MINUTES OF THE
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Sixty-seventh Session
April 26, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Transportation was called to order by Chairman Larry L. Spitler, at 1:15 p.m., on Monday, April 26, 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
Mr. James W. McGaughey
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman Genevieve Wines Segerblom, District No. 22
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Kerry Carroll-Davis, Senior Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau
OTHERS PRESENT:
Chad Dornsife, Nevada State Chapter Coordinator, National Motorists Association
Robert Pike, Investigations Division, Office of the Attorney General
Kurt P. Fritsch, City of Henderson
Barbara McKenzie, City of Reno
Donna Varin, Driver's License Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety
Bruce Glover, Driver's License Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety
Bruce Pfieffer, Self
Ray Sparks, Registration Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety
John W. Riggs, Sr., Self
Chairman Spitler called attention to A.B. 156 previously passed out of the Assembly. He stated the bill had been returned from the Senate amended and action was needed to concur or not concur with the Senate amendment. Chairman Spitler informed members Senate amendment changed the language in Section 3, No. 2, line 39, from "must" to "may." Chairman Spitler did discuss this with Marty Bibb who sponsored the bill. Mr. Bibb indicated the change was not a part of their bill, but something the bill drafters had done. Chairman Spitler relayed Mr. Bibb and sponsors of the bill recommended the committee concur.
Mr. McGaughey felt the amendment substantially changed the meaning of the section in question. He explained if the required evidence of security had been presented and in effect at the time of said violation, why should the court be allowed to fine. Chairman Spitler stated when the bill was presented to the bill drafters, they attempted to write the language to pick up other sections of the bill. Chairman stated the language change in Section 2 was not the intent of the sponsors of the bill as they only wanted to accomplish what was addressed in Section 1. Chairman Spitler explained the process he would take if the committee did not concur; however, he repeated the sponsors were pleased with the bill.
MR. ANDERSON MOVED TO CONCUR WITH SENATE AMENDMENTS ON A.B. 156.
MR. GARNER SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 478: Revises provisions relating to speed limit in school zone.
Assemblyman Larry L. Spitler, District 41, bill sponsor, testified in support of A.B. 478. Mr. Spitler stated he was first approached in 1991 about the bill, kept in contact with those involved, and agreed to sponsor the bill this session. Addressing an editorial in the Reno Gazette-Journal which "certainly did not endorse" the bill, Mr. Spitler cited his reasoning in terms of sponsoring the bill. Mr. Spitler's residence was located across the street from Orr Junior High School in Las Vegas. Located beside the junior high was a small park utilized by the junior high as a playground. Mr. Spitler stated the school zone was posted midway up the street. In his observations, Mr. Spitler stated most children were present before and after the posted school zone periods. In talking with those concerned, Mr. Spitler stated it started to make sense to him that careful safety precautions in school zones had to be acknowledged not only while school was in session, but the periods before and after school. He stated, with the many activities taking place, children were going to school earlier and staying later. Mr. Spitler felt a good point made by the editorial was the difficulty in defining the word "present." Although it seemed clear in his mind "present" had meant that once a child was observed, it would necessitate the driver to slow down. Mr. Spitler pondered what areas (i.e. on the sidewalk, in the playground, on the basketball courts, etc.) would constitute "present." Addressing Section 2 of the bill, Mr. Spitler stated it made sense to him that local entities should determine what is safe for their particular streets. He felt this was best evaluated by residents in the area observing the particular traffic conditions. In closing, Mr. Spitler felt his heart was in the right place by sponsoring the bill, however, he realized questions would be raised by the negative editorial.
Mrs. Chowning clarified the bill stated that no one would be able to exceed 15 mph unless the local entity deemed it prudent to change. Mr. Spitler agreed.
Mr. Hettrick commented on questions raised regarding the presence of children. He questioned why children who were present in a school zone while school was not in session were at any more risk than children walking a block from the school zone. Mr. Spitler stated children were not always careful while attending school, whether it was roughhousing, chasing a ball, etc. and he himself drove 15 mph several blocks before and after the school zone because of the presence of children. He felt low speeds did not always have to be school zones as it was also the responsibility of the driver to maintain safe speeds.
Mr. Toomin questioned the lack of the fiscal note. Mr. Spitler stated the fiscal note had not been received; however, a similar bill previously passed out of the Assembly used a figure of $450,000 for Clark County to bring signs into compliance for that particular bill.
Chad Dornsife, Nevada State Chapter Coordinator, National Motorists Association testified in support of the bill. He stated many conversations were brought to his attention regarding speed limits in school zones. Current law essentially stated speed limits were 15 mph when children were in classrooms but there were no speed limits when children were going to and from school nor playing on weekends. Mr. Dornsife's original intent in drafting the proposed legislation was to present an option for school districts to post the language "when children were present." He explained the language would provide that school speed zone limits would be in effect when children were going to and from school unless a sign posted otherwise or traffic safety devices were used. Mr. Dornsife commented the discussion of speed limits in school zones was a major political issue and reactions of most people were that of becoming "ballistic." He stated people felt by slowing down to 15 mph during the day when children were in the classroom accomplished their civil duty; however, these same people become absolutely irate when children were outside playing in the school zones, crossing on roller skates, bicycle riding, etc. on weekends. Mr. Dornsife addressed the variants in locations of schools in the state. For example, some schools were located beside major highways, thoroughfares, rural neighborhoods, etc. Despite different situations, Mr. Dornsife stated everyone wanted to micro-manage school zones with "one law fits all." He stated problems should be addressed by the school's local PTA, school boards, highway engineers, and whomever had responsibility for the roads surrounding schools as stated in Section 2.
Mr. Dornsife called attention to a bill passed by the Assembly earlier in the week which stated 25 mph at school crossings when children were in the streets, however, in front of the school it was 15 mph. Mr. Dornsife stated A.B. 478 allowed local districts to make the appropriate decisions regarding what was safe.
Mr. Dornsife envisioned "present" to be defined as anytime children were at, near, or had immediate access to the road. He felt if children had the potential to become in conflict with an automobile, that constituted "children being present."
Mr. Dornsife suggested to make the bill more palatable with using the phrase "when children are present," was to reinstate after "..present." the language "except on a day on which or during the hours when school is not is session..." followed by the new proposed language "if children are present in the school zone or if a sign or other device in the school zones indicates the speed limit in effect." Mr. Dornsife stated this would give the local boards authority in turning on lights when activities were taking place, during a season such as softball, etc, or anytime children were present. He reminded members of the uniqueness of each school and felt that trying to make one statute fit the entire state was unworkable.
Mrs. Chowning commented schools were becoming safe havens as child care centers with numbers of latch-key programs. In her experience as a former Girl Scout leader, Mrs. Chowning was aware of time spent at the school after regular school hours. She stated school zones were not always in effect when her group was meeting and that caused great worry. She stated many times they walked with children to certain points to assure safety. Mrs. Chowning felt another factor was darkness experienced with daylight saving time.
Mr. Anderson commented on the direction, as he understood it, of implementing a standard uniformity of school zone signs. Mr. Dornsife stated he was an absolute advocate of uniformity on traffic control devices in school zones. Mr. Dornsife stated A.B. 478 allowed residential schools in a neighborhood to be treated differently than a school on a major thoroughfare or highway. Mr. Dornsife stated current law simply stated if 15 mph in a school zone posed a traffic hazard, it would not be posted as a school zone.
Mr. Hettrick, referring to a situation with Douglas High School, stated the road adjacent to the high school was a school zone and had flashing lights; however, it was marked 25 mph because it was also a four lane highway. Mr. Dornsife stated the situation with Douglas High School was illegal by state law and alluded similar situations happened throughout the state as authorities came up with their own idea to solve the problem while being in direct violation of state law.
Mr. Hettrick commented the problem he had with "present" was it was just as dangerous for a child to be one block down from a school zone where it was not marked a school zone. He expressed his agreement with Section 2, and for the reinstatement of the original language in Section 1.
Kirk Fritsch, City of Henderson, was concerned with the bill because of the work put into A.B. 138 (of the current session). Although they had no problems with Section 2, they were concerned with Section 1 as it conflicted with A.B. 138. Mr. Fritsch read Section 5 of A.B. 138 (Exhibit C). Mr. Fritsch stated the purpose of that particular section was to provide flexibility and enforcement. Embarking on another existing problem, Mr. Fritsch stated a joint disagreement existed in Henderson between parks departments and grade schools. He stated most schools being used had eighteen hour use periods. Mr. Fritsch felt conflict would exist with enforcement.
Barbara McKenzie, City of Reno, read a resolution adopted by the State of Nevada Traffic Control Committee (Exhibit D) pertaining to A.B. 478. Ms. McKenzie stated the resolution supported Section 2 of the bill, however, did not support Section 1.
Mr. Collins asked the position of the Nevada Traffic Control Committee on changing school zone speed limits from 15 to 25 mph. Mrs. McKenzie recollected the NTCC might have recommended the speed increase in fenced areas only if the area was on a major thoroughfare. Mrs. McKenzie felt there might have been certain exemptions for such schools.
Sheri Lockhart, Nevada Parent Teacher Association testified in support of Section 1; however, in opposition to Section 2. She stated they were opposed to raising the speed zone limit and desired uniformity throughout the state for the school zone speed limit to remain at 15 mph.
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 500: Authorizes issuance of fictitious driver's license to federal agent for undercover investigation.
Robert Pike, Chief, Investigations Division, Office of the Attorney General testified in support of the bill. He asked an amendment be considered to include investigators for the attorney general's office as that would be very beneficial.
Mr. McGaughey asked what types of situations constituted use of fictitious driver's licenses. Mr. Pike responded those situations involved insurance fraud rings, auto insurance, Medicaid units, and similar circumstances.
Donna Varin, Chief, Driver's License Division, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety testified for informational purposes only to provide committee members with concerns the department had. Mrs. Varin stated a strict interpretation was used in issuing fictitious licenses under existing statute because undercover licenses were undetectable from other licenses. Mrs. Varin addressed the process involved with issuing an undercover license. To protect the identity of the person applying for a ficticious driver's license, Mrs. Varin said he was passed through the system just as if he had applied for a standard driver's license. Mrs. Varin addressed the types of agents who received the license. Because the licenses were manually processed, they had narrowed the scope to a few departments. Mrs. Varin stated approximately 750 undercover licenses had been issued with 350 currently active. 100 applications were processed every year. Mrs. Varin stated Mr. Weller, Director, DMV & PS, wanted to assure the committee that very tight controls were in place. Mrs. Varin addressed the various controls.
Chairman Spitler asked about penalties involved for fraudulent use or abuse of the fictitious driver's license. Mrs. Varin stated penalties were not in the scope of the driver's license division; however, she stated penalties would be similar to the fraud usage. She mentioned times when fictitious driver's licenses were up for renewal, they might detect at that point the individual obtained traffic citations on the second license and a complete history of the person's driving record could not be kept. Mrs. Varin, envisioning another problem, stated individuals could take their fictitious driver's license to another state and receive a license in that state with their new identity.
Mr. Anderson questioned whether other states had the fictitious driver's license systematically in place. Mrs. Varin acknowledge there were other states with the system; however, she did not have the specifics.
Mr. Anderson asked if the fictitious driver's license could be issued for a shorter period than the regular driver's license. Bruce Glover, Asst. Chief, Driver's License Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, replied the Department did not want anyone to detect any irregularity in the licensing at all because the ultimate goal was safety of the officers.
Mr. McGaughey asked if there was a need for restructuring the bill to state fictitious driver's license must be used only in Nevada, or if responsibility should be placed on the department head signing such requests. He also felt fictitious driver's licenses should be administratively reviewed to provide accountability. Mrs. Varin replied issues mentioned by Mr. McGaughey were the types of issues her department would like to work on for clarification in defining the scope for use in statutory or regulatory control. Mrs. Varin stated she hesitated to restrict the licenses be used only in Nevada without knowing what federal agency requested the bill.
Chairman Spitler stated Mr. McGaughey brought up very good points; however, he was concerned restricting licenses to be used solely in Nevada would not be acceptable in keeping the license uniform with regular driver's licenses.
Mr. Hettrick interpreted the bill to read that DMV already had the authorization to deny issuance of the fictitious license and pondered if the intent of the bill could be in regulation rather than statutory. A second comment by Mr. Hettrick addressed specifying in law how the license would be used and stated current law said "or for other undercover investigations requiring the establishment of fictitious identity." A final comment by Mr. Hettrick addressed the automatic revoking of the fictitious driver's license if the department found any type of violation charged against the fictitious license.
Mrs. Varin acknowledged Mr. Hettrick's points were well taken. She stated with current law stating "may" extreme caution was taken in issuing licenses. Licenses were only issued for gaming, narcotics and prostitution.
Following up Mr. Hettrick's question, Chairman Spitler asked if the bill's intent could be accomplished by regulation or if statutory authority was needed. Mrs. Varin stated regulatory authority was issued under NRS Chapter 41. Mrs. Varin stated if this was the committee's consideration, the committee would still need to let her department know the scope of regulations.
Mr. Anderson commented on the different regulations applied to federal agencies involved (IRS, Tobacco & Firearms, FBI, etc.) but, at the same time, there were very restrictive statutes for Nevada residents.
Mr. Hettrick agreed with Mr. Anderson's point and felt consideration should be given to the Attorney General's office.
SENATE BILL NO. 262: Revises fees charged for special license plate issued to holder of license for amateur radio station.
Chairman stated the bill's sponsor, Senator Bob Coffin, was unable to attend the hearing; however, he did have people testifying on his behalf.
Bruce Pfeiffer, a ham radio operator, testified in support of the bill on request of Senator Coffin. Mr. Pfeiffer distributed a document providing amateur radio license plate information from other states (Exhibit E). Mr. Pfeiffer stated the bill was introduced to basically "right a wrong." Explaining further, Mr. Pfeiffer stated a renewal fee was added in the previous legislative session to ham radio license plates. There had been a fee for the license plate; however, there had never been a renewal fee. Mr. Pfeiffer stated the intent of S.B. 262 was for removal of the renewal fee. As a volunteer at the Division of Emergency Management where radio operators are trained, Mr. Pfeiffer provided a list of the 230 more active members of the group (Exhibit F). Mr. Pfeiffer stated the members volunteered their time and equipment as they were not allowed to charge any fee for services rendered. Mr. Pfeiffer stated the amateur radio plate was not considered a prestige or "vanity" plate, but served as an identification plate. He relayed instances where people were able to utilize the radios in emergency communication needs by recognizing the plate. Other examples for use of the radios were in social events such as the "March of Dimes" walk-a-thon. He urged for passage of the bill.
Answering a question from Mrs. Chowning, Mr. Pfeiffer stated the original application fee of $35 would be reduced to $25 if the bill passed. Mrs. Chowning pointed out the bill actually had two parts; one, reducing the original fee by $10 and two, eliminating the renewal fee. She questioned the fiscal impact the bill would have on the budget. Mr. Pfeiffer stated testimony given in the Senate hearing indicated the financial impact of the bill was negligible. Mr. Pfeiffer concurred with Mrs. Chowning's clarification that he sought lowering of the fee because the license served as identification for purposes of necessary communication that was sometimes life-saving.
Mr. Pfeiffer stated many recipients of the license plate operated two- way radio equipment in vehicles where many cellular phones could not.
Mr. Anderson stated he had served on a subcommittee concerning special license plates and indicated at that time there were 794 radio amateur plates issued. He explained the renewal fee was established after recognizing there had been an inequity in the overall scheme of fees issued for the various prestige plates. Mr. Anderson asked where the radio operators had fit into the many other groups who paid $35 for prestige plates for example, Pearl Harbor Survivors, Press Members, Street Rods, Disabled Veteran's , POW's, Congressional Medal, National Guard, etc. Mr. Pfeiffer felt the organizations named did not really provide a public service as in many instances radio operators did. He felt only the charge of the plates indicated any correlation between the groups.
Answering a question from Mr. Anderson, Mr. Pfeiffer stated his organization sought exemption from the renewal fee because the amount of time and energy donated to the state without charge far outweighed the fees for renewal. Mr. Anderson disagreed stating the civil air patrol fell into the same category and paid a renewal fee.
Mr. McGaughey commented a license plate was not necessary to operate a ham radio. He continued that everyone paid fees for prestige license plates and having those license plates were by choice. Mr. Pfeiffer stressed the plates were needed for identification purposes and cited examples of emergency situations where the identification was needed. Mr. McGaughey felt identification cards served the same purpose. Mr. Pfeiffer responded sometimes cards were not recognized by authorities.
Mr. Toomin asked the rationale in having different charges applied to original application and renewal fees for personalized plates. Mr. Anderson replied various vanity plates were used only for purposes of limited use events, such as parades. He stated the fees charged were consistent.
E.J. "Curley" Silva, Security Director, Meadowood Mall, from prepared testimony, spoke in support of the bill (Exhibit G).
Chairman Spitler asked the percentage of license plate holders who participated in emergency management types of volunteering. Mr. Silva responded he was responsible for approximately 400 amateur radio services. Mr. Silva expanded on the emergency/public service organizations they worked with.
Assemblywoman Gene Segerblom, District 22, testified in support of the bill. She stated the bill was very important to her constituents in the Lake Mead area. She felt the bill provided the least costly way to attain the important services provided.
Ray Sparks, Chief, Registration Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, testified, neither in support or opposition of the bill, but for factual purposes only. Mr. Sparks stated DMV did prepare a fiscal note for the bill. The fiscal impact was estimated at a $13,600 annual loss of revenue to the highway fund. Mr. Sparks reiterated the subcommittee did a great job in placing some consistency into the methodology of assessing fees for various types of special license plates.
Answering a question from Mr. Collins, Mr. Sparks stated evidence was required that the individual applying for the amateur radio license plate had also been issued a license from the FCC.
Mrs. Chowning stated the significance of the revenue loss would not necessarily have an impact as it had not been in place for very long, but she asked if there was any indication of the revenue gained through personal plates. Mr. Sparks stated revenue received for special plates in general was about $1 million/year; however, the $13,000 received from the amateur radio license plate recipients was not a significant amount in terms of the overall $1 million received from specialized plates in general.
Mr. Sparks embarked on the history of the amateur license plate. Up until 1989, a decal that attached to the license plate was the only designation of the special plate. He stated a $3 fee was charged for the decal. Mr. Sparks continued the statute was changed in 1989 that called for a plate with the "Amateur Radio" embossed on the plate. As Mr. Silva indicated, the association paid for the increase in fees.
Mr. Anderson, answering a question from Mrs. Chowning, stated there were 60,631 personalized plates in Nevada two years ago.
John W. Riggs, Sr., stated radio amateurs were a resource and he did not disagree with the fee reduction. He stated he just wanted to inform members that a similar bill passed by the Assembly regarding license plates for firetrucks had been amended in the Senate. He stated the amendment raised the fee. Mr. Riggs felt in the essence of fair play, the fee for the firetrucks should be reduced when the bill comes back to the Assembly for concur/do not concur.
Mr. Garner suggested a reimbursement of the application and renewal fee be made to those radio amateur operators who provided public services. He felt this might be accomplished through a form signed by an officer at the scene of the emergency. Mr. Silva felt the suggestion might be cumbersome for administrative purposes and reiterated his association did not have a problem with the original application fee. He stated a number of the radio operators were older people on fixed incomes and they were the people most relied on as they were available to respond when called upon.
Mr. Gregory, a subcommittee member addressing license plate fees methodology in the previous session, encouraged committee members to review the various licenses/fees in their entirety before acting upon this one particular piece of legislation. He foresaw other groups approaching the committee seeking reductions in license plate fees and voiced concern once the precedence was set, it would be difficult to deny other groups a fee reduction.
With no further business, meeting adjourned at 2:50 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Carolyn J. Harry
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Transportation
April 26, 1993
Page 1