MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Transportation

 

Seventy-First Session

April 24, 2001

 

 

The Committee on Transportationwas called to order at 1:30 p.m., on Tuesday, April 24, 2001.  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

Mr.                     John Carpenter

Mrs. Barbara Cegavske

Mr.                     Jerry Claborn

Mr.                     Tom Collins

Mr.                     Don Gustavson

Mr.                     John J. Lee

Ms.                     Kathy McClain

Mr.                     John Oceguera

Mrs. Debbie Smith

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

Mr.                     Dennis Nolan

Ms.                     Genie Ohrenschall, Vice Chairman, excused

 

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Paul Mouritsen, Committee Policy Analyst

Geri Mosey, Committee Secretary

 

 

 

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Virginia Lewis, Deputy Director, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety

Joan Burtnett, Concerned Citizen

Judith Ruiz, President, Las Vegas Valley Humane Society

Madelaine Dayton, Board Member, Nevada Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (NVSPCA)

Jennifer Palombi, President and Founder, Nevada SPCA

Ann Herrington, President and Founder, Media Partners for Pets

 

As the sponsor of S.B. 54 had not yet arrived, Chairwoman Chowning began the meeting with other matters.  She announced the cancellation of the hearing on S.B. 323.  The committee went directly to the work session.

 

Senate Bill 190:  Requires state board of examiners to determine amount of money to be deposited in motor vehicle revolving account. (BDR 43-562)

 

Chairwoman Chowning asked Paul Mouritsen, Committee Policy Analyst, what other agencies had a revolving account.  His research revealed a few small accounts.  He did not find another account in which the amount was set by the Board of Examiners.  It appeared most agencies made very small amounts of change.  Ms. Chowning said the Board of Examiners acted on many items in the absence of the legislature so this seemed appropriate.  The Department of Motor Vehicles had stated it would probably not need more than $60,000 for this revolving account for the next three to four years (Exhibit C).

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 190.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN SECONDED.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED BY THOSE PRESENT.

 

 

Senate Bill 260:  Revises provisions relating to drivers’ licenses and identification cards. (BDR 43-1170)

 

Paul Mouritsen, referring to the work session document (Exhibit C), introduced S.B. 260.  A proposed amendment from Assemblywoman McClain provided two things:  1) revised NRS 389.090 to allow 15-year-olds to take driver’s education regardless of their class standing; and, 2) required applicants for a driver’s license who were under 18 years of age to hold a learner’s permit for six months before taking the driving test. 

Assemblywoman McClain resurrected these two provisions from A.B. 8 because she felt they were worthwhile.  Chairwoman Chowning invited a representative of the Department of Motor Vehicles to give an opinion.  Ginny Lewis, Deputy Director of the Department of Motor Vehicles, understood the proposed amendment’s provisions and had no concern as long as the intent of S.B. 260 remained intact. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning believed this amendment was a way to preserve the good portion of another bill.  Assemblyman Carpenter felt requiring a learner’s permit for six months was too long a time.  There were no other comments or questions so Ms. Chowning called for a motion.

 

            ASSEMBLYWOMAN MCCLAIN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 260

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER VOTING NO.

 

 

Chairwoman Chowning closed the work session and opened the hearing on S.B. 54.

 

Senate Bill 54:  Provides for issuance of special license plates for appreciation of animals. (BDR 43-693)

 

Joan Burtnett testified from Las Vegas in support of S.B. 54 (Exhibit D).  Ms. Burtnett reported the last sentence of Section 1 subsection 5 concerned her.  It read, “The money may be used by the county only for animal shelters or programs for the adoption of animals that are approved by the county commission.”  No mention of spay or neuter programs was made, and she said these programs “definitely” needed to be funded because pet over-population led to a high number of homeless pets.  Distribution of the funds also concerned her.  She had assumed the procedure would be put in place by the nonprofit humane organizations, which submitted information about the work they did and how many animals were helped.  Allocation percentages would be determined by those numbers.  Approval by a county commission may not be enough to have the funds distributed fairly.  She wondered if something else could be written into the bill. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning asked Ms. Burtnett to clarify she had a concern but not a solution.  Ms. Burtnett stated she had some ideas.  Ms. Chowning also wanted to know if the concern had been disclosed in the Senate and, if so, why was it not resolved.  Ms. Burtnett replied the updates were not available on the legislative Website until the night before the Senate voted.  They were surprised at the last minute when they were told how it would go through.  They had not mentioned the concern in the Senate committee hearing. 

 

Judith Ruiz, president of the Las Vegas Valley Humane Society, confirmed that S.B. 54 was excellent except for the sentence that allowed the county to use the money only for animal shelters where programs for the adoption of animals were approved by the county commission.  This sentence changed the entire intent of S.B. 54, the primary purpose of which was to control pet overpopulation.  Adoption of animals from shelters reduced euthanasia rates but an unneutered animal increased pet overpopulation.  Ms. Ruiz referred to a chart (Exhibit E) that showed 20,481 animals euthanized in Clark County in 2000.

 

Ms. Ruiz reiterated all revenue from these special license plates should go directly for spaying and neutering, not for adoptions.  She claimed this sentence was not in the original proposal.  In fact, she continued, the bill had undergone a strange sequence of events.  Initially, someone injected “ethical treatment of animals,” then the word “adoptions” where it was never mentioned previously until the bill came from the Senate.  Clark County, she stated, recognized the effectiveness of spaying and neutering; they had contributed $20,000, so there was support from them to pass S.B. 54.  A properly worded bill, she said, would raise enough funds throughout the state to substantially reduce the births of “innocent creatures” whose future was a “short miserable life on the street or death in euthanasia chambers.”  She suggested replacement of the sentence in Section 1 paragraph 5, which they could not support, with a sentence similar to “the money must be used by the county for a spay and neuter program,” preferably through distribution to the 501(c)(3) organizations.

 

Chairwoman Chowning shared with the committee sample drawings of the plate (Exhibit F).  The Nevada Highway Patrol and the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety would approve the final design.  Ms. Chowning asked Ms. Ruiz if she was concerned about obtaining the required 250 applicants.  Ms. Ruiz had no concern.  Ms. Chowning stated the initial fee would be $35, with $25 going to the spay/neuter project; of the $20 renewal fee, $10 went to the project.  The rules and regulations were consistent with those of other special plates.

 

Assemblywoman McClain reviewed the changes in S.B. 54.  Originally the money went to the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) for animal rights’ support.  The amendment from the Senate gave the money to the county animal shelters for adoptions.  She was concerned that this committee was requested to change the intent again to give the revenue to spay/neuter clinics. 

 

Ms. Ruiz stated the intent had not varied from the beginning; the funds were to be used for spaying and neutering.  She had no idea how PETA was included.  Ms. Chowning reminded Ms. Ruiz there was no proposed amendment to change the controversial sentence.  Ms. Ruiz responded the Senate revision was posted to the Internet the evening before. 

 

Attempting to clarify the intent of S.B. 54, Chairwoman Chowning believed the original printed bill included the PETA group.  Senator Rawson, the sponsor, apparently agreed to change the bill to be for the adoption of animals.  Ms. McClain was correct in stating it appeared the bill would change again to be for spay/neuter programs.  She explained the committee would hear all the testimony and then confer with Senator Rawson to verify that he was in agreement with another change. 

 

Assemblyman Lee asked if there were many spay and neuter programs.  He did not understand the “that were approved by” wording of her amendment.  Ms. Ruiz replied there were several different organizations offering the program.

 

Assemblyman Collins asked whether the Dewey Animal Center performed spaying or neutering.  Ms. Ruiz told him it was a for-profit organization, funded by the county.  They were required by ordinance, and were paid to spay or neuter all adopted animals.  Four municipally funded shelters within Clark County did not have rescue or spay/neuter programs.  Mr. Collins asked the Chairwoman if the wording “for animal shelters” presumed spay/neutering or did the wording “for adoption” exclude spay/neutering. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning personally believed the language “may be used by the county only for animal shelters” included programs that spay and neuter animals.  But, she added, the language “programs for the adoption of animals” went beyond what testimony said was the intent.  Ms. Ruiz commented the funds would be used to spay or neuter animals, before they got to the pound, so they were not reproducing.  Many people could not afford to have their animals neutered so the Humane Society provided funds, but more money was needed.

 

Madelaine Dayton, board member of the Nevada Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (NVSPCA), testified she has been involved with S.B. 54 from the beginning (Exhibit G) and it was never intended, as evidenced by the artwork (Exhibit F), to be anything other than spay and neuter.  She read a statement:

         Honorable members of the Transportation Committee:  Thank you for allowing me to address you on S.B. 54.  I would like to clarify an extremely important point that has been misinterpreted in the drafting of this critical legislation.  The entire point of S.B. 54 is to give financial support to the non-funded, no-kill 501(c)(3) groups that provide spay and neuter programs throughout the state of Nevada.  Groups like the Nevada SPCA, Las Vegas Valley Humane Society, Media Partners for Pets, FOS, the list goes on and on.  The important point is, though, that the work of these organizations helped reduce the death toll of cats and dogs in the state.  These organizations provide spay and neuter at low or no cost to low income and elderly individuals who cannot afford these procedures.  It is imperative that the funds for the sale of the spay and neuter license plates be apportioned to these non-funded 501(c)(3) groups.  These are the organizations that will make the biggest impact on lowering the death toll of innocent animals.  The language of this legislation must be clear that the counties will apportion the funds for the sale of these plates on a percentage basis to the no-kill non-funded 501(c)(3) groups that are providing the services.  These groups’ support by the funding of this special program will make a difference.  We can reduce the death toll and increase the humanity and compassion our society gives to the voiceless, unprotected animals of our state.  We can make Nevada a shining example of a no-kill state.  You have the power to make this dream come true.  Thank you for your attention. 

 

Jennifer Palombi, President and Founder of the Nevada SPCA, testified her organization, one of the largest and oldest in Las Vegas, had worked many years with the spay and neuter programs without any assistance.  Here was an opportunity for them to receive a little assistance to make Nevada a no-kill state.  She emphasized the importance of the inclusion of the wording “organizations that are non-funded 501(c)(3)” and “for spaying and neutering programs only.” 

 

Assemblyman Collins asked about an organization in Las Vegas that was supposedly no-kill but had euthanized animals.  Were they removed from the list?  Ms. Palombi knew the situation and stated the group was funded by the city.  He then asked about organizations that received grants.  She verified that the 501(c)(3) groups could apply for and receive grants.  Grants were there but were no longer easy to obtain.  Running a shelter was expensive and the revenue from these plates would relieve some of the burden. 

 

Ann Herrington, President and Founder of Media Partners for Pets, a nonprofit humane organization in Las Vegas, testified they rescued animals from kill shelters and facilitated adoptions.  Many times people wanted to give up their pets but were not willing to give a donation if the pet was not spayed or neutered.  The organization paid for the procedure as well as for any medical care the animals required.  In her opinion, the revenues from the special plates should not be given to a county and “absolutely not to any county or municipal shelters” because they were kill shelters.  She felt it should go to the county treasurer with an easy procedure for the organizations to apply for it. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning advised everyone to read S.B. 54 on page 2, Section 5, line 11.  It stated “as with all other special license plate bills, the money is deposited with the state treasurer” and the treasurer sent the money somewhere else.  In this bill, the state treasurer distributed the money to each county.  The county decided how to distribute the funds.  That was how the bill was written and passed out of the Senate. 

 

Ms. Herrington stated that would be a problem for them and the other organizations.  She requested instruction on how to change that.  Ms. Chowning suggested she write an amendment and fax it to the committee.

 

Assemblywoman McClain wondered why spay and neuter programs could not be included along with the adoption of animals.  Assemblyman Collins mentioned the Clark County and city ordinances currently required spaying and neutering.  The nonprofits wanted to have the county share that with them and it would be up to them to go on a case-by-case basis and ask for it.  He saw no prohibition of that.  He believed the nonprofits were covered.

 

Assemblywoman McClain understood the dilemma, but if this committee changed the language, the bill went back to the Senate.  If a Senator were adamant about their amendment, S.B. 54 would die.  She recommended research to determine what transpired in the other house. 

 

Assemblyman Carpenter suggested in the rural counties often the only available programs were through the county or city.  He felt the special plates should benefit them if it was truly a statewide program.  Ms. Chowning agreed he made an excellent point; legislation needed to include all the areas on Nevada. 

 

Ms. Herrington wished to ascertain that the funded shelters would not be funded again.  That was not the intent of the supporters.  The bill was intended to help the nonprofits that received no other funding.  The municipal shelters were already funded by the counties and cities. 

 

Ms. Ruiz repeated the wording was very important:  unspayed or non-neutered animals added to pet overpopulation. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning closed the hearing on S.B. 54.  No action on the bill was taken due to the absence of the sponsor.  It was rescheduled. 

 

 Senate Bill 323:  Authorizes issuance of bonds, notes obligations or other evidences of borrowing to finance construction of super speed ground transportation system. (BDR 58-961)

 

This bill was rescheduled.

 

There was no further business.  Chairwoman Chowning adjourned the meeting at 3:00 p.m.

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Linda Lee Nary

Transcribing Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman

 

 

DATE: