MINUTES OF THE
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
Sixty-seventh Session
May 7, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Ways and Means was called to order by Chairman Morse Arberry, Jr., at 7:00 a.m., on Friday, May 7, 1993, in room 352 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, Vice Chairman
Mrs. Vonne Chowning
Mr. Joseph E. Dini, Jr.
Mrs. Jan Evans
Ms. Christina R. Giunchigliani
Mr. Dean A. Heller
Mr. David E. Humke
Mr. John W. Marvel
Mr. Richard Perkins
Mr. Robert E. Price
Ms. Sandra Tiffany
Mrs. Myrna T. Williams
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr., Chairman - Excused
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst
Gary Ghiggeri, Deputy Fiscal Analyst
AB 200 MAKES VARIOUS CHANGES REGARDING ENFORCEMENT OF PROVISION REQUIRING REGISTRATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES IN THIS STATE.
Assemblywoman Kathy Augustine said failure to register a motor vehicle within 45 days was a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for up to six months and a fine up to $1,000. The current registration law was not vigorously enforced. Enforcement depended on routine traffic stops and occasional information from private citizens who reported neighbors and coworkers. This has resulted in a loss of revenue to the state. The annual registration fee for a passenger car is $33. Additional fees were charged for the registration of motorcycles, trucks, buses and certain other vehicles. She asserted local governments suffer more serious revenue losses. The motor privilege tax, which was collected at the time of registration, is levied at the rate of 5 percent of assessed valuation in Clark County (4 percent in most other counties). On a typical vehicle the tax may amount to $100 or more per year. The State of Connecticut DMV had recently approved a similar measure to enforce the registration of illegally registered out-of-state vehicles.
Ms. Augustine noted AB 200 had been amended to include a dedicated Highway Patrol task force for enforcement of the registration law. The task force included six highway patrolmen, two located in Washoe County, three in Clark County and one in Elko.
Mr. Marvel asked if a fiscal note had been attached to AB 200. Mr. Spitler replied a fiscal note had not been formally requested. He explained the decision to include the special task force was not guaranteed. Ms. Augustine explained the cost to include the task force was $384,500 in FY 94 and $252,012 in FY 95 (Exhibit C). She asserted the costs would be offset by approximately $1-$2 million in additional revenue from assessments. Mr. Spitler stated the funds to initiate and support the task force could be funded from the Highway Patrol's special fund budget.
Bill Yukish, Chief Highway Patrol, testified he was in support of AB 200.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked how the task force would administer the program. Mr. Yukish stated AB 200 would increase the level of dedicated staff for enforcement of registration laws. However current enforcement procedures would not change. First, an informational tag would be placed on vehicles in violation. Second, the license plate would be entered into a database. If at a later date the vehicle had not been registered, a citation could be issued even if the driver was not present. Mr. Yukish stated currently vehicles could not be cited if the driver was not present.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked the cost of a citation. Mr. Yukish replied bail amounts were set by the court at approximately $50.
Mr. Perkins asked if visitors and inoperative vehicles would be cited. Mr. Yukish said the purpose of AB 200 was to allow tracking of vehicles known to be in violation. Citations would be made only after the vehicles had been marked with informational tags.
Mrs. Evans noted individuals from out of state which utilize state services such as schools and highways and failed to register their vehicles were a burden to the state. She asked the specific section within AB 200 which allowed officers to issue citations on private property. Mr. Yukish replied Section 5, subsection 8 read, "A vehicle may be cited for a violation of this section regardless of whether it is in operation or is parked on a highway, in a public parking lot or on private property which is open to the public". He noted the majority of citations would be issued on work sites after voluntary compliance had not occurred.
Mr. Perkins noted currently enforcement on private property was limited to driving under the influence or reckless driving. He asserted these violations endangered the public. He was not convinced law enforcement should be extended to private property for registration violations.
Mr. Perkins was concerned AB 200 could be administered by all law enforcement officers. He asserted a small percentage of officers could abuse the law which would reflect badly on law enforcement as a whole.
Mrs. Evans noted the grace period for registration would drop from 45 days to 30 days if AB 200 was implemented. She asked if other states had short grace periods. Mr. Yukish indicated several states allowed no grace period for registration. Individuals were required to register their vehicles immediately upon employment or residency within the state. Ms. Augustine interjected reduction in the number of days was included in AB 200 to be consistent with current residency laws.
Mr. Marvel asked where the rural trooper would be based and how adequate service could be provided to such a large area. Mr. Yukish replied the trooper would be based in Elko. AB 200 would allow the trooper to be assigned exclusively to registration enforcement.
Mr. Marvel asked if the public would be notified if AB 200 passed. Mr. Yukish replied the first informational citation would supply the necessary information.
Mrs. Chowning stated she was in favor of AB 200. She noted AB 200 required a report to the 68th Session on the cost-effectiveness of the legislation. She asked if persons who reside in the state for the winter season would be required to register their vehicles. Mr. Yukish replied if an informational tag revealed the owner did not intend to become a permanent resident of the state the vehicle would not be cited.
Mrs. Williams asked for assurance that once identified, exempted persons would not be constantly notified of registration violations. Mr. Yukish gave his assurance. Ms. Augustine added the current statute required persons which were employed full time within the state to register vehicles. She stated AB 200 would not be enforced in the border cities such as Laughlin, Tahoe and Wendover.
Mrs. Williams asked if people who retire to Nevada were required to register their vehicles. Ms. Augustine stated only those persons coming to the state on a temporary basis were exempt from AB 200.
Mr. Humke informed Mrs. Williams the current statute used the term "resident" or "residency" which implied an intent to become a resident. Therefore, individuals coming to the state for tourism who did not intend to become residents would not be cited.
Mr. Price asked if it was constitutional to cite vehicles on private property. Ms. Augustine answered the legislative counsel had reviewed AB 200 and observed the bill did not violate the constitution. Mr. Yukish added the language of AB 200 was consistent with similar provisions in other states.
Mr. Perkins noted Section 1, subsection 1 which detailed the composition and allocation of the registration task force. He asked if mandated allocation of the task force would restrict the enforcement of AB 200. Mr. Yukish replied AB 200 provided registration enforcement in the two metropolitan and rural areas within the state. He hoped the success of the registration program would encourage the 68th session to allocate additional resources and flexibility to the Highway Patrol for the program. He noted the dedicated task force would be restricted to Las Vegas, Reno and Elko but registration enforcement would continue at its current level for the remainder of the state. Mr. Perkins was concerned AB 200 would restrict the ability of the Highway Patrol to allocate resources as needed for the program.
Mr. Spitler requested the current reserve level of the special fund and its projected level if AB 200 was implemented. Mr. Yukish replied the fiscal impact of AB 200 was $384,500 in FY 94 and $252,012 in FY 95. The Highway Patrol special fund assessed each vehicle registered within the state $6 for the purposes of hiring supplemental troopers. Mr. Yukish asserted AB 200 would utilize special funds appropriately. The special fund reserve level was approximately $5 million but would be reduced to $2 million over the next biennium. Mr. Yukish was confident the special fund could sustain the enforcement of AB 200.
Ms. Giunchigliani read the statutory definition of a Nevada resident, NRS 482.103, and noted it was significantly definitive. She was concerned all law enforcement officers could enforce AB 200. Mr. Yukish replied all law enforcement officers were currently authorized to enforce all of the Nevada Revised Statutes within their jurisdiction. AB 200 would not give additional authority to law enforcement officers.
Ms. Augustine recommended amending the task force portion of AB 200 rather than taking no action on the bill.
AB 388 MAKES VARIOUS CHANGES TO PROVISIONS GOVERNING ADMINISTRATIVE ASSESSMENTS FOR MISDEMEANORS.
Paul McGrath, Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association (NSCA), distributed information about the impacts of AB 388, (Exhibit D). NSCA sponsored and supported AB 388 which would reduce the administrative assessment threshold from $5 to zero and modify its distribution between the courts and law enforcement training facilities. AB 388 allowed for program expansion and limited capital improvements to the Nevada Law Enforcement Academy (POST). He asserted General Fund allocations to POST had reduced from $186,847 in FY 91 to $170,923 in FY 93 and were recommended to be $84,440 for FY 94 and $39,947 for FY 95. Mr. McGrath believed AB 388 would provide a stable funding source for law enforcement training facilities.
Mr. McGrath explained the assessment threshold was proposed to be reduced from $5 to zero so that an administrative assessment could be charged to those persons who had their violations reduced or were not assessed a fine. Mr. McGrath contended administrative assessments would increase by 40 percent and result in $1,504,530 of additional revenue. Exhibit D displayed projected revenues from AB 388 according to the NSCA as provided by Mr. McGrath.
Mrs. Chowning was troubled the collection of the administrative assessment fee was left to the discretion of the judge. She noted Section 1, subsection 9 of AB 388 detailed use of money in a special account for "training and educating personnel, purchase of capital assets, professional services which were not otherwise provided by the employees of the public agency and other acquisition or services deemed to be necessary by the public agency." Mr. McGrath explained Section 1, subsection 9 of AB 388 was added at a later date and was originally sponsored in AB 55 by the Nevada Judges Association.
Mrs. Chowning wished to clarify whether persons would be charged an administrative assessment on a "fix-it" ticket. Mr. McGrath explained a $10 administrative assessment fee could be charged for any offence where the court or a law enforcement officer was utilized. However, a fee would not be charged if the citation was dismissed.
Mr. Marvel asked if there was any opposition to AB 388 when it was heard in the Assembly Committee on Judiciary. Mr. McGrath said there was no opposition.
Victor Freeman, Under Sheriff, Carson City and Chairman, POST Committee, supported AB 388. He asserted as funding levels decreased POST was asked to expand curriculum for police officers training within the state. He asserted an objective of the POST Committee was to establish a presence in southern Nevada. Many southern Nevada police officers were required to attend POST academies.
Mr. Perkins asked if additional curriculum for police officers would result from combining POST and the Highway Patrol academies. Mr. Freeman replied the combination of the two training facilities allowed several training officers to return to the street as troopers. Mr. Freeman did not comment on whether addition course work would result from the combination of the two facilities.
Mr. Freeman stated in 1989 the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association agreed to pay some of the training costs for police officers with the understanding a POST academy would be established in southern Nevada. Additional funding from AB 388 would be used to expand POST training to include in-service and special training to officers throughout the state.
Mr. McGrath read a portion of a memorandum dated July 18, 1989 from the 65th Session of the Nevada Legislature to the Director of the Department of Motor Vehicles which supported the concept of establishing a POST program in southern Nevada. The memorandum also requested a plan to implement the program prior to the 1991 Session be submitted to the Budget Director. The memorandum was signed by Assemblyman Marvin Sedway and Senator William Raggio.
Mr. McGrath explained the administrative assessment was split between the courts and law enforcement training facilities, 51 percent and 49 percent, respectively. AB 388 proposed altering the distribution formula to allow 49 percent of the administrative assessment to the courts, 51 percent to POST.
Ms. Giunchigliani stated because administrative assessments were lower than anticipated the courts budgets had been closed with a potential shortfall of $300,000 over the next biennium. She asserted further funding reductions would occur if the distribution of the administrative assessment was altered. Mr. McGrath replied if AB 388 was implemented and the assessment threshold was reduced from $5 to 0, revenue collected from the administrative assessment was projected to increase by $1.6 million. Ms. Giunchigliani noted the administrative assessment had decrease significantly over the last three years. Mr. McGrath was sure percentage distributions would return to normal as Nevada continued to grow.
Ms. Giunchigliani suggested amending AB 388 to reduce the assessment threshold from $5 to 0 and retain the current distribution formula, 51 percent to court and 49 percent to POST. Mr. McGrath asserted if AB 388 was implemented in full, the upper court system would receive the same amount of revenue. Ms. Giunchigliani disagreed and asserted altering the distribution formula would impact the court budget directly. Mr. McGrath agreed to a certain extent it did impact the court budget.
David Hanellnie, Deputy Director, Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and Public Safety, explained POST was a division within the DMV. As indicated from earlier testimony the DMV had been directed to establish a POST program in southern Nevada with adequate staffing to provide training to categories 1, 2 and 3 law enforcement officers. He explained the Department had been unable to provide the program because of inadequate funding over the past two bienniums. Mr. Hanellnie supported AB 388 because it would fund a POST program in southern Nevada.
Mr. Perkins noted basic training for southern Nevada police officers was provided by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. He asked how many southern Nevada agencies requested POST training. Mr. Hanellnie explained officers from Boulder, Hendersen, North Las Vegas, Parole and Probation, and Corrections had received training from POST. He explained additional living expenses could be avoided if a southern Nevada POST academy was available. Mr. Perkins assured Mr. Hanellnie the Hendersen Police Department had not utilized POST training for some time. He asked how many southern Nevada officers had attended the POST academy in the last eight years. Mr. Hanellnie advised he would provide the information at a later date.
OPPOSITION TO AB 388
Robert Rose, Chief Justice Nevada Supreme Court, agreed law enforcement education and training was important but opposed changing the distribution of the administrative assessment fee as proposed in AB 388. The bill affected the reliability of funding and could pose a serious constitutional problem. Justice Rose explained the constitution prohibited the judiciary from collecting or assessing taxes. Two views have been taken on administrative assessments. The traditional view held assessments and taxes were equivalent and were prohibited by the Constitution. Nevada took the more moderate view, if fees were used for court improvements or capital acquisitions they were considered assessments and not taxes.
Chief Justice Rose stated he and Chief Justice Cliff Young had discussed the constitutional implications of broadening the use of administrative assessment fees with the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means in 1991. After some compromise the Justices decided to attempt to persuade the court to allow the use of administrative assessment fees for baseline funding with the understanding 51 percent of the administrative assessment fee would remain with the courts.
Chief Justice Rose noted over the last year the administrative assessment revenue was down by $300,000; if the trend continued over the next biennium a loss of $600,000 could result. He stated AB 388 would reduce funding to the courts by an additional $300,000. Therefore, over the next biennium there was a $1.2 million potential revenue loss. The courts considered this a real threat to the judiciary regardless of the constitutional implications.
Chief Justice Rose asserted a 40 percent increase in the number of assessments as projected by the NSCA was overly optimistic. He cited alternative sentencing arrangements between lower court judges and first-time offenders as an area where administrative assessments would not be collected.
Donald J. Mello, Director, Administrative Office of the Courts, stated the projected revenue from AB 388 was unrealistic. A survey of the largest courts in the state revealed five of them produced 85 percent of all activity. The courts did not believe the assessment base would be significantly increased by changing the assessment threshold from $5 to zero. Mr. Mello stated the courts were not opposed to the change in the assessment threshold because any additional revenue derived from the change was welcome. However, 160,000 additional assessments at a minimum charge of $10 totaled $1.6 million in additional revenue. Simply, the projections from the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association were overstated. He noted assessment revenue was down by 9-10 percent for FY 93, and if revenue projections for AB 388 were correct, the court would only break even. Mr. Mello asserted additional revenue requests from POST should have been addressed through the budget process not through a bill draft request.
Mr. Mello requested the "TEXT OF REPEALED SECTION" be deleted from AB 388. He explained the section required "a monthly report of administrative assessment paid to justices' courts be reported to the state treasurer." The section ensured accurate reporting and specific level of activity for each of the courts throughout the state. The section had been added at his request during the 66th session.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked for clarification on the courts opposition to AB 388. Chief Justice Rose stated the courts opposed changing the distribution of administrative assessment fees but did not oppose the reduction in the assessment threshold.
Judy Matteucci, Budget Director, stated the administration was not opposed to reducing the assessment threshold. However, the 40 percent increase in the number of assessments projected by the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association's seemed high. She suggested the committee receive evidence to substantiate the projections. She asserted if the funds did not materialize, it would cause significant problems for the entities involved.
Ms. Matteucci noted although she had not been a party to the discussion about the distribution formula for administrative assessment fees, the current distribution seemed to work well for the non-judicial agencies. She noted current legislation did not limit legislative authorization to a specific percentage distribution. However, AB 388 assigned a specific percentage distribution to each budget account. If implemented AB 388 would decrease allocations to the courts, criminal history repository and the victims of crime program. The two accounts which would receive increased allocations as a result of the new distributions proposed in AB 388 were the Highway Patrol and the POST academy. Therefore adjustments would have to be made in the criminal history repository. Additionally, if no new revenue was realized from AB 388, payments to victims from the victims of crime program would have to be prorated downward.
Ms. Matteucci was concerned the language was unclear in Section 1, subsection 9, line 4 which read, "All expenditures and requests for expenditures of money deposited in a special account pursuant to this section are presumed valid unless reasonable grounds exist to deny an expenditure or request." She asserted a presumption of validity was highly subjective. She noted money used for the acquisition of capital goods and interest income would not revert to the General Fund.
Mr. Mello clarified Section 1, subsection 9, lines 1-20 were intended to reflect language from AB 55 which was sponsored by the Nevada Judges Association. The lines were intended to be applicable to the lower courts only. He suggested deleting lines 1-20 from AB 388.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
_________________________
Courtnay Berg
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Ways and Means
May 7, 1993
Page 1