MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Transportation
Seventy-First Session
May 8, 2001
The Committee on Transportationwas called to order at 1:30 p.m., on Tuesday, May 8, 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
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
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall, Vice Chairman, excused
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Bill R. O’Donnell, Senate District 5
Senator Valerie Wiener, Senate District 3
Senator Mike McGinness, Central Nevada Senatorial District
Senator Dina Titus, Senate District 7
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Paul Mouritsen, Committee Policy Analyst
Geri Mosey, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Rusty McAllister, Vice President, Professional Fire Fighters of Nevada
Steve Tackes, Carson City Airport Authority
Jim Braswell, Airport Manager, Minden-Tahoe Airport, and President of the Nevada Airport Managers Association
Pete Anderson, Deputy State Forester, Nevada Division of Forestry
Ronna Hubbard, Nevada State Fire Fighters Association
John Holmes, Volunteer Fire Fighter since 1976
Dana Mathiesen, Administrator, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS)
Gary Wolfe, Nevada Highway Patrol Association
Nile Carson, Reno Police Department
Stan Olsen, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association
Dennis Colling, Chief of Administration, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS)
Bob Feldman, Nevada General Insurance Company and Auto Insurance of America
Cliff King, Supervisor, Division of Insurance
Jim Werbeckes, Farmers Insurance Company
Victoria Riley, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association
Bill Gregory, Schwartz Investment Partnership
Senate Bill 26: Creates fund for aviation. (BDR 44-696)
Senator Bill O’Donnell, representing Senate District 5, testified in support of S.B. 26, which provided an account for an aviation department within the state so that small airports could collectively request federal matching funds. The federal matching funds for small airports in Nevada could be as high as 6.75 percent to 93.25 percent; i.e., for each $6.75 Nevada provided for airport maintenance, enhancement, new equipment, runways and taxiways, the federal government match was $93. Since Nevada had no airport account, each small airport appealed to the federal government individually. Washoe and Clark counties were exempted from the bill, by request.
Assemblyman Lee asked who was classified as “the director,” as was written in the bill. Senator O’Donnell affirmed it was the director of the Nevada Department of Transportation. Mr. Lee than asked the source of the matching fund. The federal government matched the funding through the Federal Aviation Association, Senator O’Donnell replied. The matching funds for Washoe and Clark counties were not as good as for the small airports, about 50:50 or 75:25. Mr. Lee asked about possible bequests and gifts that were available. There were a number of sources, the Senator said, that might fund this account. Some federal agencies had an interest in Nevada, and some private enterprises were interested in Nevada airports, such as the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association that requested this bill. He believed it did not require much money to receive far greater money for airports from the federal government.
Chairwoman Chowning thought it was a good idea to create the fund, but asked from whom the gifts and bequests would come. “Actually,” Senator O’Donnell said, “we had hoped to put a lot of state dollars in here and we hoped to get an aviation fuel tax … but there’s not an appetite to do that.” However, there were organizations that might have an interest. Nevada was the only state in the country without such a fund.
Assemblyman Carpenter said S.B. 26 spoke to an appropriation so a local government or the state could deposit money. Senator O’Donnell agreed.
Assemblyman Lee asked why the other entities opted out. Senator O’Donnell stated those entities had what was proposed in S.B. 26 so there was no need to include them.
Steve Tackes, representing the Carson City Airport Authority, responded to Mr. Lee’s other question: The Nevada Aviation Technical Advisory Committee had been in existence for some time to jointly resolve problems and issues. It was comprised of representatives from all the rural airports. Mr. Tackes strongly supported S.B. 26. Carson City was one airport that put up $6.75 and the federal government gave them $93.25 for airport improvement projects. S.B. 26 was a good step toward establishing aviation trust funds. One of the provisions was that airport authorities could contribute part of their jet tax to the fund.
Jim Braswell, Airport Manager, Minden-Tahoe Airport, and President of the Nevada Airport Managers Association, spoke in support of S.B. 26. The federal matching funds were very helpful to small airports. Douglas County, over four years, received $5 million. Mr. Braswell claimed that other states were successful with this program, which provided the airports a stronger voice and the ability to plan for future needs. Most states were responsible for their general aviation airports.
Chairwoman Chowning closed the hearing on S.B. 26.
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 26.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE SECONDED.
THE MOTION CARRIED BY THOSE PRESENT.
Senate Bill 257: Provides for issuance of special license plates recognizing current or former service as volunteer fire fighter and revises provisions relating to special license plates indicating employment as current or former professional full-time salaried fire fighter. (BDR 43-505)
Senator Valerie Wiener, representing Senate District 3, spoke in favor of S.B. 257, which amended existing law that provided for license plates for professional firefighters. The bill, as introduced, provided definitions for current and former employment as professional fire fighters and increased the fee for the initial issuance and renewal of the plate, with the additional revenue contributed to the burn units of the Nevada hospitals that were designated Level I Trauma Centers. This could raise about $60,000 annually.
Since its introduction, Senator Wiener explained, S.B. 257 was amended to:
· allow for the development and issuance of a plate for volunteer fire fighters;
· establish the qualification standards, application procedures, and fees for the plate;
· establish a fund to provide money to assist in the training of volunteer fire fighters;
· define a “combination fire department;”
· replace the word professional with “full time salaried.”
After many hours of meetings and work with the professional fire fighters and the volunteer fire fighters, and after two hearings in the Senate Committee on Transportation, Senator Wiener stated it was a consensus bill that went to the Senate work session. She hoped this Assembly Committee could resolve the concerns of the organizations that were impacted by S.B. 257.
Assemblyman Oceguera, as a member of the Professional Fire Fighters of Nevada and a former member of the Nevada State Fire Fighters, recused himself from discussion and a vote on this bill.
Chairwoman Chowning asked about the deletion of “professional” in several portions of the amended bill. Senator Wiener replied, the bill that went to the work session, which was a consensus bill, did not have that change. The change came in writing at the work session. But, the current license plates had the initials PF on them, Ms. Chowning declared, and there had to be a connection between the statute and the license plate. “Full time salaried” might be a good addition because it clearly differentiated between the volunteer and the salaried fire fighters. She stated that the removal of “Professional,” a nationally recognized term, was problematic since the connection between the statute and the plate was lost.
Rusty McAllister, Vice President, Professional Fire Fighters of Nevada, stated that since the law was passed in 1997 and funded in 1999, it was recognized there were two areas to improve: the designation of where the collected fees went and policing who was able to obtain the plates from the Department of Motor Vehicles. Mr. McAllister relayed several instances in which plates were obtained by unqualified persons. After the first hearing in the Senate Transportation Committee, the S.B. 257 was amended to allow volunteer fire fighters to create their own plate and a fund for training purposes. Another organization asked to add an amendment after consensus agreement, but Mr. McAllister felt that would endanger the bill. Unfortunately, the bill presented here was not quite the bill agreed on by all parties. An amendment made during the work session removed all references to “professional” fire fighters. The Professional Fire Fighters of Nevada respectfully requested the committee to consider amending the first reprint of S.B. 257 to again include the word “professional” in each location where it was omitted and on page 5, line 32, so that all occurrences read “professional full-time salaried firefighter” (Exhibit C), as it appeared during consensus agreement. Mr. McAllister pointed out that the term professional served to define the eligibility of career fire fighters and maintained continuity with the PF that was the identifier mark on the license plate. It was not intended to demean in any way “the highly respected volunteer fire fighter.” Mr. McAllister expressed his appreciation to the committee for consideration of S.B. 257.
Chairwoman Chowning reconfirmed via Mr. McAllister that “professional fire fighter” was an industry recognized term for full time fire fighter. He affirmed that professional fire fighters were recognized as fighting fires as a career, for a means of income to make a living.
Pete Anderson, Deputy State Forester, Nevada Division of Forestry, testified on behalf of Steve Robinson, State Forester, and the employees of the Division of Forestry. He stated that S.B. 257 inadvertently omitted some career fire fighters within Nevada, and he proposed two amendments (Exhibit D). One added “or state or federal fire organization” on page 4, line 30. The second added the words “a Chief Officer of a state or federal fire organization” on page 4, lines 41-44.
Assemblyman Collins assumed that Mr. Anderson addressed the Nevada Division of Forestry fire fighters. Mr. Anderson affirmed it was not just the career wild land fire fighters at the division but also the fire fighters of the federal agencies. This included the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) career professional fire fighters who were residents of Nevada, assigned to BLM districts and Forest Service stations in Nevada, not resources from another state. Chairwoman Chowning verified that the federal employees were full-time salaried fire fighters. Assemblyman Carpenter asked if S.B. 257 included the rural volunteers. It did.
Assemblywoman Smith inquired whether the state and federal organizations had volunteers. Mr. Anderson replied the Division of Forestry and both federal agencies supported volunteers throughout the state. Ms. Smith then asked whether those volunteers would qualify for the professional fire fighters plate. No, he explained, this amendment only covered those career fire fighters who were not members of the Professional Fire Fighters Association or the Nevada Fire Chiefs Association. S.B. 257 was for two license plates. The volunteers’ plate was covered in a separate section.
Ronna Hubbard, representing the Nevada State Fire Fighters Association, approved of the volunteer and the professional full-time salaried definitions, but the volunteers felt that with decades of experience and all certifications identical to professional career fire fighters, working every day, all hours, they were professionals. She supported S.B. 257 and appreciated the committee’s support.
John Holmes, volunteer fire fighter since 1976, explained the “combination fire department” was included so that professional salaried fire fighters who were also members of volunteer fire departments could obtain the professional plates.
Dana Mathiesen, Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV&PS), had customer service issues with S.B. 257. She recommended that those who previously qualified under the original provisions of law, prior to the possible effective date of S.B. 257, be permitted to keep the plates. There were 2,015 fire fighters who received the plate and would need to return in person to recertify. The DMV&PS had no way of knowing how many were out-of-state fire fighters, how many were volunteer fire fighters and how many were Nevada professional fire fighters. Mr. McAllister stated the provision for the one-year renewal in person was to disqualify the people who were not entitled to the plate. The fire fighters did not feel inconvenienced by this recertification if it meant eliminating invalid plates.
Assemblyman Nolan asked how often the DMV&PS tabulated the receipts for these special plates and how often the money was distributed. Mr. McAllister replied the only Level I Trauma Center in Nevada was in Las Vegas. The money went to a special fund in the Treasurer’s Office and was distributed on a quarterly basis.
It seemed to Assemblywoman McClain that recertification could be done through the mail, since it was a matter of paying the fee and providing a letter of verification. Ms. Mathiesen agreed it could be done by mail through the submission of written documents, but not by the Internet. Ms. Chowning said notification of the changes needed to be sent to all the plate holders. Mr. McAllister interjected that he would work with the DMV&PS after session to train the employees to recognize the proper documents.
Chairwoman Chowning closed the hearing on S.B. 257.
Senate Bill 396: Makes various changes regarding traffic laws. (BDR 43-1219)
Senator McGinness, representing the Central Nevada Senatorial District, explained that Justice of the Peace Dan Ward of Fallon requested S.B. 396 following a number of deaths on the two-lane road between Fallon and Fernley. S.B. 396 required that a driver of a slow moving vehicle on a two-lane road, traveling at less than the posted speed, must turn out to allow vehicles to pass if five or more were following, provided there is a safe turn-out area. The bill also required vehicle headlamps to be on during daytime driving. Under S.B. 396, failure to use headlamps in the daytime moved from a four-point hazardous moving violation to a one-point equipment violation.
Assemblyman Collins observed there had been considerable repaving and restriping between Hawthorne and Schurz, and passing was prohibited for twenty miles. He asked if the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) would construct turnouts or possibly passing lanes. Senator McGinness replied that passing lanes were almost as expensive as new roads, but Section 7 of S.B. 396 required, when possible, NDOT would integrate passing lanes into any plans for upgrading highways.
Assemblyman Oceguera asked if there were adequate turnouts between Fallon and Fernley to actually help the situation. Senator McGinness did not know, but this would give the highway patrol an opportunity to warn or ticket a driver who blatantly ignored the drivers in line behind the slow-moving vehicle.
Gary Wolfe, representing the Nevada Highway Patrol Association, explained the justification for Section 6, which revised provisions that required a special permit for the movement or parking on highways of vehicles exceeding the maximum legal limits for size, weight and load, and authorized NDOT, or a local law enforcement agency, to allow a person to move such a vehicle to and from the site of an emergency without obtaining a special permit in advance. Mr. Wolfe understood this allowed large bulldozers and other heavy equipment to move out quickly to assist with forest or wildland fires, and have the permit issued the next working day.
Nile Carson, representing the Reno Police Department, pointed out Washoe County had extreme difficulty moving equipment to needed locations during the flood of 1997. By an agreement developed in cooperation with the sheriff, local contractors would respond with their equipment. This section of S.B. 396 enabled that quick response.
Senator Dina Titus, representing Senate District 7, used S.B. 396 to remedy a serious problem, especially in southern Nevada. S.B. 381 of the Seventieth Session prohibited the use of cameras to photograph cars that ran red lights. Since then, mounting evidence proved the use of cameras reduced fatalities and injuries, speeded the traffic flow and lowered insurance rates. She asked the committee to repeal the prohibition, allowing the local law enforcement agency to determine if the policy would be useful. The statistics were impressive:
Statistics also proved the use of cameras made a difference and greatly reduced the number of auto collisions that occurred. In a report issued by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, based on a study of Oxnard, California, the collision type most closely associated with red light running fell 32 percent after the introduction of red light cameras. The number of accidents involving injuries fell 68 percent. Cameras reduced red light running by about 40 percent in the more than 50 major cities that used them, including San Francisco, New York City, Tempe, Sacramento, San Diego, Baltimore, Toledo, Alexandria, VA and Boulder, CO. People in these cities favored the use of the cameras. Red light cameras lead to general changes in motorist behavior and reduced accidents overall, not just at the intersections where the cameras were placed. Accidents reduced at intersections without the cameras attested to their strong deterrent value.
There were three major arguments against the use of red light cameras, Senator Titus continued:
There were already cameras at some intersections in Nevada taking pictures of traffic for televised traffic reports. Cameras existed everywhere—banks, stores, casinos and public buildings—so this was no more “big brother” than anywhere else. Senator Titus encouraged the committee to review the information she had presented them (Exhibit E) and give consideration to repealing the state’s prohibition on red light cameras, permitting the use of the cameras as a local choice. The Senator believed everything possible should be done to diffuse the deadly mix of traffic congestion, red light running and road rage.
Assemblyman Collins mentioned all the cameras in use in southern Nevada and asked whether any of the film had ever been used in court for any accidents. Senator Titus did not believe it could be used due to the prohibition of S.B. 381 of the Seventieth Session.
Stan Olsen, representing the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, supported S.B. 396 because the use of cameras would save lives and reduce accidents. Furthermore, he claimed the cameras currently used in Las Vegas were not for court purposes or enforcement issues of any kind.
Nile Carson, representing the Reno Police Department, stated the entire traffic enforcement program was based on prevention of accidents. He supported S.B. 396 as a means of saving lives.
Chairwoman Chowning asked, if someone were cited as a result of the red light photograph, how would they receive the citation? The citation was mailed to the registered owner of the vehicle as a non-moving violation, like a parking ticket, because identification of the driver was difficult.
Gary Wolfe, representing the Nevada Highway Patrol Association, supported any thing to save lives, but felt the red light cameras were problematic. Most states that used these had decriminalized the violation to an infraction rather than a misdemeanor. If an officer witnessed the red light violation, it was a misdemeanor, but the camera citation was for an infraction.
Chairwoman Chowning closed the hearing on S.B. 396. The Chair named a subcommittee of Mr. Oceguera, Mrs. McClain, Mr. Nolan for S.B. 396. Mr. Oceguera would chair the subcommittee and call a meeting within three days.
Senate Bill 503: Revises provisions relating to service charge assessed by department of motor vehicles and public safety for dishonored payment of certain fees. (BDR 43-1312)
Dennis Colling, Chief of Administration for the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, stated that S.B. 503 changed the bad check fee from $10 to $25, to bring the charges in line with other businesses. The DMV&PS received, on the initial deposit, approximately 10,000 bad checks, but on redeposit about 50 percent was recovered. Of the remaining 5,000 checks, some 2,500 were recovered through the bad check effort.
ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 503.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE SECONDED.
THE MOTION CARRIED BY THOSE PRESENT.
ASSEMBLYMEN CLABORN AND CARPENTER AND
ASSEMBLYWOMAN SMITH WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.
Senate Bill 303: Makes various changes relating to insurance for motor vehicles. (BDR 43-109)
Bob Feldman, representing Nevada General Insurance Company and Auto Insurance of America, stated that S.B. 303 was requested on his behalf. The original intent was to correct three problems at the DMV&PS, but the bill was amended in the Senate and, in his opinion, the amendment created more problems. Mr. Feldman presented the original bill.
Prior to 1987, Nevada had a Non-Owners Policy, which covered the driver of a non-owned vehicle. However, many reinstated drivers purchased vehicles and had accidents before their policies changed to owners policies and the insurance companies denied the claims. The Named Operator Policy eliminated the practice because it covered the person named to drive any vehicle, owned or not owned. The Named Operator Policy was also accepted at DMV&PS as proof to register cars on a fleet basis. As revealed in testimony on A.B. 453 of the Seventieth Session, lower income people used this type of policy to cover their multiple older vehicles without having separate policy premiums. However, if a vehicle registration was in more than one name, any one of those named could present a Named Operator Policy and register the vehicle, then the other registrants could not drive the vehicle, nor did the insurance policy cover an owner. Numerous insurance problems had been tracked to this.
The original proposal for S.B. 303 was that the Named Operator Policy would only be acceptable at DMV&PS when the registration matched the named operator. The Senate amendment permitted only the owners of three or more vehicles to have an operator’s policy. Mr. Feldman stated this made no sense; non-owners were insured to reacquire their licenses. With respect to the non-owner’s policy, the Nevada Revised Statutes only allowed two policies for the purpose of financial responsibility: the owner’s policy and the operator’s policy. A non-owners insurance policy did not comply with the law because it did not provide that the driver be covered to drive any motor vehicle. If the person owned a vehicle, the policy did not cover him. If he drove a vehicle owned by a resident member of his household, he was not covered. To amend the law to provide for a non-owner’s policy, as the Senate did, a third section must be added to current law that said the person could have an owner’s policy, an operator’s policy or a non-owner’s policy. Furthermore, to require three vehicles was probably not enforceable. There was no way for the insurance company to know from day to day how few or many vehicles the insured party owned.
The second part of S.B. 303 permitted an insurance investigator, on behalf of the policyholder, to obtain the policy number and the name of the insurer in order to contact that insurance company following a claim. Current law required a signed power of attorney to obtain insurance information from the DMV&PS, which required up to six weeks to accomplish.
The third item dealt with a problem that Mr. Feldman thought was corrected by A.B. 36 of the Sixty-Ninth Session. In 1997, the DMV&PS attempted to determine policyholders by matching names on registrations to names on insurance policies. Due to numerous errors, the state refunded $350,000 to people who were improperly fined. On orders from the Governor’s office, name matching was replaced with vehicle identification numbers (VIN) matches, which reduced the consumer problems by 90 percent. S.B. 303 put this procedure into the statutes.
Mr. Feldman did not support an amendment to S.B. 303 that allowed the DMV&PS, without limitation, to match names.
Assemblyman Gustavson stated he owned four vehicles, each with an owner’s policy, which allowed him to drive someone else’s vehicle or someone else to drive his vehicle. If he had an operator’s policy, why would someone else not be covered to drive his vehicle? Mr. Feldman replied he paid insurance premiums for that privilege. With a Named Operator Policy, only one premium would be paid because the insurance was on the driver, not on the vehicles. Someone else could drive those vehicles provided they had insurance that covered them when driving a non-owned vehicle. If not, and in the event of an accident, it would be uninsured. Mr. Feldman emphasized a policy that covered people to drive only non-owned vehicles did not comply with Chapter 485, and should not be allowed. DMV&PS should not accept it, and the insurance department should not allow it because it was not the proper coverage to comply with statute.
Chairwoman Chowning, asked how the small percentage of people with suspended licenses would be helped because the original purpose of A.B. 36 of the Sixty-Ninth Session was not for one person to drive one vehicle, but for one person with several vehicles to be the only driver of those vehicles. She was concerned about drivers of the vehicle who were not covered by the policy. Mr. Feldman affirmed there were a few complaints regarding the uninsured drivers, but during the 15 years there were few problems. There would always be uninsured accidents. The approach taken during the 1999 Session to eliminate the operator’s policy as proof of insurance for registration, Mr. Feldman opined, was probably the best route. To require the ownership of three vehicles in order to qualify for the policy was not correct.
Cliff King, Supervisor, Division of Insurance, testified that anyone with a driver’s license had access to the Assigned Risk Program. He also stated the division had received complaints about these policies to the extent that they adopted a new regulation “requiring that every policy and every identification card have stamped on it bold in red in English or Spanish…a warning that this is a limited policy, it covered the operator only.” In answer to Mr. Gustavson’s question, Mr. King referred to existing language in statute that prohibited “an operator’s policy from granting coverage to any permissive users.” Mr. King disagreed that the Named Operator’s Policy did not comply with Nevada law.
Chairwoman Chowning clarified through Mr. King that the non-owner policy was an avenue for the person who reapplied for a driver’s license after a suspension.
Dana Mathiesen, Supervisor, DMV&PS, spoke of a concern that those who were reinstating a suspension or a revocation had the option to submit an operator, an owner or a non-owner policy to obtain the license. She also mentioned that the department had no intention to return to the name match as a primary identification. It was used as a secondary verification.
Jim Werbeckes, representing Farmers Insurance, supported S.B. 303. The portion that dealt with the verification of insurance was an important issue that was a problem in the past. There was a concern with the operator’s policy. Farmers Insurance was one of the few companies that wrote this policy and had approximately 300 in effect. The Senate amendment was his; he did not believe an operator’s policy should be issued without multiple vehicles. The intent of the bill was to provide for the person with multiple vehicles or a car collection. This policy should not be issued for one person with one car because it was used as an avenue to exclude a driver. Under Nevada case law, a driver could be excluded but only to the minimal financial responsibilities of the state.
Chairwoman Chowning asked what Farmers Insurance did with the high-risk individuals. Mr. Werbeckes replied that Farmers offered the non-owners policy. Comparing the cost of a regular, liability only, policy and an operator’s policy, the latter was about 50 percent less.
Victoria Riley, representing the Nevada Trial Lawyers Association, concurred with Mr. Werbeckes’ remarks.
Chairwoman Chowning closed the hearing on S.B. 303 and opened the work session on S.B. 219.
Senate Bill 219: Revises manner in which department of transportation is required to dispose of certain property. (BDR 35-476)
Paul Mouritsen, Committee Policy Analyst, introduced S.B. 219, which revised the manner in which the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) disposed of certain real property no longer required for highway purposes and revised provisions regarding public notice appraisal and direct sale procedures. There were two amendments, the first of which dealt with publication of a notice and the second dealt with the determination of fair market value.
Bill Gregory, representing Schwartz Investment Partnership, was willing to withdraw the first amendment from S.B. 219. In conversations with Michael Hillerby of the Governor’s Office, Mr. Gregory was asked to hold S.B. 219 until later in the week in order to work with NDOT to determine a solution to the second amendment.
Chairwoman Chowning agreed to the delay. Assemblyman Carpenter asked about the amendment regarding the resale of the property at fair market value. Mr. Mouritsen replied that the amendment revised provisions that required public notice, appraisal and direct sale procedures, which were in current law. The revision affected the situation under which they applied. Chairwoman Chowning clarified that if a portion of the property was not used then the person from whom the property was purchased had the first right of refusal, so the public notice, etc., was not applicable. Assemblyman Claborn felt this was “only right” and “you could carve that in stone.”
Brian Hutchins, Chief Deputy, Attorney General’s Office, pointed out that the amendment had a different effect than what Mr. Claborn mentioned. The proposed amendment expanded the rights to a broader category than just the people who had previously owned property purchased by NDOT. It affected other sales the department could engage in, such as when the property was not accessible by means other than by an owner next to the property. Mr. Gregory stated that was not their intent and they would be willing to narrow the amendment.
Chairwoman Chowning adjourned the meeting at 4:12 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Linda Lee Nary
Transcribing Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman
DATE: