MINUTES OF THE
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Sixty-seventh Session
June 7, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Transportation was called to order by Chairman Larry L. Spitler, at 2:00 p.m., on Monday, June 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
Ms. Vonne Chowning
Mr. Tom Collins, Jr
Mr. William D. Gregory
Ms. Lynn Hettrick
Mr. James W. McGaughey
Mr. Louis A. Toomin
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Kerry Carroll-Davis, Senior Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau
OTHERS PRESENT:
Chad Dornsife, National Motorist Association
Garth Dull, Department of Transportation
William Goddard, Nevada Highway Patrol
Lt. Jim Nadeau, Washoe County Sheriff's Department
Ray Sparks, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety
Daryl Capurro, Nevada Franchised Auto Dealers
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 609: Establishes fees for renewal of commercial driver's license. (BDR 43-1940)
MR. GARNER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 609.
MR. ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. (MR. COLLINS AND MR. GREGORY WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF VOTE.)
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 565: Revises designation of license plates for Pearl Harbor survivors. (BDR 43-1827)
Mr. Hettrick explained he was absent for a portion of the initial hearing and asked if additional costs had been considered. Chairman Spitler explained a charge was in place; however the costs would be absorbed by the department.
MR. ANDERSON MOVED TO AMDEND AND DO PASS A.B. 565.
MR. GARNER SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. (MR. GREGORY WAS ABSENT AT THE TIME OF VOTE.)
SENATE BILL NO. 698: Authorizes issuance of special plates and registration certificates for collectible passenger cars and trucks. (BDR 43-1161)
Chairman stated the sponsor of the bill had requested the bill be withdrawn.
SENATE BILL NO. 262: Revises fess charged for special license plate issued to holder of licnese for amateur radio station. (BDR 43-492)
Chairman Spitler explained the bill might be amended by adding a section which said the department, by regulation, would waive renewal of applicants who had verified readiness to act in local, state, and national emergencies.
Mr. Anderson, to comply with the established renewal fees scheme, suggested an amendment which reduced the renewal fee from $20 to $15.
Mrs. Chowning asked the estimated loss of revenue to the state caused by reduction of renewal fees. Chairman Spitler responded estimating a loss was difficult as people who applied for the exemption was hard to determine.
Mr. Anderson stated the largest amount of revenue derived from renewals. He stated by keeping renewals in place, although at a lower fee, would provide a great service.
MR. ANDERSON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 262.
MR. GARNER SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. (MR. GREGORY WAS ABSENT AT THE TIME OF VOTE.)
SENATE BILL NO. 382: Exempts postal service vehicles from prohibition against parking near public or private driveway.
Chairman reviewed previous discussion held at the initial hearing on the bill. He stated an amendment had been offered to also included the UPS workers and like.
Mr. McGaughey voiced concern by including private delivery services beyond governmental agencies, allowance would have to be made to pizza companies, flower delivers, etc., for the same opportunity.
Mr. Collins commented postal deliverys were regularly scheduled while other private businesses delivered at random.
MR. COLLINS MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 382.
MR. GARNER SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. (MR. GREGORY WAS ABSENT AT THE TIME OF VOTE.)
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 649: Makes various changes related to restrictions on speed of traffic.
Assemblyman Lynn Hettrick, District. 39, sponsor of the bill, thanked the committee for the bill hearing opportunity. He believed the proposed legislation was worthy of a hearing.
Chad Dornsife, Nevada State Chaptor Coordinator, National Motorists Association, stated the proposed bill was comprised of three primary components with the most important component being assurance of recourse for a citizen to fight a case in course when that person felt the speed zone was improperly posted. Providing history of the bill, Mr. Dornsife indicated he had worked on the bill for approximately 6 years when he was approached by a motorist who received a speeding ticket. Relaying background, Mr. Dornsife stated a uniform manuel on state traffic control devices was developed in 1969. He stated the manual adopted required traffic engineering studies which supported speed zones. Simeutaneously, Mr. Dornsife stated Nevada also adopted statute 484.369 which read after studies had been completed which determined a need for 1) a study needed to be made for posting of speed limits, and 2) the need to eliminate speed zones and remove signs when the need ceased to exist. He stated these requirements obvious showed need for a periodic review.
Embarking on the speeding ticket court case which initiated his work on the bill, Mr. Dornsife indicated the road in which the citation was issued was: 1) built in 1956, 2) portions of the road had been rebuilt with 30 mph curves, 3) no curves were posted, 4) the primary accident on the road was curve related, 5) a speed limit was used set below wht standards would require, 6) for 22 years, there had been no review on the road. Mr. Dornsife stated the fact that no engineering study had ever been conducted on the road, but the D.A. had indicated as long as he felt no citizen could go to court and prevail through the appeals process, the judge would win.
Upon an inquiry into the road, Mr. Dornsife stated Garth Dull, Director of the Department of Transportation replied in a letter that non-compliance could not be attained when standards did not exist.
Mr. Dornsife stated current law required engineering studies and suggested in language that periodic review was needed. Using graphs from the "Compendium of Technical Papers" (Exhibit C), Mr. Dornsife explained details of a traffic engineering study, which was premised on the fact that most people drove at a speed prudent for conditions without risk to themselves or others. Mr. Dornsife indicated the object of the speed limit was to show reasonable, safe-for-condition speeds which would target enforcement to vehicles truly at risk. He explained minimum speed limits contributed more cause-and-effect for auto accidents than maximum speed limits. Mr. Dornsife stated studies conducted by the Federal Highway Administration in 1985 had concluded speed limits should be set in the 90 percentile range or roughly 5 to 10 miles above the average speed to correctly reflect maximum safe speeds. Because this conclusion raised controversy, Mr. Dornsife stated another study was completed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers who tested speeds by using measurig baseline speeds with magnetic loops in the road which were completely invisible to motorists traveling the road. He stated the 4 year study determined posted speed limits had no cause-and-effect on speeds.
Mr. Dornsife indicated a second committee was formed by the Institute of Traffic Engineers with participation from law enforcment representatives, traffic engineers, etc. to again study speed limits. The study showed many road speed limits were set below the 10 percentile with the primary focus of enforcement was aimed at vehicles driving within the safest condition of speeds determined by peers. Mr. Dornsife explained results of the second study (Exhibit D, Page 5).
Mr. Dornsife alluded the bill would do just as California law currently did. He stated this was that extroadinary means could not enforce a speed limit which was improperly posted. Mr. Dornsife stated the bill would not limit ability to set the speed limit below what the engineering study determined, but it would eliminate the proper motive. If an improperly posted speed limit received a tremendous number of citations, citizens were not protected from improperly posted zones. He stated the bill said a speed trap could not be set unless the posted speed limit was supported by an engineering study. He clarified the bill did not prevent a local government from posting the speed limit they desire, they would just not be unable to operate a radar gun on the improperly posted area. Mr. Dornsife commented towns were being rewarded for their improper action, as if a number of citations were being issued for a particular section of road should indicate that particular section of road needed to be reviewed.
Mr. Dornsife reviewed the bill section by section with the committee.
Chairman Spitler asked if language in the proposed bill had been adopted in any other jurisidiction of any other state or governmental entity. Mr. Dornsife indicated certain language sections had not been adopted.
Mr. Dornsife, referring the the proposed section on unmarked cars, stated a proven know was the prescence of an officer in a marked patrol car had the desired effect on enforceing traffic speed whereas, an unmarked, hidden-from-view police vehicle had no cause-and-effect on traffic speed but had a detrimental effect on the public. He relayed instances where people were robbed and raped by pulling over for unmarked vehicles flashing red lights believing the unmarked vehicles to be police officers. Mr. Dornsife emphasized the importance that people should not be pulled over for traffic stops unless its by an identifiable police car.
Mr. McGaughey, referring to Section 3, line 6-7 of the proposed bill, asked how consistance would be maintained by having each police officer, sheriff, sheriff's deputy, etc. be sole determinor of what safe conditions were. Mr. Dornsife indicated the section was not difficult as standards would be established; however, he did offer to delete the particular section if required to get other, more important section through the legislature. He did indicate engineering studies were very, specific charts which showed percentiles, etc. Mr. Dornsife stated officers would have baselines from which to make a competant decision for a safe speed. In all cases, Mr. Dornsife stated it was up to the citizen to make competent evidence for refuting the citation.
Mr. Anderson clarified it was Mr. Dornsife's request that engineers do five year study of each highway to set the proper speed limit based upon traffic of that particular section of road. Mr. Dornsife concurred. Mr. Anderson further clarified Mr. Dornsife wanted the police officer to have the ability to not follow the speed limits if conditions of the road were greater or less than the safest speeds. Mr. Dornsife agreed. Mr. Anderson further clarified the proposed bill would eliminate aircraft surveillance of long sections of roads. Mr. Dornsife responded aircraft surveillance locations were picked strictly for convenience and not for safety reasons. Mr. Anderson asked, by language in the bill, that an unmarked police officer would be unable to cite a driver if stopped for a traffic violation. Mr. Dornsife agreed.
Garth Dull, Director, Department of Transportation, testified in opposition to the bill. He agreed sections of the bill were well intended; however, the basic rationale for opposing the bill was it violated requirements of the national speed limit. Mr. Dull indicated approval of the bill would most probably eliminate approval of any projects in Nevada after the current fiscal year in ISTEA funding. Referencing the five year study, Mr. Dull stated the section was commendable; however, funding for the staff needed was very, very, limited. He stated they currently responded to as many speed limits studies as possible. He discussed the various posted speeds on the state and federal highways.
Responding to a question from Mr. Toomin, Mr. Dull stated the $105 million yearly loss was based on the current federal aid apportionate. Cost for engineering studies would be approximately $100,000 a year.
William Goddard, Nevada Highway Patrol, testified in opposition to the bill. He stated his officers were empowered to enforce the laws and speed limits of the state, not to determine what the speed limits were. Regarding Section 3 of the proposed bill, officers were able to determine safe speeds above the posted speed limits. Mr. Goddard stated officers currently had the authority to issue citations for people who not only exceeded the speed limit, but also for going too fast for conditions, i.e. snow on the road. He stated establishnent of "too fast for conditions" was fairly easily determined; however, he questioned how officers were to establish how fast vehicles could go beyond the legal speed limit and felt officers should not be put into the positon. Mr. Goddard understood studies and charts would be available for the officers; however, officers were not able to easily access carry while on duty, a bunch of studies, graphs, and charts.
Addressing speed traps, Mr. Goddard was concerned on how a speed trap was defined. He stated currenty, marks existed on highways for airplanes; however, they did not consider the plane a speed trap, only a highway enforcement tool to enforce speed limits established by highway departments and federal government. Mr. Goddard stated they had many questions on language of the bill. He stated courts currently had discretion for fine amounts based on evidence people were able to present.
Mr. Hettrick indicated he did submit the bill by request; however, he stated an earlier comment by Mr. Goddard indicated he did not want officers to be placed in a position to determine speed limit was inappropriate. He stated over and over, officers, on a highway with a posted speed limit of 55 mph, did not cite cars for speeding and in fact, passed cars exceeding the legal speed limit. He stated officers made those determinations everyday. Mr. Hettrick stated Mr. Dornsife's request was saying, if officer's determine when they are not going consistently nforce speed limits, then guidelines should be established for officers to assist them in their determinations; otherwise, post the speed limit and enforce that posted speed limit. Mr. Hettrick state by posting the speed at the 85th percentile would clearly show any speed over the 85th percentile was inappropriate. Using a portion of the Garnerville highway as an example, Mr. Hettrick stated a person could drive 68 mph on the 55 mph posted zone and never receive a ticket on that particular stretch of road. He stated current leniency in enforcing the 55 mph brought forth bills like A.B. 649 which requested speed limits be set appropriately and adhered to.
Mr. Goddard understood the intent of the bill and agreed a measure was need to determine what was allowed on highways. He agreed officers made judgements on the highway everyday as to what cars he'll cite; however, he felt officers should not have to determine what the maximum speed limits would be.
Mr. Toomin asked if an unwritten policy existed within police departments regarding speeds exceeding the posted mph in reference to weather or traffic conditions. Mr. Goddard indicated there was no written or unwritten policy on what officers would write or no write.
Mrs. Chowning agreed studies should be updated in intervals and she wondered what the practice was in scheduling studies and the costs involved. Mr. Dull replied it was estimated in studying every section of road every five years, the cost would be $100,000 assuming staff was already in place. He did state they tried to respond to every study request and most request came from local entities.
Jim Nadeau, Washoe County Sheriff's Office, testified in opposition to the bill. Not wishing to reiterate testimony already given, he commented if the problem was an engineering problem, it needed to be addressed at an engineering aspect. He stated law enforcement officers should not be placed in a position where he needed to know results of an engineering study. Mr. Nadeau stated if raising speed limits was desired, they would enforce the signs any speed posted; however, he did not want officers placed in the middle. Mr. Nadeau perceived the bill to take local areas away as community sometimes asked speed limits be lower than engineering studies as a community decision. He stated the community's decision should be acknowledged.
Chairman Spitler requested the bill be placed in a subcommittee with Mr. Hettrick being the sole member to further consider the bill. Mr. Hettrick concurred.
SENATE BILL NO. 222: Makes certain changes concerning licensing with regard to sale or lease of vehicles.
Ray Sparks, Chief, Registration Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, stated S.B. 222 was introduced by request of the department. Mr. Sparks explained as part of budget preparation, they were asked by the Budget Office to review ways which increased revenues or decreased expenditures relative to the 22% tab DMV operated on for budgeting purposed. He stated DMV's Registration Division recommended a number of measures including elimination of a requirement that all vehicle salesman be licensed. He stated elimination of the requirement projected expenditure savings. After the bill emerged, it was suggested and concluded by the industry eliminating the requirment for licensing was not a wise idea after all. Mr. Sparks stated Mr. Capurro of the Nevada Franchised Dealer's Association had pointed out the State was in a better position to obtain criminal history records to determine fitness of an applicant for a salesman license rather then the employer. Mr. Sparks stated when the bill was heard in Senate Finance, the department supported retaining the requirement of the licensure and increasing the license fees to make the program self-supportive. He stated the proposed bill was amended by increasing the initial license fee for a vehicle salesman to $75, an annual renewal fee increased from $10 to $40 and a fee for a transfer would increase from $5 to $20. Mr. Sparks did state the bill was consistent with the way in which the DMV's budgets were closed.
Responding to a question from Mrs. Chowning, Mr. Sparks stated the bill applied to any salesman whether they were a new or used vehicle dealer.
Mr. Toomin asked if a license was required for watercraft salesman. Mr. Sparks replied he was not sure as watercraft were under the Department of Wildlife.
Mr. Sparks stated the bill referred to any vehicle as defined in Chapter 482, including motor vehicle, trailors, recreational vehicles, horse trailers, motorcycles, etc.
Daryl Capurro, Nevada Franchised Auto Dealer's Association, testified in support of the bill. He stated they objected to the ideal of eliminating the required salesman license. He emphasized these salesman sold people the second most expensive investment people made. Mr. Capurro stated most professions that dealt with expensive investment, ie. real estate, are licensed. He stated the supported the self-supported concept.
MR. GARNER MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 222.
MR. MCGAUGHEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 510: Makes various changes related to automobile wreckers and operators of tow cars.
Mr. Collins, A.B. 510 Subcommittee Chairman, gave an update on the bill. He thanked subcommittee members Mr. Gregory and Mrs. Chowning. Explaining the changes, Mr. Collins stated the fee was reduced the certificate of dismantling fee from $10 to $5. To offset the fee reduction, Mr. Collins stated they asked recognition be given to wrecker and dealers who were already supposed to be licensed by the State of Nevada would allow for enforcment. He also stated in during the interim, a study would be conducted to address streamlining of the paperwork and department operations such as faxing instead of mailing different items. He stated renewal license would also be increased to $50. Mr. Collins stated the last changed allowed traffic control officers (meter mollies) to have vehicles towed or impounded.
Chairman Spitler clarified both proponents and opponents participated in the subcommittee and agreed on a complete "gutting" of the bill and replaced with the five new proposed changes.
Mr. McGaughey commented he had spent considerable time discussing the bill with tow truck operators. He commented history of the bill went back to 1987 and A.B. 883 of the 64th session and urged fellow committee members to review the minutes of the bill. He state the minutes indicated proponents of the proposed bill were devious in presenting the bill. Expounding on the proposed bill's history, Mr. McGaughey stated A.B. 241 (of the 65th session) attempted to correct A.B. 883 (of the 64th session). He indicated he did not want to vote on the bill without a written amendment. He requested a written copy of the amendment and sufficient time to review the amendment before voting. He also requested the amendment be put before those people interested in the bill for their review.
Mr. Collins addressed current deviation from Nevada's laws concerning auto auctions, etc. He stated it was the intent to coordinate cooperative business between tow truck operators, auto salvage pools, etc.
Mr. McGaughey requested an amendment which repealed A.B. 883 (of the 64th session). He felt by repealing would provide a great service to the industry.
Chairman Spitler stated he would not consider a repeal of any section which did no apply to A.B. 510 nor heard.
Mr. Toomin asked if the fiscal note was changed in any way. Mr. Collins stated the note probably would change but the amount had not been determined. He estimate enforcment would help offset the fee reduction.
Mrs. Chowning stated the subcommittee worked with DMV representatives who indicated they would be doing a lot of work during the interim on legislation regarding dismantlers. She noted a lot of cooperation and effort was being expended by DMV in working with all parties involved.
Mr. Anderson asked if the DMV felt with passage of amendments, they had a piece of legislation they would be able to work with, and also if other agencies were affected such as the Public Service Commission.
Ray Sparks, Chief, Registration Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, indicated the department did work closely with the subcommittee. Regarding the reduction of the dismantler certificate, the fee had a long history of complaints. He stated the fee increase was a part of a large bill which increase a number of fees for the highway fund. He stated continued representation of the auto wreckers indicated the fee was burdensome for the industry. He was concerned streamlining of paperwork might cause wreckers to circumvent documentation requirements. He indicated auto wreckers were catered to by guaranteeing a five day turn around for title to autowreckers where regular title customers sometimes waited up for eight weeks.
Mr. Anderson asked who would carry the weight of the auto wreckers when the fees are reduced. Mr. Sparks stated he was under the impression the state would subsidize the auto wreckers. He referred to the junk certificate which also was free which many of the auto wreckers received. He noted service to the auto wrecking industry was very low and the $10 certificate seemed fair; however, industry representation indicated the fee was excessive.
Mr. Collins stated for 40 years, auto wreckers operated without paying a fee. Mr. Anderson noted a five day turnaround provided extroadinary service to the auto wrecking industry. He realized for a number of years they received service for no fee and felt perhaps the industry should be charged for the actual costs the state spent on the industry. He pointed out each time DMV touched a paper, it had cost something.
Chairman thanked Mr. Collins, Mr. Gregory, and Mrs. Chowning on their work on the subcommittee.
With no further business, meeting adjourned at 3:16 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Carolyn J. Harry
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Transportation
June 7, 1993
Page 1