The Senate Committee on Transportation was called to order by Chairman William R. O'Donnell, at 1:45 p.m., on Thursday, March 25, 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 Randolph J. Townsend, Washoe County, Senatorial District No. 4

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Joan Moseid, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Senator Mark Amodei, Capital Senatorial District, stated S.B. 165 was drafted at the request of Carson City. This bill was created to assist in obtaining uniform criteria in telecommunications for cities and counties in emergency dispatch.

Judie Fisher, Lobbyist, Carson City, testified the intent of S.B. 165 is to create a committee to maintain and update criteria needed for state certification for telecommunication operators (Exhibit C). Ms. Fisher read the contents of Exhibit C and specified the need for passage of S.B. 165. Ms. Fisher suggested minor changes in the bill to include one member from the community college which would maintain accreditation for the program. Ms. Fisher also suggested one member from public transportation be included, and the start-up date be changed from December 1, 1999 to June 1, 2000. Senator Wiener asked if the class is offered only at Western Nevada Community College. Would this create a hardship for those unable to access this program in other locations. Ms. Fisher responded that a competency equivalence test can be given in other counties and it can be shared in other locations.

Anne Keast, Ph.D., Concerned Citizen, stated she worked with advisory committees from the counties and implemented the program prior to moving it to the criminal justice field. Dr. Keast stated she has been contacted to implement the curriculum in Great Basin Community College and the Elko areas. Senator O’Donnell asked if the Clark County area had been approached to include the program. Dr. Keast stated minimal contact had been established with Clark County in relation to the community college; however, North Las Vegas has requested instructional information. The information was sent to the North Las Vegas Police Department.

Senator Jacobsen questioned the necessity of an ongoing need for a committee. Ms. Fisher responded a telecommunications dispatcher is a very stressful environment. A committee would enhance a flair of professionalism similar to that of the police officers. In a small town community this program is not intended to cause a hardship. Senator Jacobsen questioned how the telecommunications program would interface with the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Douglas County. Ms. Fisher responded interagency cooperation and agreements would prevail.

Richard Mirgon, Director of Communications, Douglas County, testified that after the general hiring of the telecommunications staff and 16 to 18 weeks of training, oftentimes the employee will decide the job is not what they thought it was going to be and terminate. S.B. 165 will enable the perspective employee to have a concept of what their job will consist of prior to employment and will streamline the hiring process.

Richard Sheldrew, Communications Manager, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), stated he is in support of the proposed addition to Senate Bill (S.B.) 165.

James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Captain, Patrol Division, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, agrees with the setting of standards for dispatchers. He is in support of the proposed changes to S.B. 165.

Raymond C. McAllister, Lobbyist, Professional Firefighters of Nevada, testified in support of S.B. 165.

Frances Snyder, Communications Commander, Lyon County Sheriff’s Office, testified in support of S.B. 165. Ms. Snyder stated a graduate from the program is currently employed by the Lyon County Sheriff’s Office and she is very satisfied with the employee. She has requested another graduate from the program for employment with the Lyon County Sheriff’s Office.

Sandra Waide, Communications Administrator, City of Henderson Police Department, testified in support of S.B. 165.

Janice Ratliff, Dispatcher, Communications Operator, Carson City, stated she is an instructor at Western Nevada Community College in the telecommunications program. Ms. Ratliff testified there is a remarkable difference in the job performance of someone who has received the communications training. The training allows the novice employee to become cognizant of the duties and responsibilities performed by a communications dispatcher.

Senator Jacobsen expressed concern with the various agencies need for emergency communication equipment. Senator Jacobsen asked Mr. Mirgon if federal funds could be applied to establish emergency communication training. Mr. Mirgon responded there is a good possibility federal funds could be applied to the community college instructional program. James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Captain, Patrol Division, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, answered Senator Jacobsen stating most agencies now have on-the-job training or their own academies for training. Senator Jacobsen suggested a manual in order for training to be uniform in the field of dispatching.

Chairman O’Donnell closed the hearing on S.B. 165 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 336 and turned the meeting over to Vice Chairman Amodei in order that he could give a presentation to the transportation committee on S.B. 336.

Senator William R. O’Donnell, Clark County Senatorial District No. 5, stated S.B. 336 will allow input from the public on how funds can be used on transportation issues. S.B. 336 would allow two legislators to be assigned to the Regional Transportation Commissions and the Nevada Department of Transportation Board of Directors. The legislators appointed to the boards would be nonvoting members due to a possible conflict of interest. The Legislative Commission would appoint one member of the Senate and one member of the Assembly for a period of 2 years. The appointments would enable the representatives to speak with the board of directors of the transportation department, about concerns of the residents.

Senator Jacobsen questioned Senator O’Donnell on the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) Board of Directors chart which was posted on the wall (Exhibit D). Senator Jacobsen expressed concern that presently no member of the board is suitably qualified to deal with state roadways. Senator O’Donnell agreed with Senator Jacobsen in that no one on the NDOT Board of Directors has ever taken responsibility for increasing the gasoline tax. The state constitution leaves in the hands of the Legislature the ability to raise taxes and spend money. However, in this instance the Legislature raises the taxes, and the board of directors receives money, and allocates the spending.

Senator Care asked Senator O’Donnell what type of background is required of the Nevada residents from District I, District II, and District III who are appointed by the Governor. Senator O’Donnell responded the Governor selects those individuals and they must have knowledge of engineering, a bachelor of science degree in civil or structural engineering or licensure in this state as a professional engineer. The selected individuals must have demonstrated knowledge in financial matters and expertise with licensure as a general contractor.

Mary E. Henderson, Lobbyist, Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County, testified on concerns about S.B. 336. Ms. Henderson noted the Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County consists of two members of the City of Reno council, two members of the Sparks City Council, and two members of the Washoe County Board of Commissioners. This Regional Transportation Commission has been in effect for 20 years. Ms. Henderson stated this commission is working efficiently and very well for the community.

Cheryl C. Blomstrom, Lobbyist, Nevada Chapter of Associated General Contractors, testified the elected officials are making hard decisions pertaining to raising taxes. Additionally, NDOT meetings are open to the general public and suggestions are welcomed.

Jens Larsen, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association, testified against S.B. 336. Mr. Larsen stated the Washoe and Clark county boards do not need legislators on them. Senator O’Donnell responded with a clear message by saying, "As long as I am sitting as the chairman there will be no increase in any gasoline tax, until there is representation on the board from the Legislature."

Mary E. Henderson, Lobbyist, Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County, stated she has spoken to representatives of the Washoe delegation. Ms. Henderson stated many of the decisions on funding are made at the local level. She also points out that the bill does not specify a southern Nevada legislator or a Washoe County senator or assemblyman.

K. Neena Laxalt, Lobbyist, City of Sparks, testified in opposition to S.B. 336, but concurred on record with the testimony of Ms. Henderson.

Lisa A. Gianoli, Lobbyist, Washoe County, testified in opposition to S.B. 336.

Bryan Gresh, Lobbyist, Regional Transportation Commission of Clark County, testified he is unable to take a position either for or against S.B. 336. Adequate time to discuss the issues was not available at the monthly board meeting. However, Mr. Gresh questioned Senator O’Donnell on the correct number of representatives from North Las Vegas, Mesquite, Henderson and Boulder City. Mr. Gresh expressed concern about eight members currently listed and the possible omission of three positions. Senator O’Donnell referred Mr. Gresh to subsection 2, section 2 of S.B. 336, which states two representatives are allowed per area and one extra person is allowed by the governing body of the largest city of the county. The intention is not to delete any position held on the board.

Chairman O’Donnell closed the hearing on S.B. 336 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 372.

Robert R. Barengo, Lobbyist, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, testified in opposition to S.B. 372. Mr. Barengo provided a copy of Franchises for Sales of Motor Vehicles (Exhibit E) to the committee. Mr. Barengo stated the legislation being considered by S.B. 372 is not to be taken lightly as it is very complex. He referred to S.B. 372, page 9, line 33; to page 10, line 9; and page 11, section 19 thru operative agreement reached in line 39 thru the end of page 11; and page 12 lines 1-5; and pointed out this information had just been negotiated and agreed upon during the last legislative session.

Francis H. Dunne, Executive Director, General Motors, testified in opposition to S.B. 372. Mr. Dunne expressed concern regarding how this legislation will further limit contractual rights that General Motors has in relationships with its dealers. Mr. Dunne stated special interest legislation impacts negatively on consumer values. Under current law a manufacturer must have good cause before it can terminate, relocate or add a dealership. S.B. 372 would specifically exclude from good cause, a manufacturer’s desire for increased market share. General Motors does not currently own any dealership or service facility in Nevada. The proposed amendment to S.B. 372 would prohibit a manufacturer from placing a dealership anywhere in the state. Mr. Dunne expressed concern, with passage of this bill, that it will raise the cost of automobiles and automobile parts to consumers of this state.

Stephen Blankenship, Lobbyist, Manager, Ford Motor Company, testified in opposition to S.B. 372. Mr. Blankenship stated the legislation of S.B. 372 will, in effect, rewrite the franchise law. The dealers are the exclusive sellers of the manufacturer’s cars. S.B. 372 is antibusiness and anticonsumer, and Mr. Blankenship urged the committee to reconsider how the consumers in Nevada will benefit from this legislation and still be protected.

Mr. Barengo testified section 2, lines 3-11 of S.B. 372 will add another criteria to legislation which is considering the lasting nature of the dealer’s investment.

Senator Amodei questioned Mr. Dunne and Mr. Blankenship about his concern with the dealers returning to the Legislature every session. Senator Amodei asked if either of the gentlemen had been involved in any litigation with any franchise holder in the state of Nevada. Mr. Dunne stated he could not answer that question. Mr. Dunne said there is a 33-percent return on the investment by the dealer. He said the consumers are paying a heavy tax because the industry is so heavily regulated. Senator Amodei asked Mr. Blankenship for his response to any litigation by Ford Motor Company in the State of Nevada. Mr. Blankenship responded that Ford Motor Company is involved in a lawsuit with a dealership in Reno.

Senator O’Donnell responded to Mr. Dunne’s testimony on consumer tax and stated the Legislature institutes tax and the manufacturers institute market. Senator O’Donnell explained the Legislature is not instituting a tax to the consumer but providing a benefit or a value to the dealer. The dealer determines whether or not they can raise their prices to meet the competition.

Senator Care asked Mr. Dunne how many protests or litigations have been filed if the dealers have been to the Legislature every session since 1970. Senator Care asked for clarification on outlawing competition by the manufacturer in Nevada. Senator Care asked where the burden of proof lies in a contract dispute in the neighboring states. Mr. Blankenship responded to Senator Care’s question that there are ten western states surrounding Nevada. The burden of proof is upon the protestor that the manufacturer was incorrect in action that was taken.

Senator Amodei asked Mr. Dunne and Mr. Blankenship what the return on investment averages are for franchises and what is the dealer protection in the ten states surrounding Nevada. Mr. Dunne responded the Federal Trade Commission will provide the correct information and support the economic theory for the return on investment. Senator Amodei asked Mr. Dunne to provide the return on investment for the ten surrounding states in the Western Region, and the Legislative Counsel Bureau Research Division would complete the information.

Senator Care inquired of Mr. Dunne and Mr. Blankenship how the customer survey is conducted. Mr. Dunne responded the survey questionnaire is given to customers who purchase new vehicles. The Customer Survey Index calculates the trends, which are statistically valid.

Senator Randolph J. Townsend, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 4, and the sponsor of S.B. 372, stated he is the general manager of Lexus of Reno which is owned by Reno Toyota Inc. In response to the testimony of Mr. Dunne and Mr. Blankenship, Senator Townsend stated he is delighted that Ford Motor Company and General Motors are involved in the State of Nevada. Participation, either as direct competitors to retail establishments or as joint venture partners with retail establishments, it is a good feeling to have major manufacturers in the state. Southern Nevada offers the best car market in the country. The manufacturers should not be concerned with the profit the dealer makes. However, the manufacturer now wants a portion of the dealer profit. S.B. 372 will allow the dealer to give the customer what they need.

John P. Sande III, Lobbyist, Nevada Franchised Auto Dealers Association, testified manufacturers cannot solely compare dealership production based on geographical location. S.B. 372 states you cannot compete with an auto dealer. Senator Care asked Mr. Sande why the burden-of-proof clause is being shifted to the manufacturer, as opposed to remaining with the protestor. In response Mr. Sande stated the burden of proof is for relocating a dealership into the ten mile radius of an existing dealer. It is good cause to modify a contract.

Chairman O’Donnell asked Dolly Volini, Republic Industries, how many dealerships are owned by Republic Industries in Nevada. In response to the question Ms. Volini answered, Republic Industries currently owns ten new car dealerships in Nevada, all in Las Vegas.

Chairman O’Donnell questioned Mr. Dunne on the concern of competition and tax when Republic Industries purchased a large number of dealerships in Nevada. Mr. Dunne responded to the concern of the large economic impact Republic Industries could have on the manufacturer. Mr. Dunne reiterated General Motors’ support for their dealers. General Motors owns seven dealerships in California and a few in Maryland. They would like the opportunity to invest in the retail end of the business in Nevada.

Chairman O’Donnell closed the hearing on S.B. 372, and opened the hearing on

Senate Bill (S.B.) 442.

Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Northern Nevada Senatorial District testified on S.B. 442. This bill allows the speed limit infraction to be paid for by the driver without the demerit points being reported to the insurance company. The speeding offenses are also eligible for ticketing during the evening hours, not only during the daylight hours in rural areas. This law is applicable in the rural areas of Washoe and Clark counties, as well as the outlying areas in Nevada. The governing laws would be determined by the government entity that controls those areas.

Samuel P. McMullen, Lobbyist, Nevada Self-Insurers Association, testified in support of S.B. 442. He pointed out an urban area over 10,000 people could be regulated as to speed, by the Nevada Department of Transportation.

Tim Crowley, Lobbyist, Nevada Mining Association, testified in support of S.B. 442.

Fred Droes, Chief Safety Engineer, Nevada Department of Transportation, testified in support of S.B. 442. Mr. Droes referred to a brief overview of speed limits set on Nevada highways (Exhibit F) and stated, the legislation should be written to include traffic violations which occur during the evening hours.

Chairman O’Donnell asked Senator Rhoads if it would be acceptable to add daylight and nighttime hours as an offense to be fined. Senator Rhoads clarified the nighttime offense would be a demerit along with a fine. Chairman O’Donnell asked what determines where a non-demerit travel zone begins and ends. Senator Rhoads responded if no signs are posted on the roadway in a rural area, it is safe to assume you are in an area where you would receive a demerit point or a ticket.

Senator Wiener asked if new signs would be required in the rural areas. Chairman O’Donnell informed Senator Wiener the adjacent areas to rural zones are arbitrary statements and delineated geographically by Nevada Department of Transportation and are established by known policy. Senator Wiener asked how the public would be informed of the areas. Mr. Droes responded by stating the area would have to be posted to read, "entering urban area." Senator Wiener queried how the public would be informed of the speed ranges referred to in S.B. 442. Donald Campbell, P.E., Assistant Chief Traffic Engineer, Nevada Department of Transportation, responded no efforts are made to notify the public. It is up to every individual to be informed of the laws.

Senator Shaffer proposed the deletion of subsection 3, section 1 from S.B. 442, which discriminates against Clark County and Washoe County.

Chairman O’Donnell closed the hearing on S.B. 442, and opened the hearing on

Senate Bill (S.B.) 458.

Senator O’Donnell, sponsor of S.B. 458, testified on the provisions for this bill. The overbooking of airline flights in Reno and Las Vegas happens frequently. Airlines allow the overbooking of flights to keep travel costs low and to be certain the aircraft is full. According to federal law if you are denied boarding, "DB’d," for more than 6 hours and scheduled to arrive at your desired destination more than 6 hours later of your scheduled arrival time, you are entitled to compensation of $400, plus the price of your ticket for your inconvenience. S.B. 458 will allow placards to be placed at the gateways of the airlines.

Senator Wiener stated she is concerned the federal regulation date as it exists on October 1, 1999, is prospective law making. Senator O’Donnell responded S.B. 458 notifies the public of a federal law. The federal law would be notification to the public, effective October 1, 1999. October 1, 1999, the federal law would identify to the public what their rights are. Senator Wiener pointed out the information plaques would have to be updated in some manner as the federal law is changed.

Senator O’Donnell asked Paul Mouritsen Committee Policy Analyst, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, for a copy of the Code of Federal Regulation (C.F.R.) 14-250-11. Mr. Mouritsen stated the CFRs are accessible on the Internet through the Library of Congress; and full text of the Code of Federal Regulations is available.

Chairman O’Donnell closed the hearing on S. B. 458.

Chairman O’Donnell stated a work session will be held Saturday, March 27, 1999, on Senate Bill (S.B.) 491. A Saturday meeting is scheduled in order for people from Elko, northern Nevada, Reno and Las Vegas to testify on S.B. 491.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Mary Soscia,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator William R. O'Donnell, Chairman

DATE: