ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Transportation

Seventy-First Session

May 15, 2001

The Committee on Transportationwas called to order at 1:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 15, 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

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Paul Mouritsen, Committee Policy Analyst

Geri Mosey, Recording Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Ben Graham, Nevada District Attorney’s Association (NDAA)

Gemma Waldron, Washoe County Deputy District Attorney, Nevada District Attorneys Association

John J. Kadlic, Attorney at Law

Laurel Stadler, Lyon County Chapter Director, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD),

Col. Michael Hood, Chief, Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP)

Ronald Fong, Nevada Credit Union League (NCUL)

Dennis Flannigan, Great Basin Federal Credit Union (GBFCU)

Carol Falk, Vehicle Program Manager, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS)

James Parsons, Administrator, Management Services & Programming, DMV&PS

Mrs. Chowning opened the hearing on S.B. 288 and called those who wished to testify to come forward.

Senate Bill 288: Makes various changes to provisions concerning reckless driving so that those provisions apply to person who drives on premises to which public has access. (BDR 43-468)

Gemma Waldron, Washoe County Deputy District Attorney, representing the Nevada District Attorney’s Association, testified in support of S.B. 288. She introduced John J. Kadlic, Attorney at Law, former Reno Justice of the Peace and former Pershing County Deputy District Attorney.

Mr. Kadlic testified in support of S.B. 288. He cited the genesis of S.B. 288 by describing an instance that illustrated the “loophole” in the law. An accident had occurred on a mining four-lane road where a person driving on the wrong side of the road hit an oncoming vehicle, killing the driver of the other vehicle. Because the road had been constructed by the mining company and never dedicated to a public authority or subdivision no charges could be brought against the driver who had caused the accident. Mr. Kadlic said that S.B. 288 would add language to the statute that would include roads public or private to which the public had access.

Ben Graham, representing Nevada District Attorney’s Association, testified in support of S.B. 288. He said the intent behind this bill was to close a loophole regarding reckless driving and leaving the scene of an accident (Exhibit C).

Ms. McClain asked what the impact would be on private property. Mr. Graham responded that in ordinary circumstances the impact would be negligible. He said unless it was wanton disregard and reckless, law enforcement would not be called.

Mrs. Chowning asked if law enforcement could be involved in those incidents on private property. Mr. Graham replied that unless it was a reckless driving situation the police would not be involved.

Mr. Collins asked if the person involved in the accident had been driving his own vehicle or the company vehicle. Mr. Kadlic responded that he had been driving the company water truck, which was a Peterbilt tractor-trailer. Mr. Collins asked where the boundary was when referencing the wrong or right side of the road. Mr. Kadlic stated that while driving on the mining property, driving on the left side of the road was proper procedure. However, when the person left the mine-site road and was on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land on the road constructed by the mine he would have been on the wrong side of the road. Ergo, since the road had never been dedicated to any authority or subdivision, no charges could have been brought against the driver of the truck. S.B. 288 would close that loophole.

Mr. Gustavson said he had concerns about S.B. 288 because traffic laws applied to public highways, not private property or private property that the public had access to. He said that he felt S.B. 288 would infringe on the rights of property owners. Mr. Graham replied if a person was driving with wanton disregard to public safety or property safety it should be illegal. He felt they should be able to prevent danger to the public and to public right of way.

Mr. Gustavson asked if S.B. 288 would include common interest communities because of the public access to those roads. Mr. Graham replied that was true. Mr. Gustavson stated there should be some sort of law to cover that, other than the one discussed. He suggested it might fall under destruction of property.

Mr. Oceguera said he agreed with Mr. Gustavson on S.B. 288. He was concerned about using a vehicle for recreation on public lands. He agreed if the person was operating the vehicle in wanton disregard to public safety then that person should be held accountable. Mr. Graham said that Colonel Hood from the Nevada Highway Patrol would address that particular issue.

Mrs. Chowning stated she had asked Principal Research Analyst, Paul Mouritsen to look up the definition of motor vehicle. She thought it might be appropriate to change it to “motor vehicle instead of “vehicle.”

Mr. Collins asked Mr. Graham if he recalled an incident involving a Nevada Ready Mix truck and death to persons years back, which happened on a private road.

Mr. Graham replied he vaguely remembered the incident, but did not remember the specific facts. Mr. Collins asked if there were charges brought against the operator of the truck. Mr. Graham replied in the negative. Mr. Collins stated the question surrounding the incident was whether or not the driver of the truck, who caused the accident, was on the payroll. Mr. Graham replied he may have “clocked out” and been on his way home. Mr. Collins said that is what questions company liability as to personal liability.

Mr. Graham stated the issue of civil liability varied depending upon whether he conducted a proprietary interest of the employer or if he used the vehicle for his own personal use. He suggested to the committee that S.B. 288 had been brought forward for fact-specific situations. He said situations that had come forward over the years concerning reckless driving in parking lots, private roads, etc.

Mrs. Chowning stated the definition for motor vehicle included self-propelled vehicles, so it did not define it further. Vehicle defined, meant every device that was transported or drawn upon a highway, except devices moved by human power. She said this included cars, recreational vehicles, and motor homes. It excluded bicycles and horse drawn carriages.

Mrs. Chowning asked about the felony in the Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 193.130 Category B felonies, which showed the minimum term of incarceration as 1 year with a maximum of 20 years. She questioned why they would make a change to say that reckless driving was worse than other Category B felonies.

Mr. Graham replied he thought the change would be brought into an area where there was death or substantial bodily harm. Mrs. Chowning asked who had asked for that change. Mr. Graham said he was not certain. He said the issue of the penalty was not as significant to the Nevada District Attorney Association (NDAA) as the ability to cite those offenders.

Mrs. Chowning noted that upon speaking with Principal Research Analyst, Mr. Mouritsen, he told her it did not appear that any other crimes of a Category B felony had been requested this session to raise the minimum term to two years. She felt this would set a precedent in that the crime was more egregious than other crimes classified as Category B Felonies. She went on to say that it was valid, because it involved death or substantial harm.

Gemma Waldron, of the NDAA, pointed out that DUI causing death or substantial bodily harm carried a sentence of 2 years to 20 years as well. She pointed out whether or not a person was driving under the influence or not, it should carry the same penalty. She informed the committee that in the Seventieth Session, another Category B felony was raised to-wit, aggravated stalking, from 1 to 6 and 2 to 14 years incarceration. She said this bill was in keeping with the law.

Laurel Stadler, Chapter Director, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), testified in support of S.B. 288. She said her organization particularly supported the increase of the Class B felony to 2 years to 15 years as it applied to willful and wanton disregard to life, public safety and property damage.

Colonel Michael Hood, Chief, Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP), testified in support of S.B. 288. He said it was a good tool the NHP could utilize for accidents and it would enable the NHP to enforce traffic laws.

Mrs. Chowning asked Colonel Hood if he also supported the raised penalty. Colonel Hood said he would support anything that would deter repeat offenders.

MS. MCCLAIN MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 288.

MR. LEE SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Carpenter stated that he could not support the increase in penalties. He said the judge had the authority to hand down a higher penalty if he deemed it appropriate.

Mr. Gustavson said he could not support Section 1, subsection 1, of the bill.

Mr. Oceguera said he could not support Section 1, subsection 1.

Mrs. Smith asked for clarification, she asked if S.B. 288 addressed only bodily harm and willful, wanton disregard for life, public safety and public property. Mrs. Chowning responded the answer was in line 13, “with the act or negligent duty proximately causes the death of or substantial bodily harm to a person other than himself.” She implied the sentence was stronger than one imagined. It must include a substantial injury or death.

Ms. Chowning indicated that since there were committee members missing, they would bring the bill back to a work session. She asked that the previous motion made, be withdrawn.

MS. MCCLAIN WITHDREW HER MOTION TO DO PASS S.B. 288.

MR. LEE WITHDREW HIS SECOND.

Mr. Graham clarified for the committee that reckless driving was a misdemeanor, 6 months in jail and bail of $1,000 unless it caused substantial bodily harm or death, and then it was a felony.

Mr. Collins asked if there was a gross misdemeanor reckless driving situation.

Mr. Graham replied it was either a misdemeanor or felony, if it ended with substantial bodily harm or death.

Mrs. Chowning asked the committee to look at line 12 and line 5 of the bill. She said those tied the two together because of the words “willful” or “wanton disregard.”

Mr. Claborn asked a hypothetical question regarding if two teens were racing vehicles, and one was injured in an accident, who would be held liable? He felt the penalty was considered too stringent to the driver who was not hurt.

Mrs. Chowning replied it was her interpretation that line 6 of the bill applied to those who were in an unauthorized speed contest, and the person who other than himself caused the substantial harm would be held responsible.

Mr. Claborn pointed out to raise the penalty from 2 years to 16 years, would be an extreme penalty and could not support it.

Mr. Graham interjected they were not “hung up” on the penalty phase. He felt they needed authority in extreme situations. The penalty phase was secondary.

Mr. Collins interjected he had acquired a list of the A through E felonies, and it showed a minimum term to a maximum term. Specifically, he said the term limits were in place, but sentences were not necessarily carried out to the extreme.

Mrs. Chowning closed the hearing on S.B. 288, and opened the hearing on S.B. 524.

Senate Bill 524: Authorizes electronic submission and storage of documents relating to vehicle registration. (BDR 43-1222)

Ronald Fong, representing the Nevada Credit Union League (NCUL), testified in support of S.B. 524. He stated the bill enabled the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS) to accept electronically transmitted documents, such as registration and licensing forms as fully legal and binding original documents. Mr. Fong said S.B. 524 also enabled the DMV&PS to accept donations of money, labor and materials that helped implement a program for the electronic transmission of documents. He said the bill was authored by the Senate Transportation Committee and sponsored by the NCUL (Exhibit D).

Dennis Flannigan, Great Basin Federal Credit Union, testified in support of S.B. 524. He testified the bill provided an electronic means for the DMV&PS to exchange title and lien information with lien holders and enabled the registration of vehicles by dealers and financial institutions. Upon certification by DMV&PS dealers and financial institutions, data was transmitted daily to a third party to match selected date. The system was used to provide on-the-spot registration and removed the need to appear personally at the DMV&PS. It also improved efficiency to the process. The process provided three primary benefits:

· Data accuracy;

· Speed of process;

· Number of Department of Motor Vehicle contact point changes from a few statewide offices to hundreds of dealers and financial institution branches.

Mrs. Chowning asked that a representative from DMV&PS come to the table to testify. She noted there were questions regarding the logistics and how the process would be implemented. She stated that legislation had been previously put in place to allow this process to occur.

Mr. Gustavson asked if the staffing for this program was spread out among financial institutions.

Mr. Flannigan replied that it would not be the DMV&PS staff, but training of employees of the financial institutions would be done by the DMV&PS. As the program developed, DMV&PS would no longer needed to staff those offices.

Mrs. Chowning asked what type of charge mechanism would be used and did they see a charge for those services.

Mr. Flannigan replied the intent was not for them to incur fees for income. They were solely there for efficiency purposes.

Carol Falk, Vehicle Program Manager, DMV&PS, testified in support of S.B. 524. Mrs. Chowning asked Ms. Falk if she could clarify portions of S.B. 524. Ms. Falk stated her department had communication with several vendors that offered the type of transaction service as outlined by Mr. Fong. She went on to say an electronic title is not printed but electronically filed. Currently there are seven states electronically filing liens and titles. Of those seven states, six required the hard copy documents to be submitted, as was presently done. The department received the documents from the financial institutions and dealerships and transmitted them electronically. The lending institution had access to that file for their liens. She said when a lien had been satisfied, the financial institution notified the department electronically which, without any human intervention, created the title based on the electronic transfer of information. Ms. Falk stated a hard copy of the title would be created and mailed to the vehicle owner.

Mrs. Chowning asked if the physical hard copy of the documents would come from the financial institution or the Department of Motor Vehicles. Ms. Falk replied they were printed out by the DMV&PS and mailed directly to the consumer.

Mrs. Chowning asked what sort of assurance would the customer receive that their vehicle had been registered or that their lien documented. Ms. Falk replied they would have access to the files at the DMV&PS.

Ms. Ohrenschall emphasized the point of the bill being vague. She asked if it would be an exclusive option or could the customer retain the option to deal person-to-person with the DMV&PS. Ms. Falk replied the customer could still opt to deal directly with the DMV&PS.

Mrs. Chowning asked about license plates and how they would be distributed. Ms. Falk replied the DMV&PS was researching that area. There was concern about security issues on the license plate decals and registration certificates. Vendors in other states are issued plates, in order, and if there was a discrepancy in the numbers being issued, they discontinued the program with that vendor until missing items were found.

Mrs. Chowning inquired if there were any Nevada auto dealers opting to participate in the program. Ms. Falk replied there were no participating auto dealers at the present time because the DMV&PS did not have the ability to interface with dealerships. There were three dealerships willing to participate in a pilot program.

Mrs. Chowning asked if a fee for service had been considered. Ms. Falk responded it had not been addressed in the regulation at this time. Mrs. Chowning then inquired what the cost would be to mail the license plates. Ms. Falk replied that cost would be $2.75.

Ms. Ohrenschall asked Ms. Falk to recap the protection of privacy clause. Ms. Falk replied there were vendors who offered a software package wherein the financial institution or dealership would process a transaction, enter the system and then the vendor accessed the DMV system which came back with the proper fees due. The financial institution or dealership never had direct access to the department’s database.

Ms. McClain asked if the plate itself would be available at a dealership or financial institution. Ms. Falk replied it was a possibility. No final decision had been made. Security was a concern. An option was to have the license, decals, and registration certificates at the financial institutions and dealerships. Another was having driving permits issued and mailed from the DMV&PS. Ms. McClain agreed the permit process was a good idea.

Ms. McClain asked Mr. Flannigan if credit unions wanted to deal with license plates. Mr. Flannigan responded that financial institutions had experience taking care of things of value; i.e., money, bonds, etc. He said when one dealt with approximately 150 car loans per month, distributing the license plates would not be a problem. Presently when dealing with a title, they did three times. Once, when the loan was made; second, when it was sent to DMV; and third, when it was returned. He remarked the process took several weeks to complete. The new way shortened the time to a couple of days.

Ms. McClain commented the plan was a good one, but had reservations regarding the issuance of the plates.

Ms. Chowning said caution in placing the license plates into the dealerships needed to be in place.

Mr. Lee asked if the banking chairman for the state knew about this and did they get approval. Mr. Fong replied the banking commissioner did know about the bill, but had not taken an official position on it. However, the Governor’s Office was in support of the bill.

Mr. Collins stated S.B. 524 was a simple and progressive bill.

Mr. Gustavson asked if there were dealers who sold enough cars to be eligible for the program. Ms. Falk answered there were dealerships that sold in excess of 100 cars per week, but that was an option given to the customer, so cars sold would not matter.

Mrs. Chowning closed the hearing on S.B. 524, and opened the work session on S.B. 119.

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)

Mr. Oceguera, Chairman of the subcommittee on S.B. 119, gave his report to the full committee. The subcommittee had received information from the Legal Division stating that the amendments received were not germane to S.B. 119. The subcommittee had held hearings and recommended a do pass on the bill without the amendments. The amenders of the bill were searching for a new vehicle.

Mrs. Chowning asked if the subcommittee had addressed the amendment that the Transportation Services Authority had provided regarding the deletion of the bus portion of the amendment.

Mr. Oceguera replied in the affirmative. It was his understanding that none of the amendments would be dealt with in the bill, because they were not germane.

Mrs. Chowning called upon Mr. Paul Mouritsen, Principal Research Analyst, to explain S.B. 119.

Mr. Mouritsen stated the bill required the Taxicab Authority to adopt regulations and establish programs for transportation of elderly persons and handicapped persons in certain counties who enacted the ordinance. The program required the administrator of the Taxicab Authority to establish a telephone number for both the elderly and handicapped to register complaints regarding taxicab service. In addition, the bill required taxicab companies to provide information to those persons the estimated time of the arrival of the cab, and the telephone number to report complaints.

Mrs. Chowning asked Senator Shaffer if the Taxicab Authority opposed the measure that required them to establish a telephone number for complaints and did they oppose the registration of those plates.

Senator Shaffer replied the Taxicab Authority did not have a problem with the bill.

Mr. Lee declared the bill to be redundant. He felt the Taxicab Authority did not need to be involved in the issue. There were programs already in place that did the job. Enforcement of the issue was not included in the bill and he would move to indefinitely postpone S.B. 119. Mrs. Chowning asked Senator Shaffer to explain the bill further.

Senator Shaffer responded that there had been many remedies offered in the past. Many of the persons affected were senior citizens that had been left at senior centers and no cab would respond to their call for pickup. Due to the lucrative business on the strip, there was no way to discipline a driver if he chose another fare. He felt after numerous attempts at resolving this problem, this bill was a last resort.

Mr. Lee agreed with the concept, but felt there was no enforcement included and it would be putting a bill on the books that would do nothing to help the problem.

Senator Shaffer stated the Taxicab Authority dispatcher knew what cab was assigned to the person who made the phone call, and also the anticipated time for the cab to arrive. If the cab did not arrive in a reasonable period of time, the driver was subject to reprimand.

Mr. Lee followed up to say that he questioned the Taxicab Authority to know when something was dispatched because they went home at 5:00 p.m. The dispatcher of the taxicab company would be the only one to know. If a complaint was made, it would have to wait until the following morning. He asked if complaint was made, what was the sanction behind it. Senator Shaffer replied there was accountability on behalf of the dispatcher and driver.

Mrs. Chowning commented there was confusion regarding the term “dispatcher.” It was similar to the Consumer Affair’s Division, which was the regulating authority to various businesses, and a source for complaints. The division provided a phone number for complaints. She said it was appropriate for a customer to call the Taxicab Authority to register complaints. Until the point at hand, there had been no number available for the customer to use. She asked if the Taxicab Authority would fine the cab company and driver. Senator Shaffer replied in the affirmative.

Ms. Ohrenschall noted that in addition to the strict accountability, some amount of moral suasion should be involved.

Ms. McClain said S.B. 119 would raise awareness of the existing problems concerning public transportation.

Mr. Gustavson stated his concern was there were no fines or penalties included in the bill. He wanted to see some type of enforcement clause included.

Mr. Mouritsen stated he reviewed the statute regulating taxicabs, which stated “that driver shall not refuse or neglect a transport or elderly person….” He stated there was nothing in the statute regarding a time element. Violations included a warning notice and $100 fine for first offense; the second offense included a one to three day suspension and a fine of $200 or both; and third offense, four to six day suspension, and a fine of $300 or both; fourth offense, ten day suspension or $500 fine or both. Fifth and subsequent offenses entailed the revocation of the driver’s permit and fines up to $500.

Ms. Ohrenschall, said it took numerous calls to the cab company in order for one to arrive.

Mr. Lee asked if this was a redundancy. Mrs. Chowning replied it was not redundant. Presently there was no telephone number in place for customers to call to lodge complaints or comments. The bill established a phone number. It allowed the Taxicab Authority to adopt regulations and establish a program for the transportation of the elderly and handicapped. S.B. 119 did not apply to tourists or regular customers.

Mr. Lee commented his vote would not change, but recognized the efforts put forth by Senator Shaffer.

MS. OHRENSCHALL MOVED DO PASS S.B. 119.

MR. COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED WITH MR. LEE VOTING NO.

Mrs. Chowning opened the discussion on S.B. 523.

Senate Bill 523: Makes various changes relating to licensing and registration of motor vehicles, drivers and instructors. (BDR 43-511)

Mrs. Chowning stated the bill had already been passed out of committee but had been placed on the Chief Clerk’s desk. There were issues to be discussed. The Carson City Assessor had mentioned confusion would occur regarding the conflict with S.B. 59, relating to the name change from vehicle privilege tax to governmental service tax.

Jim Parsons, Administrator, Management Services and Programming, DMV&PS asked if she was referring to the two-year registration and exemption. Mrs. Chowning replied in the affirmative. He believed that bill was S.B. 520, not S.B. 523.

Mrs. Chowning asked Mr. Mouritsen for clarification regarding the conflict of S.B. 523 and S.B. 59.

Senate Bill 59: Changes designation of privilege taxes on motor vehicles to governmental services taxes. (BDR 32-39)

Mr. Mouritsen asked the committee to recall that S.B. 59 provided that the privilege tax name be changed to the governmental services tax, which went into effect July 1, 2001. The problem with the two bills was there were two different effective dates. In section 4, of S.B. 523, it still referred to the privilege tax, and it amended 482.400. The reason for that was because the bill went into effect upon passage and approval, and the drafter anticipated that might happen before July 1, 2001. The name “privilege tax” remained the same until July 1, 2001, when Section 70 of S.B. 59 would take effect and amend the same section, changing the name to “governmental services tax.”

Mrs. Chowning asked Mr. Mouritsen to check with bill drafting, and explained the bill would be left on the Chief Clerk’s desk until clarification was made.

Mr. Gustavson advised the committee that page 18 of the bill showed the effective date being upon passage and approval, which mentioned the governmental services tax.

Mr. Mouritsen, replied it amended Section 70 of S.B. 59, which was the same section amended by Section 4, of NRS 482.40.

Mrs. Chowning opened discussion on S.B. 520.

Senate Bill 520: Authorizes optional registration of vehicles for 2-year period and makes various changes in provisions governing imposition and procedure distribution of governmental services tax. (BDR 43-171)

Mr. Parsons, Administrator, Management Services and Programming, DMV&PS spoke to S.B. 520. He testified the Carson City assessor came to the DMV&PS with the problems of exemptions on a two-year renewal. It would not be a burden to the DMV&PS and the only fiscal impact of S.B. 520 was programming changes.

Mrs. Chowning explained the bill had been re-referred to the Committee on Ways and Means due to the fiscal note. She asked Mr. Parsons if S.B. 523 included a fiscal note.

Mr. Parsons replied it was his understanding that S.B. 523 had no fiscal impact.

Mr. Collins question went back to S.B. 520. He asked if a decal was going to be issued for 24 months instead of 12, and if so, how did they handle the color problem.

Mr. Parsons replied when the vehicle was renewed for 2 years, they received a one-year decal, and at the end of that year, if the vehicle was smogged, it automatically generated a data mailer and a second decal was sent without any human intervention.

Mrs. Chowning asked if there was any further business to come before the committee. There being none, the meeting adjourned at 3:26 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Kelly Minton

Transcribing Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman

DATE: