The Senate Committee on Transportation was called to order by Chairman William R. O'Donnell, at 1:30 p.m., on Thursday, March 18, 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 Dean A. Rhoads, Northern Nevada Senatorial District

Senator Mark A. James, Clark County Senatorial District No. 8

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Joan Moseid, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Northern Nevada Senatorial District, provided background information on the proposed bill as to how it would raise funding for the promotion of agriculture within the state. With that in mind he agreed to sponsor S.B. 339 along with Senator Jacobsen and several rural Nevada senators.

Michele Lewis, Executive Director, Nevada Future Farmers of American (FFA) Association and Foundation, briefly informed the committee of the importance of the work provided through the Nevada FFA to the state as indicated in the FFA brochure (Exhibit C). Ms. Lewis stated:

It was noted by Ms. Lewis, in 1998 the FFA had been organized to include bylaws, a mission statement, and funding development plan. She also drew the committee’s attention to the large fund-raisers as part of the 1999 planning process. Ms. Lewis then pointed to the importance of continuing their efforts to educate and involve students in the promotion of agriculture by implementing a strong funding source as described in S.B. 339. Further, Ms. Lewis recognized three students who were active members of the Nevada FFA and who had developed the marketing analysis for creating, designing, and selling the license plates. She concluded: "We see this as a real win-win [situation] for not only the Nevada FFA but also for the Nevada Division of Agriculture."

Paul J. Iverson, Administrator, Division of Agriculture, Department of Business and Industry, expressed his support of S.B. 339. He described in great detail the multiple applications of work being provided throughout the state to promote agriculture, such as the bumper sticker (Exhibit D) "Nevada Agriculture: People Grow Things Here!" He continued his testimony saying, S.B. 339 would be used specifically as an outreach education program which would spread the word about agriculture and its importance to all of Nevada.

John Jeans, Nevada Future Farmers of America Foundation; Education Consultant, School Improvement and Work Force Education, State Department of Education, expressed his support for S.B. 339 as it would further promote their united efforts to educate and promote student premier leadership, personal growth and career success. He noted their biggest challenge had been in addressing agricultural literacy. The senate bill would provide a funding source and a visual awareness for agricultural literacy in Nevada.

Senator Wiener asked for clarification by the Chairman and committee members with regard to the funding measures within S.B. 339. Specifically, she wanted to know how profits from the sale of the specialized license plates would be divided.

Chairman O’Donnell explained the profits would be divided, 50/50, between the Nevada FFA and the Division of Agriculture for the purpose of building agricultural literacy.

Senator Jacobsen stated for the record: "I have a conflict because I was a past president for the Douglas County Chapter of the FFA and I do not believe there is a better education mode … I believe the FFA is one of the best programs there is."

Chairman O’Donnell thanked the senator for his testimony and also informed the Senate Committee on Transportation of the privilege of having someone who has had the experience on the committee.

Pete English, Chief, Registration Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS), testified of the role in which special plates for organizations such as Nevada FFA, develop and provide an additional funding and show of support. Mr. English stated, "The DMV&PS takes no position on the bill, but as testified before on previous special plate bills we have prepared the fiscal note and submitted that to the Department of Administration for this bill."

Chairman O’Donnell closed the hearing on S.B. 339, and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 381.

Senator Mark A. James, Clark County Senatorial District No. 8, discussed what S.B. 381 would not do, including assessing traffic flow, conditions of roadways in need of repair, speed limit analysis, traffic flow and so forth. Senator James stated, "S.B. 381 would only prevent the use of unmanned devices such as photo radar or cameras at intersections." He further stated, "There are many good and justifiable things that we can do here, as government officials, to try to address problems of society. But we have to be extremely careful that we do not have the unintended purpose of sending someone a citation for violating the law." The senator then explained the main proponent for adopting this type of monitoring device was to lessen the likelihood of traffic accidents. He urged the committee to be careful to not set us on a path of compromising the civil liberties of our citizens.

