The Senate Committee on Transportation was called to order by Chairman William R. O'Donnell, at 2:10 p.m., on Thursday, March 4, 1999, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator William R. O'Donnell, Chairman

Senator Mark Amodei, Vice Chairman

Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen

Senator Maurice Washington

Senator Raymond C. Shaffer

Senator Valerie Wiener

Senator Terry Care

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Senator Raymond (Ray) D. Rawson, Clark County Senatorial District No. 6

Senator Michael (Mike) A. Schneider, Clark County Senatorial District No. 8

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Joan Moseid, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

E. Patricia Mulroy, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Water District, and Las Vegas Valley Water District, introduced Jane Gale, Chairman, Las Vegas Mojave Desert Preserve Foundation, and then turned the presentation over to her for some opening remarks.

Ms. Gale encouraged the committee to act on S.B. 204 because it would support the foundation’s effort, and, perhaps more importantly, increase awareness among the public about its invaluable resource and allow people from all walks of life to play a part in the creation of a desert preserve.

Ms. Gale and staff showed the committee 35mm slides that gave an overview and a virtual tour of the 188 acres in the middle of downtown Las Vegas. The overview documented 5000 to 7000 years of human use and occupancy of the biggest springs, and included artifacts of Anasazi projectile points dating back to 3000 B.C. She also recited some history of cultural traditions during the nineteenth century (1830–1855) and displayed a map from the 1930s, which showed the development of the big springs.

Ms. Gale asked the committee to think about this site, and stated:

Ms. Gale explained the foundation has many plans regarding how to market the license plate. She anticipated that the sales of the license plates would exceed the sales of previous license plates. She closed her presentation saying that Las Vegas has all sorts of marketing gimmicks.

Kim Zukosky, Southern Nevada Water District (SNWD), and Las Vegas Valley Water District (LVVWD), summed up the presentation of the Mohave Desert Preserve Foundation and stated that it is the smallest, driest, and harshest of the deserts in North America. It is in the Mohave Desert in which the Las Vegas Springs complex and archeological site can be found. She indicated that the site is very important to the community for a number of reasons. Ms. Zukosky said, first and foremost, it is the birthplace of Las Vegas containing over 5000 years of human occupancy, human history, and 10,000 years worth of extremely exciting geological activity. Secondly she reiterated what Chairman Gale had said, that it is the representative eco-island in this urban valley that is called Las Vegas and the last of the remnant native Mohave habitats. It is a home to plant and animal species that were found throughout the valley, as recently as 5 or 10 years ago. She stated that to the community the really important fact about this property is that it is a critical link in the Las Vegas Valley Water District’s water storage and delivery process. The water districts bring water from Lake Mead, through the river mountains tunnel, through this property, and then disperses it to hundreds of thousands of customers in the northwest of downtown Las Vegas.

Ms. Zukosky ended her presentation extending an open invitation to the committee to come and visit the Mohave Desert Preserve, because the foundation members would like to share the site with them.

Senator Raymond (Ray) D. Rawson, Clark County Senatorial District No. 6, stated that it was a pleasure for him to be a part of this project. He said it represents a good part of his early life. When his family had moved to Las Vegas in 1950, they lived on West Charleston, which was within the site of the well field. He added this is where he used to play. Senator Rawson commented further that he used to climb the trees and looked for water. He said he really enjoyed this area, but he and his friends never took anything from the land. He stated the children with whom he had played were never the destructive type, because they recognized this area as something special. Senator Rawson strongly believed that this was an early sign for him and his friends that it would become their home and would later become a very important place to them. He stated today, as he looks around the valley as it is now, there is nothing that indicates its same values.

Senator Rawson concluded that this area has practically been torn down, and everything of the early valley days has been paved over. He said Las Vegas is a city without any culture or birthplace. He said it is not good for any community to have to go through this stage. He strongly believes the community has the opportunity to preserve this area. This project would allow Las Vegas to bring in some resources. He stressed that it is more than just a resource to be gained by selling license plates. It really would allow the people who live in Las Vegas to become a part of it, enabling a cultural sense in being a part of the community again.

Chairman O’Donnell asked whether someone could explain how the license plate ties into the foundation. Senator Rawson answered that in essence once there is a foundation established, there would be an extensive museum development and an interpretive site that would all come together. The license plates are one of the sources of funding that essentially would bring in money. It would also allow people to purchase the license plates for their cars indicating to say that they are a part of the Las Vegas community.

Ms. Gale mentioned that the year 2005 would be the hundredth birthday of Las Vegas, and the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS) would market Las Vegas’ centennial license plates. This is one way the community would help celebrate Las Vegas’ birthday. She explained that the foundation plans to buy the first 100 license plates and auction them.

Chairman O’Donnell asked, "Would the license plates become effective in the year 2005?" Ms. Gale answered, "No, we will start selling them in the year 2005, so they would become even more valuable." Chairman O’Donnell asked whether the license plates would be continued in operation long after the plates have been turned in. He noted the way the 125-year centennial license plate program worked is, once an owner sells the car, the owner has to return their license plates to DMV&PS. Ms. Gale commented, "I currently have a centennial license plate, and I have transferred it to my newest car."

Senator Washington asked whether the foundation had designed the new license plate. Ms. Zukosky responded, "No." She asked the committee to read further into the bill. She stated that the board of directors for the Southern Nevada Water District wanted this project to be a true public-private partnership, so the SNWD board passed a structure for governance of the preserve which included a board of trustees. She explained that the board of trustees is made up of three members of the board of directors of the Southern Nevada Water District, three members from the private foundation, a city councilman from Las Vegas, a member of the University of Nevada Board of Regents, and a member of the State Historical Society. There is also a curator from the Las Vegas Museum who sits on the board. Ms. Zukosky asserted that this board of trustees would make the final decision on the license plate design.

Chairman O’Donnell closed the hearing on S.B. 204, and opened the work session on Senate Bill (S.B.) 154.

Bill Bradley, Lobbyist, Nevada Trial Lawyers’ Association (NTLA), spoke in opposition to S.B. 154. Mr. Bradley addressed some of the concerns specifically with regard to pregnant women and to children being restrained improperly in car seats. He said there seems to be a problem with the current restraint system, which is not adequately restraining children. He commented that this bill has been too difficult to pass and get the restraints in vehicles installed properly.

Chairman O’Donnell directed attention to page 2, line 6, and read aloud; "A violation of this section may not be considered: (a) negligence in any civil action."

He queried Mr. Bradley:

Mr. Bradley expounded that the child would still have a cause of action against the drunk driver, but the child’s damages could very well be reduced by the negligence of the parent. He continued to explain that similar language was in the original bill and he would be opposed to that language being deleted. Mr. Bradley emphasized that his major concern is based on a report he had read that stated the parents could be blamed for their child’s injuries instead of the drunk driver.

Chairman O’Donnell stated he has a problem with eliminating the language that says a person could go out and buy a car seat to mitigate the ticket they have been issued. He did not think this is the problem.

Senator Amodei, noting section 1, said there are some merits to the idea of putting an age threshold in the bill to say, "who is at 5 years of age or over, or less than 40 pounds," from an enforcement viewpoint because it is very clear the officers do not have scales in their patrol cars.

Senator Washington concurred with the language change. He also asked, "What does the federal code 49 C.F.R. § 57.213 mean?" Senator Washington also encouraged the DMV&PS to enhance the educational program regarding the restraints for children, and that the rest of the language revert back to the original statute, "if they are not able to provide to the court within 14 days of the issuance of the citation that they have purchased a restraining device, that they could have this citation waived and it not be considered negligence, if hit by an oncoming vehicle."

Mr. Bradley requested two additional words be added to the original bill on the seat belt law discussed earlier, which reads on page 2, line 7, "… negligence or causation." This was the language in the seat belt bill and he thought this language was consistent throughout the restraints bill. He agreed with the way the current bill reads and agreed that S.B. 154 should have the same language.

Chairman O’Donnell closed the work session on S.B. 154, and opened the work session on Senate Bill (S.B.) 168.

Tom Stephens, Director, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), stated that he had concerns about this bill, specifically sections 7, 8 and 9, which all relate to NDOT’s chapter 408 of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). Mr. Stephens iterated that section 7 relates to the construction’s early completion bonuses, or payments per day, to help contractors complete the highways early. He added that the laws are currently being used in section 7. However, NDOT does not think "early completion bonuses" apply to all projects, and NDOT would have to have discretion to determine on which projects bonuses are to be placed. Mr. Stephens suggested that section 7 would be okay, if bonuses were permissive, rather than required. He suggested changing the word "must" to "may" in section 7. He said this bill should not be limited to a county with a population of 100,000 or more. NDOT believes they should be able to do this in any county.

Chairman O’Donnell asked if the early completion bonus is required on every contract that NDOT gives. Mr. Stephens responded, "No." Mr. Stephens explained how section 7 would read would be, "any contract made or awarded by the department for the construction, improvement, maintenance and repair of a highway, or an appurtenance to that highway, ‘may’ include the provision of payment of additional amount." Mr. Stephens clarified that this would reinforce what NDOT has done with the "spaghetti bowl" and would probably encourage the department to do more of this in the future. He said he strongly believes that this is working out well. He pointed out the provision in section 8, wherein it limits the time of construction and takes a month out of a year when NDOT would be able to close a road. Mr. Stephens stated that NDOT is not in the habit of closing roads for any length of time during construction.

Chairman O’Donnell stated that there were some problems with the language in section 7, and NDOT would like to change some of the language to make it permissive instead of mandatory. He pointed out that NDOT could hand out bigger bonuses on certain contracts and no bonuses, when it is not needed.

Mr. Stephens said that the contractors work on an hourly basis, but sometimes gave NDOT a large bill at the end. This bill would certainly limit NDOT’s flexibility regarding what it can do with construction projects.

Senator Michael (Mike) A. Schneider, Clark County Senatorial District No. 8, commented that construction projects in Las Vegas seem to go on and on. He pointed out that his constituents and his wife have apprised him of their frustration, and he reiterated how the work just seems to drag on and on. Senator Schneider opined Las Vegas is a city where the contractors could work 24 hours a day on the roads because it does not have the severe weather conditions as in northern Nevada. He iterated that it seems that part of this bill is to dangle "a carrot at the end, or pay a bonus to get it completed ahead of time." Senator Schneider added that the community has increased in population, which means there are a great many cars on the streets. His thought was to talk about the early completion bonuses by having the contractors work up to three shifts to get the job done. This is the concept of the bill.

Chairman O’Donnell commented what if section 7 was kept in the bill, with a change in the language to make it permissive and delete the sections out of the bill that deal with closing the entire state highway system road construction between December 1, and January 2, with the promise that the NDOT would be cognizant of the frustration around the holiday season. He asked whether Senator Schneider would have a problem with this amendment. Senator Schneider concurred with the changes.

Mr. Stephens also agreed with the changes, and said that this has always been one of his concerns for traffic control since he started employment with NDOT.

Chairman O’Donnell asked Mr. Stephens whether NDOT had fined the contractors for violating the traffic control plans by moving the barriers over into the lanes, restricting the traffic flow in the "spaghetti bowl," in Reno. Mr. Stephens answered, "Yes, and they were fined $2000 an hour until the traffic started flowing properly."

Senator Washington asked for clarification on the language in section 1 through section 7, deletion in line 32 of section 7, "population is 100,000 or more," to insert the word "may," then deletion of everything after section 7, and asked if this were correct.

Chairman O’Donnell responded, "No, insert the word ‘may,’ for ‘must’ on line 32, to say ‘may include.’ Then section 7 will remain intact. Delete sections 8 through 15."

Senator Jacobsen stated he does not agree with this kind of legislation and he thinks these are management decisions for NDOT. Each time the Legislature micromanages these departments, it tends to increase the costs. He asserted that this is not realistic, the Legislature is not working every day in these areas to see if there are certain emergencies that could be reasonable. Senator Jacobsen strongly suggested that these decisions should be left up to NDOT. If they do not do them correctly, then the Legislature could question their tactics.

Chairman O’Donnell asked Mr. Stephens if he felt that legislation would be micromanaging NDOT or if this would be what NDOT would prefer. Mr. Stephens commented, as he understands the amendments, the only section is section 7, and it has been amended to make the bonus permissive, which is good. It reinforces NDOT’s ability. If someone says NDOT should not be giving out bonuses, NDOT would now display it in a law and make it advantageous, but make it permissive because NDOT will be able to decide which projects need "early completion bonuses."

*****

Chairman O’Donnell closed the work session on S.B. 168 and announced Senate Bill (S.B.) 174 would be held.

Chairman O’Donnell opened the work session on Senate Bill (S.B.) 235.

C. Joseph Guild, Lobbyist, State Farm Insurance Companies, spoke in favor of S.B. 235 and stated he had a brief discussion with an NDOT representative and does not see a problem with the proposed amendments since NDOT knows the technical issues in this bill.

Tom Fronapfel, Assistant Director, Planning Division, Nevada Department of Transportation, reiterated that Mr. Guild and he had discussed the proposed amendment and its intent. Mr. Fronapfel stated he had received clarification on the questions that were raised when the bill was first heard. He mentioned one question came from Senator Care regarding the Community Area Transit (CAT) buses and their use of the road shoulders in the Las Vegas area. He added that these provisions were covered in the law, to allow the buses in their normal operation to enter into these lanes, pick up the passengers, and then exit the lanes back into the formal travel lanes. Mr. Fronapfel distributed a packet which included a proposed amendment (Exhibit C) and read aloud to clarify the bill’s intent.

Chairman O’Donnell asked whether this language would preclude a driver from driving in the lane even though they are past the first intersection. Mr. Fronapfel answered "Yes, if designated as the bicycle lane." Chairman O’Donnell asked for clarification of a bicycle lane, "if so designated." Mr. Fronapfel pointed to a prepared handout of bicycle lane illustrations (Exhibit C) and asked the committee to review page 16 and the last page of the handout.

Chairman O’Donnell asked whether it was Mr. Fronapfel’s understanding that federal law requires the shoulder between the solid white line and the edge of the roadway or the curb is supposed to be designated for bicycle lanes. Mr. Fronapfel replied, "No, there are minimum standards that have to be met before it could be formally designated as a bicycle lane, and is generally a 4-foot minimum width if the designation is formal within the shoulder itself." Chairman O’Donnell responded he would not like to see the traffic impeded in the Las Vegas area, and there are not a lot of designated bicycle lanes.

Senator Care noted that bicycle lanes are much narrower than the lane on the right side of the solid white line. He stated that this bill really does not explain the wide lane to the right side of the solid white line, if it does not say bicycle lane. Mr. Fronapfel responded this is correct.

Senator Washington asked whether this would prohibit any car from moving into a bicycle lane to make a right-hand turn. Mr. Fronapfel stated there are provisions, for example, that currently allow and would continue to allow turning into and out of driveways, alleys, shopping centers and so forth, more or less from a perpendicular basis, so if there is a need to make a right turn into, or out of, a driveway across that bicycle lane, it would be acceptable.

Senator Washington stated, "What we are trying to do is keep motorists from using the bicycle lanes when the traffic is backed up at a signal light, [from] moving into that lane and proceeding on to make a right-hand turn." Mr. Fronapfel responded that would be correct if, in fact, this bicycle lane were wide enough for vehicle travel. He asked the committee to review figure 4 of Exhibit C, showing the bicycle lane solid white line becoming a dash line. The dash line gives a vehicle permission to enter the bicycle lane to make a right-hand turn. Senator Washington asked if a driver uses the bicycle lane and proceeds to move through it to make a right-hand turn, are there any demerits given or if it would be considered a moving violation." Chairman O’Donnell replied, "Yes."

Mr. Fronapfel told the committee of a recent incident where a person on a bicycle in the bicycle lane was hit by a driver coming off an I-80 exit ramp into the lane. The bicycle rider was seriously injured.

Chairman O’Donnell asked, "Who designates the bicycle lanes?" Mr. Fronapfel explained what his staff does and acknowledged that he has the statewide bicycle coordinator on his staff. He also works with the city, and county governments particularly in Washoe County and Clark County, and the Regional Transportation Commission of each. He said they review the facilities within jurisdiction for their compatibility for designation as bicycle facilities whether it is a bicycle lane, bicycle path, or path separate from the roadways. Mr. Fronapfel stated these reviews would end up in the formal bicycle plan at the local level adopted by the formal public hearing process and then become part of the statewide bicycle plan. He said it would be up to the county to designate the bicycle lanes as such. It is a combination of local and state efforts.

Senator Jacobsen indicated that in the rural areas there are no signs designating bicycle lanes and said this could confuse the public even more when they do not know whether the rules are the same from one state to another. Mr. Fronapfel confirmed that the true intent of this law should be consistent from one state to another.

Senator Jacobsen asked Mr. Fronapfel whether it would be legitimate for a motorcycle to pass a bicycle in a bicycle lane. Mr. Fronapfel answered no, and stated this should not happen because no motorized vehicles can travel in a bike lane, and the motorcycles are not supposed to pass any vehicles on the right.

Chairman O’Donnell stated that (S.B.) 235 is more comprehensive, in terms of amending the old language. He announced that there is not a need for S.B. 200.

*****

Chairman O’Donnell referred to page 3 of Exhibit C, an amendment on S.B. 235.

Senator Washington restated his earlier question about a vehicle moving through the bicycle lane because the traffic has backed up and the driver would like to proceed in making a right-hand turn. The driver is stopped by an officer and cited. He strongly believed that this driver is not in violation of this law. Mr. Fronapfel stated that he had a number of discussions with the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, and the DMV&PS and his staff discussed similar situations with the Carson City Sheriff’s Office. He commented further that there are, in fact, citations written for the actions mentioned by Senator Washington. The citation reads, "Failure to maintain the lane of travel." Senator Washington asked how many demerits are given. Mr. Fronapfel responded that he did not know.

*****

Chairman O’Donnell closed the work session on S.B. 235, and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 202.

Clay Thomas, Assistant Chief, Motor Carrier Bureau, Registration Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, testified in favor of S.B. 202. Mr. Thomas said this bill addresses basically three different issues and three different sections. He stated the first issue would add language to chapter 481 of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) to allow the department to record a certificate with a county recorder. This action would place a lien on all real and personal property of an individual in order to collect all delinquent fees owed to the DMV&PS. Mr. Thomas iterated that the language in the section had been copied verbatim from NRS 360.473 which is the statute being used by the Department of Taxation for the collection of debt owed to the agency. He explained this action is, in part, predicated upon a 1994 legislative audit in which the Motor Carrier Bureau was identified as being remiss in the collection of bad debts. This section would give the DMV&PS the opportunity to record a certificate of delinquency with all county recorders within the state. That information would be entered and would go against any personal or real property. Should the individual attempt to either flee the state or sell off the property, the department would still have the opportunity to collect the money owed.

Senator Jacobsen pointed out that the audit subcommittee has general concerns with all departments and it was indicated that approximately $150 million is past due and $50 million will never be collected. Senator Jacobsen explained that the proposed changes would include changing the administrative code to decide whether the Office of the State Controller or the Department of Taxation would be responsible.

Mr. Thomas responded that he is not familiar with those issues at this point. He said that he could tell the committee that after the last audit, there were several steps taken by the Motor Carrier Bureau to collect delinquent funds. Mr. Thomas believed in 1997 that the Motor Carrier Bureau was identified as having $1.3 million in outstanding debt, and the bureau has taken corrective steps in the form of small claims courts, and show cause hearings. He said that the Motor Carrier Bureau has decreased this amount to $589,000. In fact, the current collection rate is 92 percent. The bureau wishes to increase this percentage even further.

Senator Care asked Mr. Thomas, "Why would it take the Motor Carrier Bureau 3 years, as opposed to a year, to determine the delinquencies?" Mr. Thomas replied he does not know the history regarding when this became a statute for the Department of Taxation’s use, but the Motor Carrier Bureau has been in contact with them and found this statute has been advantageous to the collection process. He iterated that he does not know the reasons why it would take 3 years to find out what is delinquent or not. He commented further that it depends on the delinquent amount owed and what steps they take to collect. Mr. Thomas explained that the first process, once an account is delinquent is a "show cause" hearing. The revenue officers contact the individual agency involved and ask them to make restitution, if this fails, they then set up a "show cause" hearing in which they may explain why the money was not paid. Failure to pay the money at that time would result in the DMV&PS revoking the ability to operate in the State of Nevada. If the amount was under $3500 it would go to the small claims court. It could take anywhere from 30-60 days to initiate this action. He claimed if the amount is higher, the DMV&PS would utilize the attorney general’s office to assist them in this collection. Because of the bankruptcy that a lot of these agencies go into, it becomes a long and drawn out matter. As such he believes by going 3 years and allowing extensions, should it go beyond this date, it would still give DMV&PS the opportunity to continue the certificate on file.

Mr. Thomas addressed the second proposed amendment that would make changes to NRS 366.221, which requests the deletion of exceptions of certain entities from having to pay for the use of State of Nevada roadways and fuel-licensing requirements. He stated by deleting this section all motor-carrier operators who are intrastate and interstate would be treated basically the same. At this time the State of Nevada is the only known state that has an exemption for these entities. Every other state, as far as DMV&PS is aware, requires these entities to pay the fuel tax, registration fees, and privilege tax within their jurisdictions.

Senator Washington questioned whether those agencies did not pay taxes, would have to pay now. Mr. Thomas answered, "Yes." He clarified that the proposed amendment would require them to register with the State of Nevada or their base state to make sure Nevada receives the appropriate funds while the companies travel on the highways. These are the same laws that have state enforcement.

Senator Care asked Mr. Thomas if there had been any discussions with someone from the motion picture industry regarding the exemptions. Mr. Thomas stated that DMV&PS had attempted to find out what the monetary value is to the State of Nevada and at this point in time, he has been unable to meet with this industry. He asked the committee to keep in mind when these agencies come into the state the only time they would have to pay taxes is for the mileage traveled within the State of Nevada. This is basically for the use of the roadways while they are here.

Mr. Thomas addressed the last proposed amendment and said the changes would be to utilize a credit or refund due an individual or company, to offset or be applied to the department which is owed money. He explained if an individual has a credit due them, the state would refund the money to the individual and, also, if the individual has a debt owed to the state in another area, then the refunds cannot be transferred over to the individual to balance it. Mr. Thomas stated that right now the DMV&PS has no means of tracking money that is due the state and perhaps will go to one of the border states to see what the monetary exchange is there for use in their area.

Chairman O’Donnell closed the hearing on S.B. 202, and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 209.

Senator William R. O’Donnell, Clark County Senatorial District No. 5, presented S.B. 209. He stated that when he was a police officer in Las Vegas it was very difficult for the police to ascertain whether a vehicle was stolen. Chairman O’Donnell indicated that normally when a police officer comes across a vehicle in the State of Nevada that does not have license plates, the first thing a police officer suspects is that there is a "Dealer Report of Sale" (DRS) taped to the inside of the window, on the right-hand side of the car. However, it has come to his attention that it has been very hard to read the DRS at 35 to 45 mph, while driving down the street looking at the driver’s window trying to read whether or not the DRS is valid. It also has been testified to in the past that some of these DRSs are not DRSs at all, and are just a vehicle driving down the road with a shopping list taped to the front of the windshield in order to avoid registering the car. Chairman O’Donnell stated there have been numerous instances to evade registration by putting white paper taped on the inside of the windshield.

Chairman O’Donnell continued to explain S.B. 209 by saying that this bill requires the dealer to not only put the DRS in the windshield, but to put a paper license plate made out of thin cardboard where the license plate normally goes with a date of expiration when a car is sold. The police department could then easily detect the expiration of the DRS. He confirmed that the DRS would be the controlling factor that would be taped to the windshield. The copy of the DRS would go to the DMV&PS, which would be aware of exactly when a vehicle should be registered. However, an expiration date written on a temporary cardboard license plate, would be easier for the police department and the highway patrol to read.

Senator Washington asked Chairman O’Donnell, "What happens if there are complications in getting the car registered and the individual needs to return to the dealer, could they get reissued a new placard?" Chairman O’Donnell stated they cannot because once a car is sold, it is sold. The dealer could only issue a temporary 20-day financing permit.

John P. Sande III, Lobbyist, Nevada Franchised Auto Dealers Association, testifying on S.B. 209 suggested three proposed amendments. One was regarding the form. The Nevada Franchised Auto Dealers Association would recommend that the placards be produced by DMV&PS and furnished to the dealers, the placards would then be uniform statewide. The second suggested change was to page 2, line 12, which talks about the placard containing the date of "execution." This should be the date of "expiration" of the 10-day time period. The third recommendation would be to change the effective date of the bill to October 1, 1999, to allow sufficient lead time to make sure placards could be produced and distributed to the dealers for their use. Chairman O’Donnell concurred.

Russ Benzler, Chief Investigator, Bureau of Enforcement, Registration Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, concurred with Mr. Sande. Mr. Benzler stated that DMV&PS received a request with some information pertaining to other states’ laws. He provided copies of placards used in other states, along with a copy of a permit the DMV&PS has been working on in conjunction with the refurbished licensed plates under chapter 482 of NRS (Exhibit D). He commented if the committee would like to adapt one of the placards from Exhibit D, DMV&PS could certainly do what is needed to incorporate it. He stated that this would give Nevada better control in handling the permits.

Chairman O’Donnell said there is a legal requirement that by the year 2001 all blue license plates must be refurbished and he recommended the proposed amendments by Mr. Benzler be added to S.B. 209.

Vice Chairman Amodei closed the hearing on S.B. 209, and Chairman O’Donnell opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 256.

Senator Raymond (Ray) C. Shaffer, Clark County Senatorial District No. 2, testifying on S.B. 256 stated this bill clarifies that trucks carrying loads do not have to cover the loads. Senator Shaffer explained there are provisions which mean the company has to secure the load. He stated the highway patrol had been very aggressively pulling over trucks that were hauling scrap metal from the recycling facility near Nellis Air Force Base. He indicated the vehicles were placed in the recycling machine and crushed into a heavy chunk of metal. The highway patrol would stop trucks before they left Nevada, driving to Utah, and would give them a citation. He continued to explain that the highway patrol was interpreting the statute that the loads had to be covered, but the sharp edges on the scrap metal were shredding the tarps along the way. He said there is no way steel would blow off the back of the truck. Senator Shaffer stated these trucks should not have to have their loads covered. He stated it would be dangerous to the motorist if trucks were carrying sand, paper, or rocks. They are liable for carrying objects that blow off trucks. Senator Shaffer said it does not make sense for these trucks to have tarps over the steel loads.

Chairman O’Donnell stated the reason why this law was passed is because there were a lot of trucks in Las Vegas who were hauling tires, tubes, or rocks which result in motorists obtaining broken windshields. Chairman O’Donnell referred to a situation in Las Vegas about 2 years ago where a young lady, driving behind a truck carrying pieces of steel, had scraps of steel came off the truck and go through her windshield and neck killing her. Senator Shaffer responded the ties could come unraveled and this is something that would not normally happen. Not even the tarp would have stopped that incident from happening. Chairman O’Donnell asked Senator Shaffer if these loads were crushed boxes of cars. Senator Shaffer iterated all of the heavy parts of the vehicle are hammered into small pieces about the size of an large engine block, This steel is carried in a trailer with sides on them about 4 feet high. Senator Shaffer said that he had called the magistrate and explained that it was not necessary for these trucks to be cited. The magistrate agreed that these loads did not need to be covered. Later this magistrate left, a new magistrate was hired, and the citations started again.

Chairman O’Donnell asked Senator Shaffer if he thought the bill could be amended to allow the individual to go to the NDOT and get a waiver or permit to say that these particular loads do not need to be covered. Senator Shaffer stated right now there is nothing saying the load must be covered with a tarp. However, the law is specific about requiring the securing of a load from falling or flying out of the truck so other vehicles on the highway are safe.

Chairman O’Donnell asked Senator Shaffer whether he could bring a picture to show the committee what a truck would look like carrying such loads, and what the loads contains.

Chairman O’Donnell closed the hearing on S.B. 256, and requested a motion on Senate Bill (S.B.) 204.

*****

There being no further business, the hearing was adjourned at 4:05 p.m.

Laura Adler,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator William R. O'Donnell, Chairman

DATE: