MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Transportation
Seventy-second Session
April 1, 2003
The Senate Committee on Transportation was called to order by Chairman Raymond C. Shaffer, at 1:40 p.m., on Tuesday, April 1, 2003, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was videoconferenced to the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Room 4406, 555 East Washington Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer, Chairman
Senator Dennis Nolan, Vice Chairman
Senator Mark Amodei
Senator Warren B. Hardy II
Senator Terry Care
Senator Maggie Carlton
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Michael Schneider (Excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Alice Costandina (Dina) Titus, Clark County Senatorial District No. 7
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Marsheilah Lyons, Committee Policy Analyst
Michael J. Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst
Lee-Ann Keever, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Jim Parsons, Administrator, Management Services and Programs Division, Department of Motor Vehicles
Danny Thompson, Commission Member, California-Nevada Super Speed Train Commission
Richann Johnson, Executive Assistant, California-Nevada Super Speed Train Commission
Marlene Wheeler, President, Wheeler’s Las Vegas RV
Wayne A. Frediani, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Nevada Franchised Auto Dealers Association
Thomas A. Bordigioni, President, Mountain Family RV
John Sande III, Lobbyist, Nevada Franchised Auto Dealers Association
Russell M. Rowe, Lobbyist, MVD Express
Virginia (Ginny) Lewis, Director, Department of Motor Vehicles
Janice Lucero, President, MVD Express
Dan Ward, Justice of the Peace, New River Township, Fallon
David Hayward, Municipal Court Administrator, Municipal Court, City of Henderson
Ron Titus, Court Administrator and Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, Office of Court Administrator, Supreme Court
Chairman Shaffer opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 99 and asked Marsheilah Lyons, Committee Policy Analyst, to read the proposed amendment to S.B. 99 (Exhibit C).
SENATE BILL 99: Provides for issuance of special license plates for support of aviation. (BDR 43-923)
SENATOR CARE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AS AMENDED S.B. 99.
SENATOR AMODEI SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Carlton asked if the amendment to S.B. 99 provided for two separate sets of license plates. Chairman Shaffer told her the license plates were already created and in existence.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR SCHNEIDER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Shaffer opened the hearing on S.B. 202 and asked Ms. Lyons to read the proposed amendment to S.B. 202 (Exhibit D).
SENATE BILL 202: Provides for issuance of special license plates for support of conservation of wetlands. (BDR 43-1040)
SENATOR HARDY MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 202.
SENATOR NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR SCHNEIDER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Senator Hardy said he thought the idea of combining similar license plates was a good idea, but the committee members should spend more time listening to the proponents of the plates.
Chairman Shaffer opened the hearing on S.B. 291 and asked Ms. Lyons to read the proposed amendment to S.B. 291 (Exhibit E).
SENATE BILL 291: Authorizes governmental entity that is proprietor of airport to impose certain reasonable restrictions concerning control of aircraft noise. (BDR 44-759)
Chairman Shaffer said no action would be taken on S.B. 291 as the committee members had a verbal agreement with Clark County. The committee members would act on the bill on the 119th day of the Legislative Session if they did not hear from Clark County by that time.
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)
Michael J. Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst, said he was a nonpartisan staff member from the Legislative Counsel Bureau’s Research Division. He stated he was appearing before the Senate Committee on Transportation at the request of Senator Schneider who chaired the Legislative Commission’s Subcommittee to Study Competition Between Local Governments and Private Enterprises, which produced S.B. 405. Mr. Stewart stressed he was not advocating the bill, only presenting it for Senator Schneider.
The subcommittee conducted an interim study on competition between local governments and private enterprises, and discussed numerous topics with an emphasis on potential competition; Legislative Counsel Bureau Bulletin 03‑07, page 9, and page 24. The committee members reviewed services provided to the public by State agencies, local governmental agencies, and their affiliates. The purpose of the review was to see if these services could be provided by the private sector. The private sector felt governmental agencies had an advantage in providing services, while the governmental agencies said they were responsible for meeting carefully defined public needs not generally met by the private sector.