Senator James then stressed the need to recognize possible consequences to our actions if they, as legislators, were to permit law enforcement to infringe on our rights. Finally, he recommended to those who are in charge of making the laws to be aware that such a justification would work for other kinds of enforcement. The point he wanted to make clear was the possibility whereby "we [would] face a compromise of our liberties and of our right not to be observed in whatever we do by the government."

The senator then drew attention to the research he had obtained from the Internet with regard to photo enforcement and other related advanced technology that has become available for law enforcement (Exhibit E). He observed the problems that had arisen associated with the use of photo enforcement. For instance, citations were sent by first-class mail and presumed to have been delivered to the appropriate persons involved in the violation. If that person did not appear in court it would be presumed, again, that the individual chose to willingly ignore the order to appear to pay. The result could be a warrant for the arrest of that person driving the vehicle, via the photo, as the owner of the offending vehicle. The owner of said vehicle would still be mailed the ticket even though the owner may or may not have been driving the vehicle. At that juncture it would be up to the owner of the vehicle to prove his or her innocence.

Senator James continued to discuss other concerns with photo enforcement on the level of individual rights and liberties. Conversely, there would not be a certifiable witness of a violation, which in a court of law in Nevada, would be against our constitutional right. Senator James continued his dissertation detailing the inconvenience to motorists and the means for obtaining fines from violators regardless of just cause or situation. Lastly, he discussed the lack of safety benefits by photo enforcement mechanisms when compared to the overall safety issues in the county. The senator closed his testimony by saying, "I have every bit of respect for the people who have proposed these things. I do not assign to them any malevolent motives whatsoever. I think they are trying to help address a problem that we have. I just think this is the wrong way to do it."

Chairman O’Donnell asked Senator James if he saw in any given situation a use for photo enforcement. The senator said, "What I am trying to say with the bill is that there is not an instance where these kinds of devices should be used to give people misdemeanor citations, traffic citations. Use them for whatever else you would need … as long as it does not affect people and their driving records …."

A general discussion followed Senator James’ testimony whereby the chairman and several committee members requested clarification regarding the permissible times and situations when it would be appropriate to apply advanced technology in bringing alleged violators into compliance.

Accordingly, Senator James said with regard to S.B. 381, "This would not prevent the monitoring of our roadways through (photo enforcement type) cameras … it [would] just prevent them from being used as evidence against someone to prove a crime or a violation of a traffic law.

Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens, stated their support of S.B. 381. Further, they were in agreement with the preceding discussion with Senator James and members of the Senator Committee on Transportation.

Francis Gillings, Lobbyist, American Independent Party, stated his support of S.B. 381 and added, "There is no law that is worth anything in America, that even if it is constitutional, if it violates one American’s rights."

Nile D. Carson, Jr., Lobbyist, Deputy Chief, Police Department, City of Reno, said:

Chairman O’Donnell closed the hearing on S.B. 381, and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 390.

Senator Washington deferred to speak in favor of the bill as Chad Dornsife who is the main sponsor of the bill is not available to provide his testimony to the committee. Chairman O’Donnell stated the committee would hear the opposition now and then at a later time will have Mr. Dornsife come back and hear the proponents.

Michael E. Hood, Colonel, Chief, Nevada Highway Patrol Division (NHP), Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, spoke in opposition to S.B. 390 as it addressed several Nevada statutes dealing with traffic and safety. He added:

Senator Washington requested information on past legislation that addressed speed laws, enforcement activities, and accidents. This was followed by a general discussion among the committee members and Colonel Hood with regard to the flow of traffic, variables of road conditions to speed and so forth. Senator Care requested from Colonel Hood a legal definition of a speed trap.

Colonel Hood said, "There is no legal definition of a speed trap. A general definition is any location where police are on special alert for violations of speed laws and where even minor violations are dealt with severely." His primary concern, once again, was the inability for law enforcement to direct attention where it would be needed.

Another area of discussion followed this testimony regarding prima facie speed, road conditions, and accidents. Chairman O’Donnell concluded, "We have a huge responsibility of balancing safety and freedoms of individuals."

Colonel Hood also responded by stating, "Triple A had provided statistically, that for every one mile that a driver makes 200 observations and 20 maneuvers. The higher your speed goes the faster your mind has to think.

Nile D. Carson, Jr., Lobbyist, Deputy Chief, Police Department, City of Reno, spoke in opposition to S.B. 390. He stated, "The establishing or carrying out a policy which requires and encourages, directly or indirectly, police officers employed by a law enforcement agency to meet quotas bothers me significantly." His concerns would be the result of limiting officers to targeted locations for the purpose of targeting enforcement. Further, Mr. Carson mentioned the prima facie evidence with regard to the posted speed limits. He said, "What is an officer to do when the posted limit is this, the maximum limit is this, and under the conditions it was that? This starts to confuse the issue before anyone can say they were right or wrong. Overall I would recommend to the committee a no pass for this bill."

Benjamin Blinn, Concerned Citizen, spoke about the problems associated with speed traps. He then recommended having more officers moving with the traffic in an escort fashion to slow down the flow of traffic.

Susan G. Martinovich P.E., Assistant Director, Engineering Division, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), spoke on behalf of S.B. 390 on the technical issues and the impact it would have on the NDOT. She said:

Ms. Matinovich continued to testify about the speed studies and what has to be included in the studies. She noted, the studies would include examining the conditions of the road, along with the speed of the traffic on the road. Further, the bill requires NDOT to do a speed study every 5 years at a fiscal impact of approximately $500,000 to $1 million to do the initial study and $200,000 to maintain those studies on a year-to-year basis.

Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens, opposed S.B. 390 by saying, "It injects a lot of confusion into the law." She continued by specifically pointing to problems such as quotas, speed laws, traffic studies, and so forth. In conclusion, Ms. Lusk stated, "From the ordinary person’s point of view it injects a lot of confusion into the law. The law should be reasonable and plain and not dependent upon arbitrary judgment calls at the time of the action."

A discussion was raised pointing to the use of marked and unmarked law enforcement vehicles. Colonel Hood assured the chairman and committee members that NHP only uses marked vehicles in doing stops when a violation has occurred. However, in Goldfield, there may be a problem with the sheriff’s office using unmarked vehicles to do vehicle stops. The chairman requested NHP to send an officer to Esmeralda County to check, as the committee had been assured in the past that such a practice by law enforcement would not continue.

Deputy Chief Carson asked to speak regarding the manner in which unmarked vehicles are being used in the Reno-Sparks area. They are primarily used for stakeouts in observing criminal activities; such as, undercover narcotics officers who have the ability to run the siren, go through red lights should they need to, but are not engaged in traffic enforcement.

Chairman O’Donnell closed the hearing on S.B. 390, and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 387.

Warren B. Hardy II, Lobbyist, Quality Towing, introduced Clark Whitney, Quality Towing, and Mark Keller, South Strip Towing. He then stated for the record, "We have a piece of legislation today that deals with an issue that has come up." Mr. Hardy deferred to Mr. Whitney who stated, "We need to keep the status quo for being called upon by the NHP to tow vehicles away from roadways."

Mr. Hardy commented:

Chairman O’Donnell requested clarification from all parties with regard to a "letter of intent" outlining the proposal of this legislation to include comments from NHP, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (Metro), and other law enforcement agencies. A discussion continued with the members of the Senate Committee on Transportation and the panel of witnesses. It was discovered by the questions, comments, and answers that the towing services for the most part are a conglomerate of companies from many generations back with a common ownership.

Ms. Keller stated, "What we are trying to do here is to maintain what we have going right now." To explain, he spoke of the manner in which the conglomerate organizations are seeking to improve and better the drivers’ standard of work and living; i.e., certification programs, health benefits, and retirement benefits.

Chairman O’Donnell remarked, "I appreciate the fact that you have a great company, but I think the specific purpose of the bill is to establish and keep the value of being on the list, intact, and not have that [name] removed just because you have a common ownership."

The chairman then asked from those who were testifying, "If you have common interest [a conglomerate], now are you still both on the rotation list?

Mr. Whitney replied, "I’m still on, but South Strip Towing was taken off the list."

Chairman O’Donnell then added, "If you are not on a list now, then the bill says if an operator or tow car is on a list then you can stay on the list. If you are not on the list then it does not help you." He concluded by encouraging the panel of tow-car companies to work with law enforcement agencies to work out the logistics to obtain clearer intent and then return to the transportation committee with their results.

Senator Shaffer asked for clarification on the proposed changes to S.B. 387 from the original bill draft request. Mr. Hardy explained there had been quite a few changes to clean up the bill draft request prior to it becoming a senate bill.

Senator Wiener stated, "One of my concerns would be for the little guy, the small [towing car] business owner." She wanted to know what would become of the small owner who could not compete with the conglomerate owners who have their names on the lists multiple times.

Mr. Hardy replied, "Currently, the [Nevada] highway patrol does not limit the number of people who can be on the rotation. In fact, it is my understanding, if you are able to qualify for their standards on their rotation, [then] they will allow you to be a part of the rotation. So, it is not a static number."

At this point all present entered into a discussion in search of clarity within the context of the proposed bill and any changes that would involve working with law enforcement agencies and tow-car companies.

Senator Care raised the issue regarding monopolizing by the tow-car conglomerates and wanted information on the method for determining the established rates of fees by the Transportation Services Authority (TSA).

Mr. Whitney responded by saying, "The law, as it is written, requires a fee on file for non-consent tows with the TSA. That fee was established based on the amount you were charging in May 1995. Right now they do have in place a rule that they must approve any transfers or trades."

Daryl E. Capurro, Lobbyist, Nevada Motor Transport Association, was appearing in support of S.B. 387. He reminded the senators of another piece of legislation, S.B. 296, which would have to conform with this bill or be amended to reflect the changes in S.B. 387.

Mr. Capurro continued his testimony, "Essentially, I believe it can be handled by simply indicating in the legislation that if you were on a list as of "x" date then this law would apply. Otherwise this legislation would not help [certain tow-car companies],"

Chairman O’Donnell said,

Mr. Capurro reiterated the court actions, which have already been put in place addressing the requirements to be met by the tow-car companies. He also suggested the wording of S.B. 387 be changed to accommodate the establishing of filing the tow-car company’s rates with law enforcement agencies and then be approved or not, based on their ratings.

Senator Shaffer once again mentioned another issue that of saturating the marketplace with tow-car companies and the need to adjust the requirements for a company to be placed on the rotation call-out list by law enforcement agencies.

Mr. Capurro attempted to address those issues by saying:

A general discussion continued around the standards for getting on the qualifying rotation list and related topics as pertained to S.B. 387.

Chairman O’Donnell said he would assign Senator Care and himself to a subcommittee to continue the work on the wording for S.B. 387.

Stan R. Olsen Lobbyist, Lieutenant, Government Liaison, Intergovernmental Services, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (Metro), opposed the bill as it was written. Lieutenant Olsen explained his opposition by saying:

A discussion continued with hypothetical situations whereby the chairman and Lieutenant Olsen examined the possibilities to reword S.B. 387, in order to accommodate the needs for Metro and other law enforcement agencies and tow-car companies.

Mr. Capurro said, "Metro is ensuring a controlled monopoly by the practice that they have, by indicating to you [Senate Committee on Transportation members] that the little guy will never have a chance to get onto their rotational system …. I really do not understand their concerns with respect to this bill."

Chairman O’Donnell said they would work it out with regard to the language of the bill in an upcoming subcommittee hearing.

Chairman O’Donnell closed the hearing on S.B. 387, and opened the hearing for a committee introduction of Bill Draft Request (BDR) 43-1608.

*****

Chairman O’Donnell asked for committee introduction of Bill Draft Request 58-1606.

*****

Chairman O’Donnell opened the hearing on S.B. 67 with a letter of intent.

*****

*****

There being no further business, Chairman O’Donnell adjourned the meeting at 4:30 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Kathy Cole / Laura Adler

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator William R. O'Donnell, Chairman

DATE: