The Committee on Transportation was called to order at 2:40 p.m., on Thursday, May 13, 1999. Chairwoman 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 Chairwoman

Mr. Douglas Bache

Mr. John Carpenter

Mrs. Barbara Cegavske

Mr. Jerry Claborn

Mr. Tom Collins

Mr. Don Gustavson

Mrs. Kathy McClain

Mr. David Parks

Ms. Bonnie Parnell

Mr. Kelly Thomas

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mr. Dennis Nolan

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Senator William O’Donnell, Clark County District 5

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Mrs. Chowning opened the hearing on S.B. 336.

Bryan Gresh, representing, Clark County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC), read from prepared testimony (Exhibit C). He explained the RTC discussed the legislation during the most recent scheduled monthly meeting and chose unanimously not to support the bill. Members of the Nevada Legislature were welcome to participate at any meeting and the RTC did not feel a statute requiring legislators to participate was needed. If the legislators desired to receive a complete briefing on the activities of the commission, commissioners would be willing to schedule a yearly meeting with the RTC staff and the ex officio member from the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT). The Regional Planning Coalition of Southern Nevada also voted unanimously to oppose S.B. 336.

Mrs. Chowning asked if the RTC or the planning coalition made their consensus known during the Senate hearing on the bill. Mr. Gresh revealed the RTC had made their decision just that morning, May 13, 1999, and he could not speak for the coalition.

Assemblywoman McClain wondered of what the membership of the RTC consisted. Mr. Gresh explained there were a total of eight members on the commission. The two representing the Clark County Commission were Commissioners Bruce Woodbury, who served as chair of the RTC, and Dario Herrera. The two representatives from the city of Las Vegas were Mayor Jan Jones and Councilman Larry Brown. The other jurisdictions had one representative each and they were Councilman John Rhodes from North Las Vegas, Councilmen Bryan Nix from Boulder City, Crescent Hardy from Mesquite, and David Wood from Henderson.

Mrs. Chowning wondered if the legislation was constitutional since it allowed for three members from one governmental entity. Mr. Gresh remarked the RTC had not fully looked into the constitutionality of the legislation, but had thus far found nothing to believe it was not a possibility the legislators could not sit on the commission.

Assemblyman Parks observed the language of the bill did not state the two representatives from the legislature had to be from the same county where the RTC presided. He felt an inequity would be created if the representatives were, for example, not from Clark County yet able to provide input on Clark County road construction. Mr. Gresh did not know if the RTC has discussed the issue.

Mrs. McClain inquired if the RTC had testified in opposition to the bill in the Senate. Mr. Gresh relayed the RTC had not taken a formal position on the bill until that morning, May 13, 1999, so there had been no testimony given prior to the vote in the Senate.

Cheryl Blomstrom, director, State Governmental Affairs, Nevada Chapter, Associated General Contractors of America (AGC), indicated the AGC was against the legislation and had testified as such in the Senate. They did not believe legislators would serve any purpose sitting on either the RTC or the NDOT Board of Directors since the legislators would be non-voting members. The NDOT Board of Directors consisted of four elected officials and three members of the general public. The AGC had never had a problem bringing issues to the board since NDOT was open to the public process and allowed adequate notice before all meetings. Since members of the RTC in the counties were elected officials, the public had the ability to replace them if they were unhappy with their decisions. She noted the Washoe County RTC had been exempted from the legislation.

Mrs. McClain asked if Washoe County had been exempted originally and why they were exempted. Ms. Blomstrom remarked Washoe County had been amended out of the original bill after the original hearing took place. Since she had not been a part of the discussion she could not testify as to the reasons.

Carol Vilardo, representing Nevada Taxpayers Association, testified in opposition to S.B. 336. The money spent by the local commissions were regional dollars and while the legislature provided the RTC with their authority the local entities should decide where the money should be spent. There had been problems in Clark County a few years ago with where the money was being spent and a legislative commission had been established to research the problem. She felt that was a proper venue if the legislators wanted to establish a check for the RTC and the NDOT Board of Directors.

Mrs. Chowning inquired if the legislature should consider adding nonvoting members from the local jurisdictions to the legislative committees. Ms. Vilardo indicated the local entities should deal with local issues and the state should deal with state issues. Since they were all elected officials the public could decide not to put them back in office if they did not accept the policies that were implemented.

Senator William O’Donnell, Clark County District 5, explained the reason for the legislation was he had been receiving a variety of complaints from constituents regarding RTC projects such as sound wall construction and landscaping. He felt it would be advantageous if there were two nonvoting members from the legislature to improve the communication between the two entities. The local entities should not be allowed to instruct the state on governing since the state, by charter, allowed the counties to operate. He thought since the local commissions came to the legislature to request certain fees and taxes to be raised, the legislature should be allowed to have input on where the money was spent. He understood why the Clark County RTC had voted to oppose the legislation; however, the intent of the bill was to improve communication between the groups. While all legislators were invited to attend both RTC and NDOT meetings they were not paid to do so. By allowing a per diem for those serving on the boards they would receive some form of compensation. He indicated the counties should not ask for more tax increases from the legislature if the legislature did not have any input on where the money was spent.

Mrs. Chowning noted there was a fiscal note of $1,492 for compensation to legislators who served on the boards.

Mrs. McClain mentioned she had heard testimony in the Senate Committee on Finance about not providing the Distributive School Account (DSA) additional money for school textbooks because the legislature did not have input on the types of books to be purchased and where they would be purchased. She felt there was too much micromanaging occurring and the bill before the committee added to that.

Assemblyman Collins revealed he had been chairman of the Citizen’s Advisory Committee for the Clark County RTC. The committee addressed a variety of issues for the RTC and allowed greater public input on construction projects. He wondered if the addition of legislators to the RTC would accomplish more than the Citizen’s Advisory Committee did.

Senator O’Donnell asked if he was a member of the Assembly during his tenure as chairman. Mr. Collins stated he had served on the committee during the interim.

Senator O’Donnell wondered if Assemblyman Collins felt it was an advantage to serve on the committee. Mr. Collins indicated he had been chosen to serve on the committee because of his past experience in construction. He stated legislators served their communities in various ways and serving on the Advisory committee was one more way for him to serve the community. It was not an advantage for him to be a legislator since the committee dealt with issues on a citizen basis.

Senator O’Donnell reiterated if the legislators were to have a voice in raising tax dollars, they should also have a voice in where those tax dollars were spent.

Tom Fronapfel, assistant director, Planning, NDOT, explained the department was neutral on the bill and he was available to the committee to answer any questions.

Mrs. Chowning inquired if the department thought the addition of legislators to the board of directors would be beneficial. Mr. Fronapfel indicated all board meetings were open to the public, so citizens throughout the state could provide input and voice concerns if they so desired.

Mrs. Chowning commented if the bill were passed, the nonvoting legislators would be the only paid persons on the various boards. Mr. Fronapfel disclosed the members of the board of directors were paid per diem for their services in accordance to state requirements.

Mrs. Chowning revealed members of the RTC were not paid which would create an inequity between members.

Mrs. McClain suggested if two nonvoting legislators were added to the RTC and NDOT Board of Directors then they should also be added to the various other boards throughout the state, such as the Board of Regents for the university system. She felt it was bad policy and would set a bad precedent of micromanagement.

Assemblyman Claborn remarked if legislators were added to the boards, it would lead to the assumption the legislature did not trust the public to elect adequate local officials to make the correct decisions. It was inappropriate legislation.

Mrs. Chowning closed the hearing on S.B. 336 and opened the work session on S.B. 168.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 168.

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE, CEGAVSKE, NOLAN AND THOMAS NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

Mrs. Chowning closed the work session on S.B. 168 and opened the work session on S.B. 203.

Elana Marton, committee policy analyst, explained the sponsor of the bill, Senator Maurice Washington, along with the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV & PS), had testified foreign passports were often and easily forged. The intent was to remove passports from the list of identification forms for non-United States citizens. The proposed amendment in the work session document (Exhibit D) would allow for United States passports to be used as proof of identification for naturalized citizens. The amendment addressed concerns raised by Assemblywoman Ohrenschall.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 203 WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT.

ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL VOTING NO. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE, CEGAVSKE, NOLAN, AND THOMAS WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

Mrs. Chowning closed the work session on S.B. 203 and opened the work session on S.B. 235.

Mrs. Chowning mentioned the legislation was fairly straightforward. The legislation clarified statutes governing right turn lanes and bicycle lanes. The bill was introduced by State Farm Insurance who requested the statutes be clarified for legal purposes.

Mrs. McClain asked if any committee member had heard from law enforcement on the bill. Mrs. Chowning indicated she had not.

Assemblyman Gustavson relayed he had concerns with the bill and had spoken with State Farm Insurance to try to amend it. They had come to the consensus that due to the lack of time they would work on amendments during the interim and bring a bill clarifying certain language in the 2001 session.

Mr. Collins commented everything in the bill was currently in the state driver’s manual or in local traffic ordinances. He had concerns over slower traffic being allowed to use the right lane for travel, such as vehicles towing trailers. Drivers knew if they wanted to make a right hand turn they should move over as far as possible to allow other vehicles travel room. He was unsure if the legislation was necessary. Ms. Marton explained part of the reason for the introduction of the bill was for insurance purposes. The statute needed to be clarified to make it very clear who was at fault in an accident.

Mr. Carpenter asked for clarification on section 1, subsection 4(b). He wondered why there would be a turn lane on multilane roads.

Assemblyman Parks explained what had been occurring on heavily congested streets in populous area where dedicated turn lanes were provided at major intersections, some drivers used the turn lanes as travel lanes to go through the intersections to avoid traffic. If streets went from three lanes to two lanes the third lane turned into a dedicated right turn lane and similar situations occurred. The overall intent was to improve the flow of traffic through intersections.

Mrs. Chowning remarked Assemblyman Parks was exactly right. Section 1, subsection 4, was intended to clarify the use of right turn lanes. They should be used solely for the intent of making a right hand turn; however, people would use the lanes as travel lanes through intersections. If an accident occurred the person who used the turn lane as a travel lane should be faulted, but since the statute was unclear there was difficulty in citing the individual.

Mr. Carpenter stated he understood the dedicated turn lanes should only be used for turning. He was concerned the language would not allow the use of the right hand lanes for any travel whatsoever. Mrs. Chowning expressed the right hand lane could be used for travel unless it was a dedicated right hand turn lane with signs and arrows indicating it was a turn lane. The hazard was when motorists used those turn lanes as travel lanes through intersections while other drivers expected them to turn since they were in that lane.

Mr. Gustavson disclosed the legislation would assist with citing those people who had no intention of making a right hand turn while in the lane and only wanted to get ahead of traffic as quickly as possible.

Mr. Collins indicated he was reluctant to support the legislation without indication from law enforcement it was necessary. He felt there were current laws that allowed people to be cited for using a turn lane as a travel lane.

Mrs. Chowning observed the bill addressed two issues. The first was the right hand turn lanes and the second was bicycle lanes. Section 2 of the bill addressed bicycle lanes explaining they should not be used as travel lanes by vehicles.

Mr. Fronapfel revealed NDOT was in support of the legislation. He explained on the issue of the right turn lanes, drivers would be cited only if the lane was a dedicated right turn lane. It did not prevent slower traffic from using the right lanes on highways unless that lane was a dedicated right turn lane only. The provisions for bicycle lanes were included because some bike lanes were wide enough for vehicles to travel and people were using them as travel lanes. Both issues were placed in the bill since they both dealt with the proper use of certain lanes and trying to keep people from misusing those lanes.

Mrs. Chowning questioned if the bill would clarify the statute since it currently was not clear. Mr. Fronapfel indicated insurance companies presently had difficulty in determining fault for the misuse of lanes and the legislation would clarify who would legally be at fault.

Assemblywoman Parnell inquired if someone currently could be cited for the misuse of right turn lanes. Mr. Fronapfel disclosed there was not a specific provision allowing for the citation for the misuse of turn lanes. Currently law enforcement could issue citations for failure to maintain a travel lane; however, there were questions as to the legality of those citations and the bill would eliminate those questions.

Deputy Wormington, representing Washoe County Sheriff Department, stated there was no place in the Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) which allowed someone to be cited for the misuse of a turn lane. The citations were issued for failure to maintain a travel lane and that was where the insurance companies were having difficulty. She mentioned for someone to use a dedicated turn lane as a travel lane they would have to cut other drivers off to return to the actual travel lane.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 235.

ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYMEN BACHE, CEGAVSKE, NOLAN, AND THOMAS NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

Mrs. Chowning closed the work session on S.B. 235 and opened the work session on S.B. 300.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 300.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYMEN BACHE, CEGAVSKE, NOLAN, AND THOMAS NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

Mrs. Chowning closed the work session on S.B. 300 and opened the work session on S.B. 302.

Mrs. Chowning thanked the members of the subcommittee for all the hard work done in the early morning meeting.

Ms. Marton stated there was an amendment to the bill on page 5 of the work session document (Exhibit D). The amendment would add all new language to the bill and was largely based on an amendment presented by the Nevada Manufacturers Association during the subcommittee hearing. The first change was to redefine the gates affected as gates operated by electrical power and require the gates comply with Underwriters Laboratories (UL) 325 standards, which would become effective March 1, 2000. Section 1, subsection 2, allowed for reasonable efforts to be made by the manufacturers, distributors, and installers to inform owners of the gates of the new standards if the gate was installed after December 31, 1992. One of the ways owners would be informed would be through routine service calls on the gates. The service company would be required to inform the owners of the new standards in writing and the potential hazards if the gate is not upgraded. The owner would have the option of upgrading the gate with an audible alarm, an overload resistant motor, the full UL 325 standards, or do nothing. If the owner chose to do nothing, the gate would be red tagged by the service company which meant the gate could be operated but would be noted it did not comply with the standards.

Mrs. Chowning inquired about the expense to the property owner. Mr. Collins responded the owner would not be required to spend any money. The recommendation was to upgrade the gate; however, if the owner had a 30-year-old gate and did not want to upgrade they would not be required to.

Mrs. Chowning commented there would be costs associated if the owner chose to upgrade the gate. She wondered what the costs of the options would be. Mr. Collins indicated the cost would depend on the upgrade. If the owner chose to install the full UL 325 standards the cost would be greater than installing only the alarm or the load resistant motor. He mentioned the subcommittee was informed the electrical devices on the gates required routine maintenance to be done so most of the gate owners would be informed of the new standards unless they maintained the gates themselves.

Don Simons, manager, Artistic Fence Company, explained there were a variety of factors associated with the cost of upgrading the gates, such as age of the gate and make of the gate operator. Some of the older gates would not be compatible with the new technology and would require a new motor, while newer gates might only require the alarm to be installed. He felt an alarm could be installed for around $150 to $200, while replacement of a motor could cost $400 to $500. The figures did not include labor, which could potentially be expensive depending on the location of the gate.

Mrs. Chowning noted the owner would be required to pay $150 to $500 or more if the gate needed to be replaced. Mr. Simons indicated there were probably not many instances where the entire gate would be required to be replaced. The gate might require a new motor, but if they were older gates they were probably nearing the end of their operability and would need to be replaced soon anyway. The new operators ran approximately $1,000 and would be compliant with most of the UL 325 standards.

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall questioned if the red tag would be for bookkeeping purposes or if it would be posted as a warning to someone who approached the gate. Mr. Simons remarked the red tag would be placed on the gate if the owner did not want to upgrade. The service companies did not have the ability to upgrade the gate if the owner did not allow them to. The tags would probably be located on the operator, which would not be visible to the general public.

Mr. Collins stated the intent was not to place the service companies in an enforcement position. They would simply tag the gate and retain a record of the tagging in the event of future liability. He thought most local governments would begin to change their building codes if the legislation passed to remain in compliance with state law.

Mr. Simons expressed he had participated in the discussion of the amendments in the subcommittee and after reviewing the final amendment wanted to inform the committee there could potentially be some confusion with the language in section 1, subsection 2. He thought the intent of the subcommittee was to require a reasonable effort be made to contact customers from 1992 to the present. The language would require notification to all gate owners who were not in compliance with UL 325, which would not be fully on line until March 2000.

Mr. Collins indicated the language in the amendment would allow the service companies to inform all customers when they responded to a service call of the new standards no matter when the gate was installed.

Mrs. Chowning asked why the bill referenced gates installed after December 31, 1992 and if the subcommittee addressed gates installed prior to that date. Mr. Collins replied the subcommittee dealt with gates installed prior to 1992 quite a bit. The issue was Internal Revenue Service (IRS) only required records be kept for 7 years, so some of the companies no longer had records prior to 1992 or they were boxed away somewhere. Mr. Simons mentioned the service companies would be required to inform all gate owners of the new standards during routine service calls which should take care of most of the gates.

Ms. Ohrenschall felt the language could be clarified to assure reasonable efforts were made to inform all gate owners and not just those who had gates installed after December 1992.

Mrs. Chowning indicated the first part of the sentence was clear since it stated known existing power operated; however the final part of the sentence could be clarified.

Ms. Parnell disclosed she appreciated the work of the subcommittee, but she would be voting against the legislation since it was "special legislation" and very sensitive to Carson City residents because the incident on which it was based occurred in Carson City. She felt the committee members were having problems with the language because they were trying to legislate an issue that was out of their jurisdiction.

Mrs. Chowning mentioned the final section of the amendment would require the UL 325 standards on all gates installed after March 2000. The language would put Nevada in a model proactive policymaking position.

Ms. Marton continued by informing the committee section 3 of the amendment set forth the requirements for the audible alarm option which were the same standards in UL 325.

Mrs. McClain wondered why it was necessary to define the requirements in the bill if they were included in the UL 325 standards. Ms. Marton indicated part of the reason for allowing either the audible alarm or the load resistant motor was to allow the owners to upgrade the gates without requiring the full UL 325 upgrade.

Mr. Collins stated the subcommittee wanted to offer the gate owners certain upgrade options since the UL 325 standards did not go into effect until 2000. The owner would be able to install an alarm or load resistant motor. Since the load resistant motors stopped the gate if the pressure on the gate changed even slightly there was no need to define them; however, there were various alarms for gates and the subcommittee wanted to make sure there was a minimum standard for those alarms.

Mrs. Chowning suggested since the alarm was fully defined there should be some standard for the load resistant motors even if they were fairly standard. Mr. Claborn commented since 1992 the majority of the gates were constructed with the resistance motors. The intent was to offer those motors for people who had the older gates.

Mrs. Chowning asked if the standards for the alarm were the same as the UL 325 standards. Mr. Claborn remarked they were.

Mrs. Chowning communicated the bill should simply reference that the alarm must comply with UL 325 standards if possible.

Mr. Carpenter declared the only part of the amendment he would support was section 2, subsection 1, which would require all gates installed after March 1, 2000 be compliant with UL 325 standards. He felt requiring all gates to be upgraded to comply with the new standards created too many problems that could not be resolved. It was better to have the requirements for the future than attempt to grandfather in all the new standards.

Mrs. Chowning suggested the amendment was an attempt to make the legislation less onerous. The amendment would allow the industry 14 months to contact all known existing gate owners.

Ms. Ohrenschall expressed Assemblymen Carpenter and Parnell had valid points. If the gate was red tagged because the owner did not want to pay for an upgrade they would then be held liable if anything happened. She was unsure the committee should do that to the owners.

Mr. Collins claimed the red tag requirement in the bill was similar to the tagging requirements for other industries such as electricians. The intent was not to force negligence on any owner who chose not to upgrade their gate.

Mrs. Chowning articulated the intent should be to advise the public the gates were unsafe and caution should be used around them. She informed the committee the gate at the Carson City Airport had been changed immediately after the accident so no other accident could occur at that location, under those circumstances. The airport had installed a key card system with the access panel located away from the moving gate. They had been very responsible in assuring the tragedy could not happen ever again. She clarified the amendment to the bill as the written amendment included in the work session document (Exhibit D) and to add "or if known" after March 1, 2000, in section 1, subsection 2, and section 2, subsection 2. They also wanted research to discover if it was necessary to list the requirements for the alarm in section 1, subsection 4.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 302.

ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mrs. McClain stated she could not support the motion. She felt the committee should be proactive and require the UL 325 standards in the future, but should not retroactively require them on all gates.

Assemblyman Bache remarked he concurred with Assemblywoman McClain. The only gates to which the bill referred were the power operated vehicular horizontal slide gate systems yet there were various other gates which should be included in the bill. He felt that was discriminatory and could not support the motion.

Mrs. Chowning mentioned the sponsor of the bill intended it to only apply to the horizontal slide gates so the condominium projects and homeowners associations would not be affected.

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

ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO AMEND S.B. 302 BY DELETING THE ENTIRE BILL EXCEPT SECTION 2, SUBSECTION 1 WHICH WOULD READ, "ALL NEW POWER OPERATED GATE ACCESS SYSTEMS MUST BE CONSTRUCTED AND INSTALLED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE UL 325 STANDARD ON AND AFTER MARCH 1, 2000."

ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Collins indicated he would support the motion.

Mrs. Chowning asked Mr. Simons if he agreed with the motion. Mr. Simons suggested the motion included all gates and there should not be any problem with compliance.

Mrs. Chowning inquired if the bill would affect gates with pedestrian access. Mr. Simons remarked he did not know of any pedestrian access gates which were motor operated. Generally the pedestrian gates had an electric strike which only unlocked the gate so it could be manually pushed open.

Mrs. Chowning pondered the power operated access gate systems were primarily for vehicular use. Mr. Simons stated she was correct.

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

Mrs. Chowning closed the work session on S.B. 302 and opened the work session on S.B. 338.

Ms. Marton explained the bill dealt with van accessible parking. The testimony indicated the legislation carried the spirit of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). She had contacted the Retail Association of Nevada who indicated the cost to businesses would be around $37 for signs.

ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 338.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Collins mentioned his concern with the legislation was since the van accessible parking spaces required an additional space for loading and unloading the businesses would be left with inadequate parking.

Mrs. Chowning remarked the Retail Association of Nevada had indicated their support and stated most businesses currently had the accessible parking so they would only require signs to be placed.

THE MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYMEN CEGAVSKE, COLLINS, MCCLAIN, NOLAN, AND THOMAS NOT PRESENT.

Mrs. Chowning closed the work session on S.B. 338 and opened the work session on S.B. 372.

Ms. Marton informed the committee the only amendment to the bill was in section 17, subsections 7 and 8, which was to leave in the reference to October 1, 1997. The date had been mistakenly been removed.

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 372 WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYMEN CEGAVSKE, NOLAN, PARKS, AND THOMAS NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

Mrs. Chowning closed the work session on S.B. 372 and opened the work session on S.B. 442.

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 442.

ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYMEN CEGAVSKE, NOLAN, AND THOMAS NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

Mrs. Chowning closed the work session on S.B. 442 and opened the work session on S.B. 387.

Mr. Collins communicated he had spoken with several of the tow companies in southern Nevada and the sponsors of the bill regarding amending the bill to allow one parent company to own two businesses on the Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP) tow rotation. Currently there were 5 tow companies on the rotation list, yet there were 30 to 40 total tow companies in southern Nevada. There were no restrictions on the number of tow companies which could be on the rotation so any of the companies could be on the list if they met the NHP qualifications. The concern was a large parent corporation would come into the area and create a monopoly of companies on the rotation list. He felt by allowing one parent company to own only two businesses on the list would retain the competitiveness and ease the concerns of the opponents to the bill.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 387.

THE MOTION DIED FOR A LACK OF A SECOND.

Ms. Ohrenschall stated she did not know how creating an oligopoly would ease the concerns of creating a monopoly.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 387.

ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION FAILED WITH ASSEMBLYMEN BACHE, COLLINS, GUSTAVSON, MCCLAIN, AND PARNELL VOTING NO. ASSEMBLYMEN CEGAVSKE, NOLAN, AND THOMAS WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 387.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Claborn indicated he was unclear on the problem of two companies having the same insurance.

Mrs. Chowning explained the present NHP policy stated if two separate tow companies were owned by the same parent company they could not be on the rotation list. She had received a number of telephone calls from other tow companies opposing the legislation because of the situation which led to the bill. An out-of-state company had purchased two tow companies which were on the rotation list and were attempting to purchase other companies. The bill would allow the parent company to potentially own all of the companies on the rotation list creating a monopoly. The other companies in the area felt it would create a tremendous imbalance and was anti-competitive.

Mr. Parks observed section 1, subsection 3, indicated common ownership included companies on the same insurance policy. A parent company could potentially circumvent the policy by getting separate insurance policies for the two businesses.

Warren Hardy, representing Quality Towing, explained to fully understand the legislation it needed to be considered in terms of the NHP tow rotation policy. The currently policy did not allow for common ownership and had four qualifications for common ownership: common tow trucks, common employees, common business licenses, and common insurance. The NHP wanted to protect the integrity of the rotation list by not allowing common companies on the list giving all participants an equal share of the business. His clients agreed with the intent and also wanted to protect the integrity of the list; however, they felt if the two businesses were completely separate other than being owned by the same parent company they should be allowed to remain on the rotation list.

Daryl Capurro, representing Nevada Motor Transport Association, communicated what concerned him most about the legislation was the issue had to come before the legislature to be solved. Colonel Hood testified as chief of the NHP he was able to change the policy of the NHP, but had no desire to do so and instructed the companies to go to the legislature. He supported the bill not for the present case dealing with South Strip Towing but for future potential situations. There would be consolidation in the industry with individuals wanting to retire. In the rural areas of the state there were only a few tow companies to begin with and would likely buy each other out. An unintended monopoly could be created in those areas if the policy was not changed to allow for some multiple ownership.

Mr. Collins reiterated he would like to amend the bill to allow for one parent company to own two individual tow companies on the rotation list. Nevada was growing rapidly and the policy would need to be eventually changed to allow for corporate ownership of the smaller businesses. He expressed disappointment in the testimony offered by the proponents of the bill during the original hearing. They had not informed the committee an out-of-state company was purchasing the small Nevada tow companies.

Mrs. Chowning indicated she was also disappointed in learning from constituents there was an out-of-state company purchasing those small businesses. She felt the companies had adequate methods of pleading their cases to the NHP and did not think the legislature should micromanage the highway patrol by changing their policies for them.

Ms. Ohrenschall stated she had also received various calls on the bill. She asked Assemblyman Collins to clarify his amendment since it appeared to create an oligopoly.

Mr. Collins explained there were currently five tow companies on the rotation list in southern Nevada. Obviously there was no great interest in being placed on the list since there were many more tow companies in the area. Those companies on the list wanted to maintain their share of the rotation because it was part of their business thus part of the value of the company. His amendment would allow for one parent company to own two individual tow companies on the list and retroactively place South Strip Towing back on the rotation list which would mean there would be six companies on the list instead of five. There were four companies on the list against the legislation since they would lose a share in the rotation if another company was added to the list. By allowing one parent company to own two tow companies a balance was created which dealt with the existing problem, but would not allow the parent company to have more than two shares. It was similar to the situation with which the legislature had to deal when the casinos became corporations instead of privately owned. If the tow companies became publicly traded corporations how many shares could someone own before the policy of common ownership was violated.

Mrs. McClain clarified the proposed amendment as, at no one time would one parent company be allowed to own more than two tow companies on the rotation list. She felt the amendment followed the intent of the bill while placing a limitation on it to not allow for a monopoly.

Mrs. Chowning relayed some of the committee members were suspicious of the bill since the testimony did not indicate there had been an out-of-state company purchasing Nevada owned businesses. Mr. Hardy apologized to the committee. They had not intended to mislead the committee but did not feel it was necessary information since it did not directly pertain to the intent of the legislation.

Mrs. Chowning asserted with the current wording in the bill the parent company could potentially own all of the companies on the rotation. Mr. Hardy claimed with the current language any company could potentially create a monopoly. His clients did not have a desire for that to occur and supported the amendment from Assemblyman Collins. Their concern was the companies who had been contacting the committee members wanted to retain the greater share of the rotation they received when South Strip Towing was removed from the list.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE HIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF ALLOWING ONE PARENT COMPANY TO HAVE COMMON OWNERSHIP OF NO MORE THAN TWO TOWING COMPANIES ON THE NEVADA HIGHWAY PATROL TOW ROTATION LIST.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mrs. Chowning mentioned the amendment would prevent the one out-of-state company from purchasing the remaining tow companies on the rotation list.

Mr. Parks stated he would be voting against the amendment because he felt the legislature was micromanaging the NHP.

THE MOTION ON THE AMENDMENT FAILED WITH ASSEMBLYMEN COLLINS AND MCCLAIN VOTING FOR THE AMENDMENT. ASSEMBLYMEN CEGAVSKE AND NOLAN WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

Mrs. Chowning called for a vote on the motion of do pass from Assemblyman Gustavson.

THE MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYMEN CHOWNING, CLABORN, PARKS, AND OHRENSCHALL VOTING AGAINST THE MOTION. ASSEMBLYMEN CEGAVSKE AND NOLAN WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

Mrs. Chowning closed the work session on S.B. 387 and recessed the committee at 6:00 p.m.

Mrs. Chowning reconvened the committee at 2:14 p.m. on May 14, 1999, for the purposes of reconsidering certain bills that had been previously voted by the committee.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO RECONSIDER S.B. 387 FOR PURPOSES OF AN AMENDMENT.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE SECOND THE MOTION.

Mr. Bache indicated he opposed the motion of reconsideration and would oppose reconsidering any bill that had been voted by the committee. He felt it there were any amendments to the bill they could be brought up on the Assembly Floor.

THE MOTION FAILED WITH ASSEMBLYMEN CEGAVSKE, CHOWNING, CLABORN, COLLINS, AND OHRENSCHALL VOTING TO RECONSIDER S.B. 387. ASSEMBLYMEN NOLAN, PARKS, AND PARNELL WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE MOVED TO RECONSIDER S.B. 80.

ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Bache reiterated his opposition to reconsideration of any bills.

Mr. Collins expressed with the new 120-day session deadlines had been placed on the legislators which did not allow enough opportunity to fully discuss and understand certain matters. He felt if the chair of any committee desired to reconsider any legislation for the purposes of further discussion, the committees should honor their requests.

THE MOTION FAILED WITH ASSEMBLYMEN CEGAVSKE, CHOWNING, CLABORN, COLLINS, GUSTAVSON, AND MCCLAIN VOTING FOR RECONSIDERATION. ASSEMBLYMEN NOLAN, PARKS, AND PARNELL WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

Mrs. Chowning recessed the committee at 2:25 p.m.

Mrs. Chowning reconvened the committee at 7:17 p.m.

ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS MOVED TO RECONSIDER S.B. 80.

ASSEMBLYMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYMEN BACHE, CARPENTER, GUSTAVSON, AND NOLAN NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

Mr. Collins stated he and Assemblywoman Cegavske had worked on amending the legislation to improve the safety of the children of Nevada and bring consistency to the school zone regulations. The amendment would allow flashing beacons to be turned off during the day when children were in school if the local superintendent and traffic officials so desired. The hours a school zone would be posted on signs along with "when children are present." The signs would be change over a 4-year period that was consistent with the timeframe local governments replaced signs due to damage and weathering, as such there would be no fiscal note on the bill. The amendment would allow for greater flexibility since the local districts would be in control of their school zones.

Mrs. Chowning summarized the amendment as having four aspects. The first was to keep section 1, subsection 1(b) in the bill since it was not the intention of the sponsor to remove the existing language. The second aspect of the bill was to allow the local school districts to determine if the school zone should be in effect when children were in classes. The third part of the amendment would require state and local traffic officials to work with the superintendents to determine the hours of school zones. The final part of the amendment would allow for "when children are present" to be placed on school zone signs.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 80 WITH THE STATED AMENDMENT.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.

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

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO RECONSIDER S.B. 387.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYMEN BACHE, CARPENTER, GUSTAVSON, AND NOLAN NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

Mr. Collins mentioned he would still like to amend the bill to allow one parent company to own not more than two tow businesses on the NHP tow rotation list. He felt the amendment would prevent any monopolies from forming and protects existing Nevada businesses while allowing for progressive growth.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 387 WITH THE STATED AMENDMENT.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN MCCLAIN SECONDED THE MOTION.

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

Mrs. Chowning adjourned the committee at 7:27 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Jennifer Batchelder,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman

DATE: