MINUTES OF THE
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Sixty-seventh Session
April 7, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Transportation was called to order by Chairman Larry L. Spitler, at 1:45 p.m., on Wednesday, April 7, 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. William D. Gregory
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Mr. James W. McGaughey
Mr. Louis A. Toomin
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman Kathy Augustine, District 12
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Kerry Carroll-Davis, Senior Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau
OTHERS PRESENT:
Danny Thompson, Political Action Director, AFL-CIO
Richard J. Yeoman, Nevada Office of Traffic Safety, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety
Marlene Schultz, Nevada Office of Traffic Safety, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety
Judy Jacoboni, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Lyon County
Garth Dull, Director, Nevada Department of Transportation
Ray Sparks, Chief, Registration Division, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety
Randy Oakes, Captain, Special Operations Bureau, Las Vegas
Metropolitan Police Department
Major John White, Commander, General Services Bureau, Nevada Highway Patrol, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety
Chairman Spitler stated a request had been received from Clark County to provide the county with the ability to construct, operate, maintain, and charge fees for use of a park-and-ride facility within the county.
MR. TOOMIN MOVED FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF A BILL DRAFT REQUEST FOR THE ABOVE MENTIONED ITEM.
MR. ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
(MRS. CHOWNING, MR. GREGORY AND MR. MCGAUGHEY WERE
ABSENT AT THE TIME OF VOTE)
Chairman Spitler stated the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety requested an introduction of a bill draft request regarding commercial driver licenses.
MR. GARNER MOVED FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF A BILL DRAFT
REQUEST REGARDING COMMERCIAL DRIVER LICENSES.
MR. ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
(MRS. CHOWNING, MR. GREGORY, AND MR. MCGAUGHEY WERE ABSENT
AT THE TIME OF VOTE)
Chairman Spitler mentioned the last item which required committee introduction related to provisional and restricted driver's licenses which established a demerit system for young drivers. Chairman expressed the importance of the issue did merit a second review.
MRS. CHOWNING MOVED FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF A BILL
DRAFT REQUEST FOR THE ABOVE MENTION ITEM.
MR. HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
(MR. GREGORY AND MR. MCGAUGHEY WERE ABSENT AT THE
TIME OF VOTE)
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 336: Exempts driver of taxicab from requirement of wearing safety belt while he is on duty.
Danny Thompson, Political Action Director, AFL-CIO expressed, on behalf of taxicab agencies belonging to their organization, support for passage of the bill.
Chairman Spitler acknowledged a letter received from Paula Treat who represented the Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada in opposition to the bill (Exhibit C). Chairman Spitler stated a letter was also received from Sven Nilsson, a cabdriver for Yellow Cab, which depicted a situation where Mr. Nilsson had been assaulted. Mr. Nilsson wrote in his letter that had he been wearing a seat belt, it was probable he would not be alive today (Exhibit D).
Richard Yeoman, Highway Safety Representative, Office of Traffic Safety, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety provided a position paper (Exhibit E) opposing A.B. 336.
Mr. Anderson pondered if the NHPSA review would be predicated on the small number of taxicabs as opposed to overall motor vehicles and if other states had exempted taxicab drivers from the required seat belt legislation.
Marlene Schultz, Division Chief, Office of Traffic Safety, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, responded several states had certain exemptions written into their bills. She stated their testimony was based on present rule making currently under consideration by Congress. The rule making would recognize states with exemptions and would permit exemptions to carry through. Mrs. Schultzs'concern dealt with the fact that Nevada had originally applied for incentive grant funds under Nevada's existing law. She stated diluting the current law would require analysis and scrutiny to see if the new proposal complied. Mrs. Schultz named various groups that met seat belt exemptions.
Mr. Yeoman called attention to accident data involving taxicabs (Exhibit F). Mr. Yeoman stated 75 percent of motor vehicle accidents in Nevada occurred in Clark and Washoe Counties. Although the number of taxicab accidents was small, the number of injuries or fatalities were not insignificant and urged close scrutiny of those numbers.
Mr. Yeoman asserted the primary purpose of his office was to try to reduce fatalities and serious injuries derived from automobile accidents. He suggested rather than diluting current law, it should be strengthened. Mr. Yeoman recommended making the seat belt requirement a primary enforcement law as opposed to secondary. He then presented a proposed alternative bill (Exhibit G) for the committee's perusal.
Mr. Yeoman presented an additional position paper proposing the primary use law for the seat belt requirement (Exhibit H).
Chairman Spitler clarified the Office of Traffic Safety had taken the position the seat belt law should be a primary law. Mr. Yeoman concurred. Chairman Spitler asked why Mr. Yeoman's department failed to bring forth a bill stating their position, and instead chose to amend A.B. 336. Mr. Yeoman stated their position request was submitted; however, it was removed from the list (of BDR's) without Mr. Weller's (Director, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicle and Public Safety) knowledge.
Chairman Spitler expressed his dissatisfaction with the lack of courtesy shown by the Office of Traffic Safety for suddenly trying to amend a bill that had nothing to do with the issue Mr. Yeoman described.
Mr. Yeoman discussed the charts in the position paper (Exhibit H). Presenting 1991 figures from the State of Nevada, Mr. Yeoman explained three of four fatalities involved unbuckled seat belts. Of 198 fatal crashes, 61 percent were roll-overs. Of 173 unbuckled fatalities, 48 percent were ejected from vehicles. Mr. Yeoman explained federal researchers had predicted a primary safety belt law would increase seat belt use by 10 percentage points. Currently, Nevada's usage rate stands at 63.3 percent. Using the point savings figured, it was estimated an additional 40,000 people would buckle up and approximately twelve additional lives saved each year. Mr. Yeoman expounded on societal costs. He requested the committee's consideration.
Chairman Spitler expressed his desire for the committee to review the material and if an appetite existed, a bill draft would be requested. Chairman Spitler stated the public was not informed by reading the general posting that an amendment would be attached changing a secondary offense to a primary offense and felt it was very unfair. Mr. Spitler considered the actions a "back-door" attempt to achieve legislation and expressed his anger at the actions. He reiterated his belief in open government and posting notices. Mr. Spitler felt he and committee members had shown that they were willing to support the DMV with any bill draft request requested and was dismayed that they would try to amend such a broad public policy issue without even posting. He stated this could be, if desired by the committee, a separate bill draft request.
Mr. Yeoman and Mrs. Schultz expressed their apologies. Further, Mrs. Schultz accepted full responsibility for their actions and the issued reprimand.
Mr. Anderson stated his belief that a great number of motor vehicle accidents took place in a relatively short distance of the point of origin. He pondered how this would relate to taxi drivers as they traveled short distances and if a benefit was provided statistically to merit seatbelt exemption for taxicab drivers. Mr. Yeoman stated most accidents occurred within twenty-five miles from home; however, he did not have specific statistics on taxis but the information was available on data base. Taxicabs were generally included with the twenty-five mile category and a finer distinction could not be made.
Judy Jacoboni, President, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Lyon County, testified in opposition to the bill as she said making exceptions to certain groups of people from current law could jeopardize incentive grants and funding. She stated the funds supplemented many D.U.I. programs in the State, such as sobriety checkpoints and education awareness. Mrs. Jacoboni felt drivers of automobiles should be belted for better position to remain in control of car if hit. She also stated, she was aware some taxicab companies in Washoe County did not support the bill as they felt their liability insurance would increase.
Garth Dull, Director, Nevada Department of Transportation, testified in opposition to the bill. He stated, other than reasons already mentioned, the Department's primary concern was the threat of sanctions. For his department, sanctions would amount to about $1.5 million for the first year and $3 million for the second year under the present funding scenario.
Captain Randy Oakes, Special Operations, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, testified in opposition to the bill. By proxy, Captain Oakes stated he was also representing "AAA" whose representative was unable to attend. Captain Oakes said he failed to see any compelling reasons why taxicab drivers should be exempt from the seat belt requirement any more so than other groups of people who also made frequent stops. He stated seat belts, in addition to saving a lot of lives and preventing a number of injuries, just made good sense.
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 6 Directs Department of Transporta- tion to conduct study of certain methods of making area surrounding public libraries safer for pedest- rians.
Chairman Spitler summarized S.C.R. 6 was related to an incident in Las Vegas in which a little boy was killed in an accident near a library. The resolution came about from a group of parents in the area.
Garth Dull, Director, Nevada Department of Transportation, expressed his reluctance to speak against the resolution as the incident was very tragic; however, he felt this bill was not the way to solve the problem. He stated there were many public buildings, not just libraries, in which possibilities existed for similar tragic accidents. Mr. Dull stated a rationale for taking extreme measures, as proposed in the resolution, existed in school zones for protection of children. Mr. Dull felt an undue burden would be placed on the Department of Transportation by requiring them to study all public libraries. He felt the resources could be utilized elsewhere in a more productive area such as school zones. Mr. Dull estimated the cost at $50,000 - $75,000 just to obtain a consultant to study the areas and issues on libraries located adjacent to highways throughout the entire state. A fiscal note would be completed fairly soon.
Mr. Collins felt traffic control studies were already completed as most cities, counties, and states had studied what areas and reasons were needed for placing crosswalks, traffic lights, etc.
Mr. Dull explained certain and different criteria existed for placing traffic control devices. A special effort would be exerted for studying libraries as it went beyond current laws and current criteria.
Mr. Toomin questioned the estimated time involved to complete a library study. Mr. Dull replied two to three months would be needed.
Mrs. Chowning noted a slower speed zone did not exist at the library where the accident took place and asked if slower speed limits existed for other libraries. She stressed the importance of the issue and asked what was being done to address libraries. She stated libraries were vastly becoming family recreation centers as libraries were increasing activities and attracting children. She applauded libraries for their efforts, however, she stated there were no provisions for slower speed zones surrounding libraries. Mrs. Chowning felt the lack of slower speed limits near libraries simply invited more accidents.
Mr. Dull agreed. He stated, however, the predominance of children in libraries was not at the extent that they were for school zones. He reiterated many other public buildings existed that could be considered similar to libraries which generated as much pedestrian traffic, including children. Examples were supermarkets, pizza parlors, hospital zones, etc. Mr. Dull repeated the main concern of his department was the limited amount of resources could provide, within the same issue, a better benefit elsewhere.
Chairman Spitler announced the committee would delay action until the fiscal note was obtained.
Mr. Collins suggested libraries contribute funding to conduct the studies, as he understood Clark County libraries had extra funds.
Being no further testimony, the hearing on S.C.R. 6 was closed.
Mr. McGaughey explained action was needed for a clean up bill. He stated a constituent had contacted him who owned an R.V. park. A trailer had been abandoned in his park and he had tried every avenue to sell or move the trailer to collect the rent due. Contacting Mr. Sparks, Mr. McGaughey continued a law change had been addressed in 1991 on lien rights against mobile homes, however, trailers were not included.
Ray Sparks, Chief, Registration Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, stated prior to the 1991 Legislative Session, the statute that dealt with liens against vehicles included a provision for trailers also. Mobile homes were also addressed; however, at the time, the term "trailer" was deleted from the lien statute. He became aware of the statute change a few months ago when an attorney contacted him informing him that DMV no longer had the ability to process a lien filed against trailers. DMV's legal staff concurred with the private attorney's opinion. Mr. Sparks hoped to address the issue in the entire lien package; however, he did not feel it was wise to let the trailer issue rest on the fate of other more complex issues in the whole lien process. Mr. Sparks had also been contacted by other towing companies questioning what action they could take against trailers. Mr. Sparks stressed the significance of the problem warranted immediate attention.
Mr. Toomin questioned why the word "trailer" was deleted. Mr. Sparks replied the deletion might have been an oversight; however, a historical review of the lien statute would be conducted.
MR. HETTRICK MOVED FOR A COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF A
BILL DRAFT REQUEST FOR THE ABOVE MENTIONED ITEM.
MR. COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
WORK SESSION
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 person's who may have unlawfully failed to register motor vehicles in this state.
Assemblyman Kathy Augustine, District 12, sponsor of the bill, explained a work session was held with interested parties of the bill. She distributed and discussed the proposed amendments (Exhibit I).
Mr. Garner, relating to the phrase "all required vehicles," asked the definition of "required." Staff analyst, Kerry Carroll-Davis, answered "required" referred to all vehicles in statute which were required by law to be registered. There were no additions to the required vehicles.
Mrs. Augustine discussed the fiscal note on the creation of the Nevada Highway Patrol unit. She explained the bill would go to Ways and Means where the Chairman of that committee indicated the benefits of establishing the special unit far outweighed the costs in creating the task force.
Mrs. Augustine, responding to a question from Mr. Anderson, explained the bill did nothing to the current statute that addressed border state employees or the statute which addressed full-time employees in the state coming in from other states. She stated the proposed bill would decrease the grace period for registering a vehicle from forty-five days to thirty days. Thirty days is also Nevada's residency requirement.
Mr. Gregory asked what estimated revenue would derive from the proposed bill. Mrs. Augustine replied at the state level, a modest estimate was the State lost $1 million in revenue. Further testimony would indicate county level losses on privilege taxes.
A discussion ensued on the fiscal note figures.
Danny Thompson, Political Action Director, AFL-CIO, testified in support of the bill and urged passage. Mr. Thompson relayed an instance involving an acquaintance of his who was injured in an accident involving a person who lived in Nevada, however, who's vehicle was registered in another state. That person did not have liability insurance as mandated by Nevada law. Mr. Thompson felt the bill, in an indirect way, would help that situation.
Kirby Burgess, representing Clark County, testified in support of the bill. He stated Clark County stood to gain additional revenue from the proposed measure. Although hard to quantify exact figures, they estimated seventy-five percent of privilege taxes would revert to Clark County. Mr. Burgess explained expenditures for enacting the proposed measure would not fiscally impact Clark County.
Mr. Anderson asked reasons why the metropolitan police did not enforce current law relative to the discussed statute as revenues were lost.
Captain Randy Oakes, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police, replied when reports were cited, they were unable to clearly establish to the court that the violator had established residency or was employed for more than forty-five days. He continued most citations were often dismissed if written. Captain Oakes explained in detail further clarifications on the process of issuing tickets for unregistered vehicles.
Captain Oakes, answering a question from Mr. Hettrick, explained the ability of the proposed special unit to better determine residency of the questioned unregistered vehicles. Mr. Hettrick, upon hearing the process of how the established unit would work, agreed the benefits would outweigh the costs.
Major John White, Commander, General Services Bureau, Nevada Highway Patrol, explained jurisdiction needed to enter private property to place warning tags on unregistered vehicles.
Mr. Anderson stated Washoe and adjoining counties were currently transferring an officer already on staff to carry out duties of the proposed program and asked the number of citations issued which resulted in those cited to register their vehicles. Major White stated he did not have those statistics; however, 425 citations for non-residency registrations had already been issued for the current fiscal year. He explained in the prior year where there had been no dedicated programs, only 712 citations were issued for the entire fiscal year. Major White explained in great detail how the established force would work. Some officers may be directed to other assignments due to the urgency involved; however, the established officer's primary duty was registration enforcement.
Ray Sparks, Chief, Registration Division, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, voiced support for the bill. Mr. Sparks stated they had discussed the necessity of adding a hearing officer position to the department to adjudicate the situations; however, at this point he stated the position would not be necessary until they obtained experience with the program to see if the volume of hearings would warrant a position. As a general observation, Mr. Sparks stated one of the most frequent complaints received dealt with improperly registered vehicles. He felt although he could not quantify the problem's extent, he sensed it was a tremendous amount of lost revenue to the state. Mr. Sparks stated the bill as amended would do two things: 1) tighten the registration requirements and 2) provide additional enforcement to make the requirements work. Mr. Sparks, addressing an earlier comment, stated if a vehicle was used in the state for a gainful purpose it must be immediately registered unless it fell under the interstate apportionment act.
Mr. Garner voiced concern with certain wording in the proposed amendment.
Mr. McGaughey questioned how the process would involve the volume of tourists who reside in Nevada seasonally. He mentioned Las Vegas was fast becoming a retirement area and many of the winter visitors rented apartments. He felt those people should not be caught up in the trap of having to register their car. Mrs. Augustine stated border cities and seasonal residents were exempt. Major White further explained the procedures that the proposed special unit would follow. He explained once the registration was obtained, they matched records with the driver's license division and also cross checked with the Nevada Fish and Wildlife Department to see if a hunting and fishing license was obtained.
Mrs. Chowning, although in favor of the bill, stated she was concerned with the high fiscal note. She pointed out a sunset placed on the bill would provide accountability and a report on the effectiveness of the force. Mrs. Augustine stated she did address an issue similar to a sunset with Mr. Arberry, Chairman, Assembly Ways and Means. Mr. Arberry had stated if the fiscal note was too high, they would amend the bill in Ways and Means without the fiscal note. Mrs. Augustine stated as the state continued to grow, they were looking at a permanent establishment of the six man task force.
Chairman Spitler agreed with Mrs. Chowning's point and stated at the very minimal, he would like a report back to the 1995 Legislature in terms of status and results of the established designated force.
Mr. Collins made several points relating to the bill: 1) A court appearance by the violators would definitely curb the problem. 2) A bill draft currently being processed would require licensing temporary resident employees. 3) In the SIIS amendment, employees and social security numbers would be available to provide another avenue for cross checking to see if the owners of out-of-state vehicles had been working for thirty days or more. 4) If compliance is well enforced, members of the designated force could be moved to the ports of entry when they are opened. 5) Those tourists deemed "snowbirds," if using the streets and highways should help pay for maintenance and could purchase temporary permits.
Chairman requested Mrs. Augustine return to the committee with the rewritten amendment as soon as she was able.
Mr. Anderson stated the amendments looked fairly clean but suggested adding within the bill's structure that a report be brought back before the Transportation Committee.
Mr. McGaughey asked how the effectiveness of the designated force would be measured and if there was an increase in registration, how much of that increase would be attributed to the bill. Major White stated a code could be placed on the citations, however, monitoring if the citation led to the registering of a vehicle would be difficult. Mr. McGaughey expressed the importance of measuring the benefits.
Mr. Hettrick suggested attaching a prepaid postage registration card to the citation when it was issued. Mr. White stated they would work with registration to address the issues involved.
With no further business, meeting was adjourned at 3:20 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Carolyn J. Harry
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Transportation
April 7, 1993
Page 1