MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Transportation
Seventy-First Session
May 3, 2001
The Committee on Transportationwas called to order at 1:30 p.m. on Thursday, May 3, 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
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall, Vice Chairman
Mr. John Carpenter
Ms. Barbara Cegavske
Mr. Jerry Claborn
Mr. Tom Collins
Mr. Don Gustavson
Mr. John J. Lee
Ms. Kathy McClain
Mr. Dennis Nolan
Mr. John Oceguera
Mrs. Debbie Smith
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Raymond Shaffer, Senate District 2
Senator William R. O’Donnell, Senate District 5
Senator Dina Titus, Senate District 7
Senator Jon Porter, Senate District 1
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Paul Mouritsen, Committee Policy Analyst
Geri Mosey, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Robert Elliot, Involved Citizen
Majorie Holland, Daughter of Betty Willis
Betty Willis, “Fabulous Las Vegas” sign creator
Paul Christensen, Chairman, Transportation Services Authority
John Plunkett, Chief of Enforcement, TSA
Daryl Capurro, Nevada Motor Transport Association
Alfredo Alonso, MGM Mirage and the Nevada Resort Association
Mike Sullivan, Nevada Limousine Coalition
Bob Campbell, On Demand Sedan and Ambassador Limousine
Mike Reed, Baker and Drake
Gary Milliken, Yellow-Checker-Star Transportation
Jim Ferrence, Nevada Limousine Coalition
Paul Suglia, First Class Limousine
Bruce Breslow, TSA Commissioner
Rey Vinole, Owner, High Roller Transportation
Bill Gregory, Schwartz Investments
Jonathan Schwartz, Schwartz Investments
Brian Hutchins, Chief Counsel to the Department of Transportation (NDOT)
Ms. Richann Johnson, Executive Assistant, Nevada-California Super Speed Train Commission
Robert Agonea, Vice President, Board of Trustees of the Nevada Test Site Historical Foundation (NTSHF)
Ernest Williams, Charter Member of NTSHF
Joanne Thomas, Member of NTSHF
Virginia Lewis, Deputy Director, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS),
Senate Bill 414: Provides for limited issuance of special license plates to commemorate 100th anniversary of founding of City of Las Vegas. (BDR 43-1064)
Robert Elliot, an involved citizen currently enrolled in Leadership Las Vegas, requested S.B. 414 to create public awareness and generate funds for a Las Vegas centennial celebration in 2005. The special license plates would fund historical markers, preservation and walking tours in the older areas of the city. The plate depicted (Exhibit C) the “Welcome to Fabulous Las Vegas Nevada” designed by Betty Willis.
Majorie Holland, daughter of Betty Willis who was seated with her, related that Mrs. Willis was born in Overton, Nevada. Her father, Steven R. Whitehead, was the first elected county assessor, county recorder and president of the Chamber of Commerce in Las Vegas. Mrs. Willis was a pioneer in the neon sign business and designed the “Welcome to Las Vegas” sign while employed by Western Neon in 1956. A salesman, Ted Rogich, sold the concept for the sign to the county and Mrs. Willis was given carte blanche in the layout, never realizing it would become the icon of Las Vegas. In 1999, at the age of 76, she semi-retired from 48 years experience in the neon sign business. Mrs. Willis was proud that her sign was selected to represent Las Vegas on centennial license plates.
Chairwoman Chowning bestowed congratulations from the committee and thanked Mrs. Willis for her pioneer spirit. Ms. Chowning expressed their pride for the sign, which had been in many movies and used by the Department of Tourism in their advertising materials. This plate would be a limited edition and no longer available after 2005. Applause followed Assemblyman Carpenter’s suggestion that the first license plate be given to Mrs. Willis.
Betty Willis, sign creator, commented that throughout her life, traveling to other states, the Nevada license plates caught the attention of others. She believed that a plate that advertised the centennial would bring considerable traffic.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 414.
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Senate Bill 119: Requires taxicab authority to establish program for transportation by taxicab of elderly persons and permanently handicapped persons in certain counties. (BDR 58-692)
Senator Raymond Shaffer, representing Senate District 2, brought S.B. 119 for those elderly and handicapped who experienced difficulty in obtaining taxicabs in less lucrative areas of Las Vegas. The bill required the taxicab authority to adopt regulations that established a program for transporting the elderly and permanently handicapped. A telephone number would be established, maintained and publicized for elderly and permanently handicapped persons to register complaints regarding transportation by taxicab. Negligent drivers would be penalized.
Assemblyman Gustavson considered possible unintended consequences of S.B. 119 if people just called and claimed to be elderly. Senator Shaffer did not anticipate a problem. Assemblyman Lee disclosed that he was involved with a business closely regulated by the Transportation Services Authority (TSA). Assemblyman Collins thought the southern Nevada taxi companies recorded the calls so they could establish a timeline if necessary. Senator Shaffer added that the proposed legislation only affected persons in areas of population more than 400,000.
Paul Christensen, Chairman, Transportation Services Authority, made a few introductory remarks before introducing Bob Broadbent, who represented several limousine and taxicab companies. Mr. Broadbent supported S.B. 119. He worked with the TSA on the proper regulations, an essential portion of it, to guarantee that those people in the outlying areas had a right to get a taxicab when they needed it.
Chairwoman Chowning offered that the committee was interested in providing the safest form of transportation for the citizens and tourists of Nevada.
John Plunkett, Chief of Enforcement, TSA, presented Amendments to SB119 (Exhibit D) and a Summary of Amendment to Senate Bill 119 (Exhibit E), which outlined 38 sections. The amendment did the following:
Mr. Broadbent stated the limousine companies supported the $350 because when an incident occurred, it reflected poorly on the company and raised the insurance rates. Regulated control over the limousine companies was needed, he said, to protect the safety of drivers and passengers, to preserve public safety and to present a good image for Las Vegas.
Assemblyman Gustavson disclosed he had been employed by a limousine company but did not feel this would affect him more than it affected anyone else.
Senator O’Donnell, Senate District 5, opposed S.B. 119.
Daryl Capurro, Nevada Motor Transport Association (NMTA), supported S.B. 119 and said it was an important step toward assuring that various elements of passenger transportation were properly regulated.
Alfredo Alonso, representing the MGM Mirage and the Nevada Resort Association, presented an amendment (Exhibit F) with an Attorney General’s Report (Exhibit G), which gave an historical perspective. The amendment exempted nonrestricted licensees pursuant to NRS 463, for the purpose of allowing large properties to move passengers from one building to another, a practice which originated years ago when properties were stand-alone, not the mega-mergers of today. The amendment codified the practice.
Chairwoman Chowning mentioned that the opinion (Exhibit G) cited free transportation, but this was not stipulated in the amendment. She wanted a specific reference to a house-owned vehicle that transported customers from one place to another without charge. Mr. Alonso affirmed there was no attempt to charge for transportation, and he agreed to an amendment to specify such. Furthermore, he had no problem with the suggestion that the properties pay a small permit fee for a sticker by which the TSA could identify the vehicles as exempt under Chapter 706 of the Nevada Revised Statutes.
Mr. Capurro pointed out that some casinos in the Reno area had vans that transported passengers from the airport to the downtown properties. The drivers were accepting “gratuities” from passengers who were going to properties that did not own the van. Mr. Capurro felt that since those drivers were the responsibility of their employers, language should be in S.B. 119 that revoked the exemption if it was abused.
Chairwoman Chowning asked Mr. Christensen how the employees of the properties would be regulated if there was no regulation. Mr. Christensen said this happened often: the drivers said they only worked for tips so they were not under regulation. Perhaps the permit and identification sticker would be the answer. Mr. Broadbent understood the amendment only applied to those hotels that owned their own limousines, which were driven by their own employees. Maybe the appropriate language would state the behavior was subject to regulatory action by the TSA.
Mike Sullivan, representing the Nevada Limousine Coalition, supported S.B. 119 and the amendments from the TSA and the Nevada Resort Association.
Bob Campbell, on behalf of On Demand Sedan and Ambassador Limousine, supported S.B. 119, particularly the primary amendment offered by Mr. Christensen, which he felt was of “very great importance to the industry.”
Mike Reed, on behalf of Baker and Drake, supported the TSA amendment but had some concerns about the other amendment. Donald Drake, President of Baker and Drake, was in “total concurrence” with amendment No. 1.
Gary Milliken, representing Yellow-Checker-Star Transportation, supported S.B. 119 and the TSA amendment, but reserved judgement on Mr. Alonso’s amendment pending further study.
Mr. Broadbent presented an amendment that mandated the use of safety belts by passengers in taxicabs (Exhibit H). Assemblywoman Cegavske inquired if noncompliance would be a secondary offense and whether it would be the passenger who was fined. Mr. Mouritsen replied Section 3 explained the conditions of who would receive the citation. There was no secondary offense language in the amendment. From the way the language was written, Mr. Mouritsen felt the driver would be responsible. Chairwoman Chowning reminded the committee that in 1995 they enacted a provision that the taxicab driver did not need to wear the safety belt, which provided them a sense of freedom in the event of robberies or other tragic incidents.
Assemblyman Nolan commented that, as much as he agreed with the intent, he felt the amendment complicated the bill. He suggested replacing the “shall” with “may” to allow the companies to adopt policies that their employees would follow with respect to passenger use of safety belts. Mr. Broadbent had no objection to this.
Testifying from Las Vegas, Jim Ferrence, representing the Nevada Limousine Coalition, concurred with Mike Sullivan’s comments, supporting amendments No. 1 and No. 2.
Paul Suglia, representing First Class Limousine, was concerned about the changes in the definitions, especially that of “bus,” which specifically excluded sport utility vehicles (SUVA). He asked why it was changed. A portion of the amendment stated that the term “bus” did not include a vehicle with a chassis originally designed to carry fewer than 16 but was modified to carry 16 or more. The term “stretch” came from cutting a vehicle and adding a middle piece. The definition of livery was also changed, he said, to be for 11, rather than 9, passengers. To Mr. Suglia, that stretched a Lincoln Town car, for instance, two passengers beyond what Lincoln deemed safe.
Mr. Chistensen avowed the change was included because: 1) it brought the statute into compliance with the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR), which listed between 9 and 11 passengers, and 2) the Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century deregulated buses. The people who could not obtain a Las Vegas limousine license opted to purchase and stretch large vehicles to over 40 feet, with a capacity of more than 16 passengers, in order to avoid regulation. This legislation would regulate them. Bruce Breslow, TSA Commissioner, concurred; S.B. 119 closed the loophole and certificated these vehicles as limousines.
Assemblyman Nolan asked Mr. Suglia what impact the regulation of these vehicles would have on his business. Mr. Suglia asserted he was more regulated than the limousine companies. He was required to have a safety program and comply with the statutes of Title 49[CFR]. He contended they did not do this to circumvent the law. Hundreds of coach companies used these vehicles around the United States, and the Ford Excursion was the most popular limousine being built. Mr. Nolan knew that Title 49 of the CFR required the safety plan but questioned whether these companies operated under the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) CFR that required a drug testing program for a charter bus service as well as auditing by the FTA. Mr. Suglia retorted he was required to have a vehicle maintenance file, a driver qualification file, and a drug-testing program. He had not been in business long enough to be checked since it was an annual check. S.B. 119 would cause him to completely shift to a new type of business or possibly go out of business.
Mr. Christensen responded the TSA had about six to seven references per year to Mr. Suglia’s limousine. Since limousines were under 16 passengers and every number Mr. Suglia quoted was under 16, he could operate as a limousine service, but he opted, Mr. Christensen said, to “take this route so that they could eliminate the application process so that all they had to do was write to the federal government, wait six weeks, get their certificate, send them all their stuff, and the State of Nevada is clear out of it.”
Mr. Breslow addressed Mr. Nolan’s question about putting Mr. Suglia out of business. Section 2, subsection 1(b) protected the vehicles he operated at the time of passage of the bill, but any new vehicles that were added would be defined as limousines, which required the certificate.
Assemblyman Gustavson asked Mr. Suglia how he advertised his service—as a limousine or as a bus? Mr. Suglia said the industry referred to these as limo-buses and limo-coaches; he did not have one that was forty feet long. Once again, he emphasized they dealt within the laws given to them, not as crooks attempting to circumvent them. Mr. Christensen did not care that Mr. Suglia had these limo-buses; they were not trying to deprive him of his business. But he insisted he was tired of the subterfuge to avoid the application process for a limousine. Mr. Suglia remarked the reason that they did not make the application was because these were not limousines. He did not write the laws. To Mr. Christensen he said, “You’re the one that has the definition that it’s 16 or more. So I can’t get something licensed as a limousine that is not a limousine.”
Rey Vinole, owner of High Roller Transportation, had three Excursions that were not longer than 40 feet as Mr. Christensen said. If this bill should pass, it would put him out of business because he was attempting to reach a unique market with the excursion buses that had a capacity of 20 passengers. The vehicles the TSA wanted to see were the shuttle buses. He preferred the Excursions. The TSA did a safety inspection of his vehicles and they passed with no problems.
Commissioner Breslow stated:
I’m glad Mr. Vinole came forward. He is the poster child for why we are asking for this change. He was cited four times, had his vehicles impounded and admitted to telling his passengers, on the record, we had them on tape, to lie to the TSA investigators. He did not apply for a license and go through the process. He has used us as a loophole, and again, even with this, his vehicles that he currently has, are not banned. He may continue to use it. [In the] future, … if he wants to operate such vehicles, additional vehicles, he would be required to get a certificate from the TSA and then he may operate those vehicles safely.
Mr. Vinole denied the allegations stating:
That is absolutely not true. I did apply for a limousine license. I will show you the application that was submitted. I did apply for the license. I withdrew because the interveners came in to intervene against my application to put restrictions or whatever deals they want to make behind closed doors. I did apply for a limousine license.
Chairwoman Chowning closed the hearing on S.B. 119.
Senate Bill 219: Revises manner in which department of transportation is required to dispose of certain property. (BDR 35-476)
Bill Gregory, representing Schwartz Investments, did not believe S.B. 219 was opposed by NDOT or the Governor; however, two amendments might bring opposition. These were not in the original language in the Senate.
Jonathan Schwartz, representing Schwartz Investments, testified that S.B. 219 mitigated the negative effect “of a taking on the property owner by providing the property owner with a reversionary right to repurchase the land that was taken.” The state was not disadvantaged because it received fair market value.
Chairwoman Chowning restated, S.B. 219 allowed the property owner to purchase the property if the Department of Transportation chose not to use it for the original stated purpose. Mr. Schwartz corrected himself: once NDOT was finished using the land, NRS 408.533 allowed the property owner a reversionary right. The proposed amendment (Exhibit I) extended that reversionary right to any unused portion of the land.
Chairwoman Chowning disclosed that because she had a property that was taken in an act of condemnation by the Nevada Department of Transportation, and part of that property, to this day, had not been totally used, this bill could directly affect her, though no differently than anyone else in the same situation.
Assemblyman Gustavson asked if the fair market value would be current or as of the time the property was purchased. Chairwoman Chowning assumed it was current fair market value. Mr. Schwartz affirmed that.
Assemblyman Nolan observed that since this was residual property NDOT had not used, it could be presumed the original transportation need, usually a highway, was completed. Due to the proximity of the highway, the resultant fair market value would be significantly reduced. However, a public road might increase the market value.
Assemblyman Carpenter made the same disclosure that Ms. Chowning made.
Referring to the amendment to section 2, Mr. Schwartz stated that with respect to his land, if representatives from NDOT remarked that the property was not published for sale then Mr. Schwartz would remove the amendment. Also, subsequent to the Senate hearing, he learned Chapter 408.533 of the Nevada Revised Statutes specifically gave NDOT sole discretion to determine the superior right holder. However, it did not state such in the section on fair market value, yet NDOT assumed they held sole discretion for that as well. Mr. Schwartz offered an amendment (Exhibit J), subsection 5, that provided the former property owner some recourse to determine what fair market value was in the event of a dispute. He cited, as example, an appraisal his company received that included improvements on the property that did not exist but were valued at $1.3 million. For NDOT to have sole discretion on the fair market value deprived the property owner and the taxpayers of due process. The amendment set up a hearing process to discuss a dispute; it would be a declaratory relief action.
Brian Hutchins, Chief Counsel to the Department of Transportation (NDOT), affirmed the department was neutral on S.B. 219 as it was presented to the committee. The department believed that “fair market value” was current fair market value and had operated for many years with the understanding that it would determine that value. Mr. Hutchins testified before the Senate Committee on Transportation that the department and the board had no opposition to S.B. 219 so long as that intent remained; they did not wish to foment litigation or “have more administrative problems with determining that kind of question.” The department would continue to determine the fair market value and who the holder of the reversionary right was. In S.B. 219, as proposed, the department was not required to track the holders of the reversionary right but rather to publish in the newspaper an intent to dispose of the property.
Mr. Hutchins received the amendments just prior to this meeting. He felt the board would be “completely opposed” to the amendment to subsection 5 because it would increase the difficulty in determining the fair market value and the potential for litigation.
In answer to an earlier question on the increase or decrease of property value by the existence of a highway, Mr. Hutchins stated it would depend on the project. If it was a freeway interchange, the property value would increase “several fold.” As for the loss of investment dollars, the money was paid when the property was taken and the money could be reinvested elsewhere.
In the event there was a dispute about the fair market value, Chairwoman Chowning asked what the existing procedure was. Mr. Hutchins replied the right-of-way division would ask an independent appraiser to appraise the property and make a judgment on its worth. The appraisers were required to follow the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) guidelines, but appraising was not an exact science. Anyone who disagreed with an appraisal could notify the department, and he hoped that the right-of-way division would take seriously any concerns that were expressed about mistakes in an appraisal.
Chairwoman Chowning asked Mr. Hutchins to take the amendments to the department and the board. No action would be taken on S.B. 219 until a later date. Ms. Chowning closed the hearing on S.B. 219.
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)
Senator Dina Titus, representing Senate District 7, reported that the Nevada-California Super Speed Train Commission was an official legislatively sanctioned state body under NRS 705, created to promote and facilitate the construction of a super speed train between Las Vegas and Anaheim, California. The federal government, the state of Nevada, the city of Las Vegas, Clark County, the Regional Transportation Commission, and various local entities along the route in California, including Barstow, Victorville, Ontario and Anaheim, provided funding. The project has reached the final stages and would be ready to break ground by 2003 for the first forty miles between Las Vegas and Primm, Nevada. Joint public-private financing was needed. United States Senator Harry Reid and others in Washington, D.C., were committed to obtaining a share of the construction funds authorized under the Maglev Deployment Program. The state must show its commitment to the project. Senator Titus recognized that the budget was tight and it was difficult to acquire major state appropriation, so an alternative that allowed the commission to raise money and show a state commitment was the intent of S.B. 323.
S.B. 323 authorized the Nevada-California Super Speed Train Commission to issue bonds, which could be repaid and secured by various means listed in Section 1, subsection 2. Senator Titus pointed out that Section 1, subsection 5, did not hold the state liable for repayment of the bonds in the unlikely event that the project failed. Furthermore, these bonds did not count against the state’s cap. Section 2 of S.B. 323 updated the definition of “speed train” to refer specifically to maglev technology and to state that the speed was 240 miles per hour.
Senator Titus urged the committee’s support because the project was on the verge of becoming a reality. It was a perfect example of public-private partnership between all levels of government and the American Maglev Group. The project should create 12,000 to 13,000 jobs in Nevada with a tax return of $122 million annually. An executive summary of the financial impact (Exhibit K and Exhibit L) was distributed.
Assemblywoman McClain asked how soon would the train be running to Anaheim and what would the ride cost. Ms. Richann Johnson, Executive Assistant, Nevada-California Super Speed Train Commission, expected the completion of the project to be about 2013. Senator Titus pointed out in Exhibit K, a one-way fare from Las Vegas to Anaheim was shown as $42 but just to Primm would be $6 for the 12-minute ride, which made it a tourist attraction for the first leg of construction.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOTIONED TO DO PASS S.B. 323.
ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN SECONDED.
Assemblyman Gustavson asked if this rail system would be government subsidized, or when did they expect to recoup the money? Senator Titus responded there was an authorization at the federal level for construction of one of these projects. It was not appropriated yet, but Senator Reid was working on that. It would be joint venture with some federal dollars, but based on the ridership studies, the fare box would pay for any bonds sold by the company. Mr. Gustavson felt it was a fantastic venture and he supported it. Senator Titus revealed that some of the casinos agreed to build a station in Primm.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Senate Bill 264: Provides for issuance of special license plates for support of preservation of history of atomic testing in Nevada. (BDR 43-317)
Senator Titus presented S.B. 264. In 1999, S.B. 371 of the Seventieth Session passed, which allowed the Desert Research Institute (DRI) to issue revenue bonds to pay for a new building on the Las Vegas campus. The facility was leased to the Department of Energy (DOE) for 20 years to house the Nevada Test Site Research Center. The center would:
Much progress had been made: a groundbreaking was held on the 50th anniversary of President Truman’s decision to conduct atomic tests in Nevada; a symposium was held to discuss the design, context and objectives of the proposed facility; the Smithsonian Institute officially recognized the museum, which gave it immediate legitimacy and access to many cold war artifacts stored at the Smithsonian; and, private fundraising began to augment the public resources for the operation of the center.
S.B. 264 created a license plate to commemorate the test site and generated revenue that would assist in the fundraising efforts. It was anticipated that many people in southern Nevada would purchase the plate because tens of thousands of people were employed by the various federal, state and local agencies and contractors operating there during the 50 years of its existence.
Though Senator Titus had long been a critic of the AEC and the DOE testing program, she made it clear that this plate “in no way is meant as advocacy or glorification of atomic testing.” It recognized the facility’s tremendous impact on the history, culture, economics and politics in Nevada, the United States and the world. The critical role played by the test site in the cold war needed to be documented, researched and understood, and the records of atomic victims needed to be accessible in Nevada, not locked away in a warehouse in Washington. Only by understanding the implications of American policy during this period of history, Senator Titus explained, could America and the world hope to avoid the need for such a project in the future.
Assemblyman Claborn first worked at the test site in 1957 and was associated with the site until his retirement in March, 2001. He was pleased to have this proposal brought forward.
Assemblyman Lee asked where the records would be stored. Senator Titus replied that the new facility was an addition to the Desert Research Institute in Las Vegas.
From Las Vegas, Robert Agonea, Vice President of the Board of Trustees of the Nevada Test Site Historical Foundation (NTSHF), supported S.B. 264. The foundation was established in April of 1998 for the purpose of consolidating, preserving, and making accessible to the public, historic and archival records, films, photographs, and archeological artifacts associated with the Nevada test site.
Ernest Williams, charter member of NTSHF, and Chairman of the Marketing Division, supported S.B. 264 as a means to display the history of the test site. He had been in the program for 50 years.
Joanne Thomas, also a member of NTSHF, was employed by AEC and DOE. She urged support of the bill.
ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN MOTIONED TO DO PASS S.B. 264.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN MCCLAIN SECONDED.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Senate Bill 409: Provides for issuance of special license plates to support preserving federal lands surrounding Las Vegas, promoting community stewardship of those valuable resources, enriching visitors’ experience and enhancing quality of life of local residents. (BDR 43-245)
Senator Jon Porter, Senate District 1, said that the Outside Las Vegas Foundation was dedicated to preserving the federal public lands surrounding Las Vegas, enriching the experiences of the visitors and the quality of life for residents and promoting community stewardship of these valuable resources.
Bob Campbell, board member of the Outside Las Vegas Foundation, briefly mentioned the board of trustees (Exhibit M), which highlighted areas with which the foundation was involved. A good working relationship with the federal land managers had resulted from the work of the foundation. A letter from Thomas Kuekes (Exhibit M) suggested that the Outside Las Vegas plate might replace the previously approved Mt. Charleston plate, which had not received the minimum 250 applications for issuance. It would have wider appeal and would serve the same purpose.
Senator Porter stated their goal was to have a unique plate design of either Lake Mead, Hoover Dam, Red Rock or some area of national or international interest. Revenues would be distributed to the Outside Las Vegas Foundation.
Assemblyman Lee commented he was recently notified that the Mt. Charleston plate reached the 250 minimum, and he was interested in keeping that. Mr. Campbell was pleased to hear they made the threshold.
For those who felt Nevada had too many license plates, Chairwoman Chowning revealed that New York had 100 plates, Florida had 80-plus, and Arizona had about 50.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE MOTIONED TO DO PASS S.B. 409.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Senate Bill 525: Revises provisions governing issuance of replacement license plates. (BDR S-1223)
Virginia Lewis, Deputy Director, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS), stated that S.B. 525 extended the date to December 31, 2002, to replace the big horn sheep license plate, allowed the department to use the remaining funds originally appropriated for the project, and required that any remaining funds on June 30, 2003, to be reverted to the Highway Fund. The core issue was that original legislation indicated that the project would be completed in 12 months. However, the department was concerned about the impact to the customers, so it was believed that a deadline extension would minimize the inconvenience.
ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 525.
ASSEMBLYMAN OCEGUERA SECONDED.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY OF THOSE PRESENT.
Chairwoman Chowning opened the work session.
Senate Bill 54: Provides for issuance of special license plates for appreciation of animals. (BDR 43-693)
Paul Mouritsen, Committee Policy Analyst, recalled the question raised during the hearing regarding the distribution of funds. Senator Rawson provided a proposal for that on page 2, line 14 (Exhibit N), which stated that the money would be for spay and neuter programs. Chairwoman Chowning affirmed she “most specifically heard” the Senator state that the money should be used for adoption or spay/neuter programs. Assemblywoman McClain agreed that it was “either or.” In Section 5, Senator Rawson proposed to add two sentences that stated the county could use the money for adoption or for spay/neuter programs approved by the county commission, and that the money could be subgranted to nonprofit organizations for that purpose.
Assemblywoman McClain asked if that meant the money could be subgranted to nonprofits for adoption as well as spay/neuter. Chairwoman Chowning requested that the bill drafter make that more clear.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 54.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY OF THOSE PRESENT.
Senate Bill 374: Revises provisions concerning duty to erect and maintain signs to designate parking spaces for use by handicapped persons. (BDR 43-710)
Mr. Mouritsen stated S.B. 374 added provisions that required the erection and maintenance of handicapped parking signs by owners of private property and governmental entities having control over the property where handicapped parking spaces were located. During the hearing, Assemblywoman McClain had questioned the local ordinance role. Mr. Mouritsen surveyed county and municipal codes around Nevada and discovered that most had provisions for marking handicap spaces, though they were less explicit than state law and many referred to the NRS.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED DO PASS S.B. 374.
ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN SECONDED.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY OF THOSE PRESENT.
Chairwoman Chowning adjourned the meeting at 4:18 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Linda Lee Nary
Transcribing Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman
DATE: