MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Transportation

 

Seventy-Second Session

April 10, 2003

 

 

The Committee on Transportationwas called to order at 1:32 p.m., on Thursday, April 10, 2003.  Chairwoman Vonne Chowning presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, 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:

 

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Assembly District No. 9, Clark County

Mr. David Parks, Assembly District No. 4, Clark County

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Marji Paslov Thomas, Committee Policy Analyst

Nancy Elder, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Dan Musgrove, Director, Intergovernmental Relations, Clark County

John Slaughter, American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP), Strategic Planning Manager, Washoe County

Rusty McAllister, Vice President, Professional Fire Fighters of Nevada

Mary Henderson, Lobbyist/Government Consultant, Nevada League of Cities

Randy Robison, Executive Director, Nevada Association of School Boards

Debbie Cahill, Director of Government Relations, Nevada State Education Association

Dana Mathiesen, Deputy Director, Department of Motor Vehicles

Jeff Fontaine, Deputy Director, Nevada Department of Transportation

Susan Martinovich, P.E., Assistant Director-Engineering, Nevada Department of Transportation

Clay Thomas, Administrator-Field Services, Department of Motor Vehicles

Carole Vilardo, President, Nevada Taxpayers Association

Russ Benzler, Administrator, Nevada Department of Transportation, Compliance Enforcement Division

Jim Werbeckes, representing Farmers Insurance

Laurel Stadler, Chapter Director, Mothers Against Drunk Driving

Daryl Capurro, Managing Director, Nevada Motor Transport Association, Inc.

Ronald Levine, Assistant Managing Director, Nevada Motor Transport Association, Inc.

Bill Gregory, representing Enterprise Rent-A-Car

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Good afternoon.  The Assembly Committee on Transportation will come to order.  Madam Secretary, will you please call the roll.  [Roll taken.]  We are a quorum.

 

We’ll open the Committee hearing on Assembly Bill 476.  This comes to us from the Committee on Ways and Means.  Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani will present this bill for us. 

 

Assembly Bill 476:  Requires employers to ensure that employees comply with laws governing registration of motor vehicles and obtaining drivers’ licenses. (BDR 53-1316)

 

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Assembly District No. 9, Clark County:

[Introduced herself.]  I am acting on behalf of one of the subcommittees from Ways and Means.  This was a Ways and Means Joint Committee request.  The concept for Assembly Bill 476 came up as we were dealing with joint budget closings on the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) budget.

 

The discussion was that a lot of individuals, both private and public sector, are not following the law by having their driver’s license renewed or having a valid driver’s license within 30 days of moving to Nevada, and having their registration done within the 40 days as already required by law.  Many people could be captured through a very simple way of having the employers make sure that their employees provide this information.  That would also generate a lot of revenue for the state of Nevada, and that was part of the intent.

 

You can go to almost any college campus or any of the working places where public employees are and note that the license plates are not from Nevada, and they’ve been employed there, sometimes a year or two.  A.B. 476 says that a public employer shall confirm in a manner provided in Section 1 that the employees are in compliance with the current law for purposes of employment. 

 

I know the employers are going to argue that this is an extra burden they should not be policing, and I understand that part of it, but they do it already in many instances.  For example, in the Clark County School District, if you have one of their district cars, you have to provide proof of your driver’s license, and that you had a driver’s license within 30 days as required by law in order to even drive the car.  So there is already a procedure in place, probably in many of the public employer businesses.

 

If you look at page 2, subsection 3, of A.B. 476, we felt it was important that the DMV, if they know there’s a large hiring that’s going to occur, could actually conduct the registration or driver’s license process on-site for those businesses which requested it.  That’s basically the intent of this legislation. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

This does have a fiscal note and it would have to go back to Ways and Means.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:

Correct.  It was one of those weird things that I think the Chairman did not wish to skip because it properly was titled to this Committee in the first place.  I think that’s why it wound up being jointly referred, instead of just dealing with the fiscal side of it.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

This would have an impact on the Department of Motor Vehicles, especially with subsection 3 on page 3 of A.B. 476. 

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:

Correct.  I would suggest that after you’ve taken testimony, if there is discomfort, maybe A.B. 476 could simply be moved with no recommendation to Assembly Ways and Means so they can deal with it in the budget closings, since the recommendation came from the budget committees.  I just make that as a suggestion.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Suggestion duly noted.  I think Mr. Atkinson should disclose that he is a public employee and, hopefully, this would not affect him because, hopefully, his vehicle is registered in the state of Nevada.

 

Assemblyman Atkinson:

I can’t confirm or deny that it’s registered, but I do have my special Assembly plates on it.  I probably have a million questions.  I am really confused.  I don’t know how an employer would ensure this or even comply.  Are they going to be monitoring people’s cars in the parking lots?

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:

If you look at Section 1 of A.B. 476, it says the employer shall confirm within 30 days after a person begins employment, and then thereafter for continued employment.  By federal law you currently have to provide a copy of your driver’s license to prove that you are a citizen, so they should be complying with that.  If their employer’s human resources department is receiving their documentation, you have a copy of it provided for them. 

 

If you say that you don’t have your driver’s license renewed, or that you’ve been working here or you’re planning on working, but you’re from Missouri, and they ask how long you have been here, and you answer that you have been here six months, they will say you need to get your driver’s license because you’re in violation of the law.  It’s my understanding that it doesn’t impact current employees the way we drafted it, but it’s upon initial employment. Perhaps they could set up a phase-in to check others.  It was really trying to get the program started for the opportunity to at least make sure that those new employees are complying with state law.

 

Assemblyman Atkinson:

I kind of understand it with the driver’s license.  Certainly you can keep up with that.  My concern was the motor vehicle registration. Some people move here and, initially, they don’t bring their cars but bring them later.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:

If they move here, they’re required by law to register their cars within 45 days.  If they don’t have a vehicle, they wouldn’t have to have proof.

 

Assemblyman Atkinson:

If they don’t bring it from out of state.  What I’m trying to say is if they don’t bring it initially.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:

I would guarantee you, at least in the southern part of the state, and I know for the rurals, they don’t get around anyplace else without a car or a horse, and you don’t have to license horses unless you’re my colleague from Pahrump.

 

Assemblyman Atkinson:

My colleague from Eureka County always criticizes me for being devil’s advocate, but I didn’t bring my car, initially.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:

That’s a viable consideration; however, it can be dealt with by regulation.  We didn’t spell out all that part out in here.  The intent here is, again, just for new employment.  As you’re providing all your other documentation, provide a copy.  It’s a revenue issue.  It’s also a compliance issue.  It’s a policy decision.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Would this work hand-in-glove with Assembly Bill 30?  It has passed out of this House and now resides in the Senate and hopefully will pass all the way through.  It states from this point forward every person new to Nevada who want to be drivers and the drivers who are already in Nevada must register their vehicles within 30 days.  They should be in compliance, although many aren’t.  From this point forward, every person trying to get their driver’s license would, at the same time, have to register their vehicles, or they would have to sign something that says that they do not have a vehicle.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:

Correct.  A.B. 30 spells that out and I thought it was a good piece of legislation.  I think this will compliment it rather than conflict with it in any way.  It just goes a step further to make sure that those who are coming in are complying with the law.  That’s all we are trying to do.  I appreciate the public employers’ concern, but this was the recommendation that was made by the committee to move in that direction.

 

They were discussing at some point in the future that maybe we should be working with the chambers of commerce and such to see if the private sector had ideas on how to better get people to comply as well, but this is a known world, and public employment is huge.  It includes all state employees, all university and community college individuals, all K through12 employees, and all your police and fire personnel.  It’s a large group of people to assure.  I don’t think there’s anything wrong with somebody saying that you’re not complying with the law, especially if you are police or fire.  I would think that they would be following the law, as well as teachers should be.  I know because I taught on a campus where vehicles were not registered and they were owned by people who had been in Nevada for years.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Was it also a recommendation of the subcommittee that the employee must be terminated?

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:

No, it was not.  I think that was just drafting so feel free to discuss that part of it as well.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

I’m a little concerned with A.B. 476.  The biggest thing is, in some job descriptions, it wouldn’t require that you had either a vehicle or a driver’s license, and I think that we’re definitely stepping across the line as far as public employment.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:

Are you speaking to requiring someone to have one who would, normally, not have one?  That would not be the intent.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

If it wasn’t in their job description that they had to drive or have a driver’s license to hold that job, then I think that, as a public employer, if you’re requiring that they can be terminated if they don’t, we’re stepping across the line.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:

As I said, that was not requested by the committee.  That language is there for you to take a look at.  We didn’t even discuss that part of it.

 

Assemblyman Claborn:

I think that just about answered my question as well.  My question was about the public employers who were going to enforce this provision, what would be the penalty if they didn’t enforce it?  I guess whoever was the head of this to enforce it, they would have to fire him.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:

Unless you took the language out and then there probably wouldn’t be a consequence.

 

Assemblyman Atkinson:

You’ve made yourself clear that some of the bill we can discuss and do what we need to do, but if we take this line out about termination, what are the consequences?

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:

I don’t know.  It does say that the Department of Motor Vehicles shall, upon request, assist the employers.  I just see them as urging their employees to comply with the law.  That’s all I see them doing.  It’s not meant to be a punishment.  It’s just to get people to comply.  That was a good question.  I had not pondered that one.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

I don’t remember, but isn’t there a penalty in A.B. 30 that we passed?  Marji Paslov Thomas, Committee Policy Analyst, can look and tell us pretty fast.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

I don’t think there’s any penalty in A.B. 30.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:

I don’t believe so either.  I don’t recall that.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Remember, Committee, the penalty for the person driving an unregistered vehicle or without their Nevada driver’s license upon being stopped, is that they can be given a citation.

 

Dan Musgrove, Director, Intergovernmental Relations, Clark County:

[Introduced himself.]  Obviously, we have some concerns.  Many of the questions were already outlined by some of the questions that came from the Committee.  You’re shifting the burden of enforcement from the state to public employers.

 

The introducer of A.B. 476 talked about driving through parking lots and identifying cars that have out of state license plates.  Why isn’t DMV or the state doing the same thing?  You’re now asking public employers to go in and do those kinds of enforcement things on their own employees.  We see that as a problem.  Why are public employers responsible for ensuring this compliance when no such burden is put on private employers?  We’re the first step, but it should be something that, if we’re looking at doing it for the state as a whole, then everyone should be responsible for doing it, whether you’re a public or private employer.  If it’s the right thing to do, it’s the right thing to do.

 

[Dan Musgrove continues.] You’re also putting termination requirements on employers and their employees in terms of the state now making employment decisions for us as to how it relates to our employees, and we think that’s a problem.  We have collective bargaining agreements.  I’m not sure if that would conflict.  I think we’d get into a problem with collective bargaining issues when we’re out to fire our employees based on vehicle registration.  Clark County hires thousands of part-time employees.  Does this affect part-time employees?  Those are all good questions that need to be asked.

 

I think we’re sending a mixed message to our employees.  Not every employee is required to have a driver’s license nor do we want every employee owning a car.  We want carpooling.  We want people sharing rides to work and using the bus.  If they don’t provide proof to us that they own a car, does that mean that we have to go to their house to verify?  There are numerous questions that I think go unanswered in A.B. 476. 

 

What is DMV’s role in this whole thing?  It says on the second page of A.B. 476, line 6, “The Department of Motor Vehicles shall, upon request, assist a public employer in confirming that its employees have complied.”  Why aren’t they doing the same thing?  I’m sure that they could cross-reference those that have driver’s licenses versus whether or not they own a car, and do a 50-state check, and see if they own cars in other states.  Is this being done?

 

I think Assemblywoman Kathy McClain’s bill, A. B. 30, which is the bill that you referenced before, is the first step in trying to make sure you catch them as they walk in the door. Those are concerns that we have, and, at this point, we’re in opposition to A.B. 476.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

If the portion regarding the termination were deleted from the bill, what would your position be?

Dan Musgrove:

We would have a little bit less heartburn.  Again, I think you’re putting a burden of enforcement on the employers.  It’s not our role to enforce the violation of misdemeanors and felonies.  That’s why we have law enforcement.  You’re asking employers to take on a new role in the employer/employee relationship that I’m not sure is going to be well taken by employees.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

In 1993, we passed a law that said people have to register within 30 days.  It also said it was the Highway Patrol that was supposed to go into parking lots, and if they saw the same license plate over and over after 30, 60, 90, or 120 days, then they would be able to issue a citation.  We’re here 10 years later, and we have the same problem in our neighborhoods.  Any individual citizen may call and verify whether or not someone is a resident of this state, and then call the Highway Patrol and tell them to come down and issue citations.  That certainly would help, I would think.

 

Assemblyman Collins:

I apologize for being late, but I heard enough of Mr. Musgrove’s testimony to realize that any employer who offers a job that requires a driver’s license, for liability reasons takes a picture of and verifies that driver’s license.  If this was amended to cover those jobs, it shouldn’t be a problem.

 

Dan Musgrove:

I don’t think our problem is with the driver’s license portion.  We have driver safety courses that we require all of our employees to go through.  Those folks who are driving county vehicles have to come in every two years and we verify that everything is current and up to date.  I don’t think that is a problem.  It’s the second portion of A.B. 476, which is registration.  We talked about a compromise.  Maybe we just put something in our new employee orientation that reminds them or even asks them to sign an affidavit that they understand that if they haven’t registered their vehicle or obtained a driver’s license in 30 days that they could be in violation of state law.  That would not be our doing the enforcement.  It’s informing them that they have a responsibility.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

That’s putting forth a policy as part of their employment.  That’s what you’re saying, but you would rather determine that policy yourself?

 

Dan Musgrove:

It would be informational in nature.

Chairwoman Chowning:

Remember that A.B. 476 requires the driver’s license and registration of every employee, whether or not that is a required part of their employment.  That’s what Mr. Goicoechea also brought forward.  To summarize the testimony, they don’t have any problem if it’s a required part of their employment, but if driving is not a required part of their employment, then they have a problem.

 

John Slaughter, AICP, Strategic Planning Manager, Washoe County:

[Introduced himself.]  Mr. Musgrove spoke to most of the points that I have. One of the things that I wanted to expand on was Assemblyman Atkinson’s example of the employee who moves from out of state.  We often have employees who will move here and then their spouse follows six to nine months later when school finishes for their children in the other state.  That would complicate the matter even more in those cases.  Just prior to Mr. Musgrove mentioning the possible affidavit, I had written down that perhaps signing an affidavit at the time of the new employee signing on with the county saying that they understand that all their vehicles must be registered within the state of Nevada would suffice. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Regarding the spouse, that person who is the employee and is living here has to register his vehicle.  He can’t wait until the spouse comes.

 

John Slaughter:

The bill also says that all vehicles that they own must be registered in Nevada.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Understood.  Would you feel a little bit better if the second part about termination was deleted?

 

John Slaughter:

Absolutely.  Typically, you don’t lose your job over certain offenses.  With that in mind, the termination would seem like an extreme penalty.

 

Rusty McAllister, Vice President, Professional Fire Fighters of Nevada:

[Introduced himself.]  Some of the same concerns that have been expressed before by the other two gentlemen are some of ours.  We have no problem with the driver’s license.  As a matter of fact, you have to have a Nevada driver’s license the day you sign on as a fire fighter.

 

Our concerns would be twofold.  First of all, following along the lines of Mr. Atkinson’s statement, when our guys go into a rookie academy, they have a job, but they don’t really have a job.  They’re subject to evaluations at various times.  They can be terminated at any time.  They may spend two months here and they are gone.  As soon as they’re fired out of rookie school, they’re headed back home.  Generally they don’t move their families here.  Their families stay wherever they’re from, and, if they do bring a vehicle here, they bring one vehicle.  They leave their other vehicle with their family back wherever they’re from.

 

We do a lot of lateral hires from other states, which means their families are back in Ohio, New York, Massachusetts, and places like that.  One of our concerns is that we have people who are on probationary status while they’re in rookie school for a five-month period.  They don’t know if they have a job until the day they graduate from rookie school.

 

The other concern has already been mentioned, and that is the termination part.  We work long and hard with the various employers to create various discipline programs, and they’re based on a progressive or a positive discipline program. Generally for all public employers, you can break a law, you can be pulled over and arrested for driving under the influence, but you don’t get terminated.  You may get disciplined and you may lose your driver’s license from the state for a certain period of time, but you don’t get terminated from your job.

 

Mary Henderson, Lobbyist/Government Consultant, Nevada League of Cities:

[Introduced herself.]  Good intentions, but an administrative nightmare.  I’ve been trying to figure out how this would work for us, employing thousands of people.  I have some real difficulties with it.  I think A.B. 476 has some major flaws. 

 

You’re talking about the fact that all employees must be in compliance.  You set out a section that allows you to do that, but it only deals with new employees.  What do you do with existing employees?  What do you do with the new employee who comes on board, meets the requirements and, six months later, decides to register their car in Oregon?   I don’t know how, over time, we’re going to be able to make sure that about 20,000 or 30,000 public employees are meeting these needs.  I think there are some real issues there.

 

I realize in southern Nevada you’re kind of an island, but in northern Nevada we have many employees who live in Truckee, Quincy, or Portola, California, and drive into Reno, Sparks, or Washoe County every day to work.  They live up there, they register their cars up there, they pay California taxes, and they aren’t bright enough to live where we live.  I don’t know how you get around that one.  I think that’s a real issue.

[Mary Henderson continues.]  I don’t know that A.B. 476 can effectively embrace all of those exceptions.  What do you do one year later when somebody decides they don’t want to renew their driver’s license, or they want to register a car in Arizona, or they want to register it somewhere else?  How do you catch them?  You’re going at it from the aspect of the new employee versus the thousands whom we already have working for us, putting us into an enforcement role for the state that I don’t know we want to be in.

 

Many of our jobs do not require driver’s licenses.  Many do, and I’ve worked for agencies where, every year, they would check my driving record because they’re very concerned about liability issues.  Everyone has a little bit different way of how they administer it.  You have issues with your bargaining units.  It creates a real administrative nightmare for local government.  Of course, we want to get those folks lawfully registered.

 

I remember a sting done in the McCarran International Airport employee parking area a few years ago where they had all these out-of-state cars.  I don’t know if it was the Airport Authority that did it or if it was the state that did it.  I think we’ve got some disparity from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.  We’ve got some real issues in terms of how we could even effectively meet the requirements of this without a lot of additional staff and paperwork and those kinds of things.  There are some fatal flaws with it.  We would have to oppose A.B. 476.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

I do believe this would only apply to residents of Nevada.  We did pass a law years ago, though for these employees it may not apply, that employees who travel to Laughlin and live in Bullhead City, Arizona, had to get some sort of a temporary registration that has to go in their vehicle.  They have to pay something extra for the privilege of working in Nevada and having their car registered in another state.  That’s only for those border employees, like in Jackpot and wherever.

 

Randy Robison, Executive Director, Nevada Association of School Boards:

[Introduced himself.]  I could speak on behalf of several different clients whom I represent, but I’d be happy to join with the Nevada State Education Association and speak on behalf of the Nevada Association of School Boards in opposing A.B. 476 for many, if not all, of the reasons that have been mentioned before.  It may be stretching the scope of practice of a teacher on special assignment.  For those reasons, we would be in opposition to Assembly Bill 476. 

 

Assemblyman Collins:

If we looked at the percentages calculated by DMV that say we believe 93 percent of the people in the state of Nevada are registered in-state and that 7 percent are unknown, and the state is going to keep that percentage back in the fee you get out of registration to local governments and those agencies in the correct proportion, wouldn’t that give you an incentive to encourage these outfits to do that?  If your income was based on the registration of your employees, wouldn’t you work for better reporting?

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

This was a recommendation of the Ways and Means subcommittee that oversees the DMV’s budget.  It is taxpayer dollars that pay for the public employment of people.  Does anyone wish to answer Mr. Collins’ question?

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

In response to Assemblyman Collins, maybe we should just pay the Highway Patrol a bounty.

 

Debbie Cahill, Director of Government Relations, Nevada State Education Association:

[Introduced herself.]  We do have serious concerns about A.B. 476 in its present form.  If you remove the part about termination, although that does alleviate some concern, we do think it puts an unfair burden on the employer and the employee.  You have a section that says you have to supply this proof.  If you don’t own a car or you don’t drive a car, you still have to show why you haven’t registered a car.  You have to show proof that you don’t have a car.  It does shift the burden away from the state on enforcement, so we are opposed to that.

 

This does not address private employees or employers.  We’re going to discriminate against public employers and employees who may be out of compliance.  I understand that it’s a revenue measure.  When Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said this will bring more money into the state coffers, that would be very appealing to us only if you give it back to us in the form of a raise.  We have not had a raise in the last biennium.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Please keep your remarks strictly to the bill.

 

Debbie Cahill:

I apologize.  There are probably a lot of private employees who would love to be brought into compliance as well with the urging of their employer, and we would love to have that revenue.  We are opposed to A.B. 476.

Dana Mathiesen, Deputy Director, Department of Motor Vehicles:

[Introduced herself.]  I’d like to apologize for not signing in to speak on this bill and also for not speaking to the sponsor about our concerns.  We took a neutral position on this bill when we entered the room, and we believed that we knew what our role was supposed to be, but after listening to Ms. Giunchigliani present A.B. 476, we believe we misinterpreted that.

 

Section 1, subsection 3, states, “The Department of Motor Vehicles shall assist a public employer in confirming that its employees have complied with the requirements of this section.”  We interpreted that to mean we would provide any record information needed to confirm or deny that they had obtained their license and registration.  We did not believe we would be required, as Ms. Giunchigliani testified, to help them register and obtain their driver’s licenses at the place of business.

 

If that is the case, and if that is the intent of the bill, we’ll need to submit a fiscal note for digital equipment, travel equipment, and a travel team, which we did not do because we read this differently.  There is currently a Nevada law that indicates every person who resides in the state of Nevada has to obtain a driver’s license and registration within 30 days of coming to the state, and that’s always been an enforcement issue.  We’re not an enforcement agency.  We didn’t view this as looking at DMV as the enforcement part of A.B. 476. 

 

Assemblyman Claborn:

It looks to me like A.B. 476 needs a lot of work.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

Why don’t you, as Chairwoman of the Transportation Committee, write a letter to all of these public employers and ask them to please try to get vehicles registered?  We could do that.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

That is absolutely a good thought.  We could do that.

 

Assemblyman Atkinson:

I was going to suggest the same thing.  I think the intent of A.B. 476 is pretty good, and it’s probably a way to attack it.  I know for most government agencies there are guards who are on the lot, and maybe there’s a way to let employers know of individuals who are not complying, and maybe the employers can get information to the people who are violating the law to make sure that they get their registrations up to date.  My major concern is, and I believe Mr. McAllister talked about it a moment ago, that most agencies, aside from the state, have unions and governing bodies, and I just don’t know how that would work.  It would be too difficult.  If we did work on this, I would volunteer to help. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Committee, we have several choices here.  We can send A.B. 476 out, amend and do pass, or we could send it back to Ways and Means with no recommendation.  It does have a concurrent referral so it will go to Ways and Means anyway.  What is the pleasure of the Committee?

 

Assemblyman Knecht:

With permission, Madam Chair, I would move IP (Indefinitely Postpone).

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Is there a second?  Motion dies for lack of a second.  Is there another motion?

 

Assemblyman Manendo:

I just have such mixed feelings on this.  I think the public is really disheartened that any public employee would not have a Nevada driver’s license, if he drives.  If he owns a car, and if the car is registered out of state, he is cheating the system.  That is horrible.

 

We’ve talked in this Committee about what we’ve done in the past with handicapped parking where folks have gone out and enforced this voluntarily.  Maybe that’s another way of trying to get at folks, publicly and privately, who are cheating Nevada taxpayers.  With that, Madam Chair, I would support you and this Committee writing a letter, if that was your recommendation.

 

Mr. Musgrove made a comment about putting it in the employee orientation package.  I would support that.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

I think that’s a very good point.  We can reference this bill and state that this is a letter of intent coming from this Committee.

 

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall:

I think that’s a wonderful idea.  In addition, I think it might be appropriate if the Chair would accept a motion that we refer A.B. 476 back to Ways and Means without any recommendation.  We would send them a copy of our letter that would go out.  That would be an explanation of what went on here.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO REFER A.B. 476 TO THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS WITH NO RECOMMENDATION.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Assemblyman Collins:

We’ve passed Assembly Bill 30, which is going to give them plenty of funds in those local government agencies to process and pursue with diligence, making sure those folks have gotten state registration, et cetera.  There should be no excuse for that.  I hope that, if we don’t move on this at this time, the letter could include recommending to Ways and Means that they look at those percentages and hold that money back from local government.  Maybe they’ll go harder at getting registration.

 

Assemblyman Atkinson:

Going along with my colleague, if that does happen, I would like it to include everybody, not just government employees.  I think that it’s unfair to include one group of people.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

I think we all agree with you, but our postage and our staff would not be able to handle even the research to send a letter to every private business.

 

Mary Henderson:

Knowing the “vast” postage budget that each of you have, $60, and that just about every local government in the state is represented in this building right now, why don’t you let us work through the Nevada Association of Counties (NACO), the Nevada League of Cities, and with the various local governments to get the letter out from the Committee?  We can certainly step up to the plate, and I’m sure the schools would do the same.  I would think you’d want to encourage things like that as part of employee orientation, because this is not a matter of us not wanting these folks to register and do the right thing.  I just think A.B. 476 is an administrative nightmare, so let us partner with you and work on that.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

We’ll gladly accept that partnership.  We appreciate that.   

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.  (Assemblyman Gustavson and Assemblyman Oceguera were not present for the vote.)

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

A few years back, we had a problem in Elko with the mining people and contractors not registering their vehicles.  We got the Highway Patrol to make a couple of runs through the parking lots, and, soon, we had a lot of people registering.  I think there are other ways of doing it, but we solved the problem up there.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

We’ll close the hearing on Assembly Bill 476 and go on to Assembly Bill 519 from the Nevada Department of Transportation.

 

Assembly Bill 519:  Revises provisions relating to awarding of design-build contracts by Department of Transportation. (BDR 35-542)

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Before we start, we have an announcement that Mr. Fontaine has been chosen to be the new Director of the Department of Transportation of our great state of Nevada (NDOT).  Congratulations.  We’ve had the privilege of working with Mr. Fontaine for many years and have found the relationship very cooperative, and very helpful.  We look forward to great service to our state as you have done in the past, and I know you’ll do a great job in the future. 

 

Jeff Fontaine, Deputy Director, Nevada Department of Transportation:

Madam Chair, thank you very much for your kind words and to the Committee for your support.  For the record, I’m Jeff Fontaine.  I’m currently the Deputy Director and will become Director effective upon the retirement of Tom Stephens on June 5.

 

A.B. 519 is an agency bill draft request. The intent of the bill is to clarify how the department awards design-build contracts.  We view this as minor language in a minor bill.  Susan Martinovich, Assistant Director for Engineering for the Department, will be speaking to the details of the bill.  There is some new language that is being handed out to you currently that better reflects what our concern is (Exhibit C).

 

I’m here today to also ask for an amendment (Exhibit D) that is not so minor.  Perhaps you’ll view it as I do, as an important amendment, and that is for the Nevada Department of Transportation to have the authority to hire a second deputy director to be located in Las Vegas.  We think that that is needed to better serve the needs in southern Nevada where 70 percent of the state’s population resides.

 

A.B. 519 actually says that the second deputy director would reside in the urban Las Vegas area.  Technically it does not really matter where in the Las Vegas Valley that person would be located.  The office may be in Henderson or it may be somewhere outside of Las Vegas, but the intent is to have that position located in southern Nevada to serve the needs there.  Secondly, this is a request for a new position, and we would appreciate your concurrence with and your support of the amendment that we’re offering today (Exhibit D), as well as what Ms. Martinovich will be discussing.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Please give our best regards to the current director, Director Stephens.  Ms. Martinovich, if you’ll walk us through the new bill (Exhibit C), which is on our desks, we’d appreciate it.

 

Susan Martinovich, P.E., Assistant Director-Engineering, Nevada Department of Transportation:

[Introduced herself.]  The meat of A.B. 519 addresses design-build under Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 408, which was modified in the last Legislative Session; it requires a two-step process to award the design-build contract.  The department first solicits proposals, selects finalists from the group of the preliminary proposals, and then obtains final proposals from the “short-listed” finalists.  The procedures we have now do not expressly allow the department to solicit best and final offers from the finalists if the final proposals are all unsatisfactory or above the estimated price range that we had anticipated.

 

A.B. 519 allows the authority to solicit best and final offers from those finalists so that the department would not be forced to reject all the finalists and start the award process from the beginning at an additional expense and delay.  The beauty of design-build is, in certain instances, that it allows projects to be expedited because you’re combining the designing and the building processes. We’ve outlined a pretty extensive process in retaining a consultant, and by allowing A.B. 519, it provides for a best and final offer so that, should a final proposal not be within the realm, we don’t have to start over.  That meat of A.B. 519 is on page 7 of Exhibit C, at the bottom, the purple print, in  paragraph 5.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

This bill now contains two parts. The first part is on page 3 of Exhibit C, the request for an additional director.  Page 4 of Exhibit C states that the deputy director will be for southern Nevada, whose principal office will be located in the Las Vegas urban area, and that the director may delegate whatever authority as may be necessary for the deputy director pursuant to subsection 1(b).  What is page 6 of Exhibit C?  Why is that “both preliminary and?”

 

Susan Martinovich:

Before, it talked about just the preliminary, and now we’re talking about the preliminary and the final in “best and final offer.”

Chairwoman Chowning:

Then the main part of the bill is on page 7 of Exhibit C?

 

Susan Martinovich:

Yes.

 

Assemblyman Sherer:

Who’s going to be in charge?  It says in subsection 3(a) on page 4 of Exhibit C, “appoint one deputy director who, in the absence, inability,” et cetera, will run the department basically.  Then it says to appoint a second one for the southern part of the state.  Basically, on June 5, you’re going to have to appoint two deputy directors, one’s going to be in charge in the south, and one’s going to be in charge in your absence?

 

Jeff Fontaine:

The department currently has one deputy director who, in the absence of the director, has all the authority to sign documents and do whatever the director has the authority to do.  That will continue to be the case.  The second deputy director whom we’re proposing to be specifically for southern Nevada would have whatever authority the director deems necessary to carry out his duties for southern Nevada.

 

Susan Martinovich:

I was neglectful in not expressing appreciation to the legal counsel who went through a lot of work for us in developing the original draft and the amendments.  They’ve been working very hard with us, and I wanted to express appreciation for that.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

That’s really appreciated, especially during this time, because our staff all throughout the building has been working night and day.  We’re all very appreciative.

 

Assemblyman Claborn:

Could you tell me if there’s a fiscal note and how much would it cost?

 

Jeff Fontaine:

We are proposing to make this a new position as opposed to converting an existing position, so the cost of this would be the salary for a new deputy director’s position, which is part of the unclassified pay bill, and whatever additional costs would be associated with that position. We think that we currently have space available for an office to house this new position in our district office.  Recently we added a modular building in front of the district headquarters office.  There’s some space in there, and, initially, we could house the new person there.  There are probably going to be some equipment needs, but for the most part, it’s the salary and benefits associated with this position.

 

Assemblyman Manendo:

What’s the cost?

 

Jeff Fontaine:

We have not come up with those costs, primarily because we don’t know what the salary would be.  Based on today’s salary, I’m estimating, with salary and benefits, somewhere in the neighborhood of $130,000 to $140,000.

 

Assemblyman Manendo:

For one position?

 

Jeff Fontaine:

For a deputy director position, yes.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

This bill would have to go to Ways and Means as well.  Ways and Means will discuss that.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS ASSEMBLY BILL 519.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

And re-refer to Ways and Means.  On the motion.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.  ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO VOTED NO.  (Assemblyman Gustavson was not present for the vote.)

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Let’s open our discussion on Assembly Bill 197.  Could we ask League of Cities and NDOT to come to the table?

 

Assembly Bill 197:  Makes various changes concerning certain applications submitted to Department of Transportation by governmental entities for easements or licenses or permits for encroachments on certain highway rights-of-way. (BDR 35-342)

 

Mary Henderson:

As you recall, this was a bill that we brought forward through the Nevada League of Cities.  We’ve spent the past two or three weeks working with NDOT to come to some resolution, and I think we’re very, very close.  I know they still have some major concerns about the fact that there would be a bill.

 

I thought we had reached a point where we had some language to bring back to you that would have amended this to put a process in place that would give our membership a little bit more comfort.  My minimum hope is we would end up with a very good understanding with NDOT.  Perhaps a letter of legislative intent could come from this Committee that would memorialize any sort of agreement that we would put in place with the department.  I think, if we had such a letter of intent, our membership would be very happy with that, and we could eliminate having a bill which I think, and I think NDOT would agree, would be very cumbersome to write.  They certainly have been extremely responsive to our concerns, and I want to thank Susan Martinovich on the record very much for working with us. 

 

I hope the department understands, especially with the new director, that this is not something that we’ve easily come to grips with, but we have a lot of confidence in current staff that we can move forward and resolve what we consider to be pretty significant.  We do need something for our membership to make sure that we move forward over the next few months and develop that process.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

The contents of the letter of intent from this Committee would be that there would be terms that would be agreed upon in a cooperative agreement, and that a report would be presented to the Legislative Commission in December of this year.  Is that the wish and the approach for a solution?

 

Mary Henderson:

Right now, that’s conceptual and, in our minds, in draft state.  What I did was take what we would have provided to you as an amendment to this bill and put that in the form of a draft.  I have not shared it with the department yet.  I finished it just before we walked into the hearing room.  I want to make sure that NDOT understands that right now we’re looking at it in draft form, but that this would be the outcome that we, hopefully by October 1, have worked out with the Nevada League of Cities and NACO, to lay out a process for us, and to have that process implemented or well on the way to implementation by December.

 

We know there are some staffing issues and, with the legislative session going on, I don’t know that we could devote the time that we need to over the next two or three months either.  We want to have some flexibility there, but we do want a process in place for applicants. 

 

Assemblyman Collins:

I think that if we’re going to request a letter of some kind, that we should also request NACO and the Nevada League of Cities to present to Ways and Means an encouragement of increasing their budget so they could meet your schedule of getting projects done in 60 days or less.  Aren’t we asking, in A.B. 197, for 60 days or less to get those projects done? 

 

Mary Henderson:

We’ve backed away from that requirement.  What we’re asking for now, and I think we have a good foundation to build upon, is that we lay out a communication process that we can all sign off on, and we memorialize that through a memorandum of understanding versus putting a 60-day requirement upon NDOT.  We’ve had good dialogue and good communication.  We have, in effect, pulled back from our bill which would place that kind of a requirement on them.  What we really want is a process.  I think that’s where we started out to begin with.

 

Susan Martinovich:

As Ms. Henderson indicated, we have been working very closely to come to some conclusion, and the department is committed, regardless of a bill or a memo, to revising the way we do business in regards to our encroachment permits.  We have that commitment.  I have drafted a letter of understanding (Exhibit E), having not seen what the Nevada League of Cities has put together, but will definitely be open to looking at that.  It sounds like it’s a similar document that we could work with.  We’re opposed to a bill, but we are very open and would be very willing to work further on an agreement.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Thank you.  The Committee has a copy of the memo of understanding (Exhibit E).  If you would make a copy of this for the NDOT deputy director, I would appreciate it.

 

Mary Henderson:

Madam Chair, I have a draft of that, and I’m sure what I provided you today has probably been taken very much from what’s in that letter, so I think we’re both on the same page.

Chairwoman Chowning:

Committee, this is a memo of understanding (Exhibit E) that you have in front of you.  It does say that there’s a cooperative spirit and an agreement of sorts.  It even has a place for signatures, if they want to, for the Nevada Department of Transportation, the Nevada Association of Counties, and the Nevada League of Cities.  It proposes:

 

• What the timeline for the process development will be.

 

• That by July 1, 2003, they will develop a draft process and parameters.

 

• That those parameters are a specific turnaround based on the type of permit.

 

• That there will be a checklist at submittal to address all elements of the permit.

 

• Multiple submittals for concurrent reviews.

 

• Comment forms for applicant revisions.

 

• Training workshops on permit submittal.

 

• A tracking system for both in-house and applicants’ use.

 

• The process  be developed and in place by December 31, 2003.

 

This is absolutely very commendable work.  It also takes a lot of the audit findings and puts them in place as well.  We’ll work on a letter, and we want to thank everybody involved. There’s a definite spirit of cooperation here that’s going to work well into the future for all the cities.  Thank you very much.

 

Mary Henderson:

We’re very appreciative of NDOT’s efforts to open an office in southern Nevada.  I think most of our local governments would be very supportive of having a deputy director in southern Nevada where so much construction is underway.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Thank you very, very much.  We’ll close the hearing on Assembly Bill 197.

 

Assembly Bill 525:  Revises method by which proceeds from certain taxes on motor vehicle fuel are allocated between local governments in certain counties. (BDR 32-459)

Chairwoman Chowning:

Committee, if you remember, A.B. 525 was a Sparks-only bill draft.  I don’t think that the Committee will take action on this bill, but I think it would be a good idea if we put forth a letter of intent from this Committee regarding the discussion in this committee, so that it’s very clear that it was everyone’s intent who testified that this go forward for discussion in the  557 Committee.  We’ll work on that and we won’t address Assembly Bill 525, but we want to thank everyone who so fervently expressed their city’s concerns.  Washoe County also expressed their willingness to proceed in a cooperative manner in the 557 Committee.  Thank you. 

 

Committee, let’s go to our work session.  The first bill that we’ll consider in our work session is Assembly Bill 239. [A work session document was distributed and is attached to these minutes as Exhibit F.] 

 

Assembly Bill 239:  Authorizes production and issuance of vintage license plates for certain motor vehicles and expands purposes for which money in Revolving Account for Issuance of Special License Plates may be used. (BDR 43-126)

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Assembly Bill 239 is the vintage license plate bill.  This is for the people who own classic vehicles and spend lots of money on those vehicles, and they want to have a vintage license plate on that vintage automobile.  It would only apply to pre-World War II vehicles, motor vehicles manufactured during or before 1942.  There was testimony from law enforcement that they would oppose this because of the nonreflectivity of the plates.  There is a compromise, and I’ll let Ms. Thomas explain the compromise.

 

Marji Paslov-Thomas, Committee Policy Analyst:

This amendment (page 4, Exhibit F) would allow an owner to display a reproduced vintage license plate from the year the vehicle was manufactured on the front and rear of the motor vehicle.  An owner would only be allowed to display a plate reproduced by the DMV, and the DMV must use digital plate technology to reproduce that plate.  If DMV does not use such technology, an owner would not be able to display a reproduced license plate.

 

Testimony indicted that some of the owners had wanted to use vintage license plates from other manufacturers.  The compromise was to allow DMV to manufacture the reproduced plates as long as they could use that digital plate technology, if they get legislative approval for that.  Behind Tab A (page 16, Exhibit F), are pictures of license plates from Nevada (page 19, Exhibit F).  I don’t know the exact date they go back to, possibly 1916, but these would be the types of plates that DMV would be authorized to reproduce if they get the digital plate technology. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

The classical vehicle folks are happy with this compromise.  They would much rather put a 1921 replica of a Nevada plate on their 1921 Ford than the Nevada license plate that just says “classic vehicle.”  It means a lot to these people to have the vintage year plate with the vintage automobile.  I don’t know how many people this would order this plate, probably 50 or 100 people.

 

Marji Paslov Thomas:

The second proposed amendment (page 4, Exhibit F) would be to amend A.B. 239 as a whole by deleting provisions that would have required the Department of Motor Vehicles to establish a procedure in regulation for an owner of a motor vehicle to apply for a special permit to display a vintage license plate on a motor vehicle.

 

Proposed amendment number three (page 4, Exhibit F) is to amend the bill by adding a new section that would allow DMV to issue reproductions of Nevada license plates manufactured on or before 1942, again only if DMV uses digital plate technology.

 

The fourth one (page 4, Exhibit F) is to amend A.B. 239 by adding a new section requiring DMV to charge and collect $35 for the issuance of the reproduced license plate, and $10 for renewal, in addition to all other license fees and applicable taxes.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

That’s a little clearer.  Does DMV wish to comment on this?  You’re saying no? 

 

ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 239.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.  (Assemblyman Gustavson was not present for the vote.)

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

The next bill is Assembly Bill 324.

 

Assembly Bill 324:  Revises provisions governing frequency of renewal of registration of certain vehicles and frequency of renewal of certain drivers’ licenses. (BDR 43-1097)

 

Marji Paslov Thomas:

A.B. 324 revises provisions governing the frequency of renewal of registration to 24 months.  The bill provides that an owner of a motor vehicle may register his vehicle for a period of 24 months, and it also provides that a person must renew his driver’s license every six years.  Currently, a person must renew his driver’s license every four years.  This was heard last Tuesday, and Clay Thomas, Administrator of Field Services of DMV, proposes to retain the language to have a person renew his driver’s license every four years (page 7, Exhibit F).  There were some questions on smog checks, and I believe that Mr. Thomas is here to answer questions.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Mr. Thomas, would you please answer the questions and concerns that our Committee members had regarding if we allow people to register their vehicles for two years, aren’t we sending up the wrong message saying that we’re not caring about smog checks every single year?

 

Clay Thomas, Administrator-Field Services, Department of Motor Vehicles:

[Introduced himself.]  To clarify that point, there is no change to the emission requirement.  An individual will still be required to have his vehicle emissions tested every year.  He will have a two-year renewal, and at the end of the first year, 35 days in advance of the renewal date for the first year, the DMV will send a letter to the individual advising him that he needs to have an emission test performed.  When the emission test is performed, DMV will automatically send the next decal, or the second year decal, directly to the individual.  The emission requirement stays in effect that they have to have the emission test done every year. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

If they don’t send proof of the smog test being conducted, DMV won’t send the decal to them?

 

Clay Thomas:

That’s correct.  That’s the way it is right now. 

 

Assemblyman Claborn:

Do you have to register new vehicles every year?

Clay Thomas:

Yes, that’s correct.  It is currently yearly registration.

 

Assemblyman Claborn:

For a brand new vehicle, every year?

 

Clay Thomas:

Are you asking about emissions or the registration?

 

Assemblyman Claborn:

Emissions.

 

Clay Thomas:

No, you do not.  A new vehicle has a two-year grace period before an emission’s certificate is required.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

I think we have our concerns answered.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN SHERER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 324.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Assemblyman Collins:

I thought we had resolved this once, but I guess we haven’t.  Imagine this new car that costs $1,000 to register now, and then you’re going to pay that for two years which means you’re going to lose interest on that money for a full year, but you’re still going to have to get it smogged and mail the smog test results in before you get the decal sent to you.  Rather than just registering your vehicle like you normally do, you’re going to mail it in and wait for them to open it.  You’ve got to do it in a timely manner.  They’re possibly going to have to send you a notice that you’re due for a smog test.  You’re going to get the notice in the mail that your smog test is about to expire, then you’ve got to get a smog test and mail it back or carry it down there, and after they open it up and process it, they’ll send you the little sticker.  How many times have you been late getting a sticker now without any of that?  I’m not blaming DMV.

 

Assemblyman Claborn:

I don’t know what I’m supposed to debate here, but I think this would be your choice, wouldn’t it?

Chairwoman Chowning:

That seems to be what A.B. 324 says, that this is a choice.  If someone wants to pay that money up front for two years, then it’s his choice to receive the notice from DMV and comply.

 

Clay Thomas:

Point of clarification to Assemblyman Collins.  What is required is, after that first year, DMV will notice you that you need to have an emission test done.  When you go to the emission station and have that done, the stations are on‑line and activated in real time.  You do not need to send the emission certification to DMV and you do not need to go to the DMV.  It will automatically, in real time, go to the DMV, and they will automatically send out the data mailer to you.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.  ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS VOTED NO.  (Assemblyman Gustavson was not present for the vote.)

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Committee, Assembly Bill 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’m here with regards to Assembly Bill 267.  In the analysis that was done and provided, we learned that there was a relatively substantial impact of implementing Section 1, and we felt that there should be some further regulation of that.  At this time, I don’t have any specific words to make the changes that I feel should be arranged.  However, the bill had two major sections and two major areas of emphasis, and I believe there is uniform support for Section 2, which would transfer all responsibilities for the regulation of rental cars from the Department of Motor Vehicles to the Department of Taxation.  I would say that Section 2 could stand alone on that.  I have not had an opportunity to speak with Ms. Vilardo as to other changes.  I think that we both agree, and I’ll let her explain for herself, that there needs to be some regulation put in place so that rental cars are not charging fees on top of fees. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Our only question is to remember that this is a work session.  Is there any further discussion or decision to be made on your bill?  We would like you to make your decision as quickly as possible.

 

Carole Vilardo, President, Nevada Taxpayers Association:

As Mr. Parks stated, the problem and the concern of the Committee, rightfully so, is the fiscal note.  What we were waiting to find out was where the percentages were that created that fiscal note.  Before I go into the specific detail, a point that should be made, and I have spoken to Dino Di Cianno of the Department of Taxation about this and he concurs, is that the fiscal note may be overstated.  The reason it may be overstated is because there were 18 companies polled and only 3 companies responded.  The numbers from those 3 companies on each increment would then apply to everything that was received.  That is the reason that you have Section 1 in A.B. 267, to try to clean that up because we have found that there are inconsistent applications of that 6½ percent.

 

To minimize the impact, even though there may be errors with it, I took a look; I don’t know if Assemblyman Parks did because of other things he’s been involved with.  What I would recommend for your consideration with Section 1 is to remove from the exclusion list the collision damage waiver charge because there is no tax that is applied to that.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

That is page 3, number 3, line 3 through line 6 of A.B. 267.  Delete line 3 through line 6.  That would also remove line 28 through line 31, collision damage waiver.  Let’s go back for everyone’s review and read what leads up to that point:  “For the purposes of charging and collecting the governmental services fee, the following items must not be included in the total amount for which the passenger car was leased.”  If you could review for the Committee, what this is really saying so that the Committee can understand.

 

Carole Vilardo:

What you’re looking at is being very specific and excluding certain charges.  The way statute was previously worded, before the attempt at cleaning this up, was that you were told, if you had a governmental item for which there was a tax imposed, you didn’t collect the fee.  Probably everybody has rented cars in the past so you’ve seen what has been on your bill.  Because of the lack of specificity, it almost became a “pick and choose” as to exactly what a franchise owner or the operator of a particular agency was applying this 6 percent car rental tax against.  When we met with the Legal Division, they suggested that the way to create uniformity was to create a specific list of exclusions that I’ll now attempt to identify for you.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Let’s go back to page 2, line 20 through line 22 of A.B. 267.  There are certain recovery charges that are allowed to be charged.

Carole Vilardo:

That is correct.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

That’s what we’re talking about.  Those may not be charged on these items, and now you’re going to delete some of those items?

 

Carole Vilardo:

Exactly.  The evaluator on it has been trying to target the two items for which there is not a tax already rolled into the price so that you’re not taxing a tax.  To that end, it’s subsection (a), the amount of recovery surcharged, charged, and collected.  Subsection (b) is what we are proposing to delete, and that’s the collision damage waiver that you are asked if you would like to have when you go to the car rental agency and rent your car.  If you do, you get a fee per day.  That is normally a self-insured item.  No tax-like insurance applied.  The other one we’re recommending be deleted is the airport facilities charge on line 3-19 through line 3-21. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

That would be to delete page 3, line 19 and line 20, which says “Is required to pay to do business at an airport, if applicable, “ and lines 44 and 45.  That’s called the “facilities charge” and that’s if a rental car company is required to pay a fee to do business at an airport.  That should not be charged tax to the customer.

 

Carole Vilardo:

We would be excluding that.  So you would now apply the 6 percent to that.  I think this has helped tremendously to minimize the fiscal impact to the point where you’re now dealing with what the intent of the bill was, which was to specifically exclude items so that there was consistency with an emphasis on those items such as insurance.  You don’t want to tax that again with car rental because there is already an insurance premium tax in that.  You have the issue of fuel taxes for which you have fuel tax built in.  You get a gas price and you don’t want to tax again on that.  Hopefully, that will minimize the concerns the Committee expressed.  I hope that’s been a sufficient explanation.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Yes.  This should hopefully result in lower charges to the customers for renting vehicles.

 

Carole Vilardo:

At the very least, we should now have some consistency in what is charged.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

You’re excluding these, so why are you imposing a tax on your collision damage waiver or the airport fees?

 

Carole Vilardo:

The way the original language was worded, which left an awful lot to interpretation, it said that if you had a taxable item paid, you would not charge on that taxed item.  What was happening was that you didn’t charge tax on the tax.  You had identified fuel, but for most of the operators could not remove the fuel charge because they would sell it at $2.00 or $1.50, where $0.52 becomes the tax; so you were taxing a taxed item.  At the suggestion of LCB (Legislative Counsel Bureau), what we did was, instead of saying very generically what you should be doing, to say here’s what you do not do.  You do not apply that tax and then we enumerated the items.  The problem, when it first appeared, was because of the items that were enumerated. 

 

Those items parallel what is in sales tax code on leased vehicles for what you do not have sales tax applied to, and we were trying to do consistency for purpose of audit.  However, in trying to do the consistency, we wound up with the fiscal note, which creates a problem for the Legislature at a time you’re looking for more money.  The reason we’re adding back two of the items is to minimize that fiscal note and still allow this to go through so there is some specificity.  Maybe, in the future, we can come back to you and say, as a policy decision you might want to review this and put it back in.  At least this gets us started to where we should be.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 267.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

This bill will have to be rereferred to Ways and Means.  Mr. Parks, do you agree with that?  [Mr. Parks indicated he was in agreement.]

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

The next bill is Assembly Bill 346.

 

Assembly Bill 346:  Revises provisions governing operation or maintenance of vehicles on highways in this state using dyed special fuel. (BDR 32-180)

 

Marji Paslov Thomas:

A.B. 346 provides that the owner of heavy-duty equipment may apply to the DMV for a permit to operate and maintain that equipment on highways in the state using dyed special fuel.  The bill also provides a procedure for issuance of a permit by DMV, to the extent allowed by federal law, that a person may operate farm equipment with dyed fuel in the tank on highways, including freeways.  At present, farm equipment may not operated on freeways.  Special mobile equipment may also operate on the freeways with dyed fuel in the tank, providing it does not exceed the distance allowed by the department.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter is proposing some amendments to the bill (page 8, Exhibit F).  The first one is to amend the bill as a whole by deleting heavy-duty equipment.  Behind Tab B (page 20 of Exhibit F) is a mock-up of the bill with the proposed amendments if you’d like to look at it.

 

The second proposed amendment is to amend the bill as a whole by deleting provisions allowing owners of heavy-duty equipment to apply to the DMV for a permit to operate or maintain that equipment on a highway in this state using dyed special fuel. 

 

Proposed amendment number three is to retain the existing language concerning special mobile equipment and farm equipment.  With the first two proposed amendments, you do need to keep that in there.

 

The fourth proposed amendment is to retain existing language concerning the definition of highways so that a person would not be able to operate farm or special mobile equipment on freeways.

 

The fifth proposed amendment is to amend A.B. 346 by adding a new section allowing a person operating a motor vehicle with dyed special fuel to cross a highway when traveling from one parcel of land owned or operated by the owner to another parcel of land owned or operated by the owner.  However, the motor vehicle under this amendment would not be allowed to travel on the highway.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

I heard Mr. Oceguera say it almost sounds like the same bill that we had last time.  What is the difference?  Why do we have to put farm equipment in again when we addressed farm equipment in the last legislative session?

 

Marji Paslov Thomas:

I believe that under the way that the bill was written, that would have been deleted based on the provisions, but since all of the heavy-duty equipment is being deleted or is being proposed to be deleted, it needs to be put back into the current law.  If you need further clarification, a representative from DMV is here.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Would the representative from DMV please come forward?  It says to the extent permitted by federal law, a person may operate or maintain on the highway in this state any equipment that contains in the fuel tank of the farm equipment special fuel that has been dyed.  Mr. Benzler, would you like to clarify?

 

Russ Benzler, Administrator, Compliance Enforcement Division, Nevada Department of Transportation:

[Introduced himself.]  Going back to what Ms. Paslov Thomas was talking about, I believe that she was absolutely correct.  Because of the amendments, the word “farm” is being reinserted into the language of the law. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

To either you or Mr. Carpenter, do you want to explain to us now what A.B. 346 does?

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

We were trying to get a situation where the people that had drilling rigs could actually move them on the highway when they used dyed fuel and to pay the taxes.  We had a conference yesterday, and it seems that, without a change in the federal law, we would not be able to do that.  If you remember the miner that was here from Amargosa Valley who just crosses the road.  He doesn’t go on any of the road, he just crosses it.  What is left of the bill is the provision that would allow the crossing of the road by the miner.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

That’s addressed on page 3 of the amendment (page 23, Exhibit F) that says the motor vehicle is used only to cross a highway to travel from one parcel of land owned or operated by the owner to another parcel of land owned or operated by the owner.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

Just one clarification.  The amendment on page 3 (page 23, Exhibit F), says the motor vehicle is only used to cross the highway.  That doesn’t pertain to farm equipment again?  I wanted to make sure that was clear.

 

Russ Benzler:

Mr. Goicoechea is correct.  It does not apply to farm equipment.  They are already covered.  When we met yesterday we were attempting to meet the mining companies’ concerns as they were being cited or being told that they could not cross a 20-foot section of highway, and that seemed like it was unreasonable.  We tried to find some way to get them included.  We found Utah’s law that had a provision that this mirrors, with the exception that we didn’t pick up the portion of the Utah law that said where it’s necessary to facilitate movement of agricultural vehicles.  There are two parts to that.

 

We may still have a conflict.  I would like to have time to see if we can’t find a way to get that addressed and get some clarification.  I think that A.B. 346, as written right now, and if it is in conflict with federal law, the provisions would be void, but we would still be able to address it or at least see if that issue can be addressed.  I think that, as the bill is currently written, we’re not going to be in conflict.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 346.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.  (Assemblyman Sherer was not present for the vote.)

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

We’re going to take a recess so members can take a break if they need to.  [Recessed at 3:23 p.m.]  We are back in order.  [Reconvened at 3:35 p.m.]  Assembly Bill 367. 

 

Assembly Bill 367:  Makes various changes relating to repair of motor vehicles. (BDR 43-216)

Marji Paslov Thomas:

As written, Assembly Bill 367 (page 10, Exhibit F) would allow an insured or claimant on a policy of motor vehicle insurance to select a licensed body shop for repairs to a motor vehicle.  The insurer must notify the insured or claimant of this right at the time the insurer is first contacted concerning a claim for damage to a motor vehicle, and the insurer may not interfere with the selection of a licensed body shop.  If an insurer representative of an insurer violates these provisions, they would be subject to an administrative fine of not more than $5,000 against the insurer, and not more than $500 against a representative. 

 

A.B. 367 also expands the definition of a rebuilt vehicle to include roof assembly and a front clip assembly.  The front clip assembly would be defined as the “complete front inner structure for a unibody.”  The amendments were proposed by Michael Speers, General Manager of Green Valley Collision Center.  During the hearing on April 3, 2003, there was a compromise between Mr. Speers and the insurance industry.  The first amendment would be to keep the current language, which is located on page 2, subsection 7(c) of Section 2, line 38 and line 39 (page 26 of Exhibit F).

 

This would keep the language regarding the preferred use of a business that repairs motor vehicles by an insurer of motor vehicles.  It would allow an insurer to still use a preferred body shop.

 

On page 3, subsection 2(b), of Section 3, lines 10 and 11 (page 27, Exhibit F), I don’t know if you can follow along really in the mock-up because it has different numbers, this is actually for the bill.  This would be to keep the current language which would allow that there were regulations that we adopted regarding requiring an insured or a claimant to use any licensed body shop in preference to another one by an insured.

 

The third proposed amendment would be to delete line 12 through line 26 on page 3 (page 27 of Exhibit F).  As written, the proposed language would have required that the insurer may not interfere with the selection of a licensed body shop and that if an insurer representative of an insurer violates these provisions, an insured, claimant, or licensed body shop may file a complaint, and again, the administrative fines.

 

Number four is to add a new section to define “front clip assembly.”

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Mr. Werbeckes, could you come forward?  Committee, this adds some more consumer protection on page 1 of A.B. 367, which further defines that other items to be considered for a vehicle in order for it to be rebuilt would be the roof assembly and the front clip assembly which is defined as the “complete front inner structure for a unibody.”  Page 2 further defines that an insured or a claimant, under a policy, may have repairs made at the licensed body shop of his choice and that the insurer shall notify the person with the policy or the claimant of this right when they are first contacted concerning a claim.  Mr. Werbeckes, would you comment on the amendment please?

 

Jim Werbeckes, representing Farmers Insurance:

[Introduced himself.]  I did speak with Mr. Speers about a half-hour ago regarding the amendments here.  I believe it was our understanding on page 1, line 13 (page 25, Exhibit F), to delete “front clip assembly” and put in its place “a complete front inner structure” for a unibody.  I thought that was the amendment originally.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

That would make it clearer.  I think that’s the way it was supposed to be also.  Instead of “front clip assembly,” it would state “or front inner structure.”

 

Jim Werbeckes:

“Inner structure.”  I think it was “a complete inner structure assembly.”

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Yes.  “Or complete front inner structure for a unibody.”  That’s much better, because then you don’t have to define it.

 

Jim Werbeckes:

In my understanding, Mr. Speers has received many phone calls regarding that portion of A.B. 367.  Mr. Speers has contacted most of those individuals, and most were okay with that language.  I believe there was a salvage person, Mr. Calhoun, who did not go along with that recommendation, but the rest of the body shops believed that it was sufficient.  On page 3 of the proposed amendments, I thought we were leaving in lines 24 through 26, but in the amendment those are struck.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

You are absolutely right because it states that the provisions of this section do not require an insurer to pay more than the reasonable rate required pursuant to a policy of insurance, and that’s exactly what we wanted to do.  That was more clarification and more consumer protection.  What needs to be clarified is “reasonable rate” or “survey rate.”

 

Jim Werbeckes:

I believe that the Division of Insurance puts out a yearly survey that surveys all the body shops.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Do you know if the Division’s term is “reasonable rate” or “yearly survey rate?”

 

Jim Werbeckes:

Unfortunately I don’t know.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Mr. Speers thought that the insurance industry wanted the term “survey rate.”  Is that a problem?

 

Jim Werbeckes:

I don’t have a problem with that.

Chairwoman Chowning:

So the provisions of this section do not require an insurer to pay more than the reasonable rate required pursuant to a policy of insurance for repairs to a motor vehicle.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 367, AND RESTORING BACK IN ON PAGE 3, LINES 17 THROUGH 19, WHICH START OUT WITH “THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION DO NOT REQUIRE AN INSURER TO PAY MORE THAN THE REASONABLE RATE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO A POLICY OF INSURANCE FOR REPAIRS TO A MOTOR VEHICLE.”

 

Assemblyman Claborn:

I’ll second, but I’ve got a question.  I might be thinking of another bill because I can remember one of these automobiles that went in for repair, and my understanding was that if the repair was under $2,000, one of these might show up on a regular car lot.  I know that that doesn’t have anything to do with this, but I don’t see anybody here to answer that question anyway.  Are we talking about insurance only here?  Okay.  That just stuck in my mind.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

It’s been moved by Assemblywoman Ohrenschall and seconded by Assemblyman Claborn to amend and do pass Assembly Bill 367.  To reiterate, on page 1, line 13, that will now say “complete front inner structure for a unibody;” page 2, lines 38 and 39 go back in so that the preferred use of a business will still be able to be in place by the insurance companies; page 3, lines 10 and 11 go back in; and lines 12 through 23 are deleted. 

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.  (Assemblyman Sherer was not present for the vote.)

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Next bill is Assembly Bill 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)

 

Marji Paslov Thomas:

Assembly Bill 394 is for nonconsensual tows when the owner is not present.  As written, A.B. 394 would provide that a vehicle that is removed from a highway must be taken to a garage or other place of safekeeping that is not more than five miles from the location of that vehicle.  If no such garage or other place of safekeeping exists, then the vehicle must be taken to a garage or other place of safekeeping that is nearest to the location of the vehicle. 

 

There is a proposed amendment (page 11, Exhibit F) from the Ewing Brothers Towing Company.  They propose to amend the bill to allow that unless a different course of action is necessary to preserve evidence of a criminal offense, a vehicle or part of a vehicle that is removed from a highway pursuant to subsection 3 of A.B. 394 must be removed by the nearest tow operator on police duty rotation for the month. The vehicle must be moved to a place of safekeeping using the shortest and most direct practical route.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

This amendment was agreed upon by Assemblyman Goldwater, the sponsor of the bill.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN ATKINSON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 394.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

I don’t see how this is going to be able to operate on a practical basis in the rural areas.  They may be picking up a vehicle between Carlin and Battle Mountain and there are no tow trucks in Carlin.  I don’t see how this is going to work in rural Nevada at all.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Mr. Carpenter, in the amendment, wouldn’t the most direct, practical route still apply?  If it’s a long way, then that’s all that is possible.

 

Assemblyman Claborn:

They would take it to the nearest safest place, whether it be 10 miles, or 30 miles, or whatever.  Somebody gave an illustration that if something happened in Indian Springs, they would take it to the nearest place wherever it would be.

Chairwoman Chowning:

 

What is clarified in the amendment is that it will be taken to the nearest tow operator.  In other words, that place of business that is part of their police duty rotation for the month.

Assemblyman Collins:

The first question is that the vehicle must be moved to a place of safekeeping using the shortest, most direct route.  That’s obvious right down the best road to get where they’re going.  The question I have is the nearest tow operator.  Are you saying that Ewing is going to tow into S & S’s yard or vice versa?  All you’re saying is they’re going to the nearest place.  What happens to the guy on Mt. Charleston who still gets towed to Amargosa or Indian Springs?  He still gets towed.  This doesn’t do anything that’s not being done today.  What does it do differently than what’s already under the rotation?

 

Assemblyman Claborn:

If I remember, the Highway Patrol gave testimony in regards to that and said if they were under arrest or if there was a wreck or something without a violation, then they would honor wherever you wanted to take that vehicle, but if you were caught drunk and driving, then they would take it to wherever the nearest spot would be.

 

Assemblyman Gustavson:

I’d like to see A.B. 394 passed because I think it’s needed, but my concern is for the rurals.  Will the owner of the vehicle still have a say as to where it is towed?  This says they would take it to the nearest safe place, but if they’re closer to Battle Mountain than they are to Elko and the person lives in Elko, why would they take them to Battle Mountain?  I’m concerned that it might get taken in the opposite direction of where the person would like to have it towed just because it’s the closest place.

 

Assemblyman Collins:

That’s not part of the bill.  It says when the person is not available to designate.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

This is only applying to abandoned vehicles.

 

Assemblyman Gustavson:

Okay.

 

Assemblyman Collins:

It doesn’t change anything that’s not already existing.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

I believe that, in the rural areas, unless the owner is there to tell them where to take it, they take it to their lot.  As I understand it, in order to be on the rotation, you have to have a lot, and so they take it to that lot.  If there’s something in the amendment that has wording to that effect, then I could support it, but I think the way the conceptual amendment is, I think it needs more work.

 

Assemblywoman Chowning:

Could you restate that, Mr. Carpenter?  You would feel more comfortable if it were sent to the tow operator’s lot?

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

The way it operates in the rural areas is that if the owner is not there, and this is an abandoned vehicle, he probably wouldn’t be there.  Then in order for those tow operators to be on the rotation, they have to have a lot that they take these vehicles to.  I think if there was something in there that they took it to their own lot or had to take it to their lot for safekeeping, that would work in the rurals, but I don’t know whether it would work in the urban areas.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

The only thing I see that the bill does is it allows for a vehicle that has been impounded by law enforcement to be moved to the nearest or closest impound yard.  That’s all the bill does.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Mr. Carpenter, are your concerns met?

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

You mean with the amendment?

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Yes.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

No, I don’t think so.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

It was moved by Assemblyman Atkinson, seconded by Assemblywoman Ohrenschall, to amend and do pass A.B. 394.  Those in favor, please say aye.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.  ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS, ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER, AND ASSEMBLYMAN OCEGUERA VOTED NO.  (Assemblyman Sherer was not present for the vote.) 

 

Assembly Bill 414:  Authorizes use of single center lane to make left-hand turn onto highway. (BDR 43-944)

Assembly Bill 414 provides that a vehicle must not travel more than 200 feet in a center turn lane after making a left-hand turn onto the highway before merging with traffic.  The first proposed amendment (page 12, Exhibit F) is to amend the bill by adding a new section providing that when two or more vehicles enter the center turn lane, the first vehicle to enter the lane shall have the right-of-way.  The second proposed amendment is to amend the bill by providing that these provisions apply only to counties under 400,000.  Therefore this would not apply to Clark County.  Tab D (page 29, Exhibit F) contains a copy of the mock-up, but without the second proposed amendment, as well as a letter of explanation regarding the second proposed amendment, provided by Assemblyman Knecht.  Tab E (page 31, Exhibit F) contains a letter of opposition from Laurel Stadler.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

What’s just been given to you is a newspaper article (Exhibit G).  We don’t need that.  It’s not part of the amendment to the bill. 

 

Assemblyman Knecht:

Just a brief word of explanation on the editorial from the newspaper (Exhibit G).  It supports the point that the provisions of A.B. 414 are needed in rural Nevada and urban western Nevada, as stated in the letter.

 

Assemblyman Collins:

When A.B. 414 was heard, I asked for information on how many citations had been given.  Did anybody get any of those details or how many accidents were in that middle lane?

 

Assemblyman Knecht:

I checked with Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP) and they said they were unable to know that figure.  They cannot find that data by any manual search.  I think they gave me a pitch for a database allocation in the budget.

 

Marji Paslov Thomas:

I checked with the Nevada Office of Traffic Safety and with the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT).  They do not keep that information on crash accidents that occur only in the center turn lane.  They didn’t have any information citations either.

 

Assemblyman Claborn:

If I remember correctly, testimony was given by the Department of Motor Vehicles that their handbooks might be incorrect.  If we allow this to be only Clark County, then for the rest of the state, what are they going to do?  Are they going to make two handbooks, one for Clark County and one for the state of Nevada?

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Is there someone from DMV who can respond to that?  Mr. Claborn, please repeat the question.

 

Assemblyman Claborn:

Ms. Mathiesen, I think it was you who testified that it wouldn’t be a problem to change the handbook on this particular issue we’re talking about.  What are you going to do now?  Are you going to have one for Clark County and then another pamphlet for the rest of the state?

 

Dana Mathiesen:

If the law passes we would write down the law as it passed and we’d place that in the handbook saying that this law applies in every county except those under 400,000 population.

 

Assemblyman Claborn:

Do we have quite a bit of that?  The simple fact is we’re all in the state of Nevada.  We ought to have all the highway safety laws under one regulation, not one in Clark County, and one in Tonopah, or whatever.  This is confusing and I think it’s going to clutter up the issue.  It’s either for all the state or for none of the state.

 

Dana Mathiesen:

I believe there are certain laws on the books that apply to certain counties right now such as passengers in the back of pickup trucks or students who are required to take driver’s education requirements. 

 

Assemblyman Oceguera:

With all due respect to my colleague from Carson City, and I already spoke to him about my feelings on the bill, I feel that it creates a dangerous situation and I think we’ll have more accidents.  I don’t think we should justify what people are doing with changing the law to make it right now because they’re doing the wrong thing.  The amendment clutters it up even more.  I’m driving from Las Vegas to Carson City and I can do it in Tonopah, and I can’t do it in Las Vegas.  I wouldn’t be in support of A.B. 414.

 

Assemblyman Manendo:

When they do the rewrites of the books, what would the fiscal note be to your department?

 

Dana Mathiesen:

There would be no fiscal note.  After every legislative session we revise the handbook to include all the new laws.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

The editorial (Exhibit G) does state that this is a problem in Carson City.  Maybe Carson City needs to design their roads a little bit better.

 

Assemblyman Knecht:

The testimony showed that the Washoe County School District would find this useful.  I believe law enforcement people also testified that they would find it useful, especially up here.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

For the record, we had NHP in opposition and other law enforcement in support.  Ms. Stadler, did you want to make a statement?

 

Laurel Stadler, Chapter Director, Mothers Against Drunk Driving:

My letter (page 32, Exhibit F) is fine.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

The Chair stated the same concerns as Mr. Oceguera to Mr. Knecht.  I have problems with this because it puts something into statute that is an unsafe practice.  Just because everyone is doing it, if it’s not proven to be safe or if it is, then law enforcement should come to us and say this is a law that is on the books that formerly was proven to be unsafe but now we believe it to be safe.  I would have more comfort then.

 

Assemblyman Knecht:

While I understand the concern about having differing practices in different parts of the state, that would be a problem if there was a seamless urban area that went over the county boundaries.  I think the relative isolation of Clark County from much of the rest of the state greatly mitigates that problem, albeit not completely.  As I indicated in testimony, I did get conflicting signals from NHP, and NHP has e-mailed me saying they would support the amendment to wait in the center lane.  They’re still not enthusiastic about this, but I have gotten conflicting signals at various times from them as to where they are on the safety issue.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

To that I would respond that if they’re going to change their position, then they need to make that clear to the Chairwoman and Committee members, and they have not done so.

Assemblyman Gustavson:

I’ve been considering supporting this piece of legislation but, unfortunately, I don’t agree with the amendment.  Any traffic laws should be statewide, not regionalized.  I have a real problem with that, so I cannot support A.B. 414 with the amendment to localize this to counties under 400,000 (page 12, Exhibit F), and I’m still considering supporting it without. 

 

ASSEMBLYMAN KNECHT MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS  A.B 414 WITH THE AMENDMENT TO BE ONLY THE RIGHT-OF-WAY PORTION AND NOT THE SECOND AMENDMENT, NAMELY THAT IT WOULD APPLY ONLY TO COUNTIES UNDER 400,000 POPULATION.

 

Assemblyman Knecht:

I’m doing that in response to the comments from the Committee.  My preference would have been, as I said in my letter (page 30, Exhibit F), to offer both amendments.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

So you’re taking out who has the right-of-way?

 

Assemblyman Knecht:

No, we put that in.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

You’re taking out the 400,000?

 

Assemblyman Knecht:

Yes, because of the comments from the Committee.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Please just state your motion.

 

Assemblyman Knecht:

The motion is to amend with the first amendment only and not the second, and do pass.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Restate what the first amendment is.

 

Assemblyman Knecht:

As indicated on the summary sheet (page 12, Exhibit F), the first amendment is to amend A.B. 414 by adding a new section providing that when two or more vehicles enter the center turn lane, the first vehicle to enter the lane shall have the right-of-way.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN GOICOECHEA SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall:

I’m having problems with A.B. 414.  I’m not sure I understand the need for this new rule as far as the state as a whole is concerned.  I would like to hear from the DMV or the Department of Public Safety telling us that they believe there is no safety issue.  As Mr. Knecht told us himself, he’s gotten mixed signals.  I don’t think “mixed signals” is enough to justify this Committee going forward with this legislation, especially on this late date when the possibility that, on the Floor of the Assembly, we would be able to do anything with the bill; that chance would be very, very small, because we don’t have much time left.

 

Assemblyman Knecht:

The status quo is not safe either, and I think that’s the point we’re overlooking here.  The status quo is very unsafe for the reason that it causes people to make precipitous moves across two lanes of traffic and into another lane.  This is not a question of which one is safe, it’s a question of which one is safer.  I think NHP’s equivocation indicates that they don’t know, and that this is a judgment we have to make.

 

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall:

Lacking any information from the experts or studies, I think that’s like playing Russian roulette at this moment in time.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Madam Secretary, will you please do a voice count?  [The Committee Secretary took a roll call vote.]

 

THE MOTION FAILED.  ASSEMBLYMAN ATKINSON, ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER, ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS, ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO, ASSEMBLYMAN OCEGUERA, ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL, AND CHAIRWOMAN CHOWNING VOTED NO.  (Assemblyman Sherer was not present for the vote.)

 

Assembly Bill 521: Expands title and duties of Section for Control of Emissions from Vehicles of Department of Motor Vehicles to include enforcement of certain matters relating to use of special fuel. (BDR 43-1273)

Marji Paslov Thomas:

This measure renames the section in the DMV responsible for enforcing laws relating to the control of emissions from motor vehicles and charges it with the responsibility for also enforcing laws relating to special fuel.  The employees in this section of the department are required to cooperate and coordinate with the Nevada Highway Patrol, which is presently responsible for enforcing these laws.  Based on testimony during the hearing, eight vacancies would be transferred from the Department of Public Safety to the Department of Motor Vehicles.  There are no proposed amendments.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

The fiscal note?

 

Marji Paslov Thomas:

The fiscal note for the positions is $788,000.

 

Assemblyman Collins:

If I remember the testimony, I believe those are positions already budgeted to Highway Patrol that are vacant.  There would truly be no fiscal note because we’re transferring vacancies from one department to another department, and that money would go with those vacant positions.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

I agree with Mr. Collins.

 

Marji Paslov Thomas:

I believe Mr. Collins is correct.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

There is, technically, a fiscal note just because there are those positions, but they’re already there and they’re vacant.  They would come over to the DMV.  I believe there are six positions, not eight.  The cost is to transfer six positions from NHP Budget Account 4713 to DMV Budget Account 4722, and to purchase, which is a new expense, five additional smoke meters at $4,800 per meter.  Other funding is to purchase six new vehicles.  There would be ongoing expenses for the operation of the vehicles and other expenses.  This would have to go to Ways and Means.

 

Good afternoon, Mr. Capurro.  I believe that testimony stated that these positions would be assigned specifically to this duty, and that would free up other patrol troopers to do traffic and whatever else it is that they are doing, but they would not have to conduct this duty any longer.

 

Daryl Capurro, Managing Director, Nevada Motor Transport Association, Inc.:

[Introduced himself.]  It would not reduce the current level of manning for the commercial safety end of Highway Patrol duties.  I find it interesting the information that’s provided to you by the Nevada Highway Patrol, but the simple fact of the matter is that, if you look at their attachments (Exhibit H), SafeStat doesn’t have anything to do with this issue.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

He’s referring to this packet that was submitted to the Committee this morning (Exhibit H) from the Nevada Department of Public Safety.

 

Daryl Capurro:

They have a breakdown of their Northern Command, which is the Reno/Carson City area.  The only really good information in the attachments here (Exhibit H) are the facts that basically prove our point.  They are authorized 19 positions in the Northern Command.  They only have 12 at the present time and they have no plans with dates for hiring more, but they have the positions that are vacant and already budgeted.  There are seven positions just in the Northern Command.

 

If you go to the Central Command, the information shows that they have 16 authorized positions and only 14 filled there, so they’re 2 down in the Elko area.  That’s 7 plus 2.

 

If you go to the Southern Command section, they are authorized 30 positions and have 14 on board. The total is 25 vacant positions that are budgeted for but not filled.  We are asking that 6 of those positions that are already in the budget be transferred to the Commercial Enforcement Division (CED) of the Department Motor Vehicles to work closely with the IRP International Registration Plan), IFTA (International Fuel Tax Agreement), and other provisions regarding commercial enforcement.  The activities that would be added to the division are strictly with respect to smog enforcement.  It would not detract in any part of the state from enforcement of safety activities.

 

Assemblyman Claborn:

I used to see the guys that weigh trucks and they were dressed in different brown uniforms.  Are these the persons we’re talking about, or are we talking about Highway Patrolmen that are dressed in blue who give you the big long tickets?

 

Daryl Capurro:

You are correct.  Those brown-uniformed people were the commercial enforcement people who were in the old Motor Carrier Division, which handled all elements of taxing and administration.  What we’re trying to do is put it back to that situation.  These people understand trucks.  They deal with IFTA and IRP and the like, and it’s specifically with regard to this area.  You’re very right.  That’s exactly who they were.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

I think it was raised in testimony that maybe by removing some of the smog or the tank testing from NHP, they might stop doing that as kind of an “in your face” attitude.  Do you think there’s any truth to that?

 

Daryl Capurro:

I’m going to let Ron Levine answer that, but I’ve never seen anybody testify and tell you that they would wash their hands of something even if it’s left in here for them to do.  I would find that offensive.  They would still have some responsibility, but to be honest with you, I think they actually would wash their hands of it, so long as you have these personnel over there, and that this is their primary job.  Our intent is to have them get into areas where there is dyed fuel, and that’s the secondaries and the primaries.  I think Mr. Collins had asked them whether these were rural or urban or secondary.  On secondary or primaries, the report they give you doesn’t differentiate it, but it’s primarily on the interstate because that’s where the manned check sites are.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

Your commercial cops are the same as the old Motor Carrier Division, correct?  Is that how NHP is addressing those?  We’ve got some that are commercial enforcement and I think everybody in the rurals assumes they are the old Motor Carrier Division.

 

Daryl Capurro:

I would like to have Ron Levine, my assistant, who operates our Las Vegas office, respond to that.  Ron was the last true commercial enforcement commander with Highway Patrol and actually had command of the Southern Command. 

 

Ronald Levine, Assistant Managing Director, Nevada Motor Transport Association, Inc.:

[Introduced himself.]  The chief for the Highway Patrol is the one who, if they move some of the positions over to CED at the Department of Motor Vehicles, a lot of the members would probably wash their hands of it.  My answer to that would be that it’s the chief’s job to keep his people motivated to do the job.  Just as if they may not get a pay raise this year, it’s still his motivation to keep them working and performing their duties.

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

The other question was the comparison between commercial cops and the old Motor Carrier Division.

 

Ronald Levine:

During the merger of 1985, when commercial was brown and under the Motor Carrier Division and they merged with the Highway Patrol, the only difference is that the uniforms and the cars changed to blue, but they still kept it a distinctive unit which is the commercial section of the Nevada Highway Patrol.  They performed commercial duties and sometimes backup traffic.

 

We’re talking about moving some of these empty commercial positions over to CED to perform these duties.  To clarify, of the six positions, we’re looking at moving five positions and one supervisor to manage the positions, so there are no extra management duties for CED to perform.  There will be a supervisor to do it.  The Highway Patrol will still have responsibility to perform these duties when they can.  We’re not taking it away from them.  They’ll work in conjunction with each other.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

Then they’ll have some commercial enforcement officers in the NHP as well, and the compliance and enforcement would have another set.  Is that right?

 

Ronald Levine:

Right now, CED has a section for opacity testing; they are Category 1 police officers.  They are different from Highway Patrol.  Highway Patrol has more duties.  Their mission will run together because right now, as in prior testimony, they stack-test the trucks.  While they’ve got the trucks stopped, it just makes sense that they’ll also dip it.  What we’re looking for is more enforcement on the road for dyed fuel enforcement.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

Will they run in teams or as solo officers? How are you going to address that or have you gone that far?

 

Daryl Capurro:

Our understanding is that this would be left up to Russ Benzler who is the head of the CED as to how they want to run it.  Right now they use teams with respect to their inspection procedure.  They have both uniformed and civilian activities, so I would imagine they would use a team approach for this, too.

 

The Highway Patrol has testified in several areas, including Ways and Means, that they are meeting their numbers with respect to what’s been set forth for them to do.  If that’s the case, then I fail to understand why they would have a problem, since they have 25 already paid-for vacancies and they have no plans to hold an academy to train more.  I can’t understand why they would object to taking 6 of those vacancies and making productive positions with CED out of them. 

 

Assemblyman Gustavson:

I’m looking at this from both sides.  I’m not saying that I don’t agree with your idea, and I’m not saying that it’s wrong.  It might be a good idea to do this.  I’m also looking at our budget crisis right now.  If you have that $800,000 not being spent for those budgeted positions, why should we move it over to another department and fill those positions at a cost to the state of $800,000 when we are in a budget crisis? 

 

Daryl Capurro:

The problem is that it still shows on the state budget.  It is a “phantom expense,” if you will.  There are several other budgets that have that same “phantom expense.”  Even if it was $800,000, and most of it is for transfers, though there is some new equipment involved, you’ll recall that we have testified that the tracking system showed 40 million gallons of diesel fuel that was unaccounted for.  At worse case, that’s $10 million worth of fuel taxes.  If we can recover any part of that $10 million, the expense will well have paid for itself. 

 

Assemblyman Gustavson:

I think you’ve sold me on the idea.  I’m looking at the budget crisis and everything, too. 

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

Maybe we better have Russ Benzler up here if he is the one who is going to be in charge of these people.  [Chairwoman Chowning asked Mr. Benzler to come to the witness table.]  Mr. Benzler, do you have any of these people in Elko now in the northern area, in the rurals?

 

Russ Benzler:

No, we don’t.  Currently the teams that we have are in Las Vegas.  There’s a budget proposal to bring one up to Washoe County.  There is nobody out in the rurals.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

The problem I have with A.B. 521 is that the people that we have in the rurals now have to do everything.  They have to clean up the wrecks, work speeding, just work everything.  I think that if the Highway Patrol could get those people, they would have them.  The problem is the pay and other situations.

 

If we have some people who want to join the Highway Patrol and we have the money there for them, I think we should be trying to recruit those people who can perform all duties, rather than get people who can only work emission and dyed fuel.  If they move them out to Elko or somewhere else, I don’t know who’s going to ride herd on them out there.  Maybe Russ Benzler has an answer to that, but I think the way it works now is better than the way it used to work.  I don’t think that dyed fuel is the problem.  I think there’s very little dyed fuel being used on the highways today.

 

Russ Benzler:

I’m not sure which portion of that I’m responding to.  The riding herd over them, at this point, we really haven’t gotten that far.  I’ll reiterate that the department has taken no position on this.  If this were to happen, we would somehow assimilate this into our current chain of command.  We’ve got managers and supervisors.  I think there’s a supervisory position that would come over with this, and we would assimilate that into our current chain of command.  With respect to dyed fuel, as we talked yesterday, dyed fuel is a component of the overall evasion.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

Overall it’s a component, but I don’t think there’s any proof that it’s a major component like Mr. Capurro was saying.

 

Daryl Capurro:

I’ve testified in front of this Committee for 34 years.  I’ve been honest with this Committee to a fault, and I am telling you there is a problem.  I have told you before there was a problem with respect to dyed fuel.  You can’t make it disappear by saying that it isn’t there.  We do not take away any of the enforcement effort from any of the people.  As a matter of fact, Elko is the best-manned area of the state, so you will lose nothing.  In the long run, you will probably gain at least one person and maybe two out there as a result of this.  But if you think that dyed fuel is not a problem that is seriously not right.

 

Assemblyman Collins:

For the Committee, and specifically for my colleague from Elko, the paperwork that the Department of Public Safety gave us describing the levels of inspection in this book they mailed us about two months ago says that in 2000 and 2001, they made 4,842 Level 5 inspections, and in 2002 and 2003, they made 1,035 inspections.  That’s almost a quarter.

 

I had copies made and left these figures with the Committee, and these boxes that show enforcement comparison numbers, percent change numbers of vehicles weighed, and there are charts further back.  You can see they did more in 1995 than now, and the population in this state has increased 40 percent in the last nine years.  This book tells how they’re doing domestic violence and other issues, and I don’t see the Highway Patrol being that big in that area when they’re supposed to be doing traffic, highway, and vehicle safety.  In my opinion, and having heard Mr. Capurro for my fifth session, though he’s been here for 17, this is probably the best bill he’s ever presented.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 521.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.  ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER VOTED NO.  (Assemblyman Sherer was not present for the vote.)

 

Assembly Bill 522:  Revises provisions governing short-term leases of passenger cars. (BDR 43-1045)

 

Marji Paslov Thomas:

Assembly Bill 522 revises provisions governing short-term leases of passenger cars.  As testified to April 8, this measure does four things.  It provides that the lessor and the lessee may agree to a waiver of responsibility for damage to a rental car regardless of the cause of damage.  At present, these waivers release the lessee from responsibility for damage caused by a collision.  The lease agreement may provide that the waiver does apply if the passenger car is operated outside of the state of Nevada unless specified.  Further, the agreement may provide that the waiver of damages does not apply when the vehicle is stolen and the authorized driver was negligent in securing  it.  Finally, the bill provides a maximum charge of $15 for a damage waiver which is to be based upon a rental day rather than a 24-hour period.

 

There are three proposed conceptual amendments (page 14, Exhibit F).  Tab F (page 34, Exhibit F) contains a copy of the proposed language as submitted by Enterprise Rent-A-Car.  The first one (page 14, Exhibit F) is to amend A.B. 522 on page 1 by deleting lines 6 through 8 and adding that the lessee is responsible for physical damage to the passenger car regardless of the cause of the damage and mechanical damage resulting from impact, collision, or driver negligence up to and including its fair market value.  The portion being deleted had to do with the lessee being responsible for the physical damage regardless of the cause of the damage.

 

[Marji Paslov Thomas continues.]  Amendment 2 (page 14, Exhibit F) is to amend A.B. 522 to provide that a lessee who has purchased a waiver of damages may operate a motor vehicle outside of Nevada in a state adjoining Nevada without expressly notifying the lessor.  The proposed language specifically states Arizona, California, Oregon, or Utah.

 

The third amendment (page 14, Exhibit F) is to amend A.B. 522 on page 2 by deleting lines 40 through 44 and, on page 3, to amend the bill by deleting lines 1 through 11.  This portion stated that if a vehicle was stolen, the authorized driver would be negligent, that the waiver damages would not apply if the vehicle was stolen, and that the authorized driver was negligent in securing it. All of that language would now be taken out.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

I believe that this amendment addressed all of the concerns.  If you look at page 1, lines 6 through 8 are removed and the other language is put in, which makes it much clearer that the person renting the vehicle is responsible for the physical damage to the car, but it is as a result of an impact collision or driver negligence.  That makes it much clearer.

 

Bill Gregory, representing Enterprise Rent-A-Car:

[Introduced himself.]  Mr. Werbeckes, from Farmers Insurance, is here with me; he has an amendment that I would like you to accept that would replace the first part of my amendment (Exhibit I).  It was brought to my attention that I neglected to include Idaho as one of the states that would border Nevada.  If that’s the case, I would like to also add that to the amendment.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Mr. Werbeckes, please tell us what your amendment is. 

 

Jim Werbeckes:

I do concur with all the amendments proposed by Enterprise Rent-A-Car.  However, our concern lies in Section A, “physical damage regardless of the cause of the damage.”  If I’m driving this rental car down the street and somebody runs a stop sign, according to this, I would be responsible for the damages to the car even though a third party has done the damage.  Now my
suggested language is “physical damage for which the lessee is legally liable.”  Even if the rental individual has a car out and he’s throwing rocks at the car and damages the car, he’s legally liable.  I think that takes in concerns of Enterprise Rent-A-Car.  I wanted to make it clear that an individual who has his own vehicle damaged through no fault of his own cannot be held liable for those damages.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

To make this clear, does this mean that the second part of that, part (b) would be deleted as well?

 

Jim Werbeckes:

No.  I believe part (b) is sufficient.  It takes into account Enterprise Rent-A-Car’s concern that if somebody takes the car out for a joyride through a cow pasture and damages the undercarriage of the vehicle, they would still be entitled to get reimbursement from that individual, and I think that takes that into account.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

We were trying to make this clearer so that the person renting the vehicle would be responsible for the damage for which they have been responsible, for which they’re legally liable.  Good work.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 522.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN ATKINSON SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Thank you, Committee.  We are in recess at the call of the Chair [at 4:49 p.m.].

 

                                                                                    RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

                                                                                    ________________________________

Pat Hughey

Transcribing Secretary

APPROVED BY:

 

 

                                                                                         

Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman

 

DATE: