MINUTES OF THE
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Sixty-seventh Session
March 8, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Transportation was called to order by Chairman Larry L. Spitler, at 1:15 p.m., on , Monday, March 8, 1993, in Room 331 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Larry L. Spitler, Chairman
Mr. Val Z. Garner, Vice Chairman
Mr. Bernie Anderson
Mrs. Vonne Chowning
Mr. Tom Collins, Jr
Mr. Louis A. Toomin
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Mr. James W. McGaughey
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. William D. Gregory (Excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Mrs. Kathy M. Augustine, Assembly District 12
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Kerry Carroll-Davis, Senior Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau
OTHERS PRESENT:
Marty Bibb, Nevada Car Rental Association
Bernie Kaufman, President, Nevada Car Rental Association
Ray Sparks, Chief, Registratin Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety
Donna Varin, Chief, Driver's License Division, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicle and Public Safety
Major John White, Commander, General Service Bureau, Nevada Highway Patrol, Department of Motor Vehicle and Public Safety
Chairman Spitler requested committee introduction of BDR 43-1208. Mr. Spitler explained BDR 43-1208 would exempt taxicab drivers from the safety belt requirement while on duty.
MR. COLLINS MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 43-1208.
MR. TOOMIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
Chairman Spitler stated several pieces of correspondence had been received regarding change of the Pearl Harbor license plate from veteran to survivor as done in thirty-eight other states.
MR. TOOMIN MOVED FOR A BILL DRAFT REQUEST CHANGING THE PEARL HARBOR LICENSE PLATE FROM PEARL HARBOR VETERAN TO PEARL HARBOR SURVIVOR.
MR. ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Spitler announced the study mandated by A.B. 185 (of the Sixty-sixth Session) to deliver driver's licensing services to remote areas had been distributed. Due to the state's financial condition, delivery of driver's license services could not be undertaken.
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 156: Authorizes department of motor vehicles and public safety to issue permit to operate unregistered vehicle to short-term lessor of vehicle.
Marty Bibb, Nevada Car Rental Association, testified in support of A.B. 156. Mr. Bibb stated the bill would grant a twenty day permit for rental car companies to operate rental cars during the interim period from when the car was first delivered until the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) was able to process the registration papers (generally up to 10 days). Mr. Bibb felt although the registration process was convenient for the general public, it was difficult and sometimes extensive when addressing the high volume of cars rental car companies have.
Bernie Kaufman, President, Nevada Car Rental Association, stated current law did not address car rental agencies in reference to registering vehicles. He stated a problem encountered by car rental agencies when bringing in fleets of vehicles was the inability to operate cars until they were licensed. Because of the lack of staff, this imposed a problem on DMV due to the high volume of cars needing registering at one time. Meanwhile, the cars were idle and not bringing in revenue to car rental agencies nor revenue in the form of sales taxes. Mr. Kaufman stated the bill would give car rental agencies time to compile all necessary paperwork, deliver the paperwork to DMV for processing, and in the instance DMV needed to register 400 cars, they would have adequate time. Mr. Kaufman stated the twenty day sticker the bill issued would enable utilization of cars while awaiting the complete registration process.
Mr. Kaufman, answering a question from Mr. Collins, stated the bill would only apply to cars intended to be registered in Nevada.
Mrs. Chowning asked what the approximate increase in revenue would be had the bill already been in place. Mr. Kaufman replied the increase would be approximately $300,000 to $500,000 per year.
Mr. Kaufman stated the sixteen member companies of the association and car rental agencies outside the association supported the bill.
Mr. Robert L. Crowell, Attorney at Law, representing Graham Rent-a-Car, testified in support of A.B. 156.
Ray Sparks, Chief, Registration Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, stated the DMV was supportive of the concept of the bill. He felt car rental agencies faced a problem in getting new vehicles operating on the road. They felt a mechanism was needed to assist them. Regarding the fiscal impact, Mr. Sparks felt Mr. Kaufman's estimate of revenue increased by the bill was higher than the actual revenue received as most registrations involved previously rented cars. Mr. Sparks requested the issuance of permit booklets to avoid the high volume of registrations. He stated his department was not staffed for such high numbers and the booklet would avoid in-line waiting for rental car companies. Mr. Sparks explained assessment of a fee would provide control on the books. To avoid hardships on rental agencies, Mr. Sparks proposed an amendment (Exhibit C) that would credit the permit fee toward the registration fee. This would avoid additional costs to car rental agencies.
Mr. Anderson suggested evenly allocating work among Mr. Spark's departments to avoid heavy work loads. Mr. Sparks explained fleet windows had dedicated employees solely responsible for carrying out registration transactions with high priority. A timely manner for such transactions was generally three days.
Mr. Sparks, answering a question from Mr. Anderson, felt revenue to the state would be enhanced as A.B. 156 provided reasonable methods for compliance by car rental agencies. He informed the committee of situations where car rental agencies operated rental cars on temporary permits without ever registering.
Mr. McGaughey asked what precautions would be taken to avoid abuse or mischief of the proposed permit booklets. Mr. Sparks replied valid dates would be entered on the permit and record keeping would be developed. Mr. Sparks explained another disincentive for abusing booklets was it was cost prohibitive. To continually run on a permit would be a lot more expensive then registering the vehicle. Mr. McGaughey expressed support for the bill concept.
Mr. Hettrick questioned enforcement of the permits. He supported the booklet concept however, he felt there were many ways the temporary permits could be abused. Mr. Sparks stated the enforcement situation was synonymous with individuals who purchased a new vehicle. Some individuals exceeded the ten day period. Back fees were collected from individuals who violated the ten day requirement. Mr. Hettrick felt assurances should be established to avoid abuse of the temporary permits, perhaps by using the vehicle identification numbers in the system. Mr. Sparks stated periodic audits were conducted on car rental agencies.
Mr. Toomin asked what the difference was in issuing, without charge, 10 day permits as opposed to 20 day permits as currently prescribed by law. Mr. Sparks replied the problem was there were no legally available ten day permits for the types of use car rental agencies needed. Mr. Sparks explained the permits that currently existed could not be applied toward car rental agencies.
Marty Bibb stated A.B. 156 was the result of DMV finding rental car agencies could not utilize cars until registered.
Mr. Sparks, in answering a question from Mr. Hettrick regarding the proposed amendment, stated they endorsed a revenue neutral permit. He felt in fairness rental car agencies could not be charged for temporary permits when other permits existed without a fee.
Mr. Bibb did question the difference in effective dates for the proposed permits. He stated rental car agencies were going to be charged from day one on the proposed temporary permits while the effective date for individuals who purchased cars did not begin until the vehicle was registered.
MR. MCGAUGHEY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 156.
MR. ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 200: Requires divisions of department of motor vehicles and public safety to exchange information from applications for driver's licenses to identify persons who may have unlawfully failed to register motor vehicles in this state.
Assemblyman Kathy Augustine, District 12, sponsor of A.B. 200, read from prepared testimony (Exhibit D) in support of the bill. Mrs. Augustine addressed certain sections of the bill which concerned various committee members. Mrs. Augustine expressed her desire to work with the committee on any amendments offered.
Mr. McGaughey expressed his concern that although the bill stated there was no fiscal note involvement, certain sections required exchanges of information among various divisions, issuance of subpoenas and hearings to be conducted and he questioned the monetary source that would pay those expenses. Mrs. Augustine replied subpoenas were currently being sent and were already budgeted and considered criminal hearings. Under the bill, Mrs. Augustine replied criminal hearings would be transferred back to DMV and administrative hearings would be conducted instead. Mr. McGaughey understood an automatic mandated fine would be placed against the subject of the hearing to cover the costs of that hearing. However, he felt that explanation was not stated in the bill. He was concerned that whoever administered the hearing had to have the authority to assess a fine and collect that fee.
Mrs. Augustine stated the proposed amendment for designating a force to execute requirements of the bill would require a fiscal note. She felt however that funds collected would more than offset the cost of the designated force. Mr. McGaughey felt the bill had many expenses and whoever paid those expenses should be identified.
Mr. Garner read an excerpt from the bill and questioned the definition of the statement "used continuously." Mrs. Augustine replied "continuously" might mean the car a resident from another state used for a length of time in Nevada although he did not reside in the state. She explained there were many instances of non-residents who lived in another state but worked in Nevada for over a year yet continued to register their vehicles in their home state.
Mr. Collins questioned enforcement of the bill and commented a fiscal note for the bill would be positive.
Answering a question from Mr. Toomin, Mrs. Augustine expanded further information on the proposed dedicated force.
Mr. Anderson expressed his delight in supporting A.B. 156.
Mrs. Chowning sought clarification on the classification of people affected by the bill. She categorized them as 1) Nevada residents moving in from elsewhere establishing permanent residency in Nevada, 2) weekly residents gainfully employed in Nevada, and 3) border residents. Mrs. Chowning felt border residents needed to be included however, she was not sure the bill addressed them.
Mr. Sparks explained the border state permit program was enacted in the Sixty-fifth Session however, repealed by the Sixty-sixty Session. The problem still existed and complicated enforcement. He stated A.B. 156 was not intended to address any facet of the problem, however defining "resident" was important.
Mr. Sparks reviewed the current statute that defined residency. Mr. Sparks addressed various disincentives which discouraged residents from registering in Nevada. Mr. Sparks stated a law that allowed DMV to credit Nevada registrations for remaining periods on out-of-state registrations was repealed by the 1989 Legislature. Mr. Sparks stated DMV was supportive of the concept of A.B. 156 but was concerned with the follow-up needed. They felt follow-up would be best placed with the highway patrol, and therefore proposed establishment of the highway patrol designated force. Mr. Sparks suggested the concept of the program be established on a pilot basis to analyze the revenues attained as opposed to the costs in executing the program. Mr. Sparks stated the highway patrol currently followed-up on complaints when able, however it was not a high priority and difficult to enforce when individuals were not witnessed driving the vehicle in question.
Mr. McGaughey repeated concerns of enforcement by the designated force and difficulty in apprehending registration violators in border towns such as Laughlin, Nevada. Mr. Sparks agreed it might be problematic however there were methods that could be used. He stated one example could be researching the out-of-state license plates and identifying the registered owner. This would be compared to the Nevada driver's license file to see if that owner had obtained a Nevada driver's license. Mr. McGaughey repeated concerns the bill required a fiscal note.
Mr. Collins offered an amendment which would require employers to have Nevada registrations and Nevada driver's licenses as a requisite for employment. He wondered how the bill would relate to commercial driver's license.
Donna Varin, Chief, Driver's License Division, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, explained current law defining the residency requirements for obtaining a driver's license. Mrs. Varin stated Nevada's law was not compatible with surrounding states or with national motor vehicle requirements. Because of differences in registration and driver's licenses, there was difficulty in administering for employment purposes. Addressing commercial driver's licenses, Mrs. Varin stated they had to be obtained from the home base state people moved to or resided in.
Chairman Spitler announced action on the bill would not be taken until a further date so Mrs. Augustine would have an opportunity to review amendments and further work on the bill's language.
Mr. Anderson queried the jurisdiction and cooperation of local municipal law enforcement to identify unregistered vehicles. Mr. Sparks replied high priority was not placed on registration enforcement, however, revenues received from registration fees generally went back into local law enforcement budgets. An estimate of at least $1 million might be lost due to unregistered vehicles.
Mrs. Varin, in answering a question from Mr. Toomin, explained the process of obtaining a Nevada driver's license for a new resident.
Mr. Hettrick asked if computer data bases could be merged to match driver's license against registrations. Mr. Sparks stated this could be researched but it could only be done manually.
Chairman Spitler asked for percentages of non-compliance and the estimated generated revenue from the bill. Mr. Sparks stated the number was significant. Chairman Spitler stated a pilot program, with a loan from the state might be suitable to address the concept of the bill. The revenue generated would go back into law enforcement and the user fee would go toward county governments.
Chairman Spitler asked Mrs. Augustine if she would like to further address the bill through a subcommittee or independently work directly with the departments. Mrs. Augustine replied a subcommittee would be ideal. Chairman Spitler appointed a subcommittee chaired by Mr. Anderson with Mr. McGaughey and Mr. Toomin as members.
Mr. Sparks explained distribution of privilege taxes among counties was established on county base numbers. The numbers were determined by forms completed when vehicle owners registered their vehicles. Mr. Sparks stated most counties on the forms were usually the county of residency. He stated there was currently a bill introduced that dealt with the county bases.
Major John White, Commander, General Service Bureau, Nevada Highway Patrol,Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, answering a question from Mr. Collins, stated current state law required law enforcement not only witness the vehicel being driven, but also to to have proper cause for stopping the vehicle. He stated in his thirty years of experience, he had never seen local agencies cite people for not registering a vehicle in Nevada as usually the highway patrol was called.
Mr. McGaughey clarified the highway patrol did have the right to enter private property to advise people with out-of-state vehicles which were witnessed to be here for the minimum length of time their vehicles had to be registered in Nevada.
Major White stated the proposed designated force would consist of three members in Southern Nevada, two members in Washoe County, and one in the Elko Region. Major White stated the impact of the force would be minimal.
Mr. Anderson referred to previous action brought forth to the DMV regarding the enforcement of out-of-state vehicles on construction sites in Nevada. Mr. Anderson requested information from Major White on the findings of those actions.
Mr. Collins stated public safety agencies in several states generally conducted spot checks where every passing motorist was stopped to have licenses and registration checked. Major White stated checkpoints were held several years ago, however the problem encountered was fabrications from motorists about where they worked or lived.
Mrs. Augustine expressed her desire to withdraw A.B. 156 from a subcommittee and continue to work, as the primary sponsor individually with DMV on the bill. Chairman Spitler acknowledged her request.
With no further business, Chairman Spitler adjourned the meeting at 2:55 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Carolyn J. Harry
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Transportation
March 8, 1993
Page 1