MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Transportation
Seventy-second Session
May 15, 2003
The Senate Committee on Transportation was called to order by Chairman Raymond C. Shaffer, at 1:30 p.m., on Thursday, May 15, 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 Terry Care
Senator Maggie Carlton
Senator Warren B. Hardy
Senator Michael Schneider
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Mark Amodei (Excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblywoman Barbara E. Buckley, Assembly District No. 8
Assemblyman Ronald (Ron) L. Knecht, Assembly District No. 40
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Marsheilah Lyons, Committee Policy Analyst
Sherry Rodriguez, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ralph Felices, Chief Investigator, Compliance Enforcement Division, Department of Motor Vehicles
Dan Wulz
Benjamin Alvarado
Stan Olsen, Lobbyist, Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association/South
John E. Jeffery, Lobbyist, B&E Auto Auction
Jim Werbeckes, Lobbyist, Farmers Insurance Group
Lisa A. Foster, Lobbyist, California State Automobile Association (dba AAA Nevada)
Dana Bennett, Lobbyist, National Association of Independent Insurers
Gary H. Wolff, Lobbyist, Teamsters Local 14
Daryl E. Capurro, Lobbyist, Nevada Motor Transport Association Incorporated
Kevin Tice, Deputy Commander, Nevada Highway Patrol, Department of Public Safety
Morgan R. Baumgartner, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Monorail Corporation
Chairman Shaffer:
We will open today’s hearing beginning with Assembly Bill (A.B.) 325.
ASSEMBLY BILL 325 (2nd Reprint): Makes various changes relating to motor vehicles that have sustained certain damages. (BDR 43-222)
Assemblywoman Barbara E. Buckley, Assembly District No. 8:
I am pleased to be the sponsor of A.B. 325. I have a copy of my written testimony for this committee and for the record (Exhibit C). You have before you some photographs (Exhibit D. Original is on file in the Research Library.) showing unbelievably damaged cars that were resold without being repaired properly, the consumer never knew it prior to purchase. This status quo needs to be changed.
This bill is a result of hours and hours of hard work, negotiation, and compromise. With one amendment, which has also been distributed (Exhibit E), is a complete compromise product.
Ralph Felices, Chief Investigator, Compliance Enforcement Division, Department of Motor Vehicles:
The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) is in support of A.B. 325. This contains amendments to chapters 482 and 487 of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). As Assemblywoman Buckley stated, this is a combination of many hours of work and collaboration, organized by Assemblywoman Buckley and her staff together with representatives of the DMV, auto insurance industry, auto wrecking industries, body shops, and salvage pull industries. The collective efforts of these groups have resulted in the development of the comprehensive bill you have before you today. The DMV cannot overemphasize the importance of this bill. It stands to serve in the best interest of consumers, specifically purchasers of used vehicles, law enforcement, and companies that insure and repair those vehicles. The protections and safeguards contained in this bill are long overdue, recognizing the importance of the total examination of the overall provisions in current statutes as they apply to the identification, classification, restoration, sale and/or disposal of salvaged vehicles. The DMV withdrew its own bill, Senate Bill (S.B.) 212, which addressed only a small portion of the overall problem of salvaged vehicles.
SENATE BILL 212: Revises provisions governing salvage vehicles. (BDR 43-585)
The language contained in A.B. 325 provides a uniform definition and classification for wrecked or damaged vehicles under a category of salvage vehicles. It provides lawful guidelines for reintroduction of qualified salvage vehicles to be rebuilt, inspected, and certified as safe, and returned for use on State highways.
Assembly Bill 325 provides a secure process of evaluation to determine a vehicle as being a total loss. It also provides guidelines for repair and inspection of those vehicles to ensure they are restored to the manufacturer’s specification standards and are safe for reintroduction onto the highways of this State.
Provisions of the bill also include substantial penalties for fraudulent certification or misrepresentation of fact involving the rebuilding and/or sale of salvage vehicles. Equally important to the overall context of A.B. 325 are provisions for proper transfer of interest of salvage vehicles in keeping with the provisions of federal rules and mandates pursuant to Title 49 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. The requirements of those regulations specify the transfer of interest in qualifying motor vehicles be completed by use of secure conforming documents. Current language allows for the simple transfer of these vehicles by means of a bill of sale or a bill of sale of salvage. I urge your support of the bill as it stands.
Chairman Shaffer:
Are there any questions from the committee?
Senator Care:
On the issue of air bags, if this bill becomes law, does federal law require a vehicle that was previously equipped with an air bag when it left the manufacturer to still have an air bag in it when it is being resold?
Mr. Felices:
Yes, vehicles that are resold, especially vehicles rebuilt from salvage. This bill requires that if there was an air bag installed at the time of manufacture, it must be reinstalled, and certified as reinstalled, at the time of replacement.
In regard to the manufacturer’s safety equipment, there are some provisions in NRS 484 in the scope and effect laws, with regard to safety equipment. It makes provisions for vehicles resold in this State to comply with all original manufacturer’s equipment in place at the time of manufacturer. If the vehicle was not rebuilt, the law would encompass that as part of the condition of resale. I would have to examine the statute a little more closely to give you an exact answer as to the provision of NRS 484, but there are some specific laws regarding safety equipment.
Senator Care:
It appears the way the bill is drafted, it would probably cover that. I would like to compliment Assemblywoman Buckley for including flood damage, I note the definition of salvage vehicles include a flood-damaged vehicle. That is appropriate.
Chairman Shaffer:
Are there any other questions from the committee?
Senator Nolan:
Page 3, section 2.5, subsection 3, refers to the repair and replacement of safety equipment, seat belt assemblies, and such. If we are dealing with a later model vehicle that has been damaged, would we require the repair to be at the original manufacturer’s standard or would we require the repair to be of the new current safety standards?
Assemblywoman Buckley:
The bill requires it to be done in a manner that complies with the applicable federal law. Dan Wulz is in Las Vegas waiting to testify. He has done a lot of research on this issue and may have something more to add. I believe it was to reflect federal law. I guess if the feds want it to require upgrades, it would require that. But, I do not think it does.
Dan Wulz:
I do not know if I can answer that question. Was the question of the federal standard referred to in this bill is upgraded or changed, will our bill track with that? Is that the question?
Senator Nolan:
The question is if there is a later model vehicle that has been seriously damaged and has antiquated safety restraint systems, or something that does not meet current federal standards, would the repair be required to be up to current federal standards or would the repair be required to be restored to its original state?
Assemblywoman Buckley:
On page 12, lines 34 and 35, it specifically says, “that were present in the vehicle at the time the vehicle was manufactured … .” The bill is saying it should be at the same original standard. If federal law requires the repair go further, then federal law would prevail over State law and require the upgrade.
Chairman Shaffer:
Is there anyone else wishing to testify on A.B. 325?
Benjamin Alvarado:
I have written testimony to present to this committee and to be entered into the record (Exhibit F). I am in favor of A.B. 325.
Chairman Shaffer:
Are there any questions from the committee?
Senator Nolan:
This question is for Assemblywoman Buckley. With reference as to who can make repairs on these vehicles, the statute defines them as a mechanic or anyone who is going to work on the vehicle. It is my understanding there are cars with sophisticated computers built into them. Some smaller body shops send that computer work out to people who are computer technicians. With the safety, braking, and cooling systems in cars relying on computers, I am wondering if that is not something we should explore and be a little proactive to make sure that is encompassed as well. Because, as it is written right now, this would only cover a mechanic or operator of a body shop who does body work. I would like the Research Division to look into that and possibly include those individuals who would do the computer repair portion of the car.
Assemblywoman Buckley:
The way section 25 was constructed it requires a garage man, or an owner of a body shop, if it is body damage, to certify the car is in safe mechanical condition. We did not go into who can fix what cars. I believe the industry already polices itself. If a mechanic felt he was not able to fix a complex computer problem, that person would send it out. We did not see any need to get into that.
Senator Care:
I have a question for Mr. Felices. I see the effective date of this bill would be October 1, 2003. To me, that means if there is a used car dealer with a vehicle not in compliance with this statute on his lot, and it has not been sold by midnight September 30, 2002, that vehicle must come off his lot until it complies with the statute. Would you agree?
Mr. Felices:
The existing laws in NRS 482 make it a license-revocable offense for a used car dealer to misrepresent anything he knew to be a condition of the vehicle at the time of sale, whether that was today, tomorrow, or after October 1, 2003. With respect to what the dealer knows, if that dealer does not disclose that information properly to the consumer, our division steps in and takes appropriate action.
Chairman Shaffer:
Is there anyone else wishing to testify on behalf of A.B. 325?
Assemblywoman Buckley:
I have been asked to inform this committee that John Sande, on behalf of the Nevada Franchised Auto Dealers Association, is in support of this bill.
Stan Olsen, Lobbyist, Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association/South:
Our auto theft division has significant experience with salvage vehicles; they know of many times where a vehicle has been hit in the front end, the front end was totaled. The vehicle is cut in half and welded to another vehicle with a different front end. In many cases, the other half has come from a stolen vehicle. In investigating this, many times they have found inferior welds, even if the vehicle was not stolen. The division has many times informed people of an inferior weld, or holes in the weld, and that the repair was not properly done. They have basically been told, “Tough, none of your business.” Law enforcement has no recourse at that point if the vehicle is not stolen. We stand in support of A.B. 325.
John E. Jeffery, Lobbyist, B&E Auto Auction:
I have a written statement from Jim Gibson, attorney for B&E Auto Auction that he would like entered into the record (Exhibit G).
I would like to commend Assemblywoman Buckley and others who have put this bill together. This bill is good for everyone in the end, the consumer, the industry, and DMV. It is an excellent bill and we support it.
Jim Werbeckes, Lobbyist, Farmers Insurance Group:
This piece of legislation does a great deal of good to protect the consumer. The current statutes have no definition of a nonrepairable vehicle or what is a salvage vehicle. Our industry does not want to insure a vehicle that is not safe to be on the roadways. This bill also helps in curbing fraud. I had a claimant with a Corvette that had been wrecked; you could probably put the entire vehicle on this table. The salvage ended up selling for more than $4500. There was nothing left of this Corvette, the only thing they wanted it for was the Vehicle Identification Numbers (VIN). This bill will help curb that type of illegal activity.
The only other thing we would put on the record is that this bill does require a $10 fee. Currently, we can sell a vehicle on a salvage bill of sale. This bill requires a salvage title before the vehicle can be sold, which we believe is good public policy. It will prevent these vehicles from skirting the system. However, to get that bill of sale, it has to go through the DMV. The DMV is committed in this bill, to turn those salvage tickets around within 2 days so we can get back those salvage titles. At any given time, we have over 400 vehicles sitting in our salvage yard incurring storage fees. Obviously we want to try and turn around these vehicles as quickly as possible. We want to go on record that DMV has committed to turn around these vehicles in a timely manner.
Lisa A. Foster, Lobbyist, California State Automobile Association (dba AAA Nevada):
We want to go on record as being in support of A.B. 325.
Dana Bennett, Lobbyist, National Association of Independent Insurers:
There are over 180 members of our association who do business in Nevada; that represents approximately 50 percent of the car insurance premiums written in this State. The association would also like to go on record supporting this bill with the amendment (Exhibit E) presented by Assemblywoman Buckley.
Chairman Shaffer:
Ms. Foster, are you happy with the amendment (Exhibit E) as well?
Ms. Foster:
Yes.
Mr. Werbeckes:
Farmers Insurance is also happy with the amendment (Exhibit E).
Chairman Shaffer:
If there is no other testimony, would the committee like to make a motion?
SENATOR SCHNEIDER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 325.
SENATOR CARLTON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED. (SENATOR AMODEI WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Senator Hardy:
Chairman Shaffer, I want to thank Assemblywoman Buckley for bringing this bill forward. Salvage vehicles are very important to maintain; there is no confidence in them right now. I have been looking for a vehicle for my daughter. We found a great car but it had a salvage title. Had I had this level of comfort, I would have purchased that car. I felt badly for the gentleman selling that vehicle. It could have been an entirely appropriate salvage. But, because I had no level of confidence I did not purchase the vehicle.
This is not only good for the consumer, but also for dealers. It establishes a level of confidence that salvage-titled vehicles have been repaired correctly. It is very important, particularly for vintage vehicles. That is the main reason this salvage title is so important. Classic vehicles need to be able to be dealt with through salvage titles. I think this is a great piece of legislation.
Chairman Shaffer:
We are going into the work session of this hearing beginning with A.B. 223. We have two amendments to this bill; Ms. Lyons will go over those with us.
ASSEMBLY BILL 223 (1st Reprint): Requires certain vehicle dealers to provide copies of certain documents translated into Spanish for viewing by purchaser or prospective purchaser of motor vehicle under certain circumstances. (BDR 43-941)
Marsheilah Lyons, Committee Policy Analyst:
Assembly Bill 223 requires vehicle dealers who advertise that Spanish is spoken at the business or who conduct business by communicating in Spanish with a purchaser or prospective purchaser, to have all sale forms used on a regular basis, translated into Spanish. In addition, each such place of business must conspicuously post a legible sign written in Spanish advising purchasers and prospective purchasers of their right to view all agreements or contracts in Spanish. Finally, the measure requires the regulations adopted by the director of the DMV to be consistent with these requirements.
The two amendments are provided for the committee (Exhibit H). I would like to point out to the committee, on page 2 of the mock-up (Exhibit I) I have listed under section 1, subsection 4, “The Commissioner of Financial Institutions shall arrange for or otherwise cause the translation into Spanish of copies of the retail installment contract and other applicable sales for as indicated in NRS 97.29,” that should be NRS 97.299.
Chairman Shaffer:
I believe Mr. Sande had volunteered to help financially with the cost of the translation. Are there any comments from the committee?
Senator Hardy:
I understand the reason for this. Is there anything that prevents a person who speaks Spanish from getting a copy of the sales contract in Spanish before they purchase the car? In my experience with the private sector is that if they ask for that as a contingency to purchase the vehicle, that document would be provided. The assumption that these people have to purchase a car, based on an English contract, I think is not accurate. If they ask for a copy, it can be provided.
My family conducted business in a large Hispanic area for many years and we always had a member of our staff who could speak Spanish. I believe these things are better left to the private sector and do not need to be mandated by government. I do not have a problem having the clarification in Spanish. I am uncomfortable with the Legislature mandating these types of things. I will not be able to support this measure.
Senator Nolan:
I respect your opinion Senator Hardy. But, I wonder what happens when an individual goes to a dealer and wants to buy a car, they say, “Deseo un contrato en ingles. (Translated means: “I want a contract in English.”) If the dealer does not speak Spanish and the customer does not speak English, and there is no interpreter to help, what do they do? I feel this is a decent measure. I do not like the fact that so much would need to be translated, or making those kinds of demands either. But, when it comes to the purchase of a car, which is a considerable investment for anybody, then taking these precautions I believe is reasonable.
Senator Care:
If we are talking about a business that has advertised in Spanish, I think this is fine.
Chairman Shaffer:
Would the committee like to make a motion?
SENATOR CARLTON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 223 WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT UNDER THE MOCK-UP (EXHIBIT I).
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED. (SENATOR HARDY VOTED NO. SENATORS AMODEI AND SCHNEIDER WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Shaffer:
We will now move on to A.B. 394. I would like Ms. Lyons to give us a quick explanation of the bill.
ASSEMBLY BILL 394 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions governing removal by police officer of vehicle or part of vehicle from highway to garage or other place of safekeeping. (BDR 43-1037)
Ms. Lyons:
This measure requires a police officer that removes a vehicle from a highway to use a towing service in accordance with any applicable protocol such as a rotation schedule, unless a different course of action is necessary to preserve evidence of a criminal offense. The tow car operator, to the extent practicable, must use the shortest and most direct route to take that vehicle to his garage or place of safekeeping that is nearest to the location of the vehicle.
The mock-up (Exhibit J) contains one proposed amendment to remove liability from police officers for vehicles and items in vehicles after the vehicle is released to the tow company. That amendment was proposed by Gary Wolff.
Chairman Shaffer:
Are there any comments from the committee?
Senator Carlton:
The last time we discussed this I had some questions. I have done some research, and have spoken with Mr. Olsen and my constituent who had a problem with this bill. They seemed to think their concerns have been addressed. I am in support of this bill.
Chairman Shaffer:
Is there additional testimony for this bill?
Gary H. Wolff, Lobbyist, Teamsters Local 14:
This bill is fine; I am okay with it now. I appreciate that you removed liability from the police officer.
Senator Hardy:
Does this bill deal only with nonconsensual tows?
Mr. Wolff:
Yes, it only applies to nonconsensual tows.
Daryl E. Capurro, Lobbyist, Nevada Motor Transport Association Incorporated:
Unfortunately, I believe there was some misunderstanding of the testimony given to you by the sponsor of the bill. It was indicated that this type of tow, a nonconsensual tow, is not regulated. That is not the case. The nonconsensual, or third-party tow, is regulated by the Transportation Services Authority (TSA), as for the storage requirement, pricing, and moving the wreck to the nearest safe spot in his inventory. It is also under the rotational system, in addition to being under the TSA regulatory structure of local enforcement, through their rotational systems, and through the highway patrol.
For instance, originally we thought the language had been changed enough to do the job. Quite frankly, I do not believe the bill is necessary because of the regulatory structure that they are set up for already. This has to do with one situation in Las Vegas that has come up apparently a couple of times. The fact of the matter is, as a tow car operator, I am not going to assume liability for a vehicle I am towing if you are going to require me to tow it to someone else’s lot. That is essentially what this language is saying in subsection 4. If you were willing to release the liability of the person having to tow the vehicle, then I would agree. This bill is not necessary; it is already covered under the regulatory structure I previously mentioned.
Chairman Shaffer:
Are there any comments from the committee?
Senator Hardy:
If that is what this bill does, I have a lot of concerns. I looked at the language in the bill, page 2, section 1, subsection 4, “… most direct route, remove the vehicle or part of a vehicle to his garage or other place of safekeeping that is nearest to the location of the vehicle or part of a vehicle.” Could we change that to, “Or to his garage”? I understand and agree with what we are trying to address here, I do not have a problem with that. I believe this causes a lot of confusion and potential lawsuits.
We are talking about nonconsensual tows. If the highway patrol or someone else tows a vehicle to the tow operator’s garage, someone could argue that the location was not a place of safekeeping. There are some smaller garage keepers in rural Nevada that some individuals who have their vehicles towed may not feel that is an area of safekeeping. What happens if a vehicle is towed to a tow yard in Gabbs and it is vandalized while it is there? They could argue that the tow company was in violation of this law.
I also want it on the record that I am a shareholder in a company that represents a tow company that is not impacted by this. I am more concerned about our law enforcement than the tow companies. I have some concerns if that is what this bill in fact does.
Mr. Capurro:
I understand in the regulatory structure of the TSA, they have specific requirements for the safekeeping of vehicles. The location must be lighted, fenced, and secured in order for them to participate as a nonconsensual towing company. Those are some of the same requirements for the rotational list used by law enforcement. If you take that language out, you are doing nothing more than what the law already requires. Certainly, if you are to pass this bill, I would suggest you put in, “to his garage” and remove “other place of safekeeping.”
Senator Hardy:
I do not think it is inappropriate to codify regulation in statute if there is a public reason to do so and if there is a concern. Unless there are any other comments, I would like to make a motion.
Ms. Lyons:
Just for clarification, if you will look at section 1, subsection 3, the language already in statute says, “any police officer may … remove any vehicle or part of a vehicle found on the highway or cause it to be removed to a garage or other place of safekeeping ... .” I believe when legal drafted this bill, they were being consistent with the language already there.
Chairman Shaffer:
We have a motion by Senator Hardy to remove the safekeeping portion of the language, is that correct?
Senator Hardy:
What impact would it have if we remove the safekeeping portion from existing law?
Chairman Shaffer:
The tow operator would have to store it at his own tow yard.
Senator Hardy:
And that is what they currently practice.
Mr. Capurro:
There is more to it. Ms. Lyons, you are correct in the language, but in the subsection you read, it does not contain the language using the shortest and most direct route. That was the situation that came up in earlier testimony. It is not a problem with 99.9 percent of the tow company business in the Las Vegas area, and it is not a problem that I am aware anywhere else in the State.
Senator Hardy:
Is it your opinion Mr. Capurro, if we remove, “or other place of safekeeping that is nearest to the location of the vehicle or part of the vehicle,” that would codify in statute what is currently occurring in regulation?
Mr. Capurro:
That would solve the problem. Put in, “garage” period. Then remove the rest of that sentence.
Senator Nolan:
I am not sure we have a formal motion yet. I would like to offer something and maybe it might help Senator Hardy in his motion. The tow truck operators who contract with the highway patrol and different police agencies obviously do it as a source of revenue. If this were not profitable for them, they would not do it. In many cases, it is not profitable. A lot of times they are towing abandoned junkers at their own expense and time. So, being on the law enforcement rotation sometimes pans out, sometimes it does not.
One tow operator told me that a lot of times it is a break-even business at best. If we, in any way, took away their ability to tow vehicles back and maintain them at their facility and force them to deliver it to someone else’s facility, then it becomes a loss of revenue for them. We would lose operators who are willing to be on police rotations. In some of the outlying areas there may only be one tow company such as the one in Amargosa Valley who goes into Indian Springs. In the situation Assemblyman Goldwater had brought forward, the owner of the vehicle had complained because he had to drive to Amargosa Valley from Las Vegas to pick up his vehicle. The vehicle broke down near Indian Springs. The cost probably would have been about the same as it would have been for a tow operator in Las Vegas to drive out and pick the car up and tow it back. The cost would have been the same either way. The only inconvenience was the fact he had to drive the additional distance out to Amargosa Valley.
Chairman Shaffer, as much as I respect Assemblyman Goldwater’s efforts in trying to do this, I do not think it is going to help the problem. The only thing it might do is if law enforcement agencies and highway patrol contract with tow operators in the urban valley to drive that far out, pick up the vehicle and tow it back. The vehicle registration can determine to which area the vehicle should be towed. It is going to be tough to get a tow operator to drive that far out to pick up a vehicle.
Chairman Shaffer:
I would like to hear from Mr. Tice on this issue.
Kevin Tice, Deputy Commander, Nevada Highway Patrol, Department of Public Safety:
With regard to that particular incident, there was really no other way around what had occurred because of the logistics of rural Nevada. Our concern with the amendment to the language is with regard to our contracts with tow companies. As Mr. Capurro stated, we have requirements, for security purposes, in those contracts. If they have to tow a vehicle to other places of safekeeping, that is going to cause a logistical burden with the contractual agreements we have with tow companies.
We are very diligent in trying to provide the best public service we can. When we have to use tow companies to tow individual’s vehicles in a nonconsensual situation, certainly we are not trying to make it an inconvenience for that individual.
To address Senator Nolan’s concern about geography, it is possible we could change our boundaries with regard to tows and have a Las Vegas Valley tow company tow a further distance or go and get vehicles of further distance from the valley. It is a tough issue.
Chairman Shaffer:
Could something like that be handled by a regulation?
Mr. Tice:
Yes. We could readdress the boundaries we have currently set and the agreements we have with tow companies. We could extend the boundary further out from the Las Vegas Valley.
Senator Carlton:
I am curious, were these things discussed in the Assembly Committee on Transportation?
Mr. Capurro:
Yes. We lost track of it after testimony and agreed upon amendments. The way the amendment came out is not what our understanding was. That is what happened.
Senator Carlton:
When the amendment came out, it had to be voted for on the Assembly Floor. This amendment has been on the record since it was passed by the Assembly.
Mr. Capurro:
Yes. But, unfortunately, I am following approximately 200 bills. It was an unfortunate oversight on our part. We were led to believe that it was resolved and it was not.
Mr. Wolff:
My issue with this has nothing to do with distance or anything else. It is just that every time something like this happens and someone files litigation, it seems like our officers get right in the middle of it and finger-pointing starts. My issue has been taken care of by eliminating the liability from the police officer but I can certainly see the issues.
Senator Carlton:
I disagree with the gentlemen here, but I do believe this is a good piece of legislation. I understand Senator Hardy’s earlier concerns and I was willing to support Senator Hardy in what he was trying to do. I personally like to see things in statute, not just in regulation, because they can be changed at a whim. I can see this is protecting the consumer who gets caught between a rock and a hard place when a car ends up breaking down and that person ends up having to leave it or have it towed.
I was in support of the direction Senator Hardy was going to address those concerns. I think everything else can be dealt with contractually and through the fee schedules. I do not see any reason to change anything other than that.
Chairman Shaffer:
It is my understanding that you feel there is enough information on the books currently, that we really do not need this legislation, as far as for towing. You could probably handle it with regulation, or we may have some other ways of addressing the issue without getting into the full statute.
Mr. Capurro:
I believe regulatory structure has enough flexibility to do it, but understand, I did support what Senator Hardy had indicated, if you put a period after, “to his garage” on line 19, page 2, and remove the rest of that sentence. We would not have a problem with that. It would essentially be saying exactly what is in regulation now.
Senator Carlton:
That also keeps this where it needs to be, to be able to protect officers. Otherwise, the officers are still going to be caught in that catch-22. I believe that is a very important provision we need to keep alive.
Chairman Shaffer:
Would the committee like to try another motion at this time?
Senator Nolan:
Obviously, the way it is currently written, it is more problematic than it will help. We have one situation that was brought up; I did not hear any testimony from anyone else other than this one situation outside of the valley. It was stated by the officer that if the highway patrol were able to negotiate with one of the major towing companies in the metropolitan areas, they could extend their boundaries and be able to come and help out. We do not need to legislate that, it is a common sense thing they can handle. However, if the panel is comfortable with the language that Senator Hardy was going to propose, then I would support that.
SENATOR HARDY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 394 WITH THE AMENDMENT REMOVING, “OR OTHER PLACE OF SAFEKEEPING THAT IS NEAREST TO THE LOCATION OF THE VEHICLE OR PART OF THE VEHICLE.”
SENATOR CARLTON SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Hardy:
Mr. Capurro, are you fine with that?
Mr. Capurro:
Yes. That is fine with me. Is the issue you were talking about, specifically written here, as far as removing the liability from the officer?
Chairman Shaffer:
Yes. It is still in the bill.
THE MOTION PASSED. (SENATORS AMODEI AND SCHNEIDER WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Shaffer:
We will now go to A.B. 444. Ms. Lyons is going to give us a brief explanation of the bill and its amendments.
ASSEMBLY BILL 444 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes relating to traffic laws. (BDR 43-1098)
Ms. Lyons:
Assembly Bill 444 allows, but does not require the Department of Transportation to equip vehicles with taillamps that emit a non‑flashing blue light. A list of amendments (Exhibit K) that are contained in the mock-up (Exhibit L) have been provided for the committee. For amendment five (Exhibit K), there is an agreed-upon language, I will let Senator Nolan speak to that. That was worked out with the Las Vegas Monorail Corporation. For amendment six (Exhibit K), which is Assemblyman Knecht’s amendment, highway patrol has offered an alternative amendment for that as well.
Senator Nolan:
My concern with respect to the bill was in one area, that was where is the revenue going that is being collected by the quasi-private agency acting as operator of the monorail systems. I have spent a considerable amount of time with the representatives from the monorail project. Essentially, the revenue is obligated, as is all revenue collected from the farebox and other sources, to go first, primarily to operations and maintenance, and secondly, to pay off the bond debt. I asked to see the budget. I was concerned, since this was an afterthought, that the revenue being collected from this was not a major consideration; it is a major consideration. How can you miss that much revenue? I wanted to make sure that excess revenue, over and above operating and maintenance costs was going to pay the bond debt.
The amendment before us (Exhibit M), I had suggested this language to the monorail project. They checked with their people and said it was fine. What the amendment says is, “If a franchisee who receives advertising revenues authorized by this section is obligated to repay bonds issued by the State of Nevada, the franchisee shall use all revenue generated by the advertising authorized by this section to meet obligations to the State of Nevada as set forth in the financing agreement and bond indenture, including the payment of operations, maintenance obligations, funding of reserves, and payment of debt service. To the extent that surplus revenues remain after payment of all such budgeted obligations, such surplus shall be used solely to repay the bonds.”
By including the word budgeted, it makes sure the revenue received is applied solely toward what the board of directors has approved for budget. The excess money received will go to repay the bond.
Senator Care:
After the bonds are retired, then where will the revenues go?
Senator Nolan:
To address one thing, I looked into the budget, the revenues are projected to be about $7 million per year and then increase by 3 percent every year thereafter. That is a considerable amount of money.
Morgan R. Baumgartner, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Monorail Corporation:
The bonds are retired after 40 years. After the bonds are retired, all the monorail property reverts to the State of Nevada. The State of Nevada becomes the owner of the monorail. Effectively, the revenues generated are only spoken for and allocated for the next 40 years.
Chairman Shaffer:
Senator Care, does that answer your question?
Senator Care:
Yes.
Chairman Shaffer:
Is the Las Vegas Monorail Corporation okay with this?
Ms. Baumgartner:
We are. We appreciate Senator Nolan working so diligently with us on this. I would like to add, we have been so careful about the precise language in the amendment because of the bond document Senator Nolan has. As you know, it is a covenant and a contract with bondholders. We are being very careful not to impair any of those promises made.
Chairman Shaffer:
Thank you very much for your testimony. I would like Assemblyman Knecht to come up and testify.
Assemblyman Ronald (Ron) L. Knecht, Assembly District No. 40:
This is not that complicated and we are trying to make it simpler. I spoke with Assemblywoman Chowning who said she had no objection with amendment six, but it was Mr. Daly’s call. I talked with Mr. Daly who noted the Assembly had passed the bill before the amendments that have been proposed here. His concern is that his basic bill not be lost by anything done here.
With that said, we proceeded with staff and the Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP) which had been the only party with any objections. The proposal is that the 200‑feet provision would remain in the bill and a provision would be added that Ms. Lyons has drafted which would require the motorist to stop and wait if the motorist cannot merge within 200 feet; the motorist must stop and wait for an opening. This provision would apply only in counties with a population under 400,000, rural Nevada and Washoe County. For example Washoe County School District testified their buses need this bill. The law enforcement community, Mr. Olsen, Mr. Wolff, and others support this bill. That leaves the question of what to do in Cark County. The NHP’s preference would be to simply not allow left turns utilizing the center lane in Clark County. An alternative, if the members of this committee feel strongly, would be to require in Clark County and counties with populations over 400,000, that anyone making a left-hand turn into the center lane would be required to enter the center lane and stop, not allowing them to travel an additional 200 feet in that center lane. I would solicit your support on that basis.
Chairman Shaffer:
Are there any questions or comments from the committee?
Senator Care:
I am somewhat relieved that we are talking about counties with populations under 400,000. We have all seen this happen, a driver entering the highway wants to turn left onto the highway, probably thinks that is doing everyone a favor by getting out halfway and then worry about the other side of traffic after being out there. You do not know if that driver is going to stop or be foolish enough to come over right in front of you. I prepare to brake when I see that happen. I also wonder if a driver trying to enter the highway to the left, can see if there is an oncoming vehicle that might be preparing to move into the center lane to make a left turn. I personally feel very uncomfortable allowing anything like this in Clark County. I am going to support the bill. I am not going to do anything to take the bill down, but that is a concern of mine. I think what I have said will not come as a surprise to many people.
Senator Carlton:
I did not realize I taught my daughters how to break the law when I was teaching them how to drive and how to get out of our subdivision. Because of the way the lights are timed on Bonanza Road, which is a State highway, people are going 50 miles an hour coming down that hill. I have taught my daughters to get out of the subdivision safely, to pull out, use that center lane, wait until the cars whizz by, and then try to pull into the lane.
If we eliminate counties with populations over 400,000, my daughters are still essentially breaking the law under the rules of their mother. So, it puts them in a real tough position, to whom do they listen?
Personally, I like their safety in that middle lane. I know it bothers people when someone pulls out because of not knowing if that driver is going to stop. There are instances in southern Nevada, if there is not a barrier it is almost an unwritten rule because they have not put in a median, people think it is the way they are suppose to do it. I am going to support this bill. I understand what Mr. Daly is trying to do. I like everything in the bill, I just have some concerns about that part of it and I wanted that on the record.
Assemblyman Knecht:
First of all, here in Carson City, 78 percent of the people already do as Senator Carlton advises her daughters to do. They use this option. I believe this is a safer option. This is a matter of safety. I certainly concur and understand Senator Care’s reservations. I was aware that Senator Carlton teaches her daughters this way. I wanted to leave the decision up to Clark County, which knows the situation better down there than I do, as to what is appropriate. The NHP has concerns and may have a preference. We could live with it either way. I think the NHP could live with it either way, depending on what the committee’s preferences are for Clark County. In short, here in Carson City, rural Nevada, and in Washoe County, this is an option we really need and we look to you for what we should do in Clark County.
Mr. Tice:
I would like to take the opportunity to illustrate why the NHP is concerned. In areas with a center turn lane, a single lane is designed for opposing traffic, when opposing traffic is allowed to use the same lane it is going to be problematic. I believe engineers designed them that way to improve the flow of traffic. In the case where two opposing vehicles approach each other trying to make left turns at the same time, at least at that point they can see each other. Our position is, in highly congested areas, when a vehicle uses that travel lane to merge, the driver’s attention is primarily to the rear or to the traffic they are trying to merge into and not to what might be coming in front of the vehicle, which makes sharing that lane with opposing traffic even more problematic. Certainly, I acknowledge that a large percentage of the public violates this law. I would like to believe that our officers show discretion and not take enforcement actions if it is not a hazardous movement. Because of a larger percentage of drivers being aggressive, it will be more problematic if this center lane is used as a merging lane. We cannot deny that there will be more crashes if they are allowed to use this in highly congested areas. That is our concern. We are trying to reduce crashes and save lives.
Chairman Shaffer:
We appreciate your testimony and respect your experience and knowledge on this issue.
Mr. Olsen:
We support what Assemblyman Knecht is proposing. Accidents are going to happen regardless. We did a poll of our officers to determine how much of a problem this was. We were stunned to find out most officers did not realize this movement was even illegal. It is done all the time in Clark County. We do stand in support of it still. I understand NHP’s concerns but again, if there is an accident, there will still be other charges that can be filed.
Senator Carlton:
I want to clarify with Mr. Olsen, are you in support of this applying to everyone in the State then and not eliminating counties over 400,000 population?
Mr. Olsen:
Yes.
Senator Nolan:
I respect both officers and their opinions on this. I think the one thing we have identified is this is common practice by most of the motoring public. I believe there are many situations in which this would be a safer move to do. When you get someone who is anxious about getting across three lanes of traffic and then across the center turn lane and then move into the next lane, the fifth lane, to turn left, they are having to monitor three lanes of traffic coming this way, what is going on in the center lane, and then what is coming in the other direction. In many cases it is actually a safer move to be able to monitor traffic coming from the left, get into the center lane, then try to negotiate the traffic coming from the right. They have fewer variables to negotiate.
What you said is true. There is always the opportunity that someone is going to get over into that lane and cause a collision. If this is common practice by most of the motoring public, I think the prudent thing to do is instead of making it illegal and something that is citable, I am in agreement with what Assemblyman Knecht’s amendment does, and that is allowing drivers to pull out and stop. We should include verbiage that a motorist entering the center lane must yield to traffic, that places that person as the responsible party when making that maneuver. If there is a collision, then it is clear as to the responsible party.
That is all we are trying to define. Since we have already codified that it is common practice. Now, all we are trying to determine is who is at fault if there is an accident. It should be the person that is yielding into traffic. If we include that language, that would help us.
Mr. Tice:
That would be very helpful to us in an accident investigation in determining fault when a collision occurs in the center turn lane. If there were language in statute that says the driver making the left turn has the right-of-way and the driver trying to merge into traffic must yield, that would be helpful.
Senator Nolan:
If Assemblyman Knecht is agreeable to that, I would like to amend that into the motion if the committee would agree.
Assemblyman Knecht:
I am agreeable to that. That would apply in all counties appropriately.
Senator Carlton:
If that was a motion to include this as a Statewide provision and not just for counties of populations under 400,000, I would second that motion for all the components of A.B. 444, amendments 1 through 6.
Chairman Shaffer:
As a matter of clarity, would the person making the left turn have the right‑of‑way?
Mr. Tice:
That is my understanding. The person that makes the left turn has the right‑of‑way, the person that is merging into traffic must yield to the person making the left turn.
Chairman Shaffer:
I just want to make sure that is on the record. Do we have a motion?
SENATOR NOLAN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 444 WITH ALL THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 1 THROUGH 6.
SENATOR CARLTON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED. (SENATORS AMODEI AND SCHNEIDER WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Shaffer:
If there is no further business to come before the committee, the hearing is now adjourned at 3:13 p.m.
Sherry Rodriguez,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer, Chairman
DATE: