MINUTES OF THE
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Sixty-seventh Session
March 31, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Transportation was called to order by Chairman Larry L. Spitler, at 1:30 p.m., on Wednesday, March 31, 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. William D. Gregory
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. James W. McGaughey (Excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Paul Mouritsen, Senior Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau
OTHERS PRESENT:
David R. Parks, Assistant Director, Regional Transportation Committee
Donna Varin, Chief, Driver's License Division, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety
See Guest List for Additional Attendees (Exhibit B)
Chairman Spitler stated a problem currently existed with collection of diesel taxes collected at the pump. Chairman Spitler requested a committee introduction for a bill draft request that would require diesel taxes be collected at the point of distribution.
MR. TOOMIN MOVED FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF A BILL DRAFT REQUEST REQUIRING DIESEL TAXES BE COLLECTED AT POINT OF DISTRIBUTION.
MRS. CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
Chairman Spitler expanded on an issue of the Sixty-sixth session pertaining to access of government records, particularly, those records held with the Department of Motor Vehicles. Assemblyman Scherer introduced a bill referencing the subject in the Sixty-sixth session and requested the Legislature again examine the issue of people requesting exclusion of their names from the list DMV sells to various agencies.
MR. HETTRICK MOVED FOR A COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED REQUEST.
MR. ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
Chairman Spitler asked for a committee introduction of BDR 32-708 which proposed tax exemptions for promoting use of alternative fuels in vehicles. The bill was submitted by Clark County.
MR. GARNER MOVED FOR A COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 32-708.
MR. ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
SENATE BILL 38: Changes terms to be served by members of regional transportation commissions in larger counties.
David Parks, Assistant Director, Regional Transportation Commission, Clark County, from prepared testimony (Exhibit C) supported passage of S.B. 38. Mr. Parks, answering a question from Mr. Toomin, clarified the Regional Flood Control District members did concur with the bill.
MR. GARNER MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 38.
MR. TOOMIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
Chairman Spitler requested Mr. Collins handle the bill when it reached the floor.
WORK SESSION:
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 176: Requires governing body of political subdivsion and attorney general, under certain circumstances, to bring action to allow access to public road.
Chairman Spitler and Mr. Anderson, bill sponsor, stated they had received feedback from both proponents and opponents of the bill commending the work of the subcommittee assigned to A.B. 176 and thanked the members for their efforts.
Mrs. Chowning, Chairman of the A.B. 176 subcommittee, thanked fellow subcommittee members Mr. Hettrick and Mr. Collins, stating they worked very well together. She also thanked the many concerned parties who provided input on the public access issue. Mrs. Chowning stated the subcommittee had arrived at proposals for an amendment to A.B. 176. She also attended the hearing in the Senate on S.B. 235, a bill similar to A.B. 176. She felt although the bills had a different emphasis, both were very timely and provided opportunity for a good statement to be made in this session regarding public access to public roads. Mrs. Chowning reviewed the components of the subcommittee's proposed amendment (Exhibit D). She explained the intent of the subcommittee was to further work on the amendment language. Chairman Spitler requested the amendments be in written form and taken back to the subcommittee to provide opportunity for public comment. Mrs. Chowning concurred and stated the subcommittee would bring the bill back to the committee with its final recommendation.
Answering a question from Mr. Garner, Mr. Collins explained the original statute requiring twenty-four signatures was reduced to a five signature petition requirement. This would enable concerns to be heard through state law. The counties current requirement of having only one signature petitions seemed low, however, requiring twenty-four signatures did not seem necessary.
Mr. Hettrick, expounding on the five signature requirement, reiterated at the county level one person could petition a hearing. Often, that one person may be an individual disgruntled at the property owner; therefore, requiring one signature would be too small, however requiring twenty-four signatures seemed too great. The five signature requirement would at least provide a consensus of concerned citizens.
Mr. Garner clarified the five person petition requirement was needed for evidence that a substantial problem existed. Mrs. Chowning agreed.
Mr. Anderson stressed the importance in not only having the five signature petition requirement, but also having the five people provide ample justification for a hearing. He felt the amendment provided a higher threshold for citizens to be heard. Mr. Anderson stated the person he introduced the bill on behalf of provided a volume of supporting documents, however she was ignored in several cases.
Mrs. Chowning called attention to the proposed amendment requiring the signatures of five residents. She stated the residents could be from anywhere in the state of Nevada, not just from the immediate county in which the public road accessing problem occurred. Clarifying a question from Mr. Garner, Mrs. Chowning stated the petition would be served to the county commissioners of the county in which the public roads were in question.
Mrs. Chowning expounded on other areas of concern to citizens. She received a call from a gentleman who, for twenty years, accessed a public road through private property, however, in one instance, he was denied access from exiting the public property through private land. He found he was locked in.
Chairman Spitler requested Mrs. Chowning post the subcommittee's meeting on A.B. 176 to provide opportunity for a full hearing on proposed amendments. Chairman Spitler stated when the action was brought back before the full Transportation Committee, testimony would be heard. He again commended the subcommittee on A.B. 176.
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 157: Makes various changes relating to driver's licenses and registration of motor vehicles.
Mr. Hettrick stated he had met with Mr. Ray Sparks, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, and also Terry Rankin, Insurance Commissioner. After reviewing the language on A.B. 157 relating to evidence of insurance, Mr. Hettrick stated all agreed to remove the language stating " A motor vehicle liability policy or binder, or a receipt issued to the insured, may be used in lieu of the form approved by the commissioner upon the approval of the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety." Reasons for the removal was DMV did not want its staff interpreting liability policies and the insurance companies did not want insurance binders used. He stated all agreed to substitute language which stated, "For registration purposes only, a certificate of insurance on a form approved by the commissioner would be acceptable."
Mr. Anderson called attention to Section 9, Line 22, clarifying that instead of "proof of security" the bill amendment would read "evidence of security." He also requested on Section 4, Line 22, the amendment read "for the future" rather than "for at least three years after the effective date of the proof."
Donna Varin, Chief, Driver's License Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, stated at the previous hearing regarding A.B. 157, she had proposed five amendments. She stated the five amendments had all been rewritten. She stated the term "proof of financial responsibility" would be synonymous with the term "proof of financial responsibility for the future" and would tie all subsections together.
Mrs. Varin reviewed the five proposed amendments (Exhibit E) with the committee.
MR. ANDERSON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 157.
MR. GREGORY SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
Chairman requested Mr. Hettrick handle A.B. 157 when it reached the floor.
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 229: Expands and temporarily makes mandatory provision regarding suspension of driver's license of juveniles who commit certain unlawful acts.
Mr. Anderson explained when A.B. 229 was originally discussed, he felt the need for a compromising amendment. He distributed copies and explained the amendment he proposed (Exhibit F).
Chairman Spitler clarified the proposed amendment would omit the two year test period. Mr. Anderson agreed.
Mr. Hettrick recalled the concern for the bill when originally discussed dealt with those minors who unknowingly were in a vehicle with alcohol/drugs yet penalized equally to the teenagers who had the alcohol/drugs. Mr. Hettrick felt by using the word "shall," the judge would be left with no discretion.
Mr. Garner also voiced concern with the word "shall."
Mrs. Chowning reiterated her position supporting the use of the word "shall." She stated having a driver's license was not a right but a privilege. The success of the proposed law already used in other states was based on using the word "shall" in mandating suspensions of driver's licenses of juveniles violating the law. Mrs. Chowning felt Mr. Anderson's proposed amendment strengthened the bill considerably and supported the amendment. She felt discretion was not removed from judges and the bill sent a strong message which would deter juveniles from participating in the detrimental behavior.
Mr. Garner repeated his concerns that the word "shall" was used interchangeably with the word "must" which carried the same force and effect in taking the judge's discretion away.
Mr. Hettrick concurred with Mr. Garner's concern withe the proposed mandated penalty.
Mr. Anderson addressed the provision of the bill that dealt with subsequent unlawful acts of the juvenile which he felt was the real essence of the bill. Mr. Anderson felt judges still had discretion when dealing with the cases.
Mr. Collins expressed his support for using the word "shall" in that the judge "shall" suspend the driver's license; however, sought clarification if the judge would use "shall" for all occupants of the vehicle or addressed those involved individually.
Mr. Hettrick replied the bill said "Using, possessing, selling, distributing a controlled substance or, purchasing, consuming, or possessing an alcoholic beverage.." which stated all occupants in the vehicle would be in violation. He was concerned with those children who were unknowingly in the vehicle with the unlawful substances. He continued by leaving "may" in the first two instances, and using the mandated "shall" in the event of subsequent acts would be acceptable. Mr. Hettrick felt this would allow the judge discretion and would clearly send a strong message to juveniles that drinking and controlled substances could not be tolerated.
Mrs. Chowning commented the main concern seemed to be with the inclusion of the possession charge. She stated, "using, selling, distributing, purchasing, and consuming" were far more intense violations than "possession" and an acceptable compromise might be to use "may" for possession and "shall" for the other infractions.
Mr. Anderson felt a statutory problem was created by making it overly cumbersome for law enforcement officials by placing them in a difficult judgmental situation.
Chairman Spitler mentioned an issue to keep in mind were police officers arrested juveniles only when the juvenile was found to have committed the acts. The bill would not stop the child from being taken into jail as the statute only addresseed the problem after the child had committed the acts. This particular statute was addressed only after a conviction had been determined. Chairman Spitler embarked on previous testimony heard that policeman, judges, etc. were very open when dealing with the youngster in terms of realizing shadows of the law existed and also laws were not always clear. Prior testimony indicated juveniles received the benefit of the doubt.
Chairman asked the desire of the committee in further action on A.B. 229. Mr. Anderson suggested using the word "shall" in Section 1 (a) which dealt with controlled substances and using "may" in Section 1 (b) dealing with alcohol for the first time offenders. He continued for subsequent violations, the word "shall" could be used.
Mr. Hettrick ascertained the committee would appear to be "soft on alcohol" by using the word "may" for alcohol violations, but using "shall" for controlled substance violations. Mr. Hettrick felt juveniles would feel that they could get away with alcohol offenses just "don't get caught with drugs." He felt this was not an appropriate message to send but agreed with Mr. Anderson's concept. Mr. Hettrick suggested using the word "shall" for mandated suspension of licenses for second offenses, however, using "may" for first time offenders for either alcohol or drug violations.
Mrs. Chowning felt Mr. Hettrick's suggestion would still significantly strengthen the bill from the original form. She stated the original bill stated "may" in all statutes, but the proposed amendment would at least use "shall" for the second offense.
Mr. Garner stated he would support the bill with the recommended changes; however, he stated he had a difficult time tying a person's right to drive to actions unrelated to driving an automobile.
Mr. Toomin relayed a personal experience involving his antics as a juvenile in which his driver's license was suspended. He stated the suspension had a tremendous impact on him and his friends and served as a significant deterrent.
Mrs. Chowning reminded the committee a hardship provision was in place that would allow the judge discretion.
MR. ANDERSON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 229.
MR. HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
Chairman requested Mr. Anderson handle the bill when it reached the floor.
With no further business, Chairman Spitler adjourned the meeting at 2:31 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Carolyn J. Harry
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Transportation
March 31, 1993
Page 1