The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) made a presentation to the interim study subcommittee highlighting the department’s private/public partnerships The private/public partnerships included vehicle registration renewal by emission stations, new vehicle registration, pilot projects by automobile dealerships, certain mail services, third-party certifiers for commercial drivers’ licenses, third‑party qualifiers for motorcycle safety skills and license endorsements, and various computer services.
The subcommittee heard testimony from Enterprise Rent-A-Car concerning electronic internal vehicle fleet registration. The testimony indicated internal fleet registration would reduce the time the Enterprise Rent-A-Car staff spent at the DMV. The subcommittee members had been intrigued by the testimony and believed it would be prudent to expand the concept of electronic internal fleet registration to include all fleet vehicle registrations.
Mr. Stewart said the DMV was working on a similar proposal for the electronic registration of vehicles. Mr. Stewart referred to section 2, line 41, of S.B. 405 which addressed fleet vehicle owners, while lines 36 through 40 contained existing language relocated from section 1 of the bill.
Mr. Stewart said the bill expanded the DMV’s ability to allow the registration of fleet vehicles electronically once DMV established electronic registration.
Senator Care asked if the number of vehicles in a fleet consisted of 10 vehicles or more and if those vehicles had to be in the same location. Mr. Stewart told Senator Care the number 10 was not an arbitrary figure, but could not explain why it had been used in the bill.
Jim Parsons, Administrator, Management Services and Programs Division, Department of Motor Vehicles, explained existing statutes already defined the term “fleet” and the figure 10 was contained in those statutes.
Senator Care asked if a car rental agency would still be considered a fleet if it had less than 10 vehicles. Mr. Parsons said the majority of the car rental agencies had more than 10 vehicles in their fleets. While there might be some agencies with less than 10 vehicles, there would not be many car rental agencies with such a limited inventory.
Senator Hardy asked Mr. Parsons if S.B. 405 limited the businesses who could participate in electronic internal fleet registration. Mr. Parsons said other statutes covered businesses not mentioned in the bill. Senator Hardy said the term “fleet” was broad and he wanted to ensure the committee members were not limiting themselves by using the term. Mr. Parsons said he believed the bill addressed most of the motor vehicle-related businesses. He said he did not think DMV missed any motor vehicle-related businesses when drafting S.B. 405.
SENATOR HARDY MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 405.
SENATOR NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR SCHNEIDER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Shaffer told those present there were problems with the videoconferencing equipment and the people in Las Vegas would not be able to participate until the problems were corrected.
Chairman Shaffer opened the hearing on S.B. 276.
SENATE BILL 276: Makes various changes to provisions relating to California‑Nevada Super Speed Ground Transportation Commission. (BDR 58-820)
Senator Alice Costandina (Dina) Titus, Clark County Senatorial District No. 7, referred to information on the California-Nevada Interstate Maglev Project (Exhibit F. Original is one file in the Research Library.). The senator explained the project was on the verge of taking off. In 2001, the Regional Transportation Commission of Clark County approved $3.5 million in federal funding for preconstruction and engineering planning for the project. An additional $2 million in funding had been given to the project by the U.S. Senate. Senator Titus acknowledged U.S. Senator Harry Reid’s efforts in obtaining the additional funding.
Senator Titus said U.S. Congressman Don Young, alaska,felt a transportation project was needed in the West. The California-Nevada Interstate Maglev Project could be built faster and cheaper than any other transportation project proposed to Congress. The project was eligible for an additional $1 billion in federal funding.
In 2002, the California-Nevada Super Speed Train Commission joined the Southern California Association of Governments to form the Western States Maglev Alliance for a unified lobbying effort. The mayors of Las Vegas, Anaheim, Barstow, Ontario, and Victorville, California, hosted a round table discussion on the project. Numerous government officials including Governor Guinn, U.S. Senator Reid, the Nevada Congressional Delegation including U.S. Congressmen Gibbons, Berkley, and Congressman Lewis, a U.S. Congressman from California attended the round table discussion.
The California-Nevada Super Speed Train Commission had taken action during the last week of March 2003 which furthered the project for consideration of financial appropriations by U.S. Congress. Other activities connected with the project included producing an environmental impact study prior to construction and providing the Federal Railroad Administration with a status report on August 1, 2003.
Senator Titus said the California-Nevada Super Speed Train Commission’s enabling legislation required modification. The senator referred to section 1 of the bill which would make the California-Nevada Super Speed Train Commission an official State agency. Section 3 clarifies the activities of the California members of the California-Nevada Super Speed Train Commission who would be governed by the State of California. Section 4, subsection 2, paragraph (b), grants local, regional and State government jurisdiction over routing and stations in Nevada. Section 4, subsection 3, provides the same jurisdiction over routing and stations in California.
Senator Titus said the California-Nevada Super Speed Train Commission members did not want to operate in a vacuum, but wanted to include any governmental agency which might be impacted or affected by its activities.
Danny Thompson, Commission Member, California-Nevada Super Speed Train Commission, talked about the room occupancy rate in Las Vegas. He said the midweek occupancy rate depended totally on airline travel. The events of September 11, 2001, had been devastating to the Las Vegas economy. The State’s budget depends on gaming, where contributions amount to 46 percent of the budget. The decrease in tourism hurt both Las Vegas and the State.
Mr. Thompson said if the California-Nevada Super Speed Train had been in operation at that time, tourists would not have been dependent on the airlines and would have been able to travel to Las Vegas on the train. The economy of Las Vegas would not have experienced the negative side effects resulting from the events of September 11, 2001. The poor economy in Las Vegas resulted in 16,000 people losing their jobs. The Culinary Union and United Way hosted a Helping Hands outreach program which helped 1000 people a day. Mr. Thompson said if the California-Nevada Super Speed Train had been operational at that time, Las Vegas would not have not have suffered adversely in the weeks following the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Mr. Thompson said it was time for the California-Nevada Super Speed Train as it was critical to southern Nevada’s economy. A train route along Interstate 15 needed to be exploited and expanded for the benefit of those living in southern Nevada. He urged the State to do everything possible to ensure the successful completion of a train route between Anaheim and Las Vegas.
Richann Johnson, Executive Assistant, California-Nevada Super Speed Train Commission, said the State of California was participating financially with the State of Nevada to fund the project. Ms. Johnson said the commission was making progress while keeping in mind the T3 Transportation Authorization Act. Commission members were trying to position the commission to receive construction funding necessary to proceed under the T3 Transportation Authorization Act.
Chairman Shaffer commended Senator Titus and Ms. Johnson for their work on the California-Nevada Super Speed Train project.
Senator Care referred to page 2, section 3, subsection 1, paragraph (a), of S.B. 276 and asked if the section meant both the Nevada and California members of the commission would be governed by the commission.
Senator Titus said the Nevada members of the commission were governed by statute. The language Senator Care referred to had been inserted to ensure the California members of the commission acted consistently. Senator Care asked if the State of California had legislation governing its membership on the commission. Senator Titus told him there had been such legislation at one time. The legislation depended on who had been elected and which party was in power. Senator Titus’ suggested language in the bill would not leave the membership and activities of the California delegation to the whim of California’s politicians.
SENATOR CARE MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 276.
SENATOR NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS SCHNEIDER AND HARDY WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Shaffer opened the hearing on S.B. 355.
SENATE BILL 355: Extends coverage of provisions relating to franchises for motor vehicles to include certain recreational vehicles. (BDR 43-1238)
Marlene Wheeler, President, Wheeler’s Las Vegas RV, said in 1999 the franchise law was changed to include recreational vehicles (RVs) as motorized vehicles. She said many of the vehicles sold in Nevada are towable RVs which represent 50 to 60 percent of vehicles sold in Nevada. Recreational vehicles were not included in the franchise law when it was changed. Senate Bill 355 rectifies the oversight.
Wayne A. Frediani, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Nevada Franchised Auto Dealers Association, said he supported S.B. 355 and had a proposed amendment for the bill (Exhibit G).
Senator Care asked for clarification on the mileage an RV could have on the odometer and still be considered a new vehicle. Mr. Frediani said any vehicle with less than 2500 miles would be considered new.
Senator Care asked whether a new car depreciated at the same rate as an RV. Mr. Frediani said Ms. Wheeler would be the best person to answer the senator’s question. Ms. Wheeler stated an RV had to be driven to Nevada from the factory and arrived in Nevada with 1500 or more miles on the odometer. There would be no depreciation on the vehicle as a vehicle’s warranty would not start until sold and the customer took delivery of the vehicle.
Thomas A. Bordigioni, President, Mountain Family RV, strongly supported the bill with the exception of section 11, subsection 1, paragraph (a). He requested that portion of the bill be removed as RVs were driven, not transported, from the factory to the dealership. Depending on a dealer’s location, an RV could arrive at a dealership with several thousand miles on the odometer. Mr. Bordigioni told the committee members additional mileage would be put on an RV when it was used for demonstrations or driven to trade shows.
Mr. Bordigioni said one of the manufacturers his company deals with is located in Alabama. The vehicles from that manufacturer arrive in Reno with approximately 2200 miles on the odometer and are still considered new units.
John Sande III, Lobbyist, Nevada Franchised Auto Dealers Association, provided an amendment to the bill (Exhibit H). He said the language in the proposed amendment coincided with Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS)482.076 which provided the definition of new vehicle.
Chairman Shaffer asked Mr. Sande if he wanted a mileage amount in the bill. Mr. Sande replied no, adding such language would be contrary to the statutory definition of a new vehicle. He said he thought the language should be consistent throughout the statute.
Senator Care asked Mr. Sande if a vehicle would be considered new if it was 3 years old, still on the dealer’s lot and had never been sold or registered. Mr. Sande said if a dealer had such a vehicle, it would be considered a new vehicle under the statutory definition.
Mr. Sande referred to NRS 482.36521, subsection 1, paragraph (a), which reads in part, “The dealer’s inventory of new vehicles, including new vehicles not of the current model year.” He said when an automobile dealership franchise is terminated, the manufacturer has to pay the dealership for the new vehicles in the dealer’s inventory including current model and past model years.
Senator Care asked for clarification on the franchise law and what modifications had been made to the law in 1999. Mr. Sande said he first represented the Nevada Franchised Auto Dealers Association in 1999. During that session, the law had been tightened up to detail the duties of both the dealers and manufacturers of RVs. The noncompete provision of the law had been left intact.
Senator Care asked if an RV distributor differed from a new car distributor. Mr. Bordigioni said the RV industry had manufacturers and dealers and deferred to Mr. Sande who said he was not aware of any RV distributors in Nevada, unless the manufacturer distributed or transferred RVs to a third party who would act as a distributor.
Senator Nolan referred to NRS 482.135, subsection 1, which defined “vehicle” and noted it was almost identical to section 3 of S.B. 355. The senator said the committee members had been dealing with the issue of all‑terrain vehicles (ATVs) and wanted to know if those would be considered vehicles under the statutory definition. Senator Nolan did not want ATVs included in the same category as the RVs.
Mr. Bordigioni said the difference between the two categories of vehicles would be registration. An RV is titled and registered by the Department of Motor Vehicles, while an ATV is titled, but not registered. Senator Nolan said he wanted the statute to distinguish the two categories of vehicles. Senator Nolan asked Ms. Lyons if the bill referenced titled or registered vehicles. Ms. Lyons said she would have to ask for clarification on the distinction between RVs and ATVs from the Legislative Counsel Bureau’s Legal Division before providing an answer to Senator Nolan. Ms. Lyons said she did not see a provision in the bill addressing registered or titled vehicles.
Senator Nolan said he would be comfortable voting to move the bill. If there was opposition to the bill, the Senate Committee on Transportation would place the bill on the Secretary of the Senate’s desk for amendment.
SENATOR NOLAN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AS AMENDED, USING THE AMENDMENT PROVIDED BY THE NEVADA FRANCHISED AUTO DEALERS ASSOCIATION (EXHIBIT H) S.B. 355. STAFF WOULD RESEARCH EXISTING STATUTORY DEFINITIONS OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLE TO ENSURE NO CONFLICT EXISTED BETWEEN THOSE STATUTES AND S.B. 355.
SENATOR CARLTON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS SCHNEIDER AND CARE WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Shaffer opened the hearing on S.B. 384.
SENATE BILL 384: Authorizes Department of Motor Vehicles to establish program to contract with persons to provide certain services otherwise required to be provided by Department. (BDR 43-1154)
Russell M. Rowe, Lobbyist, MVD Express, said his client was a private company under contract to the DMV in New Mexico to provide DMV services. The program under which MVD Express operates was established in 1996. Mr. Rowe said Janice Lucero, President, MVD Express, and Terry Couchman, Chief Operations Officer, MVD Express, supported S.B. 384. Both individuals were available to answer the committee members’ questions.
Mr. Rowe said S.B. 384 would allow the Nevada DMV to contract with private contracted agents to provide registration services in partnership with the DMV. The contracted agents would be allowed to charge a fee over and above the DMV fees in return for providing registration services to the public. Mr. Rowe had a proposed amendment to S.B. 384 (Exhibit I). The proposed amendment created a pilot program in Nevada similar to the New Mexico program.
The bill followed past actions of the Legislature in allowing new car dealers to provide registration services and renewal of vehicle registration by emission control stations. Section 2 of S.B. 384 outlined the DMV’s authority to enter into contracts and detailed the services the contracted agent would have to provide. The rest of the bill conformed to chapter 482 of NRS.
Mr. Rowe said the purpose and intent of the bill was to provide DMV with an alternative means of meeting the demands placed on its staff by Nevada’s rapidly growing population. Mr. Rowe said the bill, if implemented, would save the State millions of dollars in tax revenues, as DMV would not be the sole provider of specified services to the driving public. The bill would allow the DMV to focus its resources in other areas. Since 1996, MVD Express has saved the State of New Mexico $5 million, while collecting $45 million in fees. The fees would have been collected by the DMV in New Mexico during the course of business even if MVD Express had not been under contract to the state of New Mexico.
Mr. Rowe explained people could transact all their motor vehicle-related business at a contracted agent’s office. The transaction would be the same as those transactions at a DMV office and would be recognized by the State. The fee structure would be identical to the DMV’s; however, an additional transaction fee would be charged for the convenience of using a contracted agent’s services. The DMV would receive all money collected for services provided, while the contracted agent retained the transaction fees. In New Mexico, the average wait time was 15 minutes at a MVD Express Office.
Senate Bill 384 permitted expedited DMV services to those individuals willing to pay an additional fee. Mr. Rowe said people would still be able to avail themselves of the DMV’s services at the DMV offices throughout the State if they did not want to pay for expedited service at a contracted agent’s office. People in Nevada would be offered a choice of service providers if S.B. 384 passed. The contracted agents would be another service provided by the DMV to people in the State.
Virginia (Ginny) Lewis, Director, Department of Motor Vehicles, read from prepared text (Exhibit J).
Senator Carlton asked Ms. Lewis to clarify the fees charged by other contracted agents currently providing services on behalf of the DMV. Ms. Lewis said emission stations were allowed to charge up to $10 for services provided. The amount charged was set by regulation. New and used car dealers were allowed to perform registration services for the DMV, but, by statute, could not charge for those services.
Ms. Lewis said a contracted agent, such as MVD Express, could charge its customers for services provided. She said she was worried there would be a disparity in the fees charged by the contracted agents. Through regulation, a cap could be placed on the fees charged by contracted agents to ensure a uniform fee schedule.
Senator Carlton stated:
And, if I may continue Mr. Chairman, I see another disparity and I’d like you to put a few things on the record. The employees that we have working for DMV right now are State employees. They have a health benefits package. They have a retirement package. They have seniority and a number of different protections even though we are a right-to-work state and we do not have collective bargaining in this state. When you would submit your RFP and go out to contract, would any of those issues be addressed as far as protections for employees, so that the employees working for the State and working for the subcontractor would be treated equitably?
Ms. Lewis said:
Senator Carlton, these employees who would work for the business would not be State employees. They would not have the same benefits as a State employee. The department would have no control over those employees. But, through regulation and a very strong contract, we would address … well, as I inferred in my testimony, the expectation on … we’re responsible for those transactions and when a customer, whether they complete that transaction with us or they complete it with a private entity, they look at the department as the sole entity responsible for that transaction. So, I guess what I’m saying to you is through …
Senator Carlton said:
“If you don’t know Ginny, that’s fine.”
Ms. Lewis said:
“Well, no. Through the contract we will have to be tight with this.”
Senator Carlton continued:
And that was my concern Mr. Chairman. When I looked at this, I see this as another level of privatization, even though the bill has changed to a pilot program, we’ve seen other pilot programs in the State turn into actual programs that, especially in the education area, that are trying to be looked at across the State. And if we’re responsible, if the State holds the responsibility for these stickers and forms and everything else that goes along and we expect a caliber of performance from our State employees and I think we should expect the same from the other employees, a two-way street. I think those employees should be treated just as well whether they’re working for the State or working for a private entity if they’re doing the same job, basically.
Ms. Lewis stated:
Senator Carlton, let me add to that. You’re absolutely correct and we have discussed this with MVD Express. My expectations for those employees would be just as high. Whether it is their error rate, their customer service skills, I would hold them to the same standards. And that would be addressed in contract.
Senator Carlton said:
And, Mr. Chairman, I’m sorry to keep just going on, but I think the reverse is true, that if they’re expected to perform at that level, they should expect to be treated as well as State employees do with health care, retirement, and all the other things that we do offer our State employees. Because they are valuable and we’ve sat on committees before and discussed about retention rate and what we need to do to reinforce our State employees.
Senator Nolan said he understood Senator Carlton’s concerns and was concerned about retaining State employees. He noted the State was not able to offer the same wages as the private sector. The State might be faced with an exodus of employees into the private sector if contractors were required to match wages and benefits equal to the State’s. Senator Nolan said some private companies offered flexible schedules to their employees and the State should keep such flexibility in mind. Senator Nolan said the State had to be mindful of how involved it became in mandating the private sector’s business practices when the statutes did not require the State’s involvement.
Mr. Rowe answered Senator Carlton’s questions. He said in New Mexico, DMV employees received an average of $10 to $11 per hour, while the MVD Express employees received $8 to $12 per hour with a health care package. The MVD Express employees were paid based on experience. Mr. Rowe said he was not sure if MVD Express provided a retirement package to its employees. The officials at MVD Express expected the employees’ compensation packages to be addressed through the RFP issued by the Nevada DMV.
Mr. Rowe said S.B. 384 had been structured to be flexible and allow the DMV to prescribe the regulations it felt necessary. Ms. Lewis was concerned about employee training, employment, and security issues should the bill be passed. The bill had been written to permit the DMV to draft strict regulations. The contract between the DMV and the contracted agent would be tough and enforceable. The DMV would have the option to pull the contract should the contracted agent fail to perform.
Mr. Rowe said MVD Express understood the employment issues raised by Senator Carlton and expected to meet them. Mr. Rowe said there would be economies of scale between wages paid by the State and wages paid by a small company in the private sector. He stated MVD Express understood the State’s expectations and would try to meet those expectations if awarded the contract for services by the DMV.
Senator Carlton thanked Mr. Rowe for addressing her concerns. She said in the past years, numerous businesses had come and gone in Nevada. When those businesses failed to provide health care and other benefits to their employees, the State ended up providing for those employees. Senator Carlton said Nevada was looking for good corporate citizens. While MVD Express might be a good employer, the State needed to safeguard against companies who would take advantage of Nevada citizens, leaving the State to provide for those employees.
Senator Hardy said he agreed with Senator Carlton in regard to encouraging the private-sector companies to provide employee benefits. The senator said he would have real problems if the State started mandating the benefits provided to private sector employees through regulation. Senator Hardy said the market would take care of the employers who failed to provide benefits. He noted that employees had the right to seek employment elsewhere if their employer failed to provide benefits. Senator Hardy said he agreed with Senator Carlton regarding the development of regulations for employee performance standards, but disagreed on the level of involvement Nevada should have in determining employee wages and benefits for private-sector employees.
Chairman Shaffer said the public would be able to select either the DMV or the contracted agent to receive DMV services. The public would not be required to use the services of the contracted agent.
Janice Lucero, President, MVD Express, said her company had been in operation in New Mexico for 6 years. She said MVD Express’ corporate conscience was easy to sleep with as the company had been careful to provide employee health care benefits. Ms. Lucero stated MVD Express had been careful to keep qualified employees on its payroll and kept its contract with the State of New Mexico by retaining qualified employees and paying those employees a fair wage. Ms. Lucero said it was important to MVD Express officials for its employees to receive a living wage capable of supporting them and their families. Ms. Lucero said MVD Express was proud of its record in New Mexico.
Chairman Shaffer asked how many employees MVD Express had in New Mexico. Ms. Lucero replied MVD Express had 50 employees in six offices throughout New Mexico.
Senator Hardy said it was the responsibility of private-sector employers, to the extent they were able, to provide their employees with benefits. The government should not mandate benefits received by private-sector employees. Senator Hardy stated he did not want to be misunderstood on the issue of benefits. He said every good corporate citizen should take employee benefits seriously.
Chairman Shaffer closed the hearing on S.B. 384 and opened the hearing on S.B. 479.
SENATE BILL 479: Authorizes Department of Motor Vehicles to require payment of certain outstanding criminal fines and fees before registering motor vehicles. (BDR 43-618)
Dan Ward, Justice of the Peace, New River Township, Fallon, said he was president of the Nevada Judges Association, which proposed S.B. 479. Judge Ward asked David Hayward, Municipal Court Administrator, Municipal Court, City of Henderson, to explain the bill.
Mr. Hayward said the bill would help maximize the payment and assist in the collection of court-ordered fines, fees, administrative assessments, and restitution. The recipients of the court-ordered payments included State and local governmental entities. The bill would establish a new procedure whereby the courts would notify the DMV when convicted people failed to make their court‑ordered payments. Once the DMV received a nonpayment notification from the court, it could refuse to register the offender’s motor vehicle. The vehicle owner would have to return to court, pay the debt, and present the DMV with proof of payment from the court before being allowed to register his or her vehicle.
Mr. Hayward thanked Ms. Lewis for her work on S.B. 479. In its original form, the bill would have caused additional work for DMV staff members unless the process was conducted electronically. Mr. Hayward said both the DMV and the courts in Nevada were working on automation projects which could accommodate an electronic exchange of information. The amendment to S.B. 479 (Exhibit K) required the courts and the DMV’s registration division to electronically exchange information before the new procedure could be implemented. The amendment further authorized the DMV to establish the needed elements’ format and procedures to be followed by the courts and the DMV.
Ron Titus, Court Administrator and Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, Office of Court Administrator, Supreme Court, said the Nevada Supreme Court supported S.B. 479. The 2002 legislative audit of the Judicial Branch credited the Judicial Branch with an increase in collections from 60 percent to 80 percent. The audit recommended some courts become more aggressive in their collection efforts of delinquent fines and assessments. This bill provides the courts with an additional tool to aid them in their collection efforts. The Office of the Court Administrator is working with other justice agencies on two projects for automation and information sharing. These projects will facilitate the electronic sharing of information necessary to implement S.B. 479.
Ms. Lewis read from prepared text (Exhibit L).
Chairman Shaffer asked if the amount of uncollected money was substantial and what attempts had been made to collect it. Judge Ward said the collection of delinquent fines is an ongoing effort. In his jurisdiction, there are approximately $500,000 in uncollected fines. He said he had instituted new collection procedures in an attempt to collect some of those monies. Senate Bill 479 would provide him with one more tool for the collection of unpaid fines.
Senator Carlton said she understood the attempts to collect the delinquent payments due the courts. The Senator wanted to give the courts every avenue to succeed with their collection efforts, and had heard the court’s collection efforts were 80 percent successful. It was the uncollected 20 percent the courts were attempting to collect. The senator said perhaps the 20 percent remained uncollected because the individuals did not have the resources to make their court-ordered payments.
Senator Carlton said the bill and NRS had provisions to impose restitution. The Senator said she knew other State agencies had restitution provisions which were difficult to enforce due to the fact the offending parties often lacked the money to make restitution. Senator Carlton stated the insurance companies, not the victims, received the restitution in a number of cases. The reason for this being the insurance companies paid the victims prior to restitution being made. Senator Carlton said S.B. 479 would provide payment to the insurance companies from the State and courts.
Senator Carlton stated Nevada needed to ensure its citizens were responsible for child support and certain types of fines. Senator Carlton said she was concerned about the fees and restitution schedule contained in S.B. 479, especially since the courts had a collection rate of 80 percent.
Judge Ward said Senator Carlton was talking about the fees collected by a district court that had been assessed against paroled felons. This bill addresses uncollected fines assessed for misdemeanor violations at the lower court level. Individuals who did not pay those fines were working-class individuals with the ability to pay their fines. Judge Ward said the majority of people appearing before him had been cited for traffic violations and should afford to drive their vehicles. As these individuals could afford their pleasures, they could take care of their responsibility to the State. The courts should not have to rely on the State if the money could be collected.
Senator Carlton stated she and Judge Ward were philosophically opposed. She said if a person’s vehicle was not registered and the person needed to go to work to make restitution to the court, the State would be making the person a criminal by forcing the person to drive an unregistered vehicle. The Senator said S.B. 479 interfered with a person’s ability to commute to and from work, which might delay the payment of fines.
Judge Ward said he and Senator Carlton were not philosophically opposed. He was a retired Nevada Highway Patrol employee who had dealt with people driving unregistered vehicles in order to keep their jobs. In rural Nevada, every allowance had to be made to ensure a person’s continued employment. Judge Ward stated he would do whatever he could to keep a person employed.
Mr. Hayward said many courts in Nevada had alternative payment programs. Those programs allowed an individual to work off their court-ordered payments. The Henderson Municipal Court had work programs for indigent individuals who could not pay the court-ordered fines. Mr. Hayward said S.B. 479 addressed those individuals with the resources to pay their fines, but elected not to make court-ordered payments.
Senator Nolan said after hearing testimony on S.B. 479 and the responses to Senator Carlton’s questions, he was comfortable with the bill.
SENATOR NOLAN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AS AMENDED S.B. 479.
SENATOR HARDY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR CARLTON VOTED NO. SENATORS CARE AND SCHNEIDER WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
There being no further business, Chairman Shaffer adjourned the Senate Committee on Transportation at 2:55 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Lee-Ann Keever,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer, Chairman
DATE: