The Committee on Transportation was called to order at 1:36 p.m., on Thursday, April 8, 1999. Chairman Vonne Chowning presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All Exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mrs. Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall, Vice Chairman

Mr. Douglas Bache

Mr. John Carpenter

Mrs. Barbara Cegavske

Mr. Jerry Claborn

Mr. Tom Collins

Mr. Don Gustavson

Mrs. Kathy McClain

Mr. Dennis Nolan

Mr. David Parks

Ms. Bonnie Parnell

Mr. Kelly Thomas

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Mrs. Chowning opened the work session on A.B. 550.

Assemblyman Carpenter requested the bill be withdrawn since there were a variety of problems with the language of the bill. He indicated he would work on the issue during the interim since there were problems which needed to be resolved and would present a bill next session.

Mrs. Chowning remarked the merits of the bill were valid so the committee would not take any action on the bill. She closed the work session on A.B. 550 and opened the work session on A.B. 552.

Elana Marton, committee policy analyst, presented the committee with a series of proposed amendments (Exhibit C). She explained there had been two additional amendments submitted since the previous work session on the bill. The first additional amendment would lower the age limit of the additional passenger from 20 years of age to 18 years of age. The second amendment would reduce the time restriction on the transportation of additional passengers from 6 months to 4 months.

Mrs. Chowning requested Ms. Marton review the rest of the amendments for the committee members. Ms. Marton explained there were a total of nine amendments to A.B. 552. The first allowed a provisional licensee to transport family members without restrictions. The second amendment deleted "reasonable alternative transportation is inadequate" from the restrictions on nighttime driving. The third amendment would lower the age on restricted passengers from 20 years of age to 18 years of age. The fourth would reduce the length of time restricting additional passengers from 6 months to 4 months. The fifth, sixth, and seventh amendments were technical amendments requested by the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV & PS) which would allow other distinguishing characteristics to be included on a provisional license besides the date of issuance, clarified a violation of the restrictions listed in the bill would not be cause for suspension or revocation of a provisional license, and authorized the department to adopt regulations in accordance with the bill if needed. Clark County School District requested the final two amendments which would require a parent or legal guardian to sign off on driving to school activities and allow provisional licensees to drive to school activities and not only classes.

Assemblyman Parks inquired about the other distinguishing characteristics DMV & PS requested. He wondered if they would require the holder of the provisional licensee to return after their 4-month restriction had expired to receive a new license. Assemblywoman Cegavske stated they would not be issued a new license.

Mr. Carpenter thought the age restrictions on additional passengers would not include 18 year olds. Mrs. Chowning observed the provisional licensee would not be allowed to transport passengers under the age of 18.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 552 WITH THE RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

Mrs. Chowning closed the work session on A.B. 552 and opened the work session on A.B. 458.

Assemblyman David Parks, District 41, indicated there had been a question by Assemblywoman Parnell regarding the constitutionality of entering a premise to inspect automobiles without a warrant issued by a court. The United States Supreme Court upheld the right of law enforcement to conduct administrative inspections of "closely regulated" businesses in New York v. Burger in 1987. The Court stated law enforcement might enter a commercial location,

"…for the purpose of searching for components of the stolen vehicle was valid when the premise was a commercial enterprise open to the public for business, where the officers went to the premise during regular business hours, and where the officers did not search any areas of the enterprise from which the public was excluded."

He proposed the committee make two changes to the A.B. 458 to bring it in compliance with the Supreme Court decision (Exhibit D). The first change was on line 7, which would limit law enforcement to inspecting vehicle identification numbers (VINs) only. The second change was located on line 10 and would add "commercial" location to the language.

Mrs. Chowning suggested the legislation would greatly assist state and local law enforcement who worked on recovering stolen vehicles. She wondered why commercial location included "where agricultural or construction work" was included. Mr. Parks mentioned other states had discovered those settings had been desirable locations for performing dismantling operations.

Mr. Carpenter felt it was good public policy to request permission before conducting an inspection even in the face of the Supreme Court decision. Mr. Parks indicated if the committee desired to include language requiring a 24-hour advanced notice of inspection, he would not have a problem.

Mrs. Chowning commented if the business was altering VINs on stolen vehicles why would the police want to notify them. It would grant the criminals enough time to remove the evidence from the property and there would be no case against them.

Assemblywoman McClain indicated she was of a similar opinion.

Assemblywoman Parnell inquired if VINs were visible from the exterior of a vehicle or if the vehicle had to be entered to locate the number. Mr. Parks invited a member of the law enforcement community to answer the question.

Sergeant Keith Carter, representing Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (Metro), revealed VINs were located in various places on a vehicle. There were some which had been purposefully hidden by the manufacturer so law enforcement could identify a vehicle even if it had been dismantled.

Mr. Carpenter inquired if the operations would be hindered if law enforcement was required to give 24-hour notice. Sgt. Carter indicated requiring law enforcement to provide the business with advanced notification would be akin to requiring advanced notice to serve a warrant. It would make the job of law enforcement extremely difficult.

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall suggested there had been a recent proliferation of "chop shops" throughout Nevada and in particular Clark County. Sgt. Carter stated there was a definite problem which law enforcement needed to control and that was the purpose of the bill.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 458 WITH THE AMENDMENTS PRESENTED BY ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYMEN CARPENTER, GUSTAVSON, AND PARNELL VOTING NO. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE WAS NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

Mrs. Chowning closed the work session on A.B. 458 and opened the work session on A.B. 182.

Ms. Marton stated there were two proposed amendments to the bill submitted by Clark County (Exhibit E). The first amendment was present when A.B. 182 was originally heard on March 2, 1999, and would limit the application of the bill to counties with populations greater than 400,000, so it would only affect Clark County. The second amendment would require the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) to enter into an interlocal agreement with Clark County by July 1, 2000, or the legislation would become effective and require NDOT to conform to certain local standards.

James Spinello, franchise service manager, Clark County, mentioned the amendments would also limit the effect of the bill to improvements on arterial and collector roadways and not the construction of the roadways. He felt there had been some confusion during the original testimony and NDOT was of the opinion that the county was trying to tell them how to build roads which was never their intention. Clark County simply wanted the state to require improvements in the right-of-ways adjacent to the roads just as they did.

Mrs. Chowning asked if he could explain to the committee what they meant by right-of-way and the improvements to which they were referring. Mr. Spinello revealed the right-of-way included the curb and extended to the edge of the sidewalk or slightly beyond. Improvements were things other than the road itself such as sidewalks, traffic signals, and curbing. The county’s main concern was in urban areas people expected the improvements to be added and the state did not always require the improvements. They had been working with NDOT to make adjustments and swap streets; however, if the current negotiations were not successful A.B. 182 would require the improvements be added.

Mrs. Chowning noted the date the legislation would take effect was July 1, 2000. Therefore if an interlocal agreement had not been signed by July 1, 2000, the bill would in effect create an interlocal agreement since NDOT would be required to consult Clark County. Mr. Spinello commented the difference between an interlocal agreement and consulting was the consulting was required on every project while the interlocal agreement was more like a master plan.

Mrs. Chowning inquired why the legislation was requested. Mr. Spinello suggested there had been instances in which improvements had not been added where the county would have required them. The primary example was the Flamingo Road overpass described during the initial hearing. It was a tourist area which led from the Strip to the Rio Hotel/ Casino; however, the sidewalk did not extend onto the overpass which was not realized until pedestrians reached the on ramp to Interstate 15. The problem was being corrected but there were other instances where improvements should have been completed but were not. There was also an overriding policy issue which needed to be addressed and that was the intention behind Assemblyman Collins’ resolution, A.C.R. 3, involving road swapping. The county supported the resolution and felt A.B. 182 was an interim solution until the road swaps were completed.

Larry Semenza, representing Circus Circus Enterprises, informed the committee of the experiences of Circus Circus which related to the proposed legislation. They had entered into predevelopment agreements with Clark County prior to the construction of the Mandalay Bay Resort Casino. Part of the agreement called for traffic studies to be completed to determine if installation of traffic signals would be required. The studies showed two traffic signals would be required, one on Four Seasons Drive and the other on Russell Road between Interstate 15 and Las Vegas Boulevard South. Circus Circus’ contractor installed the signals without obtaining an encroachment permit from NDOT. After the signals were installed, the company was required to go before NDOT to have the signals turned on. The signal on Four Sessions Drive met the necessary warrants and was turned on; however, the signal on Russell was still pending. There appeared to be certain disparities between NDOT and Clark County requirements that required clarification. It was difficult dealing with two governmental agencies who could not agree on which improvements were necessary for the community.

Mrs. Chowning called attention to the safety issues of increased traffic on the roads surrounding Mandalay Bay. Mr. Semenza responded there was a dangerous situation which would increase during special events such as the Pavarotti concert. The traffic engineers employed by Circus Circus Enterprises determined signals were necessary and had met the required warrants, but they were still required to prove to the state the signal was needed. He felt the bill would simply have the effect of getting the state and county together to discuss improvements.

Jeff Fontane, deputy director, NDOT, asserted when A.B. 182 was originally heard by the committee, Tom Stephens, director of NDOT, expressed extreme opposition and continued to do so. The issues that needed to be settled between NDOT and Clark County did not require statutory changes and were not a legislative issue. Since the date of the original hearing on the bill, NDOT had worked diligently with the county to attempt to resolve the issues which were addressed, and they were committed to continue that work.

Mr. Fontane explained the two parties had been working on an interlocal agreement. He presented the committee with the response memorandum from Mr. Stephens (Exhibit F) regarding a March 31, 1999, draft of the agreement. The agreement included the issues Clark County had addressed to the committee. NDOT agreed certain road transfers did need to take place; however, it would take time to execute those transfers. There were various analyses which needed to be completed before NDOT could agree to any transfers. Once all research was completed and an agreement reached it would have to be ratified by the department’s board of directors and the Clark County Commission.

Mr. Fontane continued A.B. 182 would require NDOT to enter into the interlocal agreement by July 1, 2000, or comply with county standards by default. The county would argue they required the legislation to maintain the pressure on NDOT to enter into an agreement; however, NDOT had been working with the county and would continue to do so until an agreement was developed. If passed even with the proposed amendments, the legislation would be requiring NDOT to either rush into an agreement or comply with the standards of Clark County: either choice would create a one-sided agreement in favor of the county. NDOT was willing to continue working with the county on the issues raised as a result of A.B. 182, but did not believe the problem was so great as to require statutory changes.

Mr. Fontane concluded by addressing the examples given by the proponents of the bill from Clark County. If the county desired a signal on a state highway, the state would turn on the signal if it met the required warrants. In the case of the signal in front of the Mandalay Bay Resort on Russell Road, the department was currently reviewing the traffic reports and obtaining new information. The signal would eventually be turned on when it met the required warrants since there was an issue of liability if the state turned on a signal prior to meeting the warrants. The Flamingo Road overpass was a problem for pedestrians and the department was working with the Rio to resolve it; however, the committee should know the overpass was built about 30 years ago when there was virtually nothing in the area so sidewalks were not needed.

Mrs. Chowning inquired if the 2000 deadline did not allow enough time to develop an interlocal agreement how long it would take to develop the agreement. Mr. Fontane indicated the main issue in developing interlocal agreements was conveyance of the right-of-way. The process required mapping, surveys, resolutions, and many other items to be completed prior to the drafting of the actual agreement then approval of the governmental entities involved. NDOT was willing to move forward with the process and felt it could be done in "good faith" since all parties agreed certain road transfers did need to take place. Neither NDOT nor the county would be able to know if unexpected issues would arise which could slow the process down.

Mrs. Chowning voiced there was no approximate date upon which the department could agree. Mr. Fontane declared if he agreed to a specific date and it was not met there would be additional problems. He indicated he would hope to report during the 2001 session an agreement had been executed, or they were very close to executing it. Logistical issues always arose when working on interlocal agreements which would have to be resolved.

Mr. Collins mentioned there was currently an interlocal agreement in place which was enacted in 1992 to replace the agreement from 1983. He asked Mr. Spinello, since he was representing Clark County, if the county would incorporate the regional transportation commission (RTC) into any agreement they signed. Mr. Spinello stated all road and improvement standards in Clark County followed RTC standards. He informed the committee Bryan Gresh, who represented the Clark County RTC, supported the bill.

Mr. Collins commented the state had different intentions concerning the flow of traffic than local governments, as such there were differences in interchanges, highway ramps, traffic signals, and so on. Any interlocal agreement would need to specifically address the fact there were those differences. State standards were based upon national road standards which the county did not always follow. He asked if the county would be able to follow those standards on the roads which were held in common. Mr. Spinello suggested there were going to be certain differences in standards since urban areas had to deal with streets, avenues, ways, commercial structures, and residential structures. The county was also concerned with the flow of traffic, but they did have other issues they needed to address. The differences were not bad or wrong, just different since there were different applications for each.

Mr. Collins relayed interlocal agreements generally required NDOT to maintain pavement on some county roads which was addressed in A.C.R. 3. He felt any new interlocal agreements should require the county to meet state standards on state projects. The county would also need NDOT to require improvements on county projects. There was definitely a need for both parties to give a certain amount on some issues. Since the proposed amendment would add language applying A.B. 182 to Clark County only, they should be able to work out their differences if the two parties agreed. He wondered if the bill could be drafted in such a way to require the county to comply with state standards on common roads owned by the state and require the state to not waive improvements which developers funded. Mr. Spinello wondered if the language could be determined by the deadline.

Mr. Collins declared if Clark County and NDOT agreed on the concept of the amendment, it would be able to be drafted, but there was no point in working on the amendment if the two entities could not agree. Mr. Spinello stated the county requested the bill to address the concerns mentioned. They had proposed amendments to narrow the bill further. He was willing to work on another amendment if it was the desire of the committee. Mr. Fontane commented NDOT was willing to work with the county to address their concerns, but needed more specifics on what they wanted and how they felt it could be accomplished. The department would not be able to agree to any amendments without seeing them.

Collins claimed the intent was to agree upon the concept of an amendment. He stated regarding the issue of Flamingo Road, the overpass was constructed prior to any interlocal agreements being signed. At the time there was no need for a sidewalk in the middle of a desert so the argument was invalid. The present issue was to deal with future projects and if the two parties could agree on the concepts, the committee should move forward with the legislation.

Mrs. McClain remarked the proposed amendments presented to the committee appeared to allow enough time for NDOT and Clark County to enter into an interlocal agreement.

Ms. Parnell thought the amendments created an either-or situation; either the state entered into an interlocal agreement, or they would have to consult with the county.

Ms. Ohrenschall inquired about the potential liability for the state if there was an accident in an area which had been determined by local authorities to require a traffic signal but had not been turned on by the state. Mr. Fontane replied negotiations on an interlocal agreement did not have anything to do with the state’s responsibility of assuring safe highways. If a road maintained by the state required a traffic signal, the state would install it. NDOT did not want to get that involved in their negotiations with the county. The traffic signal on Russell Road was an issue separate from the creation of an interlocal agreement. The department was currently reviewing the traffic reports presented by Circus Circus Enterprises concerning the aforementioned signal to assure it did meet the required warrants.

Ms. Ohrenschall asked what would happen if an accident occurred while they were reviewing the reports. Mr. Fontane declared the department required time to review all the reports to assure the signal met the necessary warrants, both state and federal. He was unsure of the state’s liability, but they did need some time to review the paperwork.

Ms. Ohrenschall wondered if there were any guidelines which determined the amount of time for review. Mr. Fontane responded he was unclear if there was a set deadline for review, but the department did attempt to turn around requests in a timely manner.

Mrs. Chowning announced since both parties were willing to work on amendment language, that they do so while the committee took action on other pending legislation. The committee would hold the bill until they returned advising whether any agreement could be reached.

Mrs. Chowning closed the work session on A.B. 182 and opened the work session on A.B. 677.

Ms. Marton explained the bill was an act relating to motor carriers which would limit the duty of the Transportation Services Authority (TSA) of impounding vehicles in passenger services without a certificate of public convenience. There had been two amendments submitted. The first amendment came from Bob Ostrovsky, with Hertz Rental Car Corporation, and Bill Gregory, with Nevada Rental Car Association, (Exhibit G) and would include passenger vehicles which had initially been deleted in section 1, subsection 1. It would also create a new subsection 4, which would create an exception for rental car agencies. They would not be liable for any administrative fines or penalties associated with the impoundment of their vehicles if a short-term lessee used a rental car to provide passenger service without a certificate of public convenience. The second amendment was submitted by the TSA (Exhibit H), and would state the lessor of the vehicle would not be held liable but only if they were unaware of the intended illegal use.

John Mendoza, chairman, TSA, explained the concern of the TSA was that providing passenger service without a certificate of convenience was the fastest growing area of illegal operations with which they dealt. Illegal operators would go into rental agencies and lease a large number of vans and sedans then enter into contracts with companies holding conventions in Nevada. Every major convention brought a flood of brokers into the state that put together packages for the visiting companies to provide transportation using rental vehicles. He felt the rental agencies were an assumed unknowing party in the activity. The TSA did not want to go after the unknowing parties but felt if it was clear they continued to enter into contracts with persons involved in repetitious acts of violating the law or conspiracies, to violate the law and the agencies should be held liable. The agencies would be provided with an opportunity to show their innocence in a proceeding.

Mrs. Chowning queried how the TSA would know the difference between an agency which was aware of the illegal activity and one which was unaware. Mr. Mendoza revealed when the matter was brought before the TSA for citation the rental agency would be required to bring their records with them. The TSA would also send investigators to the companies for documentation which was generally turned over without any problems.

Assemblyman Claborn thought the original hearing on the bill concerned either being licensed or not licensed to transport passengers because the vehicles were not licensed to transport passengers. Mr. Mendoza mentioned the individual who rented the vehicle was not licensed.

Mr. Claborn inquired if the problem was the individual not being licensed. Mr. Mendoza explained the problem was before an individual could begin transporting passengers in Nevada they must become a certified carrier. They would have to come before the TSA to apply for a license, go through the licensing procedures, pay the appropriate insurance, and meet all the necessary safety requirements. What had been occurring was a broker would go to a rental agency and rent five or six vehicles, then approach a company in town for a convention to transport the company’s people. Brokers generally had agreements with the rental agencies to be able to rent as many vehicles as they did. Those agencies knew the vehicles were to be used by an individual who was not licensed in Nevada to transport passengers.

Mr. Claborn contemplated the intent of the bill was to "put a fence" between rental agencies and the brokers. Mr. Mendoza informed the committee the intent was to tell the rental agencies they could not knowingly enter into a conspiracy to break Nevada law.

Mrs. Cegavske mentioned the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means had heard testimony regarding the TSA and motor carriers. She wondered if A.B. 677 had anything to do with someone who had a chauffeur’s license and rented a vehicle to chauffeur someone. The other question was if the concern was with the transportation of passengers in-state or out-of-state. Mr. Mendoza stated the bill dealt with transporting passengers point to point in Nevada or intrastate carriers.

Mrs. Cegavske commented the TSA had thought all the problems with unlicensed operators concerned people coming in from out-of-state on the weekends and taking away local business. The legislative study concluded 80 percent of the problem was actually from people located in state. She reiterated her previous question regarding chauffeurs, if they would be able to rent a vehicle to drive someone around. Mr. Mendoza indicated chauffeurs would not be able to rent vehicles.

Mrs. Cegavske asked why they would not be able to rent a vehicle if they had a license. Mr. Mendoza commented if someone transported passengers for a living they were engaged in the practice of being a carrier within the State of Nevada and had to have a carrier’s license. If a company wanted to rent the vehicles and allow only their employees to drive there would be no problem since it was intracompany.

Mrs. Cegavske queried only companies were allowed to rent a large number of vehicles without being questioned on certification to transport passengers. Mr. Mendoza indicated any business could rent the amount of vehicles they would need if their employees were the ones who drove the vehicles.

Assemblyman Nolan observed they were discussing individuals who were coming to Nevada from out-of-state, renting vehicles, and transporting passengers from point to point in Nevada. Mr. Mendoza remarked the individuals could be from Nevada as well.

Mr. Nolan inquired if a company came to Nevada for a convention, rented two large vans, and provided their own drivers to transport their employees from point to point in Nevada there would be no problem. Mr. Mendoza suggested in general TSA did not have a problem with the situation.

Mr. Nolan asked what "in general" meant. Mr. Mendoza answered the TSA examined each case individually to see if there was any intent of getting into the transportation business. He explained what he meant by people coming in to Nevada from out-of-state was someone bringing in a group from California which would be considered interstate. Once they entered Nevada and parked the vehicles they could not convert the vehicle to moving the group from point to point in Nevada which would be intrastate transport and under the jurisdiction of the TSA.

Mr. Nolan relayed an experience with which he was familiar to help clear up some of the confusion. He had held a conference in Carson for about 40 people. Several of them traveled from the San Francisco Bay area in a van. He had rented two additional cans to transport them to and from meetings, dinners, and hotels. He wondered if the situation would fall under the provisions set forth in A.B. 677. Mr. Mendoza stated he did not think the situation would be subject to the proposed legislation.

Mrs. Chowning inquired if the difference was charging for the service. Since Assemblyman Nolan had not charged a fee for transporting the people, it would not be subject to the bill. Mr. Mendoza mentioned charging a fee was one of the indicators to the TSA if someone was in business of transporting passengers, but under the statute the individual would not be required to charge for the service, only transport passengers from point to point in Nevada.

Mrs. Chowning asked if the rental companies had seen the proposed amendments by the TSA and approved of them.

Bill Gregory, representing Nevada Car Rental Association, informed the committee the industry had requested the amendments because when someone rented a vehicle the agency would not know what the person was going to do with it, yet the industry suffered the penalties. He was not trying to defend any car rental agency which rented a vehicle to someone knowing the person was going to illegally transport passengers. The industry would not defend any agency which was shown to have been aware the vehicle was going to be used in an illegal act. They were only requesting relief for those agencies who were truly unaware.

Bob Ostrovsky, representing Hertz Rental Car Corporation, announced he agreed with Mr. Gregory. Additionally there was a larger issue to be addressed by the committee in light of the various questions. There needed to be a clearer line drawn on the legal and illegal transportation of passengers. He was unsure if there would be enough time in the current session to make such a determination, but he knew the industry would be willing to work with the TSA during the interim on straightening out some of the confusion. He felt it would be beneficial to rental car companies, tourists, and residents so no one accidentally found themselves in a situation where the TSA might charge them with an illegal act.

Mrs. Chowning noted the possibility to create the language might exist in some of the Senate Bills which would be coming to the Assembly.

Mrs. McClain questioned how the agencies would be able to prove they were unaware of the intended illegal use. She felt it would be difficult for them to actually prove they were unaware. Mr. Gregory indicated he was unsure how they would be able to actually prove they were unaware. It was as if the agency was guilty until they were able to prove themselves innocent. Mr. Mendoza mentioned he did not have a problem if the committee struck that section of the amendment. In seizures involving criminal cases the property would be seized and the burden would shift to the individual to show they were not criminally involved.

Mrs. Chowning stated, "and proof that the lessor was unaware of the intended illegal use" was the language the committee could delete to clear up the confusion.

Mr. Nolan wondered if they would be able to agree upon language during the work session which would clear up the confusion on the transportation of passengers as Mr. Ostrovsky mentioned. Mr. Mendoza mentioned the language which would be required would not be able to be determined during the present meeting. The TSA would have to get input from various sources to help make the determination. He was willing to open the docket and discuss the issue with all interested parties to determine the best way to handle the situation. Mr. Ostrovsky stated the industry was willing to help the TSA in the discussions.

Mr. Claborn observed if someone had a vehicle to transport passengers for pay, they had to have a common carrier license. Mr. Mendoza indicated Assemblyman Claborn was correct.

Mr. Claborn expressed the issue should be simple since if someone transported people and did not receive compensation there would not be a problem. He felt the issue also dealt with the transportation of passengers to and from the airport, but there would not be a problem if passengers were transported from Pahrump. Mr. Mendoza commented the statute only required the transportation of passengers from point to point within the State of Nevada and did not require compensation be given. The problem was those who did not have their license did not have the required insurance or safety and maintenance inspections which were required for those who had a license. Many of the illegal operators had placards in the windows which would state they accepted tokens as compensation since they could not charge for the service.

Mr. Claborn inquired why the TSA had not made it illegal to transport passengers for any kind of compensation without having a common carriers license. Mr. Mendoza remarked there was a fine line of whether it could be considered a business transaction and where and how the transportation occurred.

Mr. Claborn announced someone in the business needed to come up with a simple bill the majority of people would be able to understand. Whether it was illegal to not receive some form of compensation, or it was legal to transport passengers from Pahrump but not from the airport. The entire issue required simplification.

Mrs. Chowning observed the committee would not be able to work out all of the problems with the issue of transporting passengers, so they would deal with the bill in front of them. The proposed amendments were to leave passenger vehicle in section 1, subsection 1, and the language provided by the TSA but deleting the section requiring the rental agency to show proof.

Mr. Nolan stated he agreed with the intent of the bill. He wanted to quickly address the problems raised by Assemblyman Claborn. He remarked many of the licensed carriers were subjected to a variety of other provisions such as drug testing. If someone transported passengers illegally a potentially dangerous situation was created since the public would not know the background of the drivers. He asserted he wanted the record to reflect Mr. Mendoza had agreed to open the docket to establish clear regulations on the transportation of passengers in Nevada, so they could go after those people who were renting vehicles for hire and not coaches who were using multiple vans to transport children.

Mrs. Chowning mentioned part of a motion on the bill could contain language that the committee would issue a letter of intent to the TSA to open the docket for the establishment of clearer regulations.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN MCCLAIN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 677 WITH THE AMENDMENTS STATED BY CHAIRWOMAN CHOWNING.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON VOTING NO. ASSEMBLYMEN CEGAVSKE AND THOMAS WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

Mrs. Chowning closed the work session on A.B. 677 and opened the work session on A.B. 457.

Mr. Parks informed the committee A.B. 457 dealt with the issue of aggressive driving. He presented the committee with a proposed amendment (Exhibit I) which would refine the definition of aggressive driving to a distance not more than 1 mile. There had been some confusion on how long a single continuous period of driving was and the amendment clarified it. There had also been some concern with the language "creates an immediate hazard" located in section 2, subsection 1, subparagraph 7(c), being vague. He stated the language was similar to other statutes regarding traffic violations. It was the responsibility of law enforcement to determine what an immediate hazard would be and if the offender should be cited for aggressive driving.

Mrs. Chowning asked how would law enforcement determine an act of aggressive driving. Mr. Parks explained there would have to be a first offense of speeding plus two additional traffic violations which were listed in the bill. The penalty for a first offense was enrollment in a mandatory training program and up to 30 days suspension of their driver’s license. If there was a second offense within a 2-year period the court could revoke the driver’s license for 1 year.

Mrs. Chowning mentioned there had been a newspaper article regarding the bill which stated there was nothing different about the bill than currently existed in statute; however, the requirement of a course in traffic safety for a traffic violation did not presently exist in statute. She felt the penalty was a reasonable request for someone who had been speeding and committed two other offenses.

Mr. Nolan suggested the violations included in the bill would constitute reckless driving, but aggressive driving would have to be witnessed by the police officer who issued the citation. He was unclear how the citation would be written. If the offender would be charged with reckless driving or if the citation would list all the violations they had committed. Sgt. Carter noted the act of aggressive driving would have to be witnessed. There were certain exceptions in the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) which allowed law enforcement to charge someone with a traffic violation if an accident had occurred.

Mr. Nolan inquired if the offender would have to be convicted of all three offenses in order to constitute a conviction of aggressive driving. Mr. Parks responded the offender would have to be found guilty of speeding plus the additional violations to constitute aggressive driving.

Mr. Nolan thought if someone was charged with multiple traffic violations there was generally some type of plea bargain to drop some of the charges. If that happened with the bill before the committee the person could not be charged with aggressive driving since they would not have been convicted of all three violations.

Mr. Collins recalled testimony from the original hearing had been the bill would not be used as a stacking offense. He noted page 4, section 2, of A.B. 457 allowed for the prosecution of the act of aggressive driving without being convicted of any of the other violations.

Gemma Greene, deputy district attorney, Criminal Division, Washoe County District Attorney, and representing Nevada District Attorney’s Association, expressed the district attorneys in the state would not be able to prosecute any cases of aggressive driving unless aggressive driving was written on the ticket as the offense. Regarding the issue of witnessing the offense, currently a charge of reckless driving was used if an officer did not witness a violation, but if a private citizen witnessed a violation and complained. Most of those cases were plea-bargained since a private citizen did not receive training on what constituted a violation. She reiterated the actual offense of aggressive driving would have to be written on the ticket in addition to the three other violations for the district attorney to prosecute the case. She felt most cases would be plea-bargained to drop the first three offenses since they were not suspendable offenses, but added points against the driver’s licenses. The fourth charge of aggressive driving would be accepted since it was better to have the driver’s license suspended for 30 days instead of receive points.

Mr. Claborn inquired about the demerits for aggressive driving and how the charge would affect someone’s insurance rates. Ms. Greene noted there was no mention of demerits in the bill. The demerits for reckless driving were 8 and it took 12 to suspend a license. She did not know how insurance rates would be affected.

Mrs. Chowning observed there was some concern within the committee regarding certain provisions listed as potential violations on page 3. Mr. Parks indicated he had not requested any specific offenses be included in the bill and would be amenable to the removal of some of them.

Mrs. Chowning recessed the committee at 3:20 p.m. She reconvened the committee at 3:54 p.m. and continued the work session on A.B. 457.

Mrs. Chowning informed the committee there had been a drafting error on page 3, subparagraph 6. The language should read following too closely to a fire truck and not "park too closely to a moving vehicle." Mr. Parks suggested the committee simply delete lines 38 through 42 on page 3. He felt the likelihood of an incident occurring adjacent to either of the situations listed was extremely remote.

Mrs. Chowning noted Mr. Parks wanted to delete the section concerning fire trucks and "driving between vehicles, persons, or animals comprising a funeral." Mr. Parks indicated she was correct.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 457 WITH THE AMENDMENTS BEING LOCATED IN SECTION 2, SUBSECTION 3, NOT TO EXCEED A DISTANCE OF 1 MILE, AND DELETE SECTION 2, SUBSECTIONS 6 AND 7.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Nolan disclosed to the committee he would not be voting in favor of the legislation. He had spoken with Assemblyman Parks regarding his concerns and agreed with the intention behind the bill; however, he felt the bill was unenforceable. The conviction would be difficult to obtain and they had heard the charges would probably be pled down.

Mr. Carpenter indicated he also felt the bill would be unenforceable and would be voting against the bill.

THE MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYMEN CARPENTER, COLLINS, NOLAN, AND PARNELL VOTING NO. ASSEMBLYMEN BACHE AND GUSTAVSON WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

Mrs. Chowning closed the work session on A.B. 457 and opened the work session on A.B. 453.

Ms. Marton presented the committee with an amendment submitted by Andrew Thomas, representing Nevada Trial Lawyers Association (Exhibit J). Also included was a letter of support of A.B. 453 with the requested amendment from Mr. Thomas. The proposed amendment would allow the use of an operator only policy, but not for the purposes of registering a vehicle. Sections 2 through 19 of the bill would subsequently be deleted since it would be covered under additional language. A letter of opposition to A.B. 453 from Robert Feldman, president Nevada General Insurance Co., was also presented to the committee (Exhibit K).

Mrs. McClain asked what would happen to the person who held an operator only policy because they were a single operator with multiple vehicles, would they now be required to obtain full liability insurance on each vehicle.

Mrs. Chowning stated they would have to obtain insurance on each of the vehicles. The letter from Mr. Thomas (Exhibit J) included a listing of the victims of operator only policies. If a single operator was truly the only person driving the vehicles there was no problem; however, if someone else was to drive any of the vehicles they would be uninsured in the event of an accident which was where the victimization took place. There had been far too many of those types of incidents occurring and everyone on the road had to suffer the consequences. The amendment would allow for certain exceptions for operator only policies, such as truck drivers who were required to hold insurance but did not own a vehicle.

Assemblyman Gustavson informed the committee he held an operator only policy since he owned multiple vehicles, but was the only driver on all of them. He felt it was the responsibility of the holder of the policy to assure no one drove any of his vehicles or verify the person held insurance before they drove.

Mr. Carpenter remarked he did not think the amendment would work since it would require everyone who currently held an operator-only policy to obtain a regular insurance policy so they could register their vehicles. He requested clarification on if currently vehicles could be registered with an operator only policy.

Matthew Sharp, representing Nevada Trial Lawyers Association, stated currently an individual could register vehicles with an operator only policy. The proposed amendment would prohibit that, and the individual would have to obtain regular insurance policies on each vehicle to register them.

Mr. Claborn wondered if a husband and wife had two vehicles registered in their individual names, if they had to have different policies on each vehicle so both people could drive or if one policy would cover both vehicles. Mr. Sharp explained with regular insurance a husband and wife would have been covered under the same policy for any vehicle covered. An operator only policy would only cover the person driving the vehicle which would be either the husband or the wife.

Mrs. Chowning noted that was the problem with the operator only policies. There were many people who had the policies and were unaware the spouse, child, or friend was not insured if they drove the vehicle. If the spouse got into an accident, the person hit would be hit by an uninsured driver.

Mr. Carpenter commented he understood the situations which were occurring with families being sold the operator only policies. He felt the way the amendment was written people for whom the operator only policies were meant, would purchase regular insurance only to register their vehicles then let the policy lapse in 30 days and get operator only policies.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN MCCLAIN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 453 WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION FAILED WITH ASSEMBLYMEN CARPENTER, GUSTAVSON, NOLAN, OHRENSCHALL, AND PARKS VOTING NO. ASSEMBLYMEN BACHE AND CEGAVSKE WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

Mrs. Chowning closed the work session on A.B. 453 and opened the work session on A.B. 553.

Mr. Parks presented the committee with a proposed amendment to the bill (Exhibit L). After the original hearing on the legislation he had spoken with members of the Washoe County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) who had expressed some concern regarding the mandatory language. The amendment would create a new subsection 3, which stated counties with two or more member entities represented on the RTC, the governing bodies "may" enter into an agreement to expedite the approval process. The amendment created permissive language while allowing Clark County, who had a six-member commission, to speed up their project approval process.

Mr. Nolan disclosed he worked for American Transit Corporation/VanCom which contracted with the RTC in both Clark and Washoe Counties. He did not see anything in the bill that would affect either himself or the company for which he worked in any direct way so he would be voting on the motion.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 553 WITH THE AMENDMENTS PRESENTED BY ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS.

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYMEN BACHE AND CEGAVSKE NOT PRESENT.

Mrs. Chowning closed the work session on A.B. 553 and informed the committee she would reopen the work session on A.B. 453 since there were some additional questions.

Ms. Ohrenschall wondered if the proposed amendment could be changed to allow for the registration of one vehicle under the operator only policy. It would allow those who currently held those types of policies to continue to use it. It would address the main concern she had with the bill which was some individuals might be too poor to afford regular insurance rates but could afford the operator only policies.

Mr. Collins remarked there were two types of insurance: someone could either insure the vehicle with a regular insurance policy and have multiple drivers or they could insure the driver with an operator only policy and drive multiple vehicles. The two policies could not be combined.

Ms. Ohrenschall expressed she had not fully followed the earlier argument and would be willing to reconsider her position.

Mrs. Chowning explained the committee did not have to take a motion to reconsider the vote since the previous motion had failed.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 453 WITH THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED BY MR. THOMAS.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN MCCLAIN SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYMEN CARPENTER, GUSTAVSON, NOLAN, AND PARKS VOTING NO. ASSEMBLYMEN BACHE AND CEGAVSKE WERE NOT PRESENT.

Mrs. Chowning closed the work session on A.B. 453 and opened the work session on A.B. 403.

Mr. Parks explained the intention behind the bill was because a tax was charged to rent a vehicle and the majority of the revenue from the tax remained with the rental car company. He felt that was in violation with the spirit of Article 10 of the Nevada Constitution which did not allow revenue generated from a tax go to a nongovernmental source.

Mr. Claborn questioned if the revenue did not remain with the rental companies where it would go. Mr. Parks relayed the rental companies were allowed to charge an additional 6 percent tax to rent a vehicle in Nevada. The companies were allowed to retain up to 4 percent of the tax to reimburse themselves for registering their vehicles in Nevada.

Mr. Claborn recalled the testimony from the rental companies was if the tax was removed and they were not reimbursed for registering all their vehicles, they would be forced to raise the rates. Since registration fees were continually going up and they did register a number of vehicles in the state, the revenue should remain with them.

Mr. Carpenter indicated the owners of the small companies had stated it was important to them to be reimbursed for the registration fees to allow them to compete with the nationwide companies. Mr. Parks suggested the loss of revenue would be more onerous for the smaller companies since the nationwide companies would have a much larger pool to draw from if they were not reimbursed.

Mrs. McClain inquired if they were discussing an actual tax or a fee. Mr. Parks mentioned it was referred to as either on charge slips. He was unclear if there was a distinction between a tax and a fee in statute.

Mrs. McClain asked if the rental companies submitted the entire 6 percent to the state and then received a refund on the registrations. Mr. Parks revealed the rental companies held the money until January of the following year. During the first month the companies would be required to submit 2 percent of the 6 percent tax to the Department of Taxation for use in the general fund. The companies then filled out a worksheet for the other 4 percent which showed the amount they had spent on registration. The companies were allowed to keep all of the 4 percent of the tax if their registration fees were the same amount. If the registration fees were less than 4 percent the additional revenue would revert to the general fund.

ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 403.

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYMEN MCCLAIN, PARKS, AND THOMAS VOTING NO. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE WAS NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

Mrs. Chowning closed the work session on A.B. 403 and opened the work session on A.B. 201.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 201.

ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYMEN CARPENTER, CEGAVSKE, COLLINS, AND GUSTAVSON VOTING NO. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE WAS NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

Mrs. Chowning closed the work session on A.B. 201 and opened the work session on A.B. 377.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 377.

ASSEMBLYMAN THOMAS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYMEN CARPENTER, CEGAVSKE, AND GUSTAVSON VOTING NO. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE WAS NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

Mrs. Chowning closed the work session on A.B. 377 and opened the work session on A.B. 378.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 378.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN MCCLAIN SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Gustavson declared A.B. 378 was worthwhile legislation the committee needed to consider. The bill did not require the director of DMV & PS to do anything except look into the possibility of entering into contracts with third parties if they desired. He felt the bill only opened the door and did not force the department into anything.

Ms. Parnell asked if currently DMV & PS could enter into contracts. Mr. Gustavson commented there were some questions whether they could enter into contracts and for what purpose they could enter into contracts.

Mrs. McClain thought the bill mandated the director since it stated "shall" and not "may."

Mr. Parks called attention to the fact Project Genesis would be up and running soon. While it was a worthy area to look into for future consideration, he felt the committee should allow Project Genesis to prove it could do what had been promised before the legislature pursued other alternatives to alleviate the congestion at DMV & PS buildings.

Mr. Claborn wondered if the director of the department could currently contract out the duties listed in section 1 of the bill. Pete English, chief, Registration Division, DMV & PS, informed the committee the director could enter into contracts with third parties to conduct business for the department. At one time they had done so with insurance companies, but currently there were no third party contracts.

THE MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON VOTING NO. ASSEMBLYMEN BACHE AND CEGAVSKE WERE NOT PRESENT FOR

THE VOTE.

Mrs. Chowning closed the work session on A.B. 378 and reopened the work session on A.B. 182.

Mr. Spinello informed the committee Clark County and NDOT had been able to come to terms on language on which everyone could agree. He expressed appreciation and thanks to the Department of Transportation for their willingness to work through the issues. The amendment was read as follows:

Mr. Spinello concluded the rest of the bill would be deleted. The new amendment provided the two parties the ability to enter into an agreement and restricted the purposes of the agreement. He felt Clark County would be satisfied with the legislation.

Mr. Fontane disclosed he did not think the two parties would have been able to reach any compromises, but felt NDOT would be able to work with the new amendment language. He thanked Mr. Spinello for working together to resolve the concerns the department faced.

Mrs. Chowning announced thanks from the entire committee for working together through the problem.

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 182 WITH THE LANGUAGE PRESENTED BY MR. SPINELLO AND MR. FONTANE.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Parks noted the submitted language appeared to affect only future construction. He wondered if there were problems with existing construction which needed to be addressed. Mr. Spinello explained the urgency to complete the interlocal agreement was to assure the pending projects were completed to the satisfaction of both state and local standards. The county felt they would be able to work with NDOT on any existing problems, so it did not need to be addressed in the bill.

THE MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYMEN BACHE, CEGAVSKE, GUSTAVSON, AND NOLAN NOT PRESENT.

Mrs. Chowning adjourned the meeting at 5:02 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Jennifer Batchelder,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman

DATE: