MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Transportation
Seventy-Second Session
May 1, 2003
The Committee on Transportationwas called to order at 1:30 p.m., on Thursday, May 1, 2003. Chairman Vonne Chowning presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada, and via simultaneous videoconference, in Room 4401 of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
Note: These minutes are compiled in the modified verbatim style. Bracketed material indicates language used to clarify and further describe testimony. Actions of the Committee are presented in the traditional legislative style.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mrs. Vonne Chowning, Chairman
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall, Vice Chairman
Mr. Kelvin Atkinson
Mr. John C. Carpenter
Mr. Jerry D. Claborn
Mr. Tom Collins
Mr. Pete Goicoechea
Mr. Don Gustavson
Mr. Mark Manendo
Mr. John Oceguera
Mr. Rod Sherer
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Ron Knecht (excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Dina Titus, Clark County Senatorial District 7
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Clark County Senate District 6
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Marji Paslov Thomas, Committee Policy Analyst
Nancy Elder, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Fred Hillerby, Representative, Segway Incorporated, Reno, Nevada
Matt Dilleta, Director of Government Affairs, Segway Company, Manchester, New Hampshire
Danny Thompson, Nevada State AFL-CIO, Las Vegas, Nevada
Bob Roshak, Sergeant, Metro Police, Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association, Las Vegas
R. L. “Skip” Polak, President, Nevada Airport Managers Association, Reno
Martha Barnes, Administrator, Central Services and Records Division, Department of Motor Vehicles
Paul Woodbury, Regional Director, Ducks Unlimited Incorporated, Las Vegas
Kyle Swanson, State Chairman, Nevada Ducks Unlimited, Las Vegas
Tom Lammel, Nevada Wildlife Record Book Committee, Fallon
Michael Stewart, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, presenting Senate Bill 405
Bill Gregory, Representative, Enterprise Rent-a-Car, Las Vegas
Bill Sciabica, Manager, Group Vehicle Acquisitions, Enterprise Rent-a-Car, Las Vegas
Jim Parsons, Administrator, Management Services, Department of Motor Vehicles
Chairwoman Chowning:
The Assembly Committee on Transportation will come to order. [Roll call was taken, and a quorum was present.] The first bill we are going to hear today is S.B. 363. This is a very interesting bill and a very interesting device. Senator Titus, welcome to our Committee, and please present the bill.
Senate Bill 363: Exempts electric personal assistive mobility devices from regulation as motor vehicles. (BDR 43-837)
Senator Dina Titus, Clark County Senatorial District 7:
[Introduced herself.] Thank you, Madam Chair. It is a pleasure to be here. This is the device that you have just mentioned, and I understand that most of you have ridden it, and if you have not, I would like you to take an opportunity to do so. I rode it this morning out in the front of the building. I am the proud sponsor of S.B. 363.
There is a quote by a man named Arthur C. Clark, who is a noted visionary and one of the most celebrated science fiction writers. He once remarked, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” This invention is known as the “Segway Human Transporter.”
It is cutting-edge technology in the way of transportation. It has no engine, no brakes, no throttle, and no steering wheel. It can carry the average rider for a full day, nonstop, on only about a nickel’s worth of electricity. It behaves like an extension of your own body. It is a self-balancing personal transportation device that is designed to operate in a pedestrian environment. If you lean forward, you move forward. If you lean back, it slows to a stop. No matter how hard you try, you won’t be able to flip it over. This technology is available now throughout the country.
We are bringing this to you to consider a regulation in Nevada that would be in line with 34 other states and the District of Columbia. S.B. 363 defines the Segway as an electric personal assistive mobility device. It fits under the definition of “pedestrian.” We are being very specific with the definition as it relates just to this technology and does not include any other products like motorized scooters.
Another good thing about the bill, which we came across accidentally, was to note that people in Segways have not been considered to be pedestrians. We are amending legislation that will apply to individuals of manual and motorized Segways. This bill would permit the Segway to be operated on Nevada sidewalks, bike paths, and low speed highways. We are not taking away local government’s right to regulate them. We are simply declaring that they are pedestrian devices as opposed to vehicles.
This is not just for fun; it is a serious vehicle. The United States Post Office and the National Parks Service are testing these vehicles. Atlanta plans on using them for park enforcement, and that makes a lot of sense, because they are cheap, and they’re also nonpolluting. In Los Angeles, the Transit Authority also is testing the Segway for its patrol officers, and Seattle has just purchased some for their meter readers. This would allow Nevada to join the ranks of the growing number of states that are giving the Segway access to sidewalks. We think it would be in keeping with what is happening in the state.
Fred Hillerby, Representative, Segway Incorporated:
[Introduced himself.] Section 1 contains the definition of the personal mobility device. Sections 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 make it clear that this is not considered or classified as a motor vehicle. For purposes of licensure of the device itself, you do not have to have a driver’s license to ride it, and you don’t have to have liability insurance to drive it. There are some other sections where motor vehicles are mentioned and defined. As Senator Titus said, if you look at Section 4, we found that, in developing this bill draft, for years and years our definition of “pedestrian” has just been a person on foot, and it did not include people in Segways. That is basically what the bill does.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Is the portion on mobile homes on page 1 just some clean up language?
Fred Hillerby:
The bill drafter added that part, not us.
Chairwoman Vonne Chowning:
How many states has this been ratified in so far?
Fred Hillerby:
I am sure Mr. Dilleta will go into more detail, but I believe it is 33.
Assemblywoman Ohrenschall:
I have two questions, with the Chair’s permission. Have these been involved in any accidents on sidewalks or anywhere?
Matt Dilleta, Director of Government Affairs, Segway Company:
[Introduced himself.] There have been no reported accidents of a Segway operator involved with another pedestrian. We have not been contacted by any law enforcement agency or any public safety official.
Assemblywoman Ohrenschall:
Is there a weight limit for the individual who can use it?
Matt Dilleta:
Walking is good. We are not trying to discourage people from walking. What we are trying to discourage is people using their cars for very short distance travel. That is where the problem really begins, and we do have very serious problems in the U.S. and throughout the world. We are trying to make this attractive to those users. The weight limit is 325 pounds.
Assemblyman Claborn:
Are there any regulations in regards to the sidewalk like an automobile? If you are going north, do you have to be on the right side of the road, and if you are going south, you need to be on the left side of the road?
Fred Hillerby:
I don’t believe there are those kinds of rules. It has been on the market for 16 months now, and they are being used in a number of cities. To my knowledge, nobody has thought through trying to define which side of the sidewalk you can ride on.
Assemblyman Claborn:
If there were an accident somebody would have to decide on ordinances and regulations. I am very intrigued with this thing, and I am in support of it.
Senator Titus:
I think this involves common sense rules. Walking would apply to this. This bill allows for local government to put in those ordinances.
Assemblyman Manendo:
I actually got a chance to ride this. We discussed this as a possible new tool for use in campaigning. I think this could replace having to use vehicles for some government employees and could save taxpayers’ money in the long run. Thank you.
Matt Dilleta:
What an exciting time we live in with advances in medicine and science, which will truly make this century exciting, healthier, and more productive. Our company for the last 25 years has played an integral role in developing and researching breakthrough technologies in medicine and science. This is our first experience in the transportation industry. We are very excited about this new transportation device.
Some discussion occurred about possible municipal services, and I am happy to report that a number of cities are using them now. The city of Seattle, for the last 8 months, has deployed 10 Segways for use by meter readers. They just came out with a “green report,” that shows it will cost them about $3 to $5 per year, per unit, to operate. Each unit will save the city about $5,000 to $8,000 per year. We are very excited about that. We think the Segway will continue to play an important role in helping to reduce fleet use of vehicles, especially in cities and states of the federal government. The technology of the Segway Human Transporters was largely developed for the disabled population.
[Matt Dilleta continues.] About 2 million Americans live their lives at 39 inches in a wheel chair. We attempted to build a better wheel chair. What we found in our study was that it really wasn’t a wheel chair that they needed, it was something to help restore their balance. When you think about human balance, it is very unique to us. It is part of our vocabulary. “Stand on your own two feet,” or “stand like a man.” More than 2 million Americans can’t stand on their feet; they have to live their lives at 39 inches in a very restrictive space. It was through that knowledge that we were able to think of applications for this wonderful new technology. It is especially helpful in urban-dense locations where we do have serious transportation problems, and we do have serious emissions problems.
I would like to commend Senator Titus for sponsoring this legislation, because she is ushering in a new transportation technology here in the state of Nevada.
[Chairwoman Chowning left to speak to the Senate and Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall assumes the position of Chair.]
Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:
Thank you. Are there questions from the Committee?
Assemblyman Atkinson:
What are the costs of these devices?
Matt Dilleta:
The cost right now is $4,950, which also includes training. We require all of our users to go through a fairly extensive training course. It is not a product to date that you can just get off the shelf, pull it out of the box, and hop on. We actually require you to attend a class. We are working very hard, and we are close to developing several other units that will fall below that price, and we are very excited about that.
Senator Titus:
You should all have this brochure that gives you some interesting information and a copy of a Time Magazine article that appeared about this technology. [Referencing material that was delivered to the Committee members’ offices; not an Exhibit].
Danny Thompson, Secretary-Treasurer, Nevada State AFL-CIO:
[Introduced himself.] I represent 165,000 workers in the state of Nevada. I represent meter readers, bike patrol police officers, warehouse workers, postal workers, letter carriers, airport workers, and drivers, and the list goes on.
[Danny Thompson continues.] We would hate to see a device like this, with technology that is so refreshing, has so many applications, and could help prevent injuries, shelved because of some bureaucratic reasons. This bill is very important, and it has far-reaching applications. These devices can be fit with a bag to carry things, such as letters for a letter carrier, and truly save people’s backs.
Bob Roshak, Sergeant, Metro Police, Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association:
[Introduced himself.] We would like to state that we endorse this legislation, and we do not foresee any safety issues pertaining to this device being operated on sidewalks, and we consider it to be a benefit.
ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 363.
ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED. (Chairwoman Chowning and Mr. Knecht were not present for the vote.)
Vice Chairman Genie Ohrenschall:
We will close S.B. 363 and open the hearing on S.B. 99.
Senate Bill 99 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions governing special license plates. (BDR 43-923)
R. L. “Skip” Polak, President, Nevada Airport Managers Association:
[Introduced himself.] S.B. 26 of the Seventy-first Legislative Session was passed which created the Nevada Airport Trust Fund. That bill created a mechanism but did not fund it. This license plate bill is an opportunity for us to fund it. The issue for us and for airports is that the federal government will give us large grants, which will fund at about 93 percent. Local entities are required to fund the remainder that is about 7 percent. Nevada is the only state in the union that does not currently have a trust fund. This trust fund will provide low-cost or no-cost grants or loans to the small, rural airports and allow them to take advantage of the grant money that the federal government will provide to them. It is an exceptional deal for us at 93 percent. It is an exceptional deal for us to get those kinds of federal funds.
Martha Barnes, Administrator, Central Services and Records Division, Department of Motor Vehicles:
[Introduced herself.] There is a fiscal note attached to SB. 99 in the amount of $15,707. Appropriations are not being requesting at this time due to the revolving account established to cover expenses associated with the production of a new plate.
Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:
Do I understand that if this Committee should take action on this bill, it would not be necessary to re-refer this to the Ways and Means Committee, because there is already an existing appropriation to cover it?
Martha Barnes:
That is correct.
Assemblyman Don Gustavson:
[Introduced himself.] I am proposing an amendment to S.B. 99, (Exhibit C). I have spoken to Chairwoman Chowning, and to Senator Rawson about this, and Senator Rawson said it would be okay with him, and Chairwoman Chowning said that she did not have a problem with it, either.
This is the license plate bill that was A.B. 115, which is a Second Amendment license plate that died in this Committee. This plate supports the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. The money raised from this plate will go to a scholarship fund for dependent children of slain police officers and fire fighters. There is already an existing fund set up for this, which is found on the last page of the exhibit, NRS (Nevada Revised Statutes) 396.545.
Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:
Assuming that your amendment were to be voted on by this Committee, and the bill were passed, then you would be asking the DMV to raise the funds as they sell the plates, and then to report and send the money to the special fund that is already set up?
Assemblyman Gustavson:
It would be no different than any license plate bill we have passed out of this Committee.
Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:
Let’s take a one-minute recess to review the amendment.
[During the recess, Assemblyman Gustavson provided a letter of support to the Committee members (Exhibit D)].
Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:
We are going to close S.B. 99 and open S.B. 202. Will the proponents of that bill come forward please?
Senate Bill 202: Provides for issuance of special license plates for support of conservation of wetlands. (BDR 43-1040)
Paul Woodbury, Regional Director, Ducks Unlimited Incorporated:
[Introduced himself.] We are in support of the special license plate for wetlands restoration in Nevada. Everyone should have a packet of information (Exhibit E). I am going to show a few slides that will cover most of what is in the packet. Ducks Unlimited is a national organization that is the largest “not for profit” privately owned organization for the preservation and restoration of wetlands in the United States. Ducks Unlimited has spent $3.4 million in Nevada.
The guidelines for our organization are that 80 percent of the proceeds raised go back into projects. If you know much about charities, that is pretty good. What we also do in Nevada is to raise what we term “restrictive funds.” That is money that is raised specifically for projects in Nevada. On the fact sheet you will see the number of committees that we have in the state, and the number of acres that have been restored or affected by Ducks Unlimited and all their partners. You will see that, last year in the state, there were $348,000 net, or dollars that go right into the ground put into Nevada. We had 24 events last year. We have spent $3.5 million in Nevada since we started instigating projects in the lower 48 states. That becomes important.
We have a regional office out of Sacramento that services the 10 western states of which Nevada is a part. In that office we maintain some of the best experts in waterfowl, wetlands, and engineering. Those people are then used whenever projects are funded and approved and picked up in Nevada. What we do with the dollars that are going to projects in Nevada is involve our preservation staff. For example, we have $100 in Nevada that is ready for projects. Our staff would be obligated to work with all other agencies, organizations, permanent landowners, or whatever the case may be, to leverage that money from at least 5 times the usual rate of growth, rather than the more usual rate of growth times 7. The cooperation of multiple organizations would help take the $100 and work with the federal agencies, the private landowner, the foundation or whatever that case may be. They will turn that $100 into $700 to go into a wetlands project. That is what we have been doing for 65 years, and since 1984 in Nevada.
Sums that would be derived from a “save” license plate, would be earmarked by Nevada Ducks Unlimited Projects, within the state, to restore and preserve wetlands. Then they would work with the federal agencies and all the normal partners we have to leverage monies. Whatever the Nevada Ducks Unlimited can derive from the issuance of a plate such as this would be an ongoing stimulus for projects in Nevada that we don’t currently have. This would be above what we are already doing.
Kyle Swanson, State Chairman, Nevada Ducks Unlimited:
[Introduced himself.] We are historically a nonpolitical group. We do very little lobbying at the state level, and a little bit in Washington, D.C. Our emphasis has been on raising as much money as possible, leveraging that money, and putting it into the habitat. Our concern is that acreage is being lost every day in the United States and in Nevada that used to be wetlands, and wildlife suffers because of that. Currently there are about 100,000 acres a year being lost in North America alone.
Without Ducks Unlimited, we wouldn’t have the wildlife that is associated with the wetlands that we have today. There are 70,000 volunteers who work for Ducks Unlimited and 430 staff members, so this a volunteer-driven organization for people who are passionate about wetlands and about wildlife.
It has been documented that wetlands are some of the best filtering agents for water that we have. When water passes through a wetland, the impurities are filtered from the water, so they serve, not just as a benefit for wildlife, but also to purify water that has otherwise been contaminated. In Nevada, we have lost some habitat here that we are trying to reverse. Examples of that are found in Lovelock and Fallon.
The Humboldt management area had over 35,000 acres of wetlands; today it is dry. A lot of that is because of drought, but most of that is because of development and water diversions. Fallon’s Stillwater Marsh and the Greenhead Hunting Club are not in quite as dire straits, but they have had problems in the past from not having water and not having organizations to help them out by creating more wetlands or preserving what wetlands are already there. That is what we do in Nevada and throughout North America.
This license plate bill helps this organization do what we do the best and that is raise funds for wetlands. We have a small percentage of money from what we earn every year in Nevada that we send to our national chapter to be spent throughout North America come back to us. It is called “rebate funds.” It is not a lot of money, and we are looking for other sources of fund-raising where we can keep the money in Nevada for projects that we can designate ourselves here in this state or for other methods of fund-raising such as the cost of a newsletter. We want to get the word out about what Ducks Unlimited does and about the essential services it performs for the wetlands.
[Kyle Swanson continues.] It would also help to fund existing projects that we have such as Overton, Las Vegas Wash, Pahranagat, Steptoe Valleynear Ely, Argenta Marsh near Battle Mountain, Squaw Valley near Midas, and Stillwater. We have projects going on all over the state that need funds. We are looking at having some legislation that will help us to increase our fund-raising capabilities. The bill itself was modeled after other bills that were already in place historically. The legislation as drafted is very similar to license plate bills that are already in effect. We didn’t feel there was any need to change legislations that had worked in the past.
The Ducks Unlimited Council in Nevada had met almost two years ago when we decided to go forward with this. Since then we have developed a prototype license plate that DMV would have to approve. We have already created a design that we would like to propose to DMV if this legislation is passed. According to the existing legislation, there has to be 1,000 applicants for the license plate to be issued. We currently have almost 1,100 on the list that we have created so far. We have already done a tremendous amount of work in satisfying the existing legislation right now. We just need this specific legislation to allow us to design and implement our own license plate for Ducks Unlimited in this state.
Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:
You have done a wonderful job. About five of us have just come back from Steptoe Valley where we were able to see some of the needs for ourselves. Thank you.
[Chairwoman Chowning returned from the Senate and resumed as Chair.]
Paul Woodbury:
We have over 4,000 current members in Nevada. We feel our estimates show that we have in the neighborhood of 10,000 supporters, people who attend the banquets or donate time or dollars. Nevada is the driest state in the nation. We have a very rich and excellent heritage of wetlands regardless of the fact that we are a desert state.
Assemblyman Claborn:
I was one of the five people that had the privilege of visiting the wetlands in Steptoe Valley last Saturday. I have been associated with the Ducks Unlimited Association for many years, and I totally support this bill. They are doing a great job, and I hope they can get this kicked off.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Thank you, gentlemen, for all of your work for the great state of Nevada.
Tom Lammel, Nevada Wildlife Record Book Committee:
[Introduced himself.] I was just here last week for our bill to support the Wildlife Interpretive Center. I just want to state that we are in full support of anything that has to do with benefits for wildlife, including S.B. 202.
Martha Barnes:
There is a fiscal note attached to S.B. 202, in the amount of $15,707, and appropriation is not requested due to the revolving account established to cover the expenses involved with production of a new specialty plate.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Thank you very much. Seeing no further testimony, we will close the hearing on S.B. 202, and, since I was in Senate Transportation, thank you, Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall, for handling things. We are going to reopen S.B. 99, since Senator Rawson is here now.
Senate Bill 99 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions governing special license plates. (BDR 43-923)
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Clark County Senatorial District 6:
[Introduced himself.] I know you have already had the hearing, and I won’t prolong this. I did not want to show disrespect for the Committee by not being here. I was working on another issue. On the Senate side they also used this bill to increase the fee for anatomical gifts for the purpose of using it as a fundraiser. We took advantage of one bill to try to do two things. There are 7,700 pilots in Nevada, and as long as we are doing specialty license plates, I think this is worthwhile.
Chairwoman Chowning:
I understand there was a statement made that I agreed to an amendment to your bill. I actually did not agree to an amendment to your bill. Mr. Gustavson has presented an amendment to your bill. We need to have your comment on that.
Senator Rawson;
It is presumptuous for me to assume that S.B. 99 will pass. If S.B. 99 is not in trouble and the amendment does not hurt it, it should be all right. Can we quickly talk about the amendment?
Chairwoman Chowning:
The Chair of this Committee does not ever allow someone to add an amendment to someone else’s bill.
Senator Rawson:
I think that is wise. I know the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is a controversial issue to some people. It is like freedom of speech. If someone wants to express their views on an issue, and they are willing to pay for a license plate on that, then that does not offend me. Everyone does not have to agree with them on it. I do not have an objection to it being amended.
Chairwoman Chowning:
You are not in objection to the amendment to S.B. 99?
Assemblyman Gustavson:
I apologize if I misled the Committee to believe that the Chairwoman agreed to an amendment. I meant that she agreed to allow me to present an amendment.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Thank you, Mr. Gustavson. I just want to make it clear that the only thing I said was that you needed to check with the sponsor of the bill. We will close the hearing on S.B. 99. We will open the hearing on S.B. 405.
Senate Bill 405: Allows certain owners of fleets of motor vehicles to apply for participation in program allowing electronic submission and storage of certain documents relating to registration and ownership of motor vehicles. (BDR 43-411)
Chairwoman Chowning:
Welcome, Mr. Stewart. For those of you who are new to the Committee, about six years ago, Mr. Stewart was the Research Analyst of this Committee, and he did a wonderful job.
Michael Stewart, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau:
[Introduced himself.] I am here at the request of Senator Snyder who was unable to present this bill. As you know, as the Legislative staff is nonpartisan, so we can in no way advocate the defeat or passage of any bill. I am here merely to present the bill in its present form.
During the 2001-2002 legislative interim, the Legislative Commission appointed an interim study subcommittee to examine competition between local governments and private enterprises. I served as the policy analyst for this study. Numerous topics were discussed during the course of the study. In particular, the subcommittee examined potential competition in services generally provided to the public by state and local government agencies that might also be supplied in some manner by the private sector. Representatives of the private sector typically related concerns about possible advantages government might have in providing such services, particularly with regard to taxation and regulation.
[Michael Stewart continues.] Meanwhile, representatives from state and local government service providers noted that they are responsible for meeting carefully defined public needs that are not generally met by the private sector. At one of the subcommittee hearings, members of the subcommittee delved into some of the services that were provided by the Department of Motor Vehicles [DMV], and they were particularly intrigued by the many services the DMV actively out-sources or privatizes or somehow accomplishes through public-private partnerships.
The subcommittee requested a presentation regarding this, and the DMV came forward and identified a number of private sector partnerships that they are currently involved with including motor vehicle registration renewals by emissions stations, new vehicle registration pilot projects by auto dealerships, mail services, third-party certifiers for commercial driver’s licenses, third-party certifiers for motorcycle safety skills and license endorsements, and various computer services. The subcommittee was also very interested in a proposal from the rental car industry, and there is a representative here from Enterprise Rent-a-Car to explain that. This would allow for some sort of internal vehicle registration for rental car fleets. What came out of that discussion was a recommendation from the interim study, Senate Bill 405.
You will note that S.B. 405 starts with a preamble, and that preamble mirrors a lot of the testimony that was received during the interim. It notes that the Legislature has been working with the DMV to simplify and make more streamlined, the process by which residents and businesses of the state are able to register and title their motor vehicles. The Nevada Legislature has already enacted legislation allowing the DMV to establish a program, which would allow financial institutions, new vehicle dealers, and used vehicle dealers to submit to the department, by electronic means, certain documents relating to the registration and ownership of motor vehicles.
The interim study, as a result, concluded that it would be advisable to enact legislation facilitating the electronic submission of documents relating to the registration and ownership of motor vehicles by owners of fleets. The bill adds the owners of fleets composed of 10 or more vehicles to the list of entities and individuals who may apply to the DMV to participate in the electronic submission and filing of documents. Current law provides that the department may establish a program for the electronic submission and storage of documents. Under this measure, if the DMV creates such a program, owners of such fleet vehicles would be able to register their fleets electronically. That pretty much summarizes what the bill does. It basically adds fleets into the pilot program that the DMV already engages in.
There is a person here to testify from Enterprise Rent-a-Car, which was one of the groups that actually came forward and suggested this idea to the interim study group.
Bill Gregory, Representative, Enterprise Rent-a-Car:
[Introduced himself.] Thank you, with me isRob Sciabica of Enterprise Rent-a-Car to talk about how this would be of benefit to the industry manager.
Rob Sciabica, Manager, Group Vehicle Acquisitions, Enterprise Rent-a-Car:
[Introduced himself.] Thank you. Currently, we have a process with the DMV that we follow. I am out of Las Vegas, but I also have operations in Carson City and Reno. When we have to register a vehicle, the DMV issues us a 20‑day temporary tag for a license to allow the car to be on the street. We have to purchase books from the DMV, and in the process of getting a certificate of origin from the dealership, processing the paperwork that needs to go to the DMV, and then turning that in to the DMV, we also turn in a copy of the 20-day tag and are refunded the money. The tags cost $20 apiece. During the process, the 20-day tags sometimes expire and that causes an issue for someone who is renting the vehicle, and they have an expired 20-day tag. If they get pulled over, that causes a problem for our customers and becomes a customer service issue.
Last year we registered 7,500 vehicles. We will do the same or more this year. We estimate that, for each vehicle that we register, there is about 4 minutes of computer time, and an additional 10 minutes for every 25 units that are registered to verify VINs (Vehicle Identification Numbers) and signatures on the certificate of origin. It adds up to about 550 hours of DMV time for one employee just to register Enterprise Rent-a-Cars vehicles. This bill would allow the DMV and the car rental companies to save a lot of time. There would also be a money-savings. Last year we spent $2.5 million on registering vehicles, and we could do the future registrations on an electronic funds transfer, so there would be definite interest on the part of the Department of Motor Vehicles.
There are several states that are currently doing similar things with the on-line registration, and some states use a third party to handle the on-line registration. I do know if other states are going to do it where the fleets can do this directly with the Department of Motor Vehicles to eliminate the third party.
[Rob Sciabica continues.] In closing, if this bill were to be passed we would say that it would be an optional versus mandatory process since some fleets may not have the staff necessary to handle this themselves. We think this is very beneficial to the DMV, fleets, and rental car companies that have more than 10 vehicles.
Chairwoman Chowning:
We will get the mechanics of how it would work from Mr. Parsons. Currently, what you are saying is that someone has to stand in line at DMV, although they do have an express window for fleets, is that correct?
Rob Sciabica:
Yes. There is a fleet window to handle the fleet business. One of the things that was in the bill and that other states are doing is enabling these fleets to have a stack or boxes of plates that are pre-issued to the fleet companies and that would enable us to plate vehicles the day we drive them off of the dealerships’ lots. That would eliminate the need for the 20-day tags.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Thank you. You answered my next question, because I was wondering if there would be a time lag. How would you handle the payment? Would there be a preset account with DMV?
Rob Sciabica:
I would suggest what I mentioned about having the electronic transfers. Currently, the DMV calls us with a total, and we bring a check to them during the next day or two.
Chairwoman Chowning:
It is much better to begin with a plate on the vehicle as opposed to a paper tag. Thank you. I don’t have any more questions for you.
Welcome, Mr. Parsons. They currently pay $20 per tag, and they wouldn’t be paying that for some 7,500 vehicles. Is this going to be a loss to the Department?
Jim Parsons, Administrator, Management Services, Department of Motor Vehicles:
[Introduced himself.] I don’t know that I can answer that question, but, based on what they said, they pay the $20 fee and register the vehicle. That is not my area of expertise. I can’t say if they do that or not, but I will look into that and get back to you. We see this as a good thing, and we do not have a problem with this. We have been in the process of trying to put a system together to work with fleets anyway, not necessarily for rental car companies, for such fleets as United Parcel Service and Sierra Pacific so they can renew on-line.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Is there a fiscal note or any money required from DMV to develop this pilot program?
Jim Parsons:
The credit unions and financial institutions said that they would raise funds to take care of the third-party partnerships. They have only raised about half of those funds to date. We are still in the process of waiting for those funds, but once that takes place, the only portion on our side is the cost of our programming time.
Chairwoman Chowning:
The rest of the funds would have to be raised first? [Mr. Parsons said, “Yes.”]
When could this actually be launched?
Jim Parsons:
We are in the process of doing pieces of it already with new car dealerships. We are looking at the fleet portion of it that does renewals. With the rest of it, I don’t know, but I can put something together and get back to you.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Thank you. I would appreciate that. With the new car dealerships, there is no provision for them to be able to charge the customers anything for registering, so would that be the same as with the fleet transactions? [Mr. Parsons said, “Yes.”] It sounds like a win-win situation.
Mr. Gregory, have you spoken with other rental car companies? Do you think that other companies would be anticipating doing this as well?
Bill Gregory:
I have not personally spoken with others.
Chairwoman Chowning:
How would the fees be transacted?
Jim Parsons:
I don’t know how we will do it yet. We have several ways of transacting fees. Currently, the admissions stations that do renewals require the companies to bring us a deposit once a week of a maximum of $10,000. We could work something like that out. We do have the ability to transfer funds electronically. We could give the customers some options.
Chairwoman Chowning:
In the two sections of the statute, the same language is in two separate sections. Is that because the first time it is used, which is found on page 2, it allows the department to establish the program? Then the second time it is used, which is found on page 4, is the provision where it allows the financial institutions and the dealers to participate?
Jim Parsons:
I believe the first part, which is on the second page of Section 2, defines who can participate in the program. The second part, on page 4, says what they can do in the program. It covers who and what.
Chairwoman Chowning:
We will verify that before we take a vote. Thank you very much. Are there any other questions? I was going to take a motion, but I think we need to get some of these things clarified first, so we won’t take a vote on this today. There is no other business to come before the Committee, so we are adjourned. [2:58p.m.]
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Nancy Elder
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairman
DATE: