MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Transportation
Seventy-second Session
April 24, 2003
The Senate Committee on Transportation was called to order by Chairman Raymond C. Shaffer, at 1:36 p.m., on Thursday, April 24, 2003, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was videoconferenced to the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Room 4412, 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 Mark Amodei
Senator Warren B. Hardy II
Senator Michael Schneider
Senator Terry Care
Senator Maggie Carlton
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Dennis Nolan, Vice Chairman (Excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman John C. Carpenter, Assembly District No. 33
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Marsheilah Lyons, Committee Policy Analyst
Lee-Ann Keever, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Robey B. Willis, Justice of the Peace/Municipal Court Judge, Carson City Justice Court I and Carson City Municipal Court
John Tatro, Justice of the Peace/Municipal Court Judge, Carson City Justice Court II and Carson City Municipal Court
Carl Sarman, Past President, Nevada Future Farmers of America (NFFA)
Richard Daly, Lobbyist, Laborers International Union of North America Local 169
Ruedy Edgington, Assistant Director, Operations Division, Nevada Department of Transportation
Jeanette K. Belz, Lobbyist, Associated General Contractors, Nevada Chapter
Debbie J. Smith, Lobbyist, Operating Engineers Local #3
Gary H. Wolff, Lobbyist, Teamsters Local 14
Marvin E. Davenport, Captain, Reno Urban Traffic Commander, Nevada Highway Patrol, Department of Public Safety.
Morgan R. Baumgartner, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Monorail Corporation
Chairman Shaffer opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 106.
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)
Robey B. Willis, Justice of the Peace/Municipal Court Judge, Carson City Justice Court I and Carson City Municipal Court, said Judge John Tatro, Justice of the Peace/Municipal Court Judge, Carson City Justice Court II and Carson City Municipal Court, and he both served on the Nevada Supreme Court’s Sanction Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Commission. The commission reviews mandatory minimum sentences in the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) to determine what, if any, changes are needed to render just sentences.
The commission members wanted to change the driving under the influence (DUI) provisions contained in NRS. Both the Assembly Committee on Judiciary and the Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) membership did not oppose the suggested changes to the DUI statutes.
Judge Willis spoke on NRS 484.3792, section 2, which had been modified several times since becoming law in the 1980s. The law originally allowed a person convicted of drunk driving to receive a reduced sentence if he or she successfully completed treatment for alcohol abuse. A first-time offender would have to serve only 1 day in jail or complete 24 hours of community service if he or she successfully completed an alcohol treatment program.
The community service provision had been changed from 24 hours to 48 hours of community service. Judge Willis did not know the circumstances surrounding the change. Judge Willis said 48 hours of community service is imposed when a person does not complete an alcohol treatment program. Without the decreased community service provision, individuals have no incentive to participate in alcohol treatment programs.
The commission proposed to amend the community service provision to its original wording of 24 hours of community service for first-time DUI offenders. Judge Willis reiterated MADD supported the proposed change. Judge Willis told the committee members the commission was comprised of judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys who reviewed the statutes over the past 4 years.
Judge John Tatro said NRS 484.3792, section 1, subsection 4, paragraph (b), subparagraphs (2) and (3), had been amended to read:
Fine him not less than $750 nor more than $1,000, or order him to perform an equivalent number of hours of community service while dressed in distinctive garb that identifies him as having violated the provisions of NRS 484.379.
Judge Tatro said the courts in Carson City determined the value of community service to be $10 an hour. To meet the provisions of the amendment, a convicted DUI offender in Carson City would have to perform 75 hours of community service.
An amendment to section 3, subsection 2, subparagraph (c) of A.B. 106 reduced the amount of community service to one-half if the offender met certain conditions. Judge Tatro said the reduction would give offenders an incentive to participate in an alcohol treatment program.
Senator Carlton asked about the origin of the phrase “distinctive garb that identifies him as having violated the provisions of NRS 484.379.” Specifically, how long had the provision been in effect, and what type of distinctive garb the statute required? Senator Carlton said she hoped the State was not attempting to label people by their attire.
Judge Willis said he felt the same way as Senator Carlton. Judge Tatro stated the provision became effective in the 1980s. He said he noticed the distinctive garb being worn by DUI offenders at McCarran International Airport in Las Vegas. The offenders wore an orange vest with the phrase “DUI Offender” printed on the back. Chairman Shaffer told Judge Tatro the offenders at McCarran International Airport had been sentenced by Judge Davis of North Las Vegas.
Judge Tatro said the wording contained in NRS 484.379 had been in use for a long period of time, and should be changed.
Judge Willis told the committee members an attempt to remove the distinctive garb language had been made during the 71st Legislative Session. Judge Willis said he thought it humiliating for a DUI offender to wear a vest with the phrase “distinctive garb” printed on it. The attempt to remove the phrase had been unsuccessful due to opposition by the anti-drinking and driving lobbyists. Judge Willis had not attempted to have the phrase “distinctive garb” deleted from the NRS by the 72nd Legislative Session due to the opposition he encountered in from the 71st Legislative Session.
Judge Willis said people with professional degrees, such as lawyers or doctors, were sentenced as DUI offenders. It was not a sound practice to have those individuals wear the distinctive garb when their community service was performed before members of the community. Judge Tatro did not think it appropriate for a DUI offender to wear the distinctive garb when his or her community service involved children. Judge Willis stated many individuals were willing to serve jail time rather than wear the orange vest. Judge Willis reiterated the opposition received during the 71st Legislative Session to eliminating the distinctive garb requirement. The opposition was so great the measure did not survive testimony in the Assembly.
Senator Care asked why a DUI offender received the same classification as a person guilty of domestic violence. Judge Willis said he was not sure, but the DUI offense did not fit well in the domestic violence category of criminal offenses. A DUI offense was constant due to the blood alcohol level and would be better served by mandatory sentencing.
Judge Willis said he attempted to have the domestic violence provisions reviewed by the Legislature, but his attempts had not made it through the Assembly. He wanted the district attorneys in Nevada to have discretion when sentencing domestic violence offenders.
Senator Care said he did not take a domestic violence case lightly. He added people involved in domestic violence cases were usually a sad cast of characters with substance-abuse problems exacerbating the situation. Senator Care said he did not think additional prisons or extended sentences would help in reducing domestic violence. Judge Willis said he agreed with Senator Care, and would like to make a domestic violence presentation to the Senate. Judge Willis told the committee members the Assembly Committee on Judiciary had not approved changes to the domestic battery law.
SENATOR CARE MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 106.
SENATOR SCHNEIDER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NOLAN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Shaffer closed the hearing on A.B. 106 and opened the hearing on A.B. 192.
ASSEMBLY BILL 192 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions relating to special license plates. (BDR 43-181)
Carl Sarman, Past President, Nevada Future Farmers of America (NFFA), said he supported agricultural license plates. He wanted to talk about three different issues. First, the benefits provided to Nevada’s students by agricultural education. Second, the opportunities agricultural education provided for Nevada students, as well as his own experiences as an agricultural student. Third, the benefits provided to Nevada’s students by agricultural license plates.
Agricultural education was based on three interconnected circles: (1) Supervisors of Agricultural Education (SAE); (2) classroom education; and (3) Future Farmers of America (FFA). The classroom education circle educated students in a classroom environment. Various subjects were taught, including parliamentary procedure, agricultural mechanics, and livestock evaluation. The SAE circle mandated each student receive a supervised agricultural experience ranging from working at a community swimming pool to breeding cows. The FFA circle was the biggest part of the three circles and included all FFA‑sponsored contests aimed at student participation. The contests included parliamentary procedure, livestock evaluation, sales, and marketing. Mr. Sarman said the students received life value tools by participating in NFFA.
Mr. Sarman told the committee members about the opportunities he received from FFA. He had been a member of the Silver Sage Chapter of the NFFA for 4 years, and had held office as a historian and reporter. Mr. Sarman said he learned many life skills from his membership in the NFFA. As a NFFA State officer, he was given the opportunity to travel across both the State and the country. Mr. Sarman traveled to Washington, D.C., and met President Bush.
Mr. Sarman said A.B. 192 would help the NFFA by expanding the vehicles which could bear agricultural license plates. The revenue from the sale of agricultural license plates funded travel for NFFA officers. Presently, only passenger vehicles could bear an agricultural license plate. If the bill were to pass, then non‑passenger vehicles could also be issued agricultural license plates. Increased license plate sales would result in increased revenue for the NFFA.
Chairman Shaffer closed the hearing on A.B. 192 and opened the hearing on A.B. 444.
ASSEMBLY BILL 444 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes relating to traffic laws. (BDR 43-1098)
Richard Daly, Lobbyist, Laborers International Union of North America Local 169, explained section 1.5 of the bill mandated motorists comply with a flagman’s direction while traveling through and around highway construction or maintenance projects. Mr. Daly said motorists who refused to obey the flaggers’ signals had injured two flaggers. Mr. Daly said officials in Carson City refused to prosecute one of the offending motorists. The other motorist was prosecuted in Reno and had received a minor sentence.
Section 2 of the bill defined “authorized flagman” and had been expanded to include all employees of governmental entities or private companies.
Section 17 addressed double penalties. The reason for double penalties was explained in Mr. Daly’s handout (Exhibit C). Presently, Nevada law protected highway workers while in work zones. Work zones for highway construction were dangerous to both the workers and the driving public. Section 17 expanded the number of moving violations for which a motorist could be cited and receive a double penalty. When a motorist was cited by a law enforcement officer, the double-penalty provision could be applied even if workers were not present. If highway workers were not present when a motorist violated the law, certain circumstances had to be met before the double penalty could be applied. Mr. Daly had used language in Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) guidelines for section 17.
Mr. Daly referred to a proposed amendment to A.B. 444, which had not been passed by the Assembly (Exhibit D). The amendment to section 17, subsection 3, paragraph (a), provided for uniform language in signs used by highway workers in and around highway construction.
Section 17, subsection 4, mandated the double penalty be imposed even if signs were not posted in and around a highway construction site.
The intent of A.B. 444 was to have motorists drive cautiously through and by highway construction and maintenance sites and to have motorists obey all laws designed to protect highway construction and maintenance workers.
The phrase, “a person who violates any speed limit established pursuant to this section may be subject to the additional penalty set forth in NRS 484.3667,” had been included in section 18, subsection 3; section 19, subsection 3; section 20, subsection 9; section 21, subsection 3; section 22, subsection 5; section 23, subsection 3; and, section 24, subsection 4.
Senator Care asked Mr. Daly to explain section 1, subsection 2, paragraph (b). The Senator said some motorists objected when they encountered signs indicating highway construction was under way, but no construction workers were present. He wanted to know when a motorist would be subject to the increased penalties if no highway construction workers were present in a work zone. Mr. Daly said NDOT projects required a sign be erected at the beginning of a construction zone. The sign had to be in place for the duration of the construction project. He explained some of NDOT’s projects required a lengthy period of time to complete. A motorist would not receive a double penalty if a project was on winter hiatus, no construction workers were present, no traffic control devices were used, and there were no aggravating circumstances. When the conditions described by Mr. Daly were not in place, double penalties would be imposed. Mr. Daly said some highway construction projects required 2 years or more to complete and aggravating circumstances were present during a lengthy construction project.
Senator Care said in southern Nevada a charter bus hit another charter bus while traveling through a highway construction zone. The incident occurred in the early morning hours and no highway construction workers were present. Mr. Daly said Senator Care’s example summed up the need for A.B. 444. Work‑related activity at highway construction sites caused traffic problems in and around highway construction sites.
Mr. Daly said the union in Nevada had sponsored a series of television commercials featuring Nevada flaggers for the past 10 years. The commercials asked for the public’s cooperation in obeying the posted signs in and around highway construction zones. The commercials resulted from a 1993 accident in which a motorist on Interstate‑80 had killed a flagger. The union allotted $30,000 per year for the television commercials. If A.B. 444 were enacted, the union would produce a television commercial informing the public of the new law. The union budgeted $20,000 for the proposed television commercial.
Ruedy Edgington, Assistant Director, Operations Division, Nevada Department of Transportation, said he supported A.B. 444.
Jeanette K. Belz, Lobbyist, Associated General Contractors, Nevada Chapter, said she supported A.B. 444.
Debbie J. Smith, Lobbyist, Operating Engineers Local 3, urged the committee members to support A.B. 444. The members of Operating Engineers Local #3 worked under dangerous conditions and the motoring public had to understand how dangerous a construction work zone was to both the construction workers and the motorists.
Assemblyman John C. Carpenter, Assembly District No. 33, said he supported A.B. 444. He mentioned the accident in Elko County during November 2002 in which a motorist seriously injured four NDOT employees. One of the injured workers was still undergoing physical rehabilitation. The bill would provide safety to the highway construction workers.
Mr. Carpenter introduced the provision mandating the installation of blue lights on NDOT vehicles. Mr. Carpenter said he wanted the light to flash, but there had been concern about NDOT vehicles being outfitted with flashing blue lights.
Mr. Carpenter said Colorado, Minnesota, and Nebraska allowed blue lights on State-owned vehicles used for highway maintenance and highway construction projects. The installation of the blue lights on NDOT vehicles would not be mandatory. Mr. Carpenter stated the blue light was an important safety issue for NDOT workers.
Senator Carlton asked Mr. Carpenter whether the blue lights would be installed only on the rear of NDOT vehicles as a warning to the motorists following a NDOT vehicle. She said if blue lights were installed on the front of an NDOT vehicle, people might mistake it for an emergency vehicle.
Mr. Carpenter told Senator Carlton the Assembly Committee on Transportation wanted the blue light to be a taillamp. Mr. Carpenter had wanted a flashing blue light on both the top of NDOT vehicles and in the rear.
Gary H. Wolff, Lobbyist, Teamsters Local 14, supported A.B. 444. He said the Nevada Highway Patrol Association supported the double-penalty provision of the bill.
Senator Care referred to section 1.5, subsection 2 which contained the phrase “a district attorney shall prosecute … . ” Senator Care said the language indicated an offense committed under this bill would be a criminal offense. He asked Mr. Wolff if somebody convicted under A.B. 444 would be guilty of a criminal violation. Senator Care asked the amount of the maximum fine imposed when a person received a speeding ticket for exceeding 120 miles per hour under the double-penalty provisions of the bill.
Mr. Wolff said a violation of the bill would be a criminal violation. He also said when a person exceeded 120 miles an hour in a highway construction zone, the person would probably be incarcerated.
Marvin E. Davenport, Captain, Reno Urban Traffic Commander, Nevada Highway Patrol, Department of Public Safety, said he represented the Department of Public Safety/Highway Patrol (DPS/NHP). He stated the DPS/NHP endorsed A.B. 444, with the exception of blue lights for NDOT vehicles.
Captain Davenport read from prepared text (Exhibit E) and referred to the following provisions of the NRS: NRS 484.787, section 7, “A person shall not operate a vehicle with any lamp or device displaying a blue light, except an authorized emergency vehicle.”
NRS 484.563, section 2, “Rear clearance lamps, identification lamps and those marker lamps and reflectors mounted on the rear or on the sides near the rear of a vehicle shall display or reflect a red color.”
NRS 484.585, section 2, “Any motor vehicle may be equipped with not more than one running-board courtesy lamp on each side of the vehicle which shall emit a white or amber light without glare.”
NRS 484.493, “A police officer shall remove and destroy, or cause to be removed and destroyed, all red, blue or amber lights and all sirens unlawfully installed or operated.”
Captain Davenport said, as written, A.B. 444 mandated NDOT vehicles equipped with a blue taillamp met the statutory definition of an emergency vehicle. The blue-light provision of the bill was not a good one.
Senator Care again referred to section 1.5, subsection 2 which contained the phrase “a district attorney shall prosecute … . ” He asked if the provision had been intended to preclude plea-bargain agreements. Senator Care said when a person was cited under the provision, he or she would probably be cited for other traffic violations as well.
Mr. Daly said he wanted people prosecuted if they were cited under the provisions of A.B. 444. Mr. Daly said people were rarely cited for the traffic violations which occurred in or around highway construction or maintenance projects. He did not care whether a district attorney prosecuted a person cited for other traffic violations outside the jurisdiction of the bill. He stated if motorists were to treat law enforcement officers in the same manner as highway construction and maintenance crews were treated, the motorist would be charged with attempted murder. The penalty and mandatory prosecution provisions of the bill were warranted.
Senator Carlton asked Captain Davenport if he was the public information officer for the NHP. Captain Davenport said he was the Reno urban traffic commander.
Senator Carlton said she was confused when Captain Davenport quoted the NRS. She asked whether it was currently possible for NDOT to install blue lights on NDOT vehicles. Captain Davenport replied no.
Senator Carlton reminded the committee members they had received testimony on April 17, 2003, from Assemblywoman Sharron E. Angle, Washoe County Assembly District No. 26. Assemblywoman Angle testified on A.B. 77 and the installation of blue taillamps on motorcycles.
ASSEMBLY BILL 77 (1st Reprint): Authorizes certain inserts in tail lamps on motorcycles. (BDR 43-220)
Senator Carlton stated Captain Davenport’s testimony contradicted Assemblywoman Angle’s testimony regarding the increased safety provided by blue lights. Senator Carlton stated she slowed down when she saw a blue light. She said she thought most people slowed down automatically when they saw blue lights while driving. Senator Carlton said she thought safety was the reason Mr. Carpenter requested a blue-light provision be inserted into A.B. 444.
Senator Carlton said she was confused by the two different statistics presented to the committee members. She noted the committee members heard testimony on A.B. 77 on April 17, 2003, and passed the measure on April 22, 2003. Captain Davenport said he had not been involved in testimony regarding A.B. 77.
Senator Carlton asked whether Captain Davenport opposed A.B. 77. Captain Davenport said it would be unfair for him to comment on the measure as he had not had an opportunity to review it. Senator Carlton instructed Captain Davenport to review A.B. 77 before the Senate as a whole voted on it. Senator Carlton wanted to know whether or not Captain Davenport opposed A.B. 77 before she voted on it on the Senate Floor. Captain Davenport agreed to review the bill prior to a vote on the Senate Floor. Senator Carlton said the Assembly had not discussed potential conflict of A.B. 77 with existing statutes and wanted the Senate to be aware of those potential conflicts.
Mr. Carpenter addressed Senator Care’s question about the district attorneys prosecuting offenders under the provisions of A.B. 444. The Nevada District Attorneys Association had not made a formal presentation to the Assembly Committee on Transportation regarding A.B. 444. Mr. Carpenter said he thought the Nevada District Attorneys Association had concerns after reviewing the bill.
Mr. Carpenter said highway maintenance and construction workers were seriously injured or killed on Nevada’s highways. He said the bill had been presented to prevent injuries to those workers.
Mr. Carpenter said he would have no objection if the wording were changed from “a district attorney shall prosecute … .” to “a district attorney may prosecute … .” Mr. Carpenter said people who violated the provisions of A.B. 444 should be prosecuted due to the seriousness of the situation.
Regarding the blue-light provision of the bill, Mr. Carpenter said testimony had been received indicating blue lights were responsible for either increased or decreased safety. The testimony depended on who was presenting the testimony. Mr. Carpenter received information from the Legislative Counsel Bureau’s Research Division indicating blue lights provided an added level of safety for highway construction and maintenance vehicles. When driving, Mr. Carpenter said he watched emergency vehicles in an effort to determine which color was the most effective for safety reasons. It appeared to him that the color blue was the most effective and could be seen more easily by motorists.
Mr. Carpenter said he recognized that law enforcement and emergency vehicles were at risk on the road. However, statistics indicated highway construction and maintenance workers were also at risk.
Mr. Carpenter said he hoped A.B. 444 would allow the NHP to have a greater presence when citing motorists who speed through highway construction and maintenance projects. He said he also hoped the district attorneys in Nevada would prosecute all motorists cited under the provisions of A.B. 444.
Chairman Shaffer said he thought the committee was looking at a friendly amendment to the bill.
Morgan R. Baumgartner, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Monorail Corporation (LVMC), said she had a simple, technical amendment to A.B. 444 (Exhibit F).
Ms. Baumgartner said current State law prohibited commercial advertising in view of highways and on highways and thoroughfares, with certain exceptions. Those exceptions included benches placed in bus shelters. The LVMC wanted to add the monorail stations and bus stations to the exceptions. The LVMC was franchised under section 705 of the Clark County Code. The LVMC needed to be franchised under section 200 of the Clark County Code in order to qualify for an exception and the amendment provided for the section change. The amendment was purely technical and would be a revenue-generating source for the LVMC.
Senator Care asked whether the word “stations” used in the bill included bus stations. Ms. Baumgartner said there was an overlap in the definitions of bus shelter and bus stations. Due to the overlap, the amendment could include bus stations.
Senator Care asked whether the LVMC was a private corporation. Ms. Baumgartner replied “yes,” adding it was a private entity for public mass‑transit.
Senator Care said the committee members had approved a measure permitting the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to contract with private vendors for advertising space at DMV offices. Senator Care said if the LVMC were allowed to advertise, the entity should abide by the same rules the DMV would be following.
Ms. Baumgartner said as a private company, the LVMC had discretion to accept or reject advertising. The LVMC drafted an advertising policy which contained standards, a decency clause, and set forth the LVMC’s objective. Ms. Baumgartner read one of the standards which stated it was LVMC’s objective to maximize advertising revenue while maintaining standards of decency and good taste without infringing upon the First Amendment rights of commercial advertisers.
Senator Care asked if the same advertising policy would apply to the LVMC’s existing stations where the advertising could be exposed to the public. Senator Care thought if the LVMC were to advertise, the contents of the advertisements would have to be regulated. Ms. Baumgartner said, as a private company, the LVMC had the ability to exclude advertising which did not fit in with the company’s objectives.
Senator Schneider asked whether the government had backed the bonds which financed the construction of the LVMC’s monorail, even though the LVMC was a privately-held company. Ms. Baumgartner replied in the affirmative, adding she was not privy to the financing details as the financing was complicated. Ms. Baumgartner offered to provide Senator Schneider with the details of the financing.
Senator Schneider asked whether the taxpayers would be responsible should the LVMC default on the bonds. Ms. Baumgartner replied the bonds were nonrecourse bonds and the taxpayers would not be responsible in case of default. However, she said she would have to defer to financial experts to explain the details of the LVMC’s financing to the committee members.
Senator Schneider said he wanted to know whether the government would benefit if the LVMC advertised while crossing publicly-owned lands. He said the LVMC was basically a joint venture between private enterprise and a government entity with a complicated financing scheme. As such, it might be possible for the State to enter into an advertising joint venture with the LVMC benefiting education in Nevada. Ms. Baumgartner said she would be happy to look into such a joint venture.
Chairman Shaffer closed the hearing on A.B. 444 and opened the work session.
ASSEMBLY BILL 226 (1st Reprint): Requires certain passengers of taxicabs to wear safety belts. (BDR 43-1079)
SENATOR AMODEI MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 226.
SENATOR HARDY SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Hardy said since A.B. 226 had been requested by the industry, he would depart from his long-standing belief that the government should not impose such requirements on businesses and he intended to support the measure.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NOLAN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Senator Care said the bill removed any liability cab companies might incur. He suggested that if the bill did not apply to limousine companies, the limousine industry should remain liable in the event of passenger injury when the limousine driver was at fault. Senator Care said he had no problem imposing such requirements on businesses.
Chairman Shaffer said the committee members would not act on A.B. 30 because an amendment was pending. The measure would be heard on May 1, 2003.
ASSEMBLY BILL 30 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions regarding registration of motor vehicles. (BDR 43-67)
ASSEMBLY BILL 178: Makes various changes concerning registration and titling of motor vehicles and records of Department of Motor Vehicles. (BDR 43‑473)
SENATOR AMODEI MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 178.
SENATOR CARLTON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NOLAN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
ASSEMBLY BILL 299: Establishes duties of driver when approaching stopped authorized emergency vehicle under certain circumstances. (BDR 43-184)
SENATOR CARLTON MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 299.
SENATOR AMODEI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NOLAN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
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)
SENATOR AMODEI MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 335.
SENATOR HARDY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NOLAN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Shaffer said additional information was needed regarding A.B. 444 before the committee members could take action on the measure. Senator Care agreed with the chairman. Chairman Shaffer thanked Senator Carlton for discovering the potential conflict between existing statutes and A.B. 444.
There being no further business, Chairman Shaffer adjourned the Senate Committee on Transportation at 2:40 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Lee-Ann Keever,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer, Chairman
DATE: