too many people using a Model A to go “knock over” a 7-Eleven. It would be a bad crime car, because it is highly identifiable. “We could not read the plate, but it is a cream colored Model A.” It would be very easy to find, and it does not go very fast either.
Assemblyman Knecht:
I just want to illustrate Mr. Olsen’s concerns here with a first-person anecdote. About 19 years ago, the car I was driving was totaled by a hit-and-run driver. In the confusion of all that, I managed to get the license plate number and state identification because it was a standard state identification, which was in Colorado, but in the confusion, I also got the color of the car wrong. The police were able to track this car down, because I did get the license plate number right. This may not always apply to a Model A; this could also apply to a fast car that can get away. I think Mr. Olsen’s concerns are well placed and well stated that we really do need to have good visibility and good identification markings on the plate. This is a public safety matter.
William Stojack, Nevada Car Owners Association:
[Introduced himself.] We are an umbrella organization over various car clubs and collectors and associations. We wholeheartedly support the bill as amended. We certainly appreciate the concerns of law enforcement. There is no question about that. I think, as Mr. Carpenter pointed out, as far as the reflectivity issue goes, that is a moot point. The vehicles themselves are not reflective. They don’t meet the current highway standards or the NDOT standards. There is an exception for these cars because they are a piece of our history. I think, as Mr. Carpenter so well put it, these cars are not used in high crime, hit-and-run incidents. These vehicles are stored indoors and pampered. These cars are part of our cultural heritage. We feel the impact on public safety is minimal, and there is no fiscal impact.
Jerry White, Nevada Car Owners Association:
[Introduced himself.] We are very much in favor of this bill. You were talking about neighboring states allowing these plates, and I wanted to point out that right across the line in Utah you see a lot of these plates and their antique cars.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Are those cars used on the street for general use?
Jerry White:
No, you only see them a couple times per year when they are going to parades or shows.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Mr. Carpenter’s wish is to have the plates used as the general issue plates for that vehicle all the time, not just in parades and shows. Maybe that is the reason why Utah didn’t show up in our research as one of the states that allows this. We are going to close the hearing on A.B. 239. We will open the hearing on A.B. 358.
Assembly Bill 358: Provides for design, preparation and issuance of special license plates by petition to Department of Motor Vehicles. (BDR 43‑1140)
Speaker Perkins is unable to be here, so he has sent his intern, Abel Carlos. We have an amendment (Exhibit D), so please look at the amendment, not the bill.
Abel Carlos, Intern for Speaker Richard Perkins, District No. 23, Clark County:
A.B. 358 will provide for the design, preparation, and issuance of special license plates by petition to the Department of Motor Vehicles. This bill shifts the application process for a new special license plate from the state Legislature to the Department of Motor Vehicles. The present process for a person or an organization is to go to his or her Legislator and ask that a bill be introduced for a special license plate. With this bill, a person or an organization may go directly to the DMV and fill out an application requesting the new license plate. The application shall include the signatures of 250 people in order for the application to be reviewed. Once the application is accepted, and in order to begin issuing the special license plates, the DMV must receive 1,000 applications from residents who want the special plate. Then the DMV will order the plates to be made and issued to the applicants.
After reviewing the bill and speaking to the director of the Department of Motor Vehicles, Speaker Perkins would like to see this bill amended to accommodate a smooth transfer of the license plate process to the DMV. The amendments that I am about to propose to you would do the following to this bill:
Chairwoman Chowning:
You made a statement that DMV would only be allowed to issue a maximum of 20 special license plates?
Abel Carlos:
There would be 20 revolving plates at a time, and people could request a plate from the top 20. When a new plate is being requested, it would have to have the threshold to be in the top 20.
Chairwoman Chowning:
What would be the criteria to make it win?
Ginny Lewis, Director, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV):
[Introduced herself.] As I understand this bill, the criteria would be that once a year the Department would evaluate all the special plates. If there were a plate that had fewer active registrations than the number of letters of intent for the plate, then we would stop producing the plate. There are currently 2 plates with a requirement to have 250 letters of intent before the Department would proceed with the design and production. The special plate has to be in production for 12 months, and then we evaluate it. If the number of letters of intent has dropped, then we will stop producing it.
Chairwoman Chowning:
That was the old rule. The new number is 1,000.
Ginny Lewis:
I was just giving an example of today, where 250 applies. In the new proposal, that same scenario will apply where one has to have 1,000 letters of intent before we will produce the plate. If the actual number of people who purchase those plates falls below 1,000, we will stop producing that plate. There are some reasons why it could fall below the 1,000.
Assemblyman Gustavson:
On the last page of the amendment, in subsection 8, it says that the left one-third of the plate would be a design. Would this prohibit then a slogan from being put underneath the numbering and lettering on that plate, too, such as V & T Railroad, or whatever it may say on the bottom?
Abel Carlos:
This subsection will require that a special license have one uniform design where the right two-thirds of the plate would all be the same and the left one-third part of the plate would be designated to the special organization for their logo. The right would all be in the same format to be able to distinguish it as a Nevada plate.
Assemblyman Gustavson:
Thank you for holding those plates up. The Wolf Pack and the Organ Donor designation language. That’s the language I’m talking about. Would that still be able to be put onto the plate? That’s not in the left-hand third.
Abel Carlos:
Mostly we are concerned that Nevada is left on top.
Assemblyman Gustavson:
As long as you still can put the slogan on the bottom. [Received confirmation.]
Chairwoman Chowning:
But the examples that are shown don’t have the sunset background. That’s a clear background. Is that stated in the bill somewhere that it would be a clear background or would it be the general issue background?
Ginny Lewis:
It is designated in the bill. Section 8, subsection 8 addresses the specification on the one-third on the leftmost corner of the plate. The amendment states that the “two-thirds center and rightmost regions of the license plates shall be consistent with motor vehicle license plates as specified in paragraph 1 of this Section.” Paragraph 1 of the Section says, “Except as otherwise provided by specific statute, the Director shall order the redesign and preparation of motor vehicle license plates with colors that are predominantly blue and silver. The Director may substitute white in place of silver when no suitable material is available.”
My understanding, in discussing this with Speaker Perkins, is he’s looking for some consistency in the two-thirds portion so there are not a lot of graphics on the plate, so that a special license plate in Nevada is clean on one side and the graphics depicting the organization, or whatever the special graphic is, would be limited to the left-hand side.
Abel Carlos:
Another proposition that we have is that we move toward a digital license plate design. Digitalizing license plates would not only be faster and more feasible, but it would allow for the DMV to issue special license plates in a form we like to call the “One-third, Two-Thirds Special License Plate.” This is found in the new Section 6, which is on your page 3. This would allow the DMV to dip into the special license plate fund to be able to purchase this equipment that would allow us to go into a digitalized procedure, which would be easier for the DMV to make these special plates.
Chairwoman Chowning:
So there are four things this bill does:
Assemblyman Claborn:
What we are really talking about is a process of elimination, right? Like number 20 only receives 130 signatures, so it is going to come off the list, so another plate that has the required number of signatures backing it will take its place.
Abel Carlos:
That is correct.
Bob Ostrovsky, Legislative Advocate, 3M Corporation:
We are the current vendor to the DMV. I noticed that there is no effective date on this bill. If it were to come as a due course of business in this state, it would probably become effective in October. You might consider making Section 7 of the amendment effective on passage and approval, and the rest of the bill at a later time. There are a number of applications for plates that are currently under review by the Legislature.
If you approve those plates, the question will arise, “Do I go with the legislative approval or do I go with this bill if it becomes law?” If you appropriately time this bill, the Legislature can still act this session on bills that are in its house, and future bills would fall under this new provision, and we would start eliminating plates in that fashion. If you approve the application of digital process, it would make it much easier for law enforcement to identify plates, still give people the opportunity to make money for their various organizations and to do it all in an orderly fashion.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Ms. Lewis, would your department have enough funding in your special plates fund to start producing these specialty plates with the digital technology?
Ginny Lewis:
The account that he is referring to is the special plate trust fund. To give you an example of the monies in that account, in fiscal year 2002, we reverted $445,000 to the Highway Fund. Statute requires that we forward $50,000 in this account for start-up funds. In fiscal year 2003 to date, we currently have over $674,000 in the account. Expenditures in the account have only totaled $98,000. From a cash flow perspective, I think there are more than adequate funds to support digital technology.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Everyone on this Committee is familiar with the digital technology because we have seen it before. [Ginny Lewis displayed digital plate examples, one for UNLV and one for UNR, and then she showed the Organ Donor plate.]
I would like a comment from a law enforcement person. Does law enforcement feel these digital plates would be acceptable, legible, and so on?
Stan Olsen:
I support this special license plate bill. We like the commission, we like the “One-Thirds, Two-Thirds,” we like the reflectibility of it, and we like the digital technology.
Chairwoman Chowning:
We will close the hearing on A.B. 358 and open the hearing on A.B. 267.
Assembly Bill 267: Revises provisions relating to certain fees and surcharges charged and collected in regard to vehicles leased for short term. (BDR 43-961)
Assemblyman David Parks, District No. 41 (Clark County):
[Introduced himself.] I am here to speak to you on A.B. 267, which is another one of my rental car bills. A.B. 460 of the 71st Legislative Session was passed in the very last minutes of the session, and it ended up having five revisions. The final version had a subsection left out, and that was certainly because of the last-minute rush. The intent of A.B. 267 is really twofold. First, it is intended as a cleanup of what was missed in A.B. 460 of the 71st Legislative Session. The first part included transferring the full responsibility for the adoption and enforcement of regulations necessary to carry out this program from the Department of Motor Vehicles to the Department of Taxation.
The second part was to clarify that the government services charge, as well as the recovery surcharge, were to apply strictly to the base rental fees and not charged against other taxes. We wanted to make sure that we were not compounding and putting a tax on top of a tax. As you are probably aware, a typical rental car tax bill is substantial when you consider all the additional taxes and facility charges that are placed on a rental car bill.
[Assembly Parks continued.] I don’t know to what permutation you could go in order to figure compounding, but I think it would be quite substantial. My intent here is to clarify the record, and to have some very precise regulations put in place under the Department of Taxation.
Chairwoman Chowning:
So, page 3 is where you have that spelled out, that the government services fees must be charged accordingly?
Assemblyman Parks:
Starting on line 42 of page 2, under subsection 7, and then continuing through subsection 8 that takes you to the first of page 4, line 1, is where you find the governmental services fee, which is a 6 percent tax which goes to the state General Fund. Subsection 8, which is the recovery surcharge, which is the amount of charge, is not a tax but a fee collected by the car rental companies that they are entitled to keep to offset the fact that they have to register their vehicles in order to pay the very large governmental services fee.
Chairwoman Chowning:
That is why it is broken down into two separate sections?
Assemblyman Parks:
That is correct, and each one of those goes down through and indicates how they are supposed to levy that fee.
On page 4, you read that the responsibility of the DMV to adopt regulations is removed and placed under the Department of Taxation.
At the very bottom of the bill, in subsection 5, it gives the executive director of the Department of Taxation the responsibility to adopt such regulations as he determines necessary.
I know that there had been some other concerns expressed with the bill and the fact that it may need some cleanup language. My intent was to meet with the Nevada Taxpayers Association, who assisted in the drafting of this bill, as well as the Department of Taxation. I am sure that they may have some comments regarding this bill.
Carole Vilardo, President, Nevada Taxpayers Association:
[Introduced herself.] We totally support what the bill is doing. There are two issues that have come to our attention:
If the Chair would allow, it might be beneficial if Mr. DiCianno from the Department of Taxation came up, because, in cleaning up and having this delineation done in this manner, it appears there is a fiscal note with a loss of revenue of approximately $2 million. I think there are a couple of things that could be done that would mitigate that problem, but I think Mr. DiCianno might want to advise the Committee.
Chairwoman Chowning:
We want to do nothing that is going to make us lose any money.
Dino DiCianno, Deputy Executive Director, Nevada Department of Taxation:
[Introduced himself.] The Department does appreciate the delineation within the bill, which makes it much simpler for us to administer the tax and also to require the short-term lessors to provide the records with respect to the surcharge. If I could answer one question that came up earlier to Assemblyman Parks, the distinction about having the director promulgate regulations in two different sections.
The first section has to do with the exclusions regarding the tax and the exclusions regarding the surcharge as it can be charged by the short-term lessors. That is a different set of regulations with respect to the other provision that is in NRS 482.315, which has to do with the record keeping of the short-term lessors.
Chairwoman Chowning:
So, the first starts on page 4, and that deals with the exclusions of the companies, and the bottom is for the record keeping of the lessors?
Dino DiCianno:
That is correct. I think it is important to understand that prior calculations with respect to the short-term lease fee were not specific to the exclusions associated with the calculation of the tax. In the past there were some inconsistencies as to how they calculated that tax. This clears that up; however, it does create a fiscal impact.
As an administrative body, I cannot presume to give you policy decisions with respect to what the exclusions should be and what they should not be. That is something Mr. Parks would have to address.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Do the proponents of the bill have any solution for this $2 million fiscal note?
Carole Vilardo:
I have a couple of potential solutions for your consideration. One of the first things that was eliminated was a very inconsistent application if you rented a car. You could remove the facilities’ charges from the exclusions. I cannot tell you what that might do to the amount. That is one of the gray areas, but I can assume that might be a fairly substantive amount of money. The other recommendation that I have is to go forward with the bill immediately and let the Department of Taxation do the regulations. In that event, when the budget would be prepared, there would be an accounting for it.
This tax happens to have a pretty good rate of increase over the years. It was originally projected to be $3 million each year of the biennium when it was put in, in 1993. Since then, it has generated a fairly substantial amount of revenue, which is why nobody wants to lose the revenue source. For the record, we opposed it then, and we are still not happy with it, and if you want another amendment, I would like the recovery surcharge removed.
Dino DiCianno:
It generates $22 million to $25 million to the General Fund each fiscal year.
Chairwoman Chowning:
That is far more than the projected $3 million, obviously.
Mr. Parks, do you have any closing comments? We will have to reconsider this and take any amendments in writing from you.
Assemblyman Parks:
With your permission, we would like to take this bill back, work out some of the inconsistencies, and bring back something in the form of a mock-up bill that almost everyone can be happy with, including the rental car agencies.
Dino DiCianno:
To assist Assemblyman Parks, the Department of Taxation would be willing to offer our services to communicate with the rental agencies once the exclusions have been determined to be removed or modified.
Bob Ostrovsky, representing Hertz Rental Cars:
For this bill, I am here for Hertz Rental Cars. The rental car company that I represent and the others I have spoken to have no objections to this bill. It is easier for a taxpayer, or a tax collector in the case where there is sales tax, to have the specific information about how to charge the tax, because when the Department of Taxation comes to audit us, there may be some differences in how we apply these various taxes, and then it causes problems for the business owners. We support the efforts of Mr. Parks, and we do not have any problem with not asking for a reduction.
Chairwoman Chowning:
We will close the hearing on A.B. 267, and we will take it up another time. We have one bit of business. Please turn your bill books to A.B. 178. We need to reconsider this bill because of something the Legal Division (LCB) brought up to us, which Ms. Thomas will explain.
Assembly Bill 178: Makes various changes concerning registration and titling of motor vehicles and records of Department of Motor Vehicles. (BDR 43‑473)
Marji Paslov Thomas, Committee Policy Analyst:
A.B. 178 was on work session on March 18 with an Amend and Do Pass. I received a verbal opinion from the Legal Division that the amendment that was voted on by the Committee is already covered and was not needed. It is an unnecessary amendment.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO RESCIND THE MOTION OF AMEND AND DO PASS OF A.B. 178.
ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 178.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Thank you for your patience. The meeting is adjourned [at 3:44 p.m.]
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Nancy Elder
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman
DATE: