MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Transportation
Seventy-second Session
April 22, 2003
The Senate Committee on Transportation was called to order by Chairman Raymond C. Shaffer, at 2:38 p.m., on Tuesday, April 22, 2003, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was videoconferenced to the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Room 4401, 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 Michael Schneider
Senator Terry Care
Senator Maggie Carlton
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Marsheilah Lyons, Committee Policy Analyst
Sherry Rodriguez, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Michael K. Sullivan, Lobbyist, Bell Transportation
Brent Bell, President, Whittlesea Bell Transportation
Gary E. Milliken, Lobbyist, Yellow-Checker-Star Cab Company
Robert E. Campbell, Lobbyist, Ambassador Limousine/Nellis Cab, and On Demand Sedan/Desert Cab
Robert E. Roshak, Lobbyist, Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association/South
Stan Olsen, Lobbyist, Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association/South
James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office
Clay Thomas, Administrator, Field Services Division, Department of Motor Vehicles
Kathy Augustine, State Controller, Office of the State Controller
Chairman Shaffer:
We are going to open today’s hearing beginning with testimony on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 226.
ASSEMBLY BILL 226 (1st Reprint): Requires certain passengers of taxicabs to wear safety belts. (BDR 43-1079)
Michael K. Sullivan, Lobbyist, Bell Transportation:
The primary sponsor of this bill, Assemblyman John Oceguera, Assembly District No. 16, asked me to submit a copy of his remarks for the record (Exhibit C). I have also included in our presentation an article from the Las Vegas Review-Journal titled, “Cab Company Pressing Change in Seat Belt Law” (Exhibit D), it tells why this bill is important. I am going to turn this over to Brent Bell who is in Las Vegas so he can tell you a few things about why it is so important to our company.
Brent Bell, President, Whittlesea Bell Transportation:
On December 31, 2000, one of our taxicabs made an ill-advised, left-hand turn in front of a vehicle. The taxicab was broadsided by a speeding vehicle and consequently flipped over. A passenger in the taxicab, Melody McMillin, was not wearing a seat belt and unfortunately died from head injuries. Our taxicab driver did have a seat belt on and he walked away without a scratch. The passenger was thrown around the car and subsequently sustained head injuries. The Nevada Highway Patrol ruled on the scene that if Mrs. McMillin had been wearing a seat belt, she would be alive and here with us today.
We get in our vehicles each and every day and put on seat belts when we go to work. It does not make sense we do not require passengers in the back of taxicabs to wear their seat belts. That is why I am before you today. We have no plans to force the traveling public to wear their seat belts or harass them. The bill would require taxicab operators to put a sign in the back of the cab stating it is a Nevada law and include the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) that requires passengers to wear their seat belts. We do no expect 100 percent compliance, but we feel many people will look at it and will obey the law. We hope this will cause a large percentage of people to wear their seat belts.
The passenger Mrs. McMillin, happened to be an attorney from Tucson, Arizona, and also a part-time family court judge. I would be willing to bet if we had that sign in the back of that taxicab, and it was a State law, she would have had her seat belt on and would still be alive.
Chairman Shaffer:
Are there any questions from the committee?
Senator Care:
I need to disclose that Mr. Sullivan is from a political consulting firm that I used in 2002. This does not preclude me from voting, but I need to make that disclosure.
Why does this not apply to limousines as well as taxicabs?
Mr. Bell:
The reason limousines are not involved is because we do not have an agreement with all the limousine operators. There are only a handful of taxicab companies in Las Vegas; all of the owners have agreed this would be a good thing. With respect to limousines, there are approximately 54 different companies in Las Vegas. Rallying them all together is another project. We want to make it a successful law for taxicabs and maybe come back before you 2 years from now with a bill to include limousines.
Also, a limousine is a different type of vehicle; sometimes the driver has absolutely no idea what is going on in the back of a limousine because of the privacy partition. Would the seat belt requirement be harder to enforce in a limousine, I do not think that requiring seat belts is as realistic for the limousine business as it is for the taxicab business.
Senator Care:
Is there any pending litigation in the incident involving Mrs. McMillin?
Mr. Bell:
No, it has been settled.
Senator Care:
Are taxicabs currently required to have seat belts, or would they all need to be fitted with seat belts?
Mr. Bell:
All taxicabs are required by Nevada law to have operating seat belts for every passenger. The Taxicab Authority (TA) inspects the taxicabs on a quarterly basis. Seat belts are one of the things they look for. Seat belts are already in the taxicabs. I am just trying to encourage more use of them.
Senator Care:
Are taxicab drivers given any instructions? Does the TA have any regulations on the number of passengers a taxicab can carry? What if there are more passengers in a cab than there are available seat belts?
Mr. Bell:
That would be a severe violation. Taxicabs are allowed only the proper number of passengers, which is usually five. That would not be an issue. The TA would cite a driver for carrying more passengers than he has seat belts, even now, without this law.
Senator Care:
There is the possibility of legislation this session that would make refusing to wear a seat belt a primary offense as opposed to a secondary one. In other words a person could be pulled over for not wearing a seat belt. Have you had any discussion on that?
Mr. Bell:
Not with respect to the new legislation. We readily admit there are going to be issues on enforcing this. We are not looking to enforce seat belts for passengers. We are looking to inform passengers.
Senator Care:
Okay. Thank you.
Senator Hardy:
Assembly Bill 226 specifically says it is a secondary offense. Regardless of what happens with the other bill, this would still be a secondary offense.
I need to disclose Mr. Sullivan also did some campaign work for me, as well.
In section 1, subsection 1, paragraph (a), there is an exemption for “… a passenger who possesses a written statement by a physician certifying that he is unable to wear a safety belt for medical or physical reasons.” Is that something an individual would generally carry?
Mr. Sullivan:
I do not know. This bill was written with Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) regulations. It was not something we proposed; it was language LCB input.
Senator Hardy:
I would hate to see someone who was unable to wear a seat belt for medical or physical reasons be cited because they did not have a letter from his or her doctor.
Senator Nolan:
Does this do anything to the current law with respect to contributory negligence? With respect to seat belt laws in Nevada, it is not considered contributory negligence for failure to use a seat belt, with respect to the extent of injuries. By making this a primary offense for passengers riding in the back of cabs, would this change that? Would it put more of a burden upon the passengers, in the event of a lawsuit, to assume responsibility for their own injuries than it now does on the cab companies?
Mr. Bell:
You are absolutely correct. The law would be the same as it is for the standard passenger law. You would not be able to use the fact the passenger had the seat belt on or off in any type of civil litigation. That portion of the law mirrors the standard passenger vehicle seat belt law.
Chairman Shaffer:
Are there any other questions from the committee?
Senator Care:
It seems to me what the bill does, overall, is relieve cab companies of liability. It does say there is no liability. It is much like the seat belt law; the statute says it is not negligence. If there is a child riding in the taxicab, would that child have to follow the instructions of his or her parent, or would the driver have a duty to explain the sign that would be there? I am wondering if there was any consideration about that when this bill was being proposed.
Mr. Bell:
We did consider that. We did not put the responsibility of the child on the driver; the responsibility would be on the parent or guardian riding with the child with respect to the use of the seat belt and possibly a child seat.
Senator Nolan:
Would you consider an amendment that would require the operator of the taxicab to make a verbal announcement to passengers that State law requires passengers of a taxicab to wear seat belts?
Mr. Bell:
No, I would not be opposed to that. Realistically, trying to convince 4000-plus taxicab drivers to make that statement every time a person gets in their taxicabs is going to be highly unlikely. That is the reason for the sign. We feel the sign is important. We do not feel this is a solve-all solution; we are hoping to inform a fair percentage of people getting into cabs. We are concerned for their safety.
Senator Nolan:
We are processing a bill right now to conform to a number of other states and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s recommendation on booster seats for children. If that bill passes, we would be requiring children in a certain age and weight group to be seated in a booster seat. I imagine that would pertain to taxicabs as well. What are your thoughts on that?
Mr. Bell:
We did have some discussion about this on the Assembly side of the House. People, when traveling with children, usually carry the car seats or booster seats with them. They can check the car seats as baggage at airports. That is how we handle it now, and I envision we would continue to handle it that way. We will find a way to deal with that, maybe by having a few booster or child seats located somewhere at the airport if someone did not have their own.
Chairman Shaffer:
Is there anyone else wishing to testify on A.B. 226?
Gary E. Milliken, Lobbyist, Yellow-Checker-Star Cab Company:
We are in favor of A.B. 226.
Robert E. Campbell, Lobbyist, Ambassador Limousine/Nellis Cab, and On Demand Sedan/Desert Cab:
We are also in support of A.B. 226.
Chairman Shaffer:
Are there any questions from the committee?
Senator Care:
Are the limousine companies opposed to this bill because of the expense of installing seat belts and posting a sign? Is that what you are running into?
Mr. Milliken:
We did discuss limousines. As Mr. Bell mentioned, the cab companies came to an agreement, but there are so many limousine companies we could not get them all together to agree. It is something to look at and work on in the future.
Chairman Shaffer:
If there is no further testimony for A.B. 226, we will close that discussion and open the hearing on A.B. 299.
ASSEMBLY BILL 299: Establishes duties of driver when approaching stopped authorized emergency vehicle under certain circumstances. (BDR 43-184)
Robert E. Roshak, Lobbyist, Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association/South:
We support this bill. Currently there is no law that requires drivers to yield to emergency vehicles stopped on the roadway.
Chairman Shaffer:
Are there any questions from the committee?
Senator Care:
Are there any exemptions you might want to consider? I am assuming somewhere in the statute there is language referring to an additional emergency vehicle approaching, the first emergency vehicle would obviously be exempt. I am trying to get you to think that maybe there is some sort of vehicle that might be approaching that emergency incident for some reason or another might be contemplated here.
Mr. Roshak:
That was not discussed. The only thing I could imagine might be another emergency-type vehicle or police car approaching. I would like to think that the operators of those vehicles would use caution when they are going by another stopped emergency vehicle.
Chairman Shaffer:
If there is no further testimony or questions from the committee we will close the hearing on A.B. 299 and open the hearing on A.B. 335.
ASSEMBLY BILL 335: Increases penalty for evading peace officer when evading peace officer results in death or substantial bodily harm to another person. (BDR 43-1118)
Stan Olsen, Lobbyist, Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association/South:
We are here in support of A.B. 335. We feel this is long overdue. People should be held accountable for the accidents they cause during police pursuits.
James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office:
We support this legislation. The agencies themselves have taken steps and drawn up policies as to when to cut off the pursuit. The person who generates the pursuit should be the one who is held responsible.
Chairman Shaffer:
Are there any questions from the committee?
Senator Care:
As I read the bill, it would be one count for each bodily injury or death. If there were multiple accidents involving five injuries, that would result in five counts, is that correct?
Mr. Olsen:
Yes, I understand that to be the intent.
Senator Care:
Let me ask you something on the bill itself. How long have you been with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (Metro)?
Mr. Olsen:
Since 1973.
Senator Care:
In believe in 1980 or 1981 there was a pursuit in Las Vegas involving some Canadians. Do you remember the discussion that maybe the thing to do on that high-speed chase would have been to utilize a helicopter? It has nothing to do with this bill but I am curious to know how pursuits are handled.
Mr. Olsen:
Within Metro we have seven helicopters. We have one helicopter in the air most of the time. At the time of the incident you are referring to, our helicopters were not in the air. During that pursuit the sergeant in charge ordered the units to back off. The suspect accelerated as he approached the intersection and struck a vehicle, killing all four people in the other vehicle.
Current policy and policy then was, if a helicopter is available and when on-site, the ground units will back off. The helicopter pilot will call in the location of the vehicle as the pursuit continues. The officers form a perimeter on outer streets trying to track the vehicle with the field supervisor coordinating. This method has a very high success rate in the apprehension of those suspects. We do not always catch them, but the helicopter is an absolutely invaluable tool to us. Without helicopters we have lost our eyes from the sky.
Chairman Shaffer:
Are there any questions from the committee?
Senator Carlton:
I know your department is looking at revamping how pursuits are being done. It sounds like you have already eliminated any problems. I am wondering what the reason is for looking at new procedures.
Mr. Olsen:
I am not sure I understand.
Senator Carlton:
It sounds like you have this all worked out. You have mechanisms in place to protect the public through a high-speed chase. I notice from news articles that the new sheriff is reviewing and possibly changing those policies. I was wondering where that was coming from because it sounds like you are doing it the right way now.
Mr. Olsen:
A police department should constantly be reviewing all policies. They are a “living document,” so to speak, that needs to be altered considering current issues and situations. I am not familiar with what steps are being taken because I am not involved in that process. That policy, along with any other policy, is always being reviewed to see where we can improve to protect citizens and still accomplish what we need to do.
Mr. Nadeau:
We too have a helicopter. Oftentimes it is not in the air. This would be a State law that would deal with the highway patrol, rural counties, and other agencies that do not always have the same tools. I think every agency on a regular basis, particularly with something of this nature, is constantly reviewing to make sure policies are current and applicable.
Chairman Shaffer:
If there are no more questions or testimony on A.B. 335, we will close that part of the hearing. We are going to hold A.B. 106 since the Assembly is still in session and there is no one here to testify. We will move on to the work session and look at A.B. 30.
ASSEMBLY BILL 106: Revises penalty for driving under influence of intoxicating liquor or controlled or prohibited substance and revises qualifications of person who may apply to court to undergo program of treatment for alcoholism or drug abuse. (BDR 43-606)
ASSEMBLY BILL 30 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions regarding registration of motor vehicles. (BDR 43-67)
Chairman Shaffer:
Each one of you received a copy of a letter (Exhibit E) from Ginny Lewis from the Department of Motor Vehicles. Clay Thomas is here to speak on this bill.
Clay Thomas, Administrator, Field Services Division, Department of Motor Vehicles:
We have serious concerns with the effects of section 5, subsection 3, lines 27 through 29. This would have an effect on the ability of our field offices to effectively conduct operations and provide service to our customers. This section requires an individual to register all vehicles they own prior to obtaining his or her Nevada driver’s license. The department supports the concept that every individual who resides in this State needs to comply with the laws and obtain a Nevada driver’s license and register his or her vehicles.
I would like to give you a short scenario that will highlight the inherent problems with that portion of the bill. If people move here from out of state, they must go to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to obtain a Nevada driver’s license and register their vehicles with the State. If this bill passes in its current form, the DMV will tell them they have to register all their vehicles. They will be given the amount they must pay and that amount will have to be paid before receiving a Nevada driver’s license. Currently, each driver’s license is $21.50. After the cost of registering all their vehicles are calculated they might owe a significantly higher amount.
The problem is they may be unprepared to pay for the registration of all vehicles owned. Customers are going to become irritated. It may seem the DMV is hindering them from getting their driver’s licenses when they are attempting to comply. The worst-case scenario is individuals will leave and hopefully return later with the amount necessary to both obtain the license and register all their vehicles.
The problem with this scenario is the individual has spent possibly an hour and a half at the DMV office attempting to get a driver’s license. The other problem is the individual has now left the DMV with no driver’s license and without registering his or her vehicles. The individual is left with a negative impression not only of the DMV, but the State as a whole.
In addition, the DMV did not collect any of the monies owed. The worst-case scenario is these individuals do not return to the DMV to comply with the law and they continue to register their vehicles out of State and continue to hold out-of‑state drivers’ licenses. Best-case scenario is they return to the DMV later on and register their vehicles and get valid drivers’ licenses. Ultimately what happens is they have gone to the DMV on two different occasions instead of only one, and had to wait another hour and a half to basically finish their transaction. We see requiring individuals to have all vehicles registered prior to getting a driver’s license as a potential problem. If you want me to go on I have other scenarios.
Chairman Shaffer:
I am wondering if you have a positive one?
Mr. Thomas:
The best-case scenario would be if that portion of the bill is not enacted and the requirement not there.
Another scenario would be if someone has four vehicles and a motorcycle. That individual will be asked to provide the vehicle identification number (VIN) and proof of insurance on all vehicles. If the individual lives in Washoe County or Clark County, he or she will be asked to provide a smog or emissions certificates for each vehicle. If these vehicles are coming from out of state, they are required to have a VIN inspection. The individual would have to bring in each vehicle and have each one inspected and have all required documentation before being allowed to register vehicles or obtain a Nevada driver’s license. If one of those pieces of documentation is missing, we cannot complete the transaction. Therefore, the time spent with the individual has accomplished very little.
Senator Carlton:
I would move that we dispense with the presentation of any more scenarios.
Mr. Thomas:
Individuals that come into this State are required to come to the DMV. That is one State agency everyone gets an opportunity to visit. We want to make sure we service the customer in the most effective and efficient manner. We want them to have a positive experience. To bring an individual here and ultimately turn them away because of the lack of documentation, or because they cannot comply with the law, is not advantageous to anyone.
Senator Carlton:
I know that if we pool our efforts, we have technology available to ensure that after an individual comes in to get his driver’s license, the DMV could program a notification procedure into its computers to remind the individual in 30 to 60 days to come back and register the vehicles. There is no need to have a fine or penalty involved. It needs to be something flagged in the computer system. If they get a notification from the DMV, it will remind them to take care of this. Maybe at the bottom of the reminder it could say, “If you are pulled over by a police officer, this is what the fine will be if you do not do this.” It is a strong reminder to people. I believe with that reminder and letting them know they are committing a criminal act by not taking care of this might be the best way to address this section of the bill. This is a suggestion to the committee and to the DMV.
Chairman Shaffer:
I want to ask Senator Nolan about some positive suggestions that he has in mind.
Senator Nolan:
We are losing somewhere between $8 million and $15 million per year in revenue because people do not register their vehicles for one reason or another. That is a lot of revenue lost to this State over the last 10 years. We need to make an effort to collect these revenues. I agree, based upon the reasons you have given us, that this could be a difficult process.
When people move to this State and go to the DMV to get a drivers’ license, a lot of times they do not know what to expect. The DMV ends up doing exactly what you have described. I think at that point of contact, it could be where we provide them with the information on registering vehicles. At the same time, a sequence of events could be put into place that would cause them to have to register all vehicles they are operating in this State. One suggestion might be to explain that they need to register their vehicles and provide them with the cost. The primary vehicle would need to be registered within 30 days, and other subsequent vehicles would need to be registered within 60 days. This way we can make sure the vehicles they are regularly driving are registered in this State and that they are paying the same taxes as the rest of us.
Mr. Thomas:
I concur with that. The DMV supports the position that we need to have individuals register their vehicles and obtain Nevada drivers’ licenses when they move into this State.
To address Senator Carlton’s issue, the way the law is written it requires vehicles to be registered prior to obtaining a Nevada driver’s license. Therefore, there needs to be a change in the way this bill is currently written. I agree with your intent and we would like to find ways to ensure everyone registers their vehicles in this State.
Senator Nolan:
Would you be agreeable to an amendment? We could have the DMV inform the people of the law, whatever it ends up being with respect to registering their vehicles, when they go in to apply for their Nevada drivers’ licenses. The DMV would inquire whether or not applicants would like to register their vehicles at that moment. If they are unable to take care of it at that time, the DMV would inform them that they have a period of maybe 30 days to register at least one vehicle they consider to be their primary vehicle. After that, they would need to have all the vehicles they own registered within an additional 30-day period. That gives them 60 days to register all vehicles. The DMV would also need to have the information recorded in such a way that a tickler file was set up or an alarm would go off in 30 days to generate a reminder to the individual. There has to be some enforcement at the end of the time frame. We cannot just say in 30 days register your vehicle. Thirty days may go by and nobody registers and there is no way of tracking.
Mr. Thomas:
We have no problem sitting down with customers and telling them what the law would be or working with the public to educate them as to the DMV requirements. On the other hand, I cannot speak to setting up a tickler file at this time. I would have to check to see if that can be done and what it would take. The secondary issue is the follow-up. When an individual elects to ignore our notice that a vehicle needs to be registered, how do we follow up on that?
Senator Nolan:
I have been informed that there are officers assigned in both Clark and Washoe Counties to enforce registration. Perhaps if there was a report generated for delinquent registration fees, the report could be submitted to the highway patrol on a monthly basis. Maybe those representatives could follow up on those delinquencies.
Mr. Thomas:
I would be happy to look into that.
Chairman Shaffer:
Are there any more questions or suggestions for A.B. 30? We are going to hold this bill and look at it again later as a courtesy to the sponsor of the bill.
Kathy Augustine, State Controller, Office of the State Controller:
We are interested in getting rid of the refunds on vehicle registrations. If you remember this bill came before you two sessions ago and did not move out of this committee. The Assembly Committee on Transportation amended the bill to retain refunds over $100. We would like the bill taken back to its intended format. We want to get rid of all refunds so there is not the bleeding that is going on right now. The DMV is issuing approximately $4.5 million per year in vehicle registration refunds.
If the bill is taken back to its original form, it does not eliminate the credit to which you would possibly be entitled. If you purchase a vehicle and want to credit what is left on your current registration from the vehicle you are trading in, or have sold, to the new vehicle, that credit would transfer. It does not affect that at all. It eliminates the issuance of refunds that we are mandated to do now. We have issued refund checks for as little as 1 cent and as much as $5000. Even if you are putting a $100 threshold on a refund, it is still a lot of money going out of our State coffers.
Senator Carlton:
I want to clarify something Ms. Augustine has said. That was the original intent, but I have an e-mail from the sponsor of this bill stating she is looking forward to not making any changes. She thanks you for your courtesy in not moving it until she can come back before the committee again. It is my impression that going back to the original intent of the bill is not where she is heading.
Ms. Augustine:
That is because the bill was amended in the Assembly transportation committee.
Senator Carlton:
Thank you.
Chairman Shaffer:
Are there any other questions or ideas on this bill? Hearing none, we will close the discussion on A.B. 30 and open discussion on A.B. 77.
ASSEMBLY BILL 77 (1st Reprint): Authorizes certain inserts in tail lamps on motorcycles. (BDR 43-220)
SENATOR CARLTON MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 77.
SENATOR HARDY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman Shaffer:
We will now take a motion on A.B. 83.
ASSEMBLY BILL 83 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes concerning certain motor vehicles. (BDR 43-85)
SENATOR HARDY MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 83.
SENATOR CARLTON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman Shaffer:
We will now take a motion on A.B. 520.
ASSEMBLY BILL 520: Transfers Program for Education of Motorcycle Riders from Department of Motor Vehicles to Department of Public Safety. (BDR 43-1317)
SENATOR CARLTON MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 520.
SENATOR NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Thank you all for coming to testify today. If there is no further business, this meeting is now adjourned at 3:33 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Sherry Rodriguez,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer, Chairman
DATE: