ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Transportation

Seventy-First Session

April 5, 2001

The Committee on Transportationwas called to order at 1:51 p.m. on Thursday, April 5, 2001. Chairwoman Vonne Chowning presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A was the Agenda. Exhibit B was 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

Mrs. 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:

Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Assembly District 35

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Paul Mouritsen, Committee Policy Analyst

Jeri Mosey, Recording Committee Secretary

Glenda Jacques, Transcribing Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Randall Walker, Director, Airports Clark County

David Larson, Member, Sierra Nevada Chapter, American Truck Historical Society

Bruce Manning, Prison Industries Supervisor, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS)

Ronald Kruse, Vice Chairman, Nevada Veterans Services Commission

Dennis Baughman, Hearings/Special Projects Officer, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT)

Adam Cegavske, Intern, Assemblyman Dennis Nolan

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

Richard (Dick) Efthimiou, Director, Selective Service System, District 3

Lt. Col. Lyle Wilkes, Selective Service System, District 3

Donna West, Administrator, Field Services, DMV&PS

Robert Ostrovsky, Lobbyist, 3-M Corporation

Fredrick Droes, Chief Safety Traffic Engineer, NDOT

F. Alex Ortiz, Lobbyist, Clark County

Kimberly J. McDonald, Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas

James Parsons, Administrator, Management Services and Programs Division, DMV&PS

Rhonda Bavaro, Business Program Manager, DMV&PS

Chairwoman Chowning called the meeting to order at 1:51 p.m., and opened the hearing on A.B. 647.

Assembly Bill 647: Authorizes municipality to sell, lease or exchange public land under certain circumstances. (BDR 44-177)

Randall Walker, Director, Clark County Airports, explained A.B. 647 changed NRS 496 and the disposal of airport land. The Southern Nevada Public Land Act transferred 5,000 acres of BLM federal land to Clark County for airport compatibility purposes. Exhibit C outlined the cooperative management area and represented old noise corridors established in 1990.

A.B. 647 allowed Clark County to negotiate directly with private parties to sell or exchange airport land. Their master plan prohibited the development of residential neighborhoods underneath the airports flight plans and avoided a “hodge-podge” development of industrial parcels. Most large private developers favored the bill and realized it would be advantageous to Clark County’s master plan. Eighty-five percent of the money received from the transactions would be returned to the federal government. Five percent of the money went to the state to benefit schools and ten percent went to Clark County to cover administrative costs. All land transferred or sold would be noticed in a public meeting and the bill gave Clark County flexibility to manage the land.

Mr. Walker introduced an amendment to change “aviation easement” to “avigation easement” on page 2, line 16, subparagraph b. The language “…vibration, fumes, dust, fuel, particles and all other effects that maybe caused by aircraft…” should be added after the word “noise” on page 2, subparagraph c. The section prohibited the changing of the land to an incompatible nature after being disposed of by the airport. An additional amendment would allow the land to be subdivided through legal description and to facilitate the disposal of the lands.

Chairwoman Chowning advised Mr. Walker the amendments would need to be provided in writing. She asked who the “winners” and “losers” would be if the bill passed.

Mr. Walker replied everyone would win. The airport benefited when property was developed, homeowners benefited by not living with airport noise, and land developers benefited by obtaining the land at a reasonable price. It was difficult for private developers to spend time, effort and energy on a project if they had no assurance the project would be completed. The bill assessed the land and removed the risk of land development. All transactions were done in an open-meeting forum and provided a certain amount of security to the developer.

Chairwoman Chowning asked if the bill avoided eminent domain procedures. Mr. Walker replied no eminent domain would be used. The transactions would be based on the “willing buyer/willing seller” premise.

Chairwoman Chowning asked who conducted the appraisals. Mr. Walker replied seven certified appraisers on the board were selected on a rotating basis. The appraiser would praise the private property and the airport property for consistency. All parties would agree the appraisal was fair.

Chairwoman Chowning asked if the appraisers were required to be Master Appraiser Institute (MAI) certified. Mr. Walker replied statute required all appraisers be board and MAI certified.

Mr. Nolan commented 95 percent of the property in question was located within his district. He asked if Section 3, subsection 1, “…the governing body of a municipality may enter into an agreement with a private person to sell, lease or exchange any real property it has received or acquired for the development of the airport...” included the property obtained through eminent domain.

Mr. Walker replied in the affirmative. Most property was acquired through “willing buyer” and “willing seller” negotiations. The airport had started to acquire and relocate the homes north of I-215 between Sunset and Industrial.

Mr. Nolan asked whether proper disclosure was provided to potential buyers about potential nuisances and hazards that existed because of the proximity to the airport.

Mr. Walker replied notification of restrictions was attached to any piece of property they sold and stayed with the property for future reference. Property sales between private owners seldom had disclosures and he hoped statutes would address that in the future.

Mr. Nolan questioned whether property acquired from the federal government had environmental impact studies done. Mr. Walker replied the sale of properties was on an “as is” basis and the buyer had the due diligence to investigate the property he was buying. The buyer was aware of the stipulation when they purchased the land.

Chairwoman Chowning disclosed she was a licensed real estate agent and the bill would not affect her. She felt the real estate disclosure law that asked if there were any factors that affected the value of the property addressed the disclosure of pertinent facts and protected people in real estate transactions.

Mrs. Chowning asked if the bill affected all county airports in Nevada. Mr. Walker replied any airport that operated under NRS 496 would be able to take advantage of the bill. Reno operated under a separate law because they were an authority created by legislation.

Mr. Claborn asked if the bill affected public lands only. Mr. Walker clarified the airport could obtain property for legitimate public purposes through eminent domain and the bill did not extend that power.

Ms. Ohrenschall disclosed she had represented private parties and land use before the county commission and local board. She did not feel the bill affected her in anyway.

Chairwoman Chowning closed the hearing on A.B. 647 and opened the hearing on A.B. 643.

Assembly Bill 643: Makes various changes to provisions governing issuance and use of special license plates. (BDR 43-1019)

David Larson, Member, Sierra Nevada Chapter, American Truck Historical Society supported A.B. 643. The American Truck Historical Society was formed in 1971 and had 22,000 members. Nevada had over 200 members that owned over 400 antique trucks. Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS) commercial weight fees made the displaying of antique trucks prohibitive. An antique truck plate would encourage preservation of the trucks and the important part of American history they played. The antique truck plate could replace the special fire truck plate created two years ago. The American Truck Historical Society’s 30^th Annual Convention & Truck Show was to be held in Reno on June 8 and 9 and was expected to bring over 1,000 members and 700 antique trucks to the area (Exhibit D). The truck show had a positive, financial impact to Reno. Mr. Larson submitted a copy of the magazine American Truck Historical Society – Wheels of Time (Exhibit E) with accompanying antique truck photographs (Exhibit F) to the committee.

Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga supported A.B. 643 and felt it was worthy of the committee’s consideration because antique truck history needed to be preserved.

Chairwoman Chowning asked if there would be a problem meeting the 250‑minimum requirement for the plate. Mr. Larson replied no. Mrs. Chowning clarified DMV&PS would not produce the plates if there were not sufficient applications.

Bruce Manning, Prison Industries Supervisor, DMV&PS, said the Prison Industries used a dye to stamp out the plate that was similar to the firefighter plate. There would be no monetary impact because the applicants paid for the plates.

Mr. Larson asked when the applications needed to be submitted to DMV&PS. Mr. Manning replied applications needed to be submitted prior to the design and manufacturing of the plates.

Chairwoman Chowning asked if the plate had a fee that would be donated to a special organization. Mr. Larson stated it did not.

Mr. Nolan asked whether individuals could send in more than one application. Mr. Manning explained the 250 letters of intent were for each vehicle wishing to be registered.

Chairwoman Chowning asked if DMV&PS would lose revenue if the license plate was approved. Mr. Larson replied antique trucks did not pay weight fees because they were primarily exhibited in parades or antique truck shows and did not transport products. A.B. 643 allowed the trucks to be registered for an annual fee of $15 with a $5 renewal fee.

Mr. Manning informed the committee the bill would not impact DMV&PS because most antique trucks were not registered.

Chairwoman Chowning thanked Mr. Larson for coming to the committee and commended him on the trucks he had restored. Mr. Larson explained many of the vehicles in Exhibit F had been restored by him.

Mr. Manning stated the department had received 250 letters of intent for the antique fire truck license plate and had issued 43 of them. He felt the antique fire truck license plates could be incorporated into A.B. 643.

Chairwoman Chowning asked the committee to examine the second part of the bill on page 4 and explained the gentlemen that had requested that portion was very ill and unable to attend the hearing.

Ronald Kruse, Vice Chairman, Nevada Veterans Services Commission, supported A.B. 643 because it defined the Disabled Veteran (DAV) license plate as handicapped. Both plates had similar requirements and yet owners of the DAV plates had been cited when they parked in handicapped stalls. Handicap placards needed to be replaced every six months and DAV plates did not need to be renewed.

Paul Mouritsen, Committee Policy Analyst, explained NRS 482.377 provided for disabled veterans to obtain one set of disabled plates. The recipient had to have been a veteran of the United States Armed Forces and received compensation for the 100 percent service related disability.

Mr. Gustavson asked if a veteran could receive a regular disabled license plate. Mr. Mouritsen clarified the handicap plate had different requirements. The intent of the bill was to ensure DAV plates functioned as handicapped plates.

Mr. Gustavson asked if DAV plates were specific to ambulatory disabilities. Mr. Mouritsen replied a regular handicap plate was based upon ambulatory disability and a DAV was not.

Mr. Gustavson questioned the wisdom of using handicapped parking stalls for disabled veterans that might not have difficulty walking.

Mr. Kruse replied disabled veterans should be entitled to park in handicapped stalls. A veteran must be 100 percent disabled to obtain the DAV plate.

Chairwoman Chowning asked what constituted a 100 percent disabled veteran with DMV&PS.

Mr. Kruse stated Nevada had less than 2,000 people with 100 percent veteran disability and did not know how many of them drove.

Mr. Manning responded the handicapped requirements for Nevada stated any person that could not walk 100 feet was entitled to a handicap license plate. Disabled veterans did not include the 100-foot distance requirement.

Mrs. Chowning asked how many DAV plates had been issued. Mr. Manning replied 514 DAV plates had been issued and it was unknown how many of the recipients could not walk.

Assemblyman Lee asked if there was a DAV plate for motorcycles. Mr. Manning replied no.

Mr. Gustavson asked what the administrative policy was on how many placards could be issued to a handicapped person. Mr. Manning believed one handicap plate and placard were issued per person. The placard could be moved to various vehicles.

Mr. Kruse stated he had received one blue placard for his wife’s disability and used the placard when she was in the car because she was not ambulatory.

Chairwoman Chowning wanted to place Mr. Chet Swafford’s name in the record because he had requested the disabled veteran language in A.B. 643. She asked DMV&PS representatives to put the amended language in writing and get it to the committee. Mrs. Chowning closed the hearing on A.B. 643, and opened the hearing on A.B. 424.

Assembly Bill 424: Directs Department of Transportation to construct or cause to be constructed sound barriers alongside certain portion of U.S. Interstate No. 515 in Clark County. (BDR S-875)

Assemblywoman Kathy McClain, District No. 15, stated the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) had measured decibel levels and found them to exceed federal limits (Exhibit G). Clark County and Nevada had built a partial sound-wall along the freeway between Charleston and Russell Road, but a higher sound-wall was needed. She wanted to amend the bill to require a noise study and establish a sound-wall policy for the entire area. The area had been ignored and it needed to be addressed.

Chairwoman Chowning asked Ms. McClain to restate her amendments to the bill. Ms. McClain outlined her proposals:

A sound-wall would be built as soon as possible with an approximate cost of $800,000, contingent on receiving $400,000 from Clark County and $400,000 from the state.
NDOT would perform a study on sound patterns along the freeway between Charleston and Russell Road.
Clark County would establish a sound barrier policy and timeframes for completion of sound-walls.

Chairwoman Chowning felt the study should be uniform and include older portions of Las Vegas. Ms. McClain agreed and felt the city of Las Vegas and other areas north of town should be added to the bill.

Mr. Collins asked if sound-absorbing walls were needed on undeveloped land or would earthen mounds and alternative landscaping be acceptable. Ms. McClain replied the study would determine what sort of sound barrier was appropriate. Commercial areas might not want sound-walls because their signage might be covered.

Mr. Collins asked if the study was on residential areas only. Ms. McClain responded the study needed to be done on the entire area and then the appropriate decisions could be made.

Ms. Ohrenschall asked where the sound-wall was to be built. Ms. McClain explained the wall would go on the east side of the freeway from the Boulder Highway south exit to Desert Inn. The wall was already being built on the west side.

Mr. Gustavson asked how long the wall was and how much it cost.

Dennis Baughman, Hearing/Special Projects Officer, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), explained the general rule of thumb was $2 million for each mile. Most roadways in the area were raised with heavy winds and required 12-foot walls.

Ms. McClain explained the smaller sound-wall had to be replaced with a taller one because of the high winds.

Mr. Collins asked if wall installation cost less on new freeway construction or on old freeways.

Mr. Baughman clarified the “jersey barrier” extension was six feet tall and was not adequate. Installing a sound-wall with new construction was cheaper because there was no traffic to control. Freeway expansions used federal funds, but retrofitting could not.

Mr. Baughman said NDOT had a retrofit sound-wall program and they would work with Clark County to address problems. Local governments had matched funds for sound-walls three times. The sound policy had criteria related to cost, noise, and matching funds. Many areas in Las Vegas had been designated as noise problems, but had to match sound policy criteria to be fixed.

Chairwoman Chowning reminded the committee they had one week to act on the remaining bills in committee. She advised Ms. McClain to get the proposed amendments in writing to Mr. Baughman for review. She closed the hearing on A.B. 424 and opened the hearing A.B. 474.

Assembly Bill 474: Revises provisions concerning enforcement of registration of motor vehicle by new resident of this state. (BDR 43-1201)

Assemblyman Dennis Nolan, District No. 13, stated A.B. 474 was a “fair share pay bill.” The fast growth of Nevada had strained infrastructures and budgets. Vehicle registration fees were shared between DMV&PS operations and construction and maintenance of roads and highways. Hundreds of dollars of revenue was lost because vehicle owners did not register their cars. The bill recovered unpaid debts by providing incentives to register vehicles and establish a program to collect the funds.

Adam Cegavske, Intern, stated Nevada had one of the highest vehicle registration fees in the country. The average cost to register a vehicle yearly was $166.10 in Nevada and $15 in Oregon (Exhibit H). Nevada had 1.6 million registered cars and 600,000 new vehicle registrations in 2000. In 1996 87,421 citations were issued for expired or nonregistrations. The state lost $13.8 million annually in revenue from those registrations. A.B. 474 would reduce the number of unregistered and expired car registrations and pay for itself.

Mrs. Chowning asked what the bill’s appropriation was. Mr. Nolan answered the only appropriation would be the addition of the “800” number for DMV&PS to utilize.

Mrs. Chowning said Section 10 stated an appropriation of $150,000 was needed to purchase computer hardware and software. Mr. Nolan felt the appropriation could be deleted in the proposed amendments.

Mr. Nolan stated A.B. 474 established a Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP) “800” number where citizens could report expired or out-of-state vehicles. The bill established a $120 fine and a $25 daily fine for each day the vehicle was not registered. The penalty was waived if the vehicle was registered within ten days of receiving the initial citation. The proposed amendments (Exhibit I) clarified that employees would man the NHP “800” number.

Chairwoman Chowning asked how the bill differed from current procedure. Colonel Michael Hood, Chief, Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP), stated other NHP duties took priority over out-of-state vehicle registrations. The 24-hour hotline could log, track and maintain a database for future follow up.

Mrs. Cegavske asked if the 24-hour hotline would be statewide and similar in nature to the NHP “SMOG” program. Colonel Hood replied the hotline would be statewide and be manned where the bulk of the calls came from. Any calls would be relayed to local authorities for enforcement. Elko had a small program that successfully reduced vehicle nonregistration.

Mrs. Chowning asked if NHP agreed to the deletion of Section 10 and the $150,000 appropriation. Colonel Hood replied he would need to look at the variables, but felt the figure could be reduced substantially.

Mr. Lee asked if the NHP had a cadet program that could enforce A.B. 474. Colonel Hood responded they did not. It took several NHP officers to train and recruit cadets and they did not have the manpower to maintain the program.

Ms. McClain stated the notification of A.B. 246 could be combined with A.B. 474 and maybe Metro’s senior volunteers might help enforce the bill. Mr. Nolan responded vehicle registration was the duty of DMV&PS and any suggestions would be helpful.

Colonel Hood replied injured officers on “light duty” could perform the administrative duties of the bill. They wanted to help recover the $12 million of lost revenue.

Chairwoman Chowning asked Mr. Cegavske to research and find out what states refunded the unused portion of registration back to the vehicle owner. Residents might not object to registering their vehicles if they realized they were getting a refund back from the state they had left.

Mr. Lee asked who received the funds from citations issued by NHP or Metro. Colonel Hood replied traffic citations issued by any law enforcement agency went to the county or school district. The administrative portion of the fine went to the courts.

Mr. Gustavson asked how the citations would be issued. Mr. Nolan replied the call would be received by civil or light duty employees and the citations would be issued by uniformed officers.

Mr. Gustavson questioned how Nevada residency would be verified. Colonel Hood responded “probable cause” would need to be established before the alleged violator was citied.

Mr. Collins thought a law had been passed to designate six NHP officers to address vehicle registration issues. Colonel Hood remembered the original bill being introduced but did not remember it being passed.

Mr. Collins commented it would be difficult to catch violators. Colonel Hood stated the bill allowed infractions to be followed up at the jurisdiction’s leisure or during slow periods. A computer-generated report gave the officer flexibility to follow-up when they were in that area.

Mr. Carpenter complimented the NHP on decreasing registration violations in Elko.

Chairwoman Chowning closed the hearing on A.B. 474, and opened the hearing on A.B. 642.

Assembly Bill 642: Requires department of motor vehicles and public safety to offer to provide assistance to certain persons in complying with Military Selective Service Act under certain circumstances. (BDR 43-1329)

Assemblywoman Genie Ohrenschall, District No. 12, stated A.B. 642 had been introduced at Mr. Richard Efthimiou’s request.

Richard (Dick) Efthimiou, Director, Selective Service System District 3, stated A.B. 642 automatically registered males with the selective service when they applied for their driver’s license. The amendment complied with federal law and disclosed the signature on the license application was consenting to selective service registration. The AAMVAnet newsletter (Exhibit J) was the information retriever between DMV&PS and the selective service. One hundred percent of 18-year old males in the Nevada school system were registered and 88 percent of males not in school were registered.

Lt. Colonel Lyle Wilkes, Commander, Region 3 Selective Service System, supported A.B. 642. Nevada ranked 26^th in selective service registration and registration continued to drop one percent yearly. Any person not registered faced criminal penalties and was not eligible for student financial aid or other federal programs. Registration was accepted up to the age of 26 years old. Many young men did not register because they were unaware of the law. The DMV&PS currently collected the necessary information and transmitted it to the selective service administration twice a year. A.B. 642 allowed the information to be transmitted electronically to the AAMVAnet daily. The fiscal impact would be minimal.

Mr. Lee asked if a driver’s license would be denied if the applicant refused to sign the application. Mr. Efthimiou replied affirmatively. Selective service registration was voluntary but the license would be denied.

Mrs. Cegavske asked if there were consequences from DMV&PS for not registering with the Selective Service Board. Lt. Colonel Wilkes responded any male person between the ages of 18 and 26 who did not register had their names provided to the Department of Justice. Selective service wanted to increase registration and not pursue prosecution. All federal benefit programs were denied to males who had not registered by age 26. Over 209 individuals had called their office about obtaining federal benefits and were told they could not obtain any benefits because they were over 26 years old and had never registered with the selective service. Nevada had lost out on over $800,000 in federal funds or roughly $4,000 apiece.

Mrs. Cegavske asked how other states addressed selective service registration. Lt. Colonel Wilkes replied Oklahoma, Delaware and Arkansas had similar laws. Georgia and Utah implemented laws this year and other states had proposed similar legislation.

Mrs. Cegavske asked if the only registration program was in the high schools. Mr. Efthimiou replied they had a contact in the schools that informed the senior males of the benefits and consequences of not registering.

Mrs. Cegavske explained her sons received numerous telephone calls from every armed forces branch of the government after they registered and felt the calls nearly reached the harassment level.

Lt. Colonel Wilkes responded the Selective Service Act directed the director of the agency to provide the names in the database to the Secretary of Defense. The Secretary of Defense turned the information over to a joint recruiting program. The selective service made a concerted effort with the joint recruiting program to stop the calls.

Chairwoman Chowning commented her daughters had received similar calls and they were not registered with the selective service.

Lt. Colonel Wilkes added enrollment was down in the military and recruiters were diligently trying to increase enrollment.

Mr. Efthimiou stated his main goal was to ensure all young people were aware of what they needed to do when they turned 18. Unfortunately, calls from recruiters could not be controlled. Many people were moving into Nevada and getting them registered was important.

Mrs. Chowning asked if any male applicant refusing to sign the application would be denied his driver’s license. Mr. Efthimiou replied in the affirmative.

Mr. Gustavson asked if anyone had challenged the constitutionality of the proposal. Lt. Colonel Wilkes replied there had been no challenge. Oklahoma had increased their registration by 4,000 and had one gentleman refuse to sign.

Mr. Gustavson asked what the fiscal note of the bill was. Mr. Efthimiou had talked to DMV&PS and they said it would be minimal. The cost would involve the reprinting of their application.

Mrs. Chowning explained A.B. 642 did not withhold the driver’s license as a penalty. Mr. Efthimiou responded she was correct.

Mr. Claborn asked if the Selective Service Act was a federal law. Mr. Efthimiou responded it was.

Mr. Claborn asked why a state law was needed when federal law superceded state law. Lt. Colonel Wilkes replied DMV&PS already submitted names to the Selective Service System twice a year. Governor Guinn had recommended Mr. Efthimiou to oversee the selective service operation in Nevada and assist the people of Nevada in their obligations to register.

Mr. Claborn did not agree it was proper to deny a person his driver’s license as a penalty for not registering.

Ms. Ohrenschall asked if an amendment could be added to make the registering voluntary. Lt. Colonel Wilkes replied they could. Chairwoman Chowning pointed out the bill was that way now.

Donna West, Administrator, Field Services, DMV&PS, recommended a number of amendments to A.B. 642. She felt DMV&PS needed more specific language on their responsibility and how the data was to be transmitted. It was important to notify customers the information was being transmitted but did not agree a signature was necessary. The Wisconsin law stated:

“…(the) motor vehicle agency must notify a male, who is at least 18 years of age but less than 26 years of age, and who applies for any driver’s license, permit or identification card, that his application information will be forwarded to the Selective Service System for the purpose of registration … in an electronic format any information on an application for a driver’s license permit or identification card.”

She felt their language met the concerns of the committee and the Selective Service System. It was important to identify the person affected in statute and notify them information would be forwarded in an electronic format to the Selective Service System. Commercial or non-commercial driver’s licenses were unclear in the bill. She recommended an effective date of January 1, 2002 to allow DMV&PS time to comply.

Mr. Gustavson asked Ms. West if the DMV&PS was already sending the information to the Selective Service Administration. Ms. West responded the information described in the bill would be transmitted daily when the bill passed. Information from the records section was sent twice a year to the Selective Service System.

Mr. Claborn felt some people did not want to register because of possible jury duty and was against penalizing those who did not register. Lt. Colonel Wilkes stated a memorandum of agreement with the DMV&PS gave the Selective Service System names of individuals between the ages of 18 and 26. Any individual not registered was sent information asking them to comply with federal law. The “consent” statement on the application provided more timely information to them.

Mr. Efthimiou asked if a compromise could be reached by having an optional box on the application to check. Chairwoman Chowning explained any amendment needed to be submitted in writing and would be considered when the bill was voted on.

Ms. West said an addition of a box on the application might require a fiscal note because of potential DMV&PS modifications.

Chairwoman Chowning closed the hearing on A.B. 642 and opened the hearing on A.B. 645.

Assembly Bill 645: Revises provisions regarding signs posted in school zones. (BDR 43-1297)

Robert Ostrovsky, Lobbyist, 3-M Corporation, stated the 3-M Corporation was a leader in the sign industry and safety issues. All products introduced in the bill would be competitively bid (Exhibit K). The new reflective material was more effective and being used in school districts of Reno, Las Vegas, and Carson City. Henderson, Clark County and Sparks were changing their signs. A.B. 645 asked NDOT to consider new signage materials when adopting standards for school zones. The process of getting to and from school presented a dangerous situation for children. Reflective signs were used in New York and Georgia and speedometer metered signs were becoming prevalent. He agreed with NDOT’s amendments for local governments to set their own standards.

Mr. Nolan stated the new reflective signage was more visible and asked if 3-M was the only company that produced the product. Mr. Ostrovsky replied it was a product used by several companies.

Mr. Nolan asked how many companies used it. Mr. Ostrovsky stated there were two other major competitors and several minor ones.

Mr. Nolan was concerned about putting into statute a particular product that provided an unfair bargaining position to private industry.

Mr. Ostrovsky stated he would be willing to amend the bill to remove any reference to specific products and make it more generic.

Mr. Claborn stated he had seen the green reflective signs in Las Vegas and felt they were very effective.

Fredrick Droes, Chief Safety Traffic Engineer, NDOT, believed the ability to provide reflective signs was already in the traffic control manual. The new reflective material was specified in the new manual and was already used by school districts and NDOT road construction.

Mrs. Chowning stated the purpose of the legislature was to be the guardians of public safety, public policy and taxpayer dollars. She asked Mr. Droes if the intent of A.B. 645 was already being implemented by NDOT.

Mr. Droes replied affirmatively. The language addressed variable message signs, electronic changeable signs and radar feedback that was not appropriate in all school zones. It was difficult to develop statewide standards. The signs needed in Clark County were different than in Ely.

Mr. Gustavson asked if there was a need to change the law. Mr. Droes responded NDOT wanted to reserve the use of the fluorescent green reflective signs for problem safety areas. The new NDOT manual gave the local governments the option to use the signs where they felt it was appropriate. He would work with Mr. Ostrovsky to see if they could make the language more acceptable.

F. Alex Ortiz, Lobbyist, Clark County, stated Clark County had concerns with A.B. 645 in its present form. Clark County currently used the Manual for Uniform Track and Control Device (MUTCD) and worked closely with school districts where school crossings and zones were concerned.

Kimberly J. McDonald, Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas, said North Las Vegas had the same concerns as Clark County. North Las Vegas would work with Mr. Ostrovsky on the language of the bill and possible amendments.

Chairwoman Chowning closed the hearing on A.B. 645 and opened the hearing on A.B. 646.

Assembly Bill 646: Revises provisions authorizing certain inspection stations and authorized inspection stations to renew certificates of registration. (BDR 43-403

James Parsons, Administrator, Management Services and Programs Division, DMV&PS, said A.B. 646 eliminated the pilot program of registering vehicles at emission stations and allowed vehicles to be registered at all stations.

Mrs. Chowning asked how many stations participated in the program and what the cost was to the consumer. Mr. Parsons replied stations had to carry a $100,000 bond and could charge $2 for the service. A.B. 646 reduced the bond to $50,000 and changed the fee from $0 to $10. Two stations in Reno provided the service with no fee and one station in Las Vegas charged the fee. They also allowed customers to register their vehicles on-line for free. Eighteen other stations had submitted applications to provide the service and were located mostly in the Las Vegas area.

ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 646.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

Chairwoman Chowning thanked DMV&PS on their private contract work and providing better service to the community. She informed the committee the work session bills were described in Exhibit L and opened the hearing on A.B. 242.

Assembly Bill 242: Provides that certain instructors for schools for training drivers are not required to complete requirements for continuing education. (BDR 43-1173)

Mr. Mouritsen explained A.B. 242 revised requirements for commercial driver’s license instructors. The amendment deleted Section 1 and the continuing education requirements for the instructors.

Mrs. Smith felt it was important the instructors had the high school diploma or five years of experience requirement.

Chairwoman Chowning stated current law outlined instructors had to have good moral fiber, pass a DMV&PS examination, be physically able to train others in the operation of commercial motor vehicles, be 21 years or older, and have a Nevada driver’s license and a current Nevada driver’s instructor certificate issued by the Nevada Department of Education in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the department for qualifying instructors in privately owned schools to train drivers.

Mr. Nolan asked what the requirement for years of experience was. Mrs. Chowning stated DMV&PS regulations did not require any experience.

Rhonda Bavaro, Business Program Manager, DMV&PS, clarified no current regulations addressed experience but they would have some soon.

Ms. McClain stated the valid driving instructor certificate was issued by the Nevada Department of Education and fell under their regulations.

Mr. Parsons stated S.B. 523 deleted the language because the Department of Education did not issue the certificate anymore.

Chairwoman Chowning clarified that DMV&PS would work with the community colleges, the University of Nevada System, and professional driver training schools to develop regulations that impacted the industry.

Mrs. Smith was not comfortable and felt it should not be deleted from statute. She felt instructors needed to be certified.

Ms. Bavaro read “… an instructor in a school for training commercial vehicle operators and instructors, whose license is not endorsed to provide classroom instruction, for the purpose of NRS 483.250, may submit proof of other education and experience that is deemed acceptable by the department.” DMV&PS looked at each application individually.

Chairwoman Chowning clarified they were required to pass an examination by DMV&PS.

Ms. Bavaro added a DMV&PS written and practical examination had to be passed before an instructor could be licensed.

Mr. Claborn asked if the Las Vegas community college was part of the schools they worked with.

Ms. Bavaro said they worked with the Department of Education and schools in each area were contacted.

Chairwoman Chowning clarified the training on transporting low-level waste was not given by the schools but by the particular companies they worked for.

Mr. Claborn asked if the bill applied to people who wanted to train commercial drivers. Chairwoman Chowning replied affirmatively.

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO AMEND AND

DO PASS A.B. 242.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mrs. Smith advised the Chairwoman that she would be voting no and wanted to reserve the right to change her floor vote.

THE MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYWOMAN SMITH VOTING NO.

Chairwoman Chowning opened the work session on A.B. 246.

Assembly Bill 246: Revises provisions regarding registration of motor vehicles. (BDR 43-213)

Mr. Mouritsen explained the proposed amendments addressed new vehicle registration and had been approved by DMV&PS. He outlined the proposed amendments in Exhibit L. They wanted to keep subsection 6 as written and keep the effective date of July 1, 2001.

Ms. McClain stated Ginny Lewis from DMV&PS had stated there would be no fiscal impact.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN MCCLAIN MOVED TO AMEND AND

DO PASS A.B. 246.

ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN SECONDED THE MOTION.

Ms. McClain clarified the bill notified customers they could buy vehicle plates before obtaining their drivers license, return in 30-days to buy their plates after getting their drivers license or sign an affidavit that they did not have a vehicle to register. Any person not returning within the 30-day time frame would receive a letter stating they had not complied with the law.

Chairwoman Chowning was concerned the bill might have to be referred to the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Carpenter stated DMV&PS wanted the bill and it would not cost them anything.

Mr. Gustavson opposed the bill and felt the law should be left the way it was.

THE MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON

VOTING NO.

Mrs. Chowning stated if DMV&PS determined there was a fiscal impact the bill would need to be referred to the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means. Seeing no further business the meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Glenda Jacques

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman

DATE: