MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Transportation
Seventy-First Session
May 8, 2001
The Senate Committee on Transportationwas called to order by Chairman William R. O'Donnell, at 2:05 p.m., on Tuesday, May 8, 2001, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was video conferenced to the Grant Sawyer Office Building, Room 4412, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator William R. O'Donnell, Chairman
Senator Mark Amodei, Vice Chairman
Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer
Senator Terry Care
Senator Maggie Carlton
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Maurice Washington (Excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblywoman Kathyrn (Kathy) A. McClain, Clark County Assembly District No. 15
Assemblyman Joseph (Joe) E. Dini, Jr., Lyon, Storey, part of Carson City Counties Assembly District No. 38
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Donald O. Williams, Committee Policy Analyst
Joan Moseid, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Virginia (Ginny) Lewis, Deputy Director, Motor Vehicles, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety
W. R. (Bill) Garpow, Executive Director, Recreational Park Trailer Industry Association Incorporated
Robert R. Barengo, Attorney, Recreational Park Trailer Industry Association Incorporated
Dennis Colling, Chief, Administrative Services Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety
Chairman O’Donnell:
We will open the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 246.
ASSEMBLY BILL 246: Revises provisions regarding registration of motor vehicles by new resident of this state. (BDR 43-213)
Assemblywoman Kathyrn (Kathy) A. McClain, Clark County Assembly District No. 15:
Assembly Bill 246 has changed from its original conception, but it is still designed to capture lost revenues for the State of Nevada. I know you all follow people home every day with out-of-state license plates. These same people are driving around with out-of-state plates and losing revenues, wearing and tearing our streets just like the rest of us who are purchasing our license plates on time.
My original thought was, we need to amend the law to say, “You have 30 days to get your driver’s license and your plates.” Because what happens so often is people would move here and they would go and get their driver’s license, so they could cash their checks, get jobs, so forth and so on. But it is very easy to put off getting the license plates, either they do not have the paperwork with them, they cannot afford to change insurance, it is one excuse after another. So, my original idea was to say, “You cannot get a driver’s license until you purchase your license plates.” However, on the Assembly side, this was a little too unfriendly for our Assembly transportation committee, and also, the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV/PS) had some concerns about the public image of turning people away. So what we have done is amended it to say, “Once you come in to get your driver’s license, you will be notified at the desk you are required to have your license plates within the next 30 days.” This will then be flagged into the computer if, within the 30 days, they have not returned to get their license plates, it would print out a letter saying they are in violation of state law, and we have also notified the highway patrol.
When the bill went to the Assembly Floor, it came to everyone’s attention when this bill was passed in the 1997 Legislative Session, it was creating some financial hardship and we were losing a lot of revenue. No one thought it would have that effect.
Chairman O’Donnell:
Where did we lose it?
Assemblywoman McClain:
The refunds for returned license plates. So, there was an amendment on the floor of the Assembly to repeal it. I would like to have a spokesperson from the DMV/PS explain all the details behind those measures. The DMV/PS has provided a prepared memo regarding the 1997 Legislative Session Refunds (Exhibit C).
Chairman O’Donnell:
So, we are losing revenue, where does it go?
Assemblywoman McClain:
It is being refunded to people, the people who leave our state.
Chairman O’Donnell:
Did they purchase a license?
Assemblywoman McClain:
You are still able to transfer your license plates from one car to another. These are unexpired plates that have been turned in, and they do not want to use them anymore. The rule, incidentally, went into effect January 1, 2001, and now we are seeing what an impact it has.
Virginia (Ginny) Lewis, Deputy Director, Motor Vehicles, Department Of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety:
To clarify, the way the statute currently reads, if a customer surrenders his license plates or cancels his registration, the department will refund any unused portion of that registration. So, not only does this address someone who leaves the state, it also addresses a Nevada resident who chooses not to transfer an unused portion to another vehicle, which is a very common practice for many people. If you buy a new car and sell the other, you can use your unused credit. Because of the way the law was written, the information we have provided shows the actual activities (Exhibit C) since this legislation went into effect on January 1, 2001. In our minds, the numbers were significant enough we wanted to bring it forward to this legislative body or whoever, to see if you want to make any kind of decision to take action on it. Mr. Colling is with DMV/PS, Administrative Services, and he has the actual numbers, including the number of checks issued on a daily basis. We are also including the treasurer’s office because it is a part of this.
Dennis Colling, Chief, Administrative Services Division, Department Of Motor Vehicle and Public Safety:
The average check amount during the first 6 or 7 weeks of operation was $44.63.
Chairman O’Donnell:
What is the minimum check amount you have actually printed?
Mr. Colling:
I do not know the minimum, but I do know during the first 7 weeks, we issued over 300 checks for less than a dollar. We could have easily issued some for 1 or 2 cents. During the first 7 weeks of operation, we issued 10,776 checks.
Chairman O’Donnell:
Can you get me the modal information regarding these checks?
Mr. Colling:
I am not sure what you are requesting.
Chairman O’Donnell:
Well, the modal, there are mean, minimum, and mode. The mode is the most frequent, if you broke it down to the average, the high, the low, and the most frequent. So, if you told me a $10 check was the most frequent refund we give, I need the information to break it out into the $10 increments. For example, we had 8000 ten-dollar checks, we had 3000 twenty-dollar checks and so forth.
Mr. Colling:
I do have some information on that line and I can tell you, of the first 10,700 checks we issued, 322 were for $1 or less, 1500 were for between $1 and $5, 1118 were between $5 and $10, 1461 were between $10 and $15, and 1080 were between $15 and $20. A total of 5581 checks were $20 or less.
Chairman O’Donnell:
Does it cost about $20 or $25 to process a check?
Mr. Colling:
I do not know the exact figures, but I am certain it is at least that much.
Assemblywoman McClain:
If state government works anything like local government, it is approximately $32. I do not want to see a lot of amendments on this because I think everybody agrees it would help, at least with the people who are conscientious. However, I have to tell you about a suggestion one of my constituents had that we may want to think about for next session or down the road. Her idea was when you come in and get your driver’s license, you are asked to surrender your plates and you get the 30 days’ temporary permit to carry around on your car, so you are required to return to DMV/PS within the 30 days.
Chairman O’Donnell:
What is your point?
Assemblywoman McClain:
My point is we do not want to attempt it at the moment, but I thought it was a great idea. Our constituents do come up with good ideas and maybe it is something we can think about in the future.
Chairman O’Donnell:
Please explain.
Assemblywoman McClain:
Instead of driving around on your out-of-state plates, we are assuming they are going to be conscientious and come back in within 30 days. They would actually get a 30-day permit saying you will be back in 30 days to get your Nevada license plates because this is going to run out.
Chairman O’Donnell:
Did you mention this over on the Assembly side?
Assemblywoman McClain:
No, because I spoke with this constituent over the weekend.
Mr. Colling:
Based on the information I provided you on the breakdown of checks under $20 and numbers, do you still want me to come back with the model?
Chairman O’Donnell:
I believe we have approximately 5500 checks under $20.
Mr. Colling:
Correct, and I do have it in memo form, and I can make copies and provide to staff, if you like.
Ms. Lewis:
I would like to draw attention to the implementation date, as indicated on the bill, showing the section where the individual would obtain a driver’s license and we would flag the system. It shows an implementation date of October 1, 2001. Based on the programming changes we have to flag the system, we have asked if we could delay implementation to January 1, 2002.
Assemblywoman McClain:
I concur.
Chairman O’Donnell:
We will close the hearing on A.B. 246 and I will turn the gavel over to Vice Chairman Amodei.
Vice Chairman Amodei:
We will open the hearing on Assembly Bill 476.
ASSEMBLY BILL 476: Revises provisions governing reinstatement of registration of motor vehicle suspended for lack of insurance. (BDR 43‑865)
Ms. Lewis:
Assembly Bill 476 deals with the role of the department, and the idea was to give us some discretion for special circumstances upon reinstating a no-insurance suspension registration. Currently by law, we charge $250 for a reinstatement and the reality is, there are situations where customers do have extenuating circumstances, and A.B. 476 would give us a little bit of flexibility for those cases. I believe it would be very good customer relations for DMV/PS to have this discretion. The bill would also allow us to adopt regulations to establish the criteria for determining special cases.
Vice Chairman Amodei:
Would this allow you to go up to the $250 fine, if it was appropriate, and would this give you some latitude down to $50?
Ms. Lewis:
Absolutely, it would allow us to even charge the $50, or rescind the action, or waive the reinstatement fee altogether.
Vice Chairman Amodei:
We will close the hearing on A.B. 476 and open the hearing on A.B. 540.
ASSEMBLY BILL 540: Provides for identification, registration, regulation, taxation and other treatment of recreational park trailers as recreational vehicles. (BDR 43-799)
W. R. (Bill) Garpow, Executive Director, Recreational Park Trailer Industry Association Incorporated:
What is a recreational park trailer? For starters, a recreational park trailer is a unit which just does not exist in the state of Nevada, at least on the legislative books. It is, in fact, a unit used for vacation and seasonal living. It is not designed nor is it intended to be used as a year-round dwelling. The product is typically between 320 and 400 square feet when built on-site. For the most part, they are placed in recreational vehicle parks. We have about 8000 of the units sold annually throughout the United States. We also have noted the great popularity of this unit in this area of the country, and in some of the neighboring states. In California last year, roughly 629 units were sold, and in Arizona, almost 1100 units were sold. This represents a rather significant portion of the units we manufacture and sell in the United States.
The bill is necessary because currently the State of Nevada classifies two types of vehicles. One is a recreational vehicle, which is a unit up to as large as 320 square feet, and then anything larger than 320 square feet is classified as a manufactured home by the State of Nevada. Nevada is one of two states currently not recognizing a recreational park trailer, the other state is Alabama and we are also starting to talk with them, but we thought we would come here first. We would also like to submit a suggested amendment to A.B. 540 (Exhibit D), and an informational packet titled, “Recreational Park Trailers, History of a Product Undergoing Positive Changes” and brochures for types of recreational park trailer (Exhibit E. Original is on file at the Research Library.).
Robert R. Barengo, Attorney, Recreational Park Trailer Industry Association Incorporated:
If I may walk you through the bill, section 1, page 1, supports the definition of recreational park trailer. It talks about being built on a single chassis, it talks about the gross weight, and the size, and it deals with the certification from what is called the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). This is spread throughout the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), into the sections for mobile homes, for commercial coaches, for manufactured homes, travel trailers, and other areas as necessary.
When this bill was originally drafted, the Legislative Counsel Bureau presented me with 90 sections. We whittled it down to the “necessaries,” 22 sections and they are in front of you. We talked with the Nevada Department of Transportation and asked if they had any objections to passages in this bill when they testified on the Assembly side. Noting their concerns, we removed some portions of the bill, and this is the first reprint of this bill. We also have an amendment we would like to discuss.
I have discussed sections 12, 6, 7, and 8 with the Legislative Counsel Bureau and they told me this particular amendment did not belong in this section of the bill and they would have to revisit it and discuss where it should be in the bill, should this committee choose to process it. In some of the recreational parks, you cannot leave a vehicle there for more than a certain number of days, you would have to haul it out. What we would like to do is to be able to leave it there, pay the rent for the entire year, but only occupy it for the number of days the local ordinance allows, because these vehicles are not meant to be occupied on a year-round basis. They are recreational vehicles for part-time usage and this is why the suggested amendments are necessary.
Vice Chairman Amodei:
Is it your preference, if the bill is processed, to have the amendment on it?
Mr. Barengo:
We would like for the bill to be processed because we need this to start going forward.
Senator Carlton:
In the title of the bill, it has registration, identification, and taxation. Can you answer the taxation question for me?
Mr. Barengo:
Yes, on the taxation question, the units will be taxed as personal property.
Mr. Garpow:
The recreational park trailer owners would also pay the 7 percent state sales tax or whatever it happens to be in the local jurisdiction. We project this would probably raise an additional $1 million a year in revenue for the state.
Senator Shaffer:
It has been my experience, the local ordinances in the various entities, cities and counties, would dictate how long you could stay in a recreational vehicle park. Would this supersede the local ordinance?
Mr. Barengo:
The way we drafted it, it would not, because it was limited to the 3-months provision. And I believe most of the ordinance says 3 months and you cannot occupy them more than 3 months.
Mr. Garpow:
There are two additional amendments dealing with housekeeping issues, and they are on the very top of the proposed amendments (Exhibit D). The first one eliminates subsection 2 of section 11, and the second amendment is to add a section regarding motor homes. This is a favor to an allied organization. There are existing laws in Nevada in conflict with each other and because of an oversight, and this is, basically, a housekeeping chore to eliminate the conflict. We have checked with NDOT and they have no objection to this whatsoever.
We will close the hearing on A.B. 540 and reopen A.B. 476.
Assemblyman Joseph (Joe) E. Dini, Jr., Lyon and Storey Counties, part of Carson City, Assembly District No. 38
This is a nice little bill to help a lot of our constituents. If you have ever had a call from an irate constituent who lost his registration and was on vacation, at least this would give the department the ability to adopt some rules and regulations to forgive the penalties. I believe it is a nice consumer bill. I would like to go further, but there would be computer problems at the DMV/PS. This bill would then get the heat off of them and get the heat off of us, too.
Vice Chairman Amodei:
We will close the hearing on A.B. 476.
Senator Jacobsen:
I have a request for a resolution honoring a young man who was the assistant training officer at Stewart for the Peace Officers’ Standards and Training (P.O.S.T.) Academy who died of a heart attack. I would like to run a resolution for his two daughters. Dennis Kollar had quite a history and was well respected. He was 53 years old.
Chairman O’Donnell:
Would you mind if it is a Senate Resolution instead of a Senate Concurrent Resolution, because the Senate Resolution has to go through both houses.
SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED TO REQUEST A SENATE RESOLUTION HONORING DENNIS KOLLAR, A P.O.S.T. OFFICER WHO DIED OF A HEART ATTACK.
SENATORS SHAFFER, CARLTON, AND CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR WASHINGTON WAS ABSENT FOR VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O’Donnell:
Mr. Barengo, will you to come forward and update us regarding the amendments on A.B. 540.
Mr. Barengo:
On behalf of the Recreational Park Trailer Industry Association Incorporated, I believe you have been handed a proposed amendment on A.B. 540 (Exhibit D).
I will give you (Chairman O’Donnell) a summary of my testimony given earlier in today’s hearing.
Chairman O’Donnell:
I am just a little bit leery about changing the language allowing these vehicles to be used more than 3 months in one of those temporary parks.
Mr. Barengo:
I understand your concern, which is why I have been very careful to say what the bill drafter has said.
Chairman O’Donnell:
I do not believe it is a good idea.
Mr. Garpow:
I would like to tell you how these products are being used. In Arizona there are typically parks that are quite large, I was just in one with 1800 sites, and 80 percent of the sites in there were used by recreational park trailers, and the way the consumer uses these units is two-fold, but the preponderance of customers are people who are coming in from the northern states. They would fly in and be there from anywhere from 2 months to as many as 4 months and sometimes more. It is not intended for anything other than a vacation or seasonal dwelling, and if there is a problem or if they get sick, or they have legal issues, they go home, because home is where their attorneys are, and where their doctors are.
Chairman O’Donnell:
However, let us take Carson City for instance, we have a mobile park down at the south end of town, and I believe it is a recreational park and if we change the language in here, and correct me if I am wrong, we would be subordinating the zoning Carson City has put on this particular plot to maintain some type of control over who is going to be in there.
Mr. Garpow:
I do understand where you are coming from and it is not our intent to make this state subordinate a local jurisdiction. It is just the current language makes it an illegal act in the state of Nevada to place a unit in a park and leave it there. Also, the park trailers, because of their size, are hard to move. They are typically 12 feet in width and about 32 feet long, and they weigh up to 12,000 to 15,000 pounds.
Chairman O’Donnell:
I would not mind addressing it as an amendment; however, I would also like to put some type of caveat in the bill, saying the local governments have the ability to zone a particular way. I do not want to allow a park, which has been designated as a recreational park for a three-months’ maximum stay, to have its use changed by the state when the local government has decided otherwise, that it does not want a permanent facility. Let us see if we can work something out.
Mr. Garpow:
It is just the current law does not allow the product to be in existence for longer than 90 days without physically being moved. Our intent is to make it acceptable.
Senator Care:
When I was running for office, just north of Flamingo Road on the Boulder Highway, there is a recreation park, called the Road Runner RV Park, I had to drive into the park and I went to these spaces and the vehicles actually had Nevada license plates. In fact, there are some people who moved into the park and made it a permanent residence.
Chairman O’Donnell:
Pragmatically, what happens is, as long as there is no problem, no infraction, and no police calls, the enforcement is very lax and very minimal. However, if you have been there 3 months and they find out your son is a burglar involved in several burglaries in the neighborhood, and the husband happens to be a suspect in some other case, or you have a lot of domestic violence and the police are constantly responding to a particular address, then is when they enforce the 3 months’ rule and say it is time for you to move on. Otherwise you could never control the crime in those transitory housing areas. This is why the zoning is 3 months and 3 months only, and this is how you would take care of the crime problem in those temporary parks. So I would be interested in working with the amendments until we get it right.
Chairman O’Donnell:
We will close the hearing on A.B. 476. There being no further business, the hearing was adjourned at 2:44 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Joan Moseid,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator William R. O'Donnell, Chairman
DATE: