MINUTES OF THE
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Sixty-seventh Session
June 16, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Transportation was called to order by Chairman Larry L. Spitler, at 1:20 p.m. on Wednesday, June 16, 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 Morse Arberry, District No. 7
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Kerry Carroll-Davis, Senior Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau
OTHERS PRESENT:
Frank Daykin, Self
Frank W. Lewis, Self
Brian Herr, Nevada Bell
Russ Fields, Nevada Department of Minerals
Robert Hadfield, Nevada Association of Counties
Doug Busselman, Nevada Farm Bureau
Gaylyn Spriggs, Rayrock Mines, Inc.
Chuck Slavin, Nevada Department of General Services
Kimberly Binnion, California Triple AAA
Sandi McCubbin, Cellular 1
Vickie Demas, Self
Jim Dodson, Department of Transportation
Richard Sheldrew, Nevada Department of Transportation
Helen Foley, Sprint/Cellular
Ray Sparks, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety
SENATE BILL NO. 235: Provides definition for accessory roads and clarifies rights of users of such roads.
Frank Daykin testified in support of the bill. He explained the bill addressed accessory roads which were defined as "roads which were established under the Act of 1866, but which primarily served private lands; however, continued to serve as public use prior to 1976.." He stated the proposed bill affirmed the Act of 1866. The act provided any accessory road that crossed public land was open to the public. Mr. Daykin explained the following components of the bill: 1) The bill affirmed by state law that any user of the road could maintain the road without a permit; however, new construction could not be performed on the road, 2) The bill provided provisions for temporary and permanent closure of the roads. 3) The bill contained a discretionary provision for the attorney general to bring action for a declaratory judgment in keeping roads open if it was in the best interest of the public. Similar to S.B. 236 (of the 67th session), Mr. Daykin explained S.B. 235 was aimed primarily at roads that crossed public lands as opposed to roads crossing private lands.
Answering a question from Chairman Spitler, Mr. Daykin explained language in the bill that provided immunity to the state and local governments for damages basically spelled out what was already practiced.
Responding to a question from Mr. Anderson, Mr. Daykin stated "removal of debris or vegetation" would not be misconstrued as "new construction" as the bill mandated a permit for new construction. Although state law could not control a federal agency, Mr. Daykin stated state law would make state policy.
Mr. Hettrick pointed out earlier testimony from the Department of Wildlife on A.B. 176 (of the 67th session) requested permission to temporarily close roads for wildlife protection purposes. Mr. Daykin stated the Department of Wildlife had made no comment with respect to the bill; however, he stated he did not see a problem with including the Department of Wildlife. Referencing a suggestion from Mr. Hettrick about ownership of "access," Mr. Daykin explained he had written the bill to read "owner of access by road to his land" to make clear deprivation could not be made to anyone else who used the accessory road. Mr. Hettrick stated the bill in every other instance stated "owner of land."
Frank W. Lewis, Self, testified in support of the bill. He presented a letter received from Dan Harper, Former Manager of Pinson Mine and former commissioner from the Nevada Mineral Resources Commission, in support of the bill (Exhibit C). Clarifying maintenance of roads, Mr. Lewis stated it was important to note the bill addressed interest the person who owned private property had in the road. He stated a easement existed under the Act of 1866 for the accessory road user. He conveyed an experience he encountered with land he owned in White Pine County where the U.S. Forest Service stopped him as he was gaining access to his property. He was told he could not maintain the road even though the road was established for over a century. He stated the bill assisted landowners by giving recognition to the roads through a map. He stated the bill also recognized public use to the road and the person who owned property serviced by the road had a granted right to perform maintenance on the road. Mr. Lewis brought with him an example of a topographical map.
Responding to a question from Mr. Hettrick, Mr. Daykin stated Section 4, #4 was a possibililty and not a requirement; therefore, a fiscal note had not been prepared. He stated compensation would follow principles of imminent domain as required by the state constitution. Mr. Daykin stated Mr. Hettrick's suggestion to use "owner of land" rather than "owner of access" would remove any possible ambiguity.
Mr. Anderson suggested rather than providing compensation to "owners of land" for closure of a road, he pointed out A.B. 176 (of the 67th session) required an alternative access road be opened before closing a road. He stated this would completely remove the compensation clause. Mr. Daykin pointed out Mr. Anderson's suggestion was already in the bill.
Brian Herr, Nevada Bell, explained S.B. 235 and A.B. 176 (of the 67th session) addressed a number of issues relating to public roads and accessory roads. He voiced concern with the sections pertaining to closing of roads. Mr. Herr indicated they were amended into A.B. 176 and amended out of S.B. 235. Although they asked to be amended out of S.B. 235, Mr. Herr stated the amendment did not accomplish what they had desired. His concern was with accessing telephone or power facilities already established along roads that might be closed. Mr. Herr requested an amendment be offered to subsection 4 of Section 5 that exempted public utilities from the provisions regarding road closure.
Chairman Spitler pointed out road closure only applied when public safety and welfare was an issue and asked if Nevada Bell would send an employee out on such a road. Mr. Herr admittedly stated they saw only a few circumstances where a road closure as described in the bill would affect Nevada Bell's ability to maintain or access facilities on a mountaintop; however, he stated the possibility to be affected by the road closure was still present.
Russ Fields, Executive Director, Nevada Department of Minerals, voiced support for the bill.
Robert Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Hadfield noted the various sections contained in the bill which were important for county governments. In particularly, he was asked to make sure Humboldt County, Esmeralda County, and Mineral County support for the bill was voiced. Answering a question from Mr. Anderson, Mr. Hadfield stated NACO was undertaking a major public lands initiative in working with federal agencies to come up with "roadmaps" that dealt with issues that related to problems where counties were caught between arguments of private property owners and federal or local agencies, etc. He had hoped the bill would help pave solutions to the problems.
Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau, testified in support of the bill. He stated they strongly supported the public's right to use public roads, including the right of private land owners to maintain access to their private properties.
Gaylyn Spriggs, RayRock Mines, testified in support of the bill.
With no further testimony on the bill, Chairman Spitler called for a recess. Meeting was recessed at 2:00 p.m.
* * * *
Meeting reconvened at 3:40 p.m.
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 665: Requires department of transportation to establish system of emergency telephones along most frequently traveled public highways.
Assemblyman Morse Arberry, District 7, testified in support of the bill. He stated the bill was requested by a constituent who experienced car trouble on a major highway of the state, and he was aware the proposed legislation concept was already in place in various states. Mr. Arberry felt the proposed bill offered opportunity for residents and tourist, who did not have access to cellular phones, to call for help in emergency situations.
Chairman Spitler asked if the proposed bill anticipated "ring-down" circuits where someone picked up the phone which would ring into an emergency service facility who then dispatched emergency units, or if he proposed a phone where calls could be placed anywhere. Mr. Arberry replied the bill's intent was for emergency use only which would ring into a emergency facility.
Chairman Spitler noted the fiscal note on the proposed bill was $14 million for the first year of the biennium with $1.9 million for the second year and asked if the bill proposed would be done in stages or in one lump project.
Mr. Arberry relayed he did not have the opportunity to go over the fiscal note; and, because of the state's tight budget, he indicated there might be a need to address other alternatives.
Mr. Anderson asked what the space increments of the telephone spacing would be. Mr. Arberry indicated the bill was vague as he was not completely familiar with the telephone system operations and opted to leave technical decisions with those individuals who had the best knowledge.
Chairman Spitler indicated the Department of Transportation included a map which showed how they would break down the dollar amounts in terms of NDOT sites, etc.
Mr. Anderson asked which highways would be recipients of the phone system. Mr. Arberry stated he envisioned the bill to affect the more frequently traveled highways.
Mr. Collins pointed out public phone systems were already in place on many highways except for the interstate. He stated less costly alternatives might be considered other than the proposed bill's $14 million which would only ring into one number. He pointed out Nevada had "911" access throughout the state. Mr. Arberry stated the biggest problem was not gaining access to "911," but gaining access to phones along the highway in the first instance.
Mr. Garner noted the bill mandated NDOT to implement the emergency phone system. He asked how far the bill would go by stating "shall" unless the resources were provided to establish the system. Mr. Arberry indicated the bill would not get far, and further indicated he would not have a problem with Mr. Garner's suggestion to make the bill permissive by reading "if feasible." He reiterated his desire to help those individuals in the state who had car trouble on Nevada's rural highways.
Mrs. Chowning reiterated the importance of the bill to address the need for emergency communications along Nevada's highways and noted the bill had been introduced many times before. She felt it was time to start a plan in searching for funding sources such as adding an additional $1 to driver's license fees and dedicating that additional $1 to the phone system.
Chuck Slavin, Director, Telecommunications Division, Nevada Department of General Services, stated A.B. 665 proposed a telecommunication intended for public access. He cited four reasons why responsibility for the proposed system should fall within the proposed Department of Information Technology (DIT): 1) Both the Governor and Legislature had considered legislation which would consolidate and centralize telecommunications, resources, etc. within DIT. 2) The proposed system was a telecommunications service primarily intended for public access, which more closely aligned with information technology core of business than it did with NDOT. 3) It was imaginable that the proposed system would be expanded to areas other than state highways, such as state parks, county roads, etc. and expansion implied a need for system administration by an agency with broader jurisdictional responsibilities. 4) Section 2, Paragraph 2 of the proposed bill provided funding support from NDOT to a degree the system was used for NDOT operations. The provision seemed appropriate; however, other state agencies would also benefit from the system and should also contribute to the costs. Mr. Slavin indicated the four mentioned comments should not be construed to imply lack of competence in NDOT's ability to administer the proposed system; in fact, he stated the proposed system could not be implemented without the commitment of NDOT's various personnel, resources, and leadership. Mr. Slavin indicated Karen Kavanau, Director, Department of Data Processing, concurred with his testified view.
Chairman Spitler indicated the fiscal note did not indicate whether highway funds would be able to supplement the budget; however, if highway funds were available, he asked if the Information Services would have access to the money. Mr. Slavin indicated he was not qualified to address the question.
Mr. Anderson repeated a concern with possible difficulty in accessing funds from a different department for the project. Mr. Slavin agreed the situation might be possible; however, the first step would be between the departments to see how the funding would be coordinated.
Kimberly Binnion, Nevada Triple AAA, testified in support of the bill. She stated Triple AAA believed the bill to be a strong public safety bill which would be helpful to people traveling. Because of the fiscal note, she indicated Triple AAA would support a pilot project where one highway section was selected bassed on having the greatest need or deemed most hazardous.
Chairman Spitler asked if highway funds subsidized California's emergency road program. Ms. Binnion suspected so; however, she would find out and return with the accurate information.
Sandi McCubbin, Cellular One, testified in support of the bill. She stated across the nation in most states were solar cellular emergency call boxes and she estimated within the next two years, Nevada would have 98 percent call-back coverage in all the counties. She explained contents of the solar cellular emergency system.
Chairman Spitler asked how vandalism was addressed and the costs to operate the system. Ms. McCubbin stated each municipality did bid with the telephone company for the cost, which was approximately $4,000. She stated boxes were constructed very safely and in fact, issued a distress signal to dispatchers when hampered with.
Vickie Demas, Self, testified in support of the bill. She stated when a breakdown occurred on the freeways, there was no way to get off the freeway to receive any help. She reiterated the need for protection to obtain help. She had read where one woman a week was killed or raped while on the nations highways and felt protection needed to be provided for the public.
Jim Dodson, Assistant Director, Operations, Nevada Department of Transportation, introduced Richard Sheldrew, whom he indicated did the majority of the work on preparation of the fiscal note.
Richard Sheldrew, Communications Specialist, Nevada Department of Transportation, responding to a question from Chairman Spitler, indicated the fiscal note was based on a cellular call box system. He state he would make available a brochure on the proposed system, such as the device utilized by California.
Chairman Spitler noted the state could not come up with enough funding even though the bill had a high public interest and asked if a scaled down program might be implemented. Mr. Sheldrew responded the fiscal note looked at worst-case cost with phones spaced at one-mile intervals with call boxes located on both lanes. He stated the costs for single or two, five, or ten mile spacings ranged from $500,000 to $10 million. Chairman Spitler noted the lowest cost for a pilot project might be $500,000. Mr. Sheldrew indicated if a pilot project was desired, he needed direction on which stretch of highway was in need to be able to prepare a cost estimate.
Mr. Dodson stated highway funds had not been allocated to the proposed telephone system; however, he indicated the project might be eligible for highway funding. Answering a question from Mr. Collins, Mr. Dodson noted the project would need to be approved for funding availability and stated legislation which indicated the project was a pilot project, etc. might be helpful.
Mr. Anderson asked the average spacing of callboxes in California. Mr. Dodson stated Mr. Sheldrew found certain areas had spacing of callboxes within an 1/8 of a mile.
Helen Foley, Sprint/Cellular, indicated their willingness to work with the state in providing access. She stated Clark County was serviced by Sprint/Cellular and if it was the intent of the committee to start with an experimental package on I-15 in Las Vegas, it was easy to do as the technology was available.
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 680: Allows copy of notarized bill of sale signed by buyer or seller to be used in lieu of authorized appraisal in computing sales tax for certain motor vehicles.
Assemblyman James McGaughey, District No. 13, explained the premise behind the bill dealt with sales taxes. He explained when car dealers sold cars, taxes were based on sale prices; however, when a person purchased a car from a private party and went to register the vehicle, a book was used to determine the valuation of the tax. He stated the condition of the cars many times were far below the value listed on the book but yet, those registering had to pay the full tax.
Ray Sparks, Chief, Registration Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, indicated the first section of the bill provided an independent appraiser to do authorized appraisals of motor vehicles for sales tax purposes. He stated they also proposed to delete a current provision that rebuilders and auto wreckers were able to do appraisals, but still allowed car dealers authorization to do appraisals. He stated the reason for deleting rebuilders and wreckers but retaining dealers to continue appraisals was dealers dealt on a regular basis with intact vehicles whereas, rebuilders dealt with autos that had been damaged or salvaged. He stated the current process available to determine value of the vehicle for sales tax purposes was: 1) to use the depreciated value of the vehicle based on the original manufacturer's recommended suggested selling price, or 2) the purchaser could produce a notarized bill of sale and an authorized appraisal with the department using either the appraisal or notarized bill of sale, whichever was greater, but not less than $100. He stated the requirement became cumbersome on people as they did not realized they needed a notarized bill of sale at the time they purchased a vehicle from a private party. Mr. Sparks indicated they were concerned with simply allowing a submission with a bill of sale and basing the sales tax on that bill of sale as often a $1 bill of sale might be presented for a car which was obviously worth a substantial amount more. He stated to prevent abuse of the lone bill sale, the bill was written that either the depreciated value of the vehicle or the authorized appraisal be recognized.
Mr. Sparks offered the amendment to subsection 3 provided that the department would establish procedures in appraising vehicles. Mr. Sparks explained other changes to the bill involved removal of the words "bill of sale" from certain sections. He summed the purpose of the bill essentially set up a process where there were two methods to determine the value of the vehicle for purposes of assessing sales tax in the instance of a private party sale. The first method would be to use the existing method of using a manufacturer's suggested retail price and depreciate the amount based on the age of the vehicle. He stated the second method was to use the authorized appraisal.
Chairman Spitler pointed out the original bill did not have a fiscal note attached. Mr. Sparks indicated the bill would not require a fiscal note as the work would be carried out by existing staff.
Mr. McGaughey pointed out Page 2, line 13 of the proposed bill addressed discussions held where dealers would be able to charge a modest fee for an appraisal on a vehicle.
Answering a question from Mr. Anderson, Mr. Sparks indicated current law did not allow authorized independent appraisers to perform vehicle appraisals for tax purposes; however, he did understand appraisers did appraise vehicles for other purposes and it seemed reasonable to allow them to also perform appraisals. Mr. Anderson asked how DMV determined prices of vehicles. Mr. Sparks stated they identified the manufacturer's suggested retail prices for the time the vehicle was sold new in Nevada. He stated by statute, a depreciation schedule was based on the age of the vehicle and performed on the manufacturer's suggested retail prices. Mr. Anderson asked if the proposed bill passed, if the fees would be less. Mr. Sparks did not anticipate any significant change. He stated if a change did occur, it would probably be an increase in revenue as appraisals might be increased.
MR. GARNER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 680.
MR. ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. (MRS. CHOWNING, MR. GREGORY, MR. HETTRICK, AND MR. TOOMIN WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF VOTE.)
Chairman Spitler asked Mr. McGaughey to handle the bill when it reached the floor. Mr. McGaughey concurred.
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 510: Makes various changes related to dismantling and towing of motor vehicles.
Chairman Spitler indicated the proposed amendment had been before the committee for a week.
Mr. Collins explained provisions of the proposed amendment to the committee. Answering a question from Chairman Spitler, Mr. Collins clarified the amendment proposed to delete the proposed new language in Sections 1- 5 and not the entire section from statute. Chairman Spitler thank Mr. Collins and the subcommittee for their work and commented a 14 page bill was amended into approximately three lines. Mr. Collins concurred.
MR. GARNER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 510.
MR. MCGAUGHEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. (MRS. CHOWNING, MR. GREGORY, MR. HETTRICK, AND MR. TOOMIN WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF VOTE.)
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 457: Allows person who is required to attend educational course for driving under influence of alcohol to attend any school approved by department of motor vehicles and public safety.
Chairman Spitler asked the committee to review the amendment as it was his intent to vote on the bill at the next scheduled meeting. He explained the amendment provided inclusion of traffic safety schools into the bill and to allow assessment that currently went to fund the drug court in Clark County.
Mr. Garner commented the amendment would not reduce the amount of money going to the drug court; however, he stated what disturbed him was the individuals running the private schools who were certified by DMV to conduct the school and provide a service were not recognized by the judges in Clark County. He stated the amendment did not ask judges to distribute a list; however, the judges did not have a right to refuse a school that had been properly licensed and certified by the stated. Chairman Spitler agreed.
* * * *
Chairman Spitler stated a committee introduction had been requested for BDR 34-487 which related to the Regional Transportation Commission clarifying the provisions governing composition of the Regional Transportation Commissions in certain counties, and revising the powers of the Regional Transportation Commission concerning the adoption of certain plans and federal money projects, etc.
MR. ANDERSON MOVED FOR A COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 34-487.
MR. COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. (MRS. CHOWNING, MR. GREGORY, MR. HETTRICK, AND MR. TOOMIN WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF VOTE.)
With no further business, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 4:20 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Carolyn J. Harry
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Transportation
June 16, 1993
Page 1