MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Transportation
Seventy-First Session
March 29, 2001
The Senate Committee on Transportationwas called to order by Chairman William R. O'Donnell, at 2:23 p.m., on Thursday, March 29, 2001, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, 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 Terry Care
Senator Maggie Carlton
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer (Excused)
Senator Maurice Washington (Excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Mike McGinness, Central Nevada Senatorial District
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Micheline N. Fairbank, Senior Research Analyst
Alice Nevin, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Dave Carter, Concerned Citizen
Kami L. Dempsey, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce
John Holmes, Concerned Citizen
Casey Folkes, Concerned Citizen
Gary Clinard, President, Dunes and Trails ATV Club
Sallie Clinard, Concerned Citizen
J. C. Martinez, President, Motorcycle Racing Association of Nevada
Dennis Belingheri, President, Motorcycle Racing Association of Northern Nevada and Owner, Reno Motor Sports
Richard Capurro, Concerned Citizen
Tom R. Skancke, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority
Bruce Breslow, Commissioner, Transportation Services Authority, Department of Business and Industry
John Plunkett, Manager of Transportation, Transportation Services Authority, Department of Business and Industry
Dave Kimball, Deputy Commissioner, Transportation Services Authority, Department of Business and Industry
Paul J. Christensen, Chairman, Transportation Services Authority, Department of Business and Industry
Sandra Lee Avants, Commissioner, Transportation Services Authority, Department of Business and Industry
Robert Broadbent, Lobbyist, Bell Trans, and Frias Companies
Gary E. Milliken, Lobbyist, Yellow-Checker-Star Cab Company
Robert G. Anselmo, Administrator, Taxicab Authority, Department of Business and Industry
Daryl E. Capurro, Lobbyist, Nevada Motor Transport Association
Michael K. Sullivan, Lobbyist, Nevada Limousine Coalition
Ray Chenoweth, Owner, Nellis Cab Company
Don Drake, Owner, Baker and Drake, Incorporated
John Cardinalli, Sunshine Cab Company
A. R. (Bob) Fairman, Budget Chauffeur Drive
Ronald Pierini, Sheriff, Douglas County
Walter Johnson, Concerned Citizen
F. Alex Ortiz, Lobbyist, Clark County
Tom McGowan, Concerned Citizen
Robert B. Feldman, Lobbyist, Nevada General Insurance Company
Dana Mathiesen, Administrator, Central Services and Records Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety
Jim L. Werbeckes, Lobbyist, Farmers Insurance Group
Andrew J. Thomas, Secretary, Nevada Trial Lawyers’ Association
Cheryl Blomstrom, Lobbyist, Nevada Contractor’s Association
Mike Rich, Truck Supervisor, Q & D Construction, Incorporated
Chairman O’Donnell opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 220.
SENATE BILL 220: Provides for regulation of off-road vehicles. (BDR 43-148)
Dave Carter, Concerned Citizen, and dealer of off-highway vehicles, spoke in support of S.B. 220. He said the bill was beneficial to Nevada’s small businesses, Nevada’s taxpayers, and off-highway vehicle enthusiasts. Mr. Carter submitted his written testimony and proposed amendments to the bill for the record (Exhibit C).
Kami L. Dempsey, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, testified in support of S.B. 220. She noted this issue had brought a big response from chamber members. She added local businesses had been forced into competition with other states where off-road vehicles could be purchased without payment of sales tax.
Mr. Carter said the Senate was also considering a bill to exempt all farm machinery from sales tax. He stated there were fewer farm equipment dealers today, due to out-of-state sales of farm machinery, which were not taxed at the time of purchase.
Chairman O’Donnell suggested, to fairly compete, one solution would be to exempt all off-road vehicles from sales tax; but this would have a big impact to the General Fund. An alternative, he stated, was to force people to comply by requiring owners of off-road vehicles to register their vehicles and pay a fee.
Senator Care asked, “Were there particular dealers that advertised directly to the Las Vegas market or was the information spread by word of mouth to potential customers?”
Mr. Carter said it was common knowledge that purchasing out of state avoided the sales tax. He noted mail order catalogs and the Internet were two sources presently used by buyers to avoid the sales tax.
John Holmes, Concerned Citizen, testified against S.B. 220. He said the bill referred to recreational vehicles. He noted there was a bill to exempt farm equipment from taxation; but this bill would require registration of equipment frequently used for such things as running fence lines on ranches. He stated the main thrust of the bill was avoidance of sales tax.
Mr. Holmes noted catalogs contain many items including all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), tractors, and off-road bicycles; all of which can be ordered without payment of sales tax. He said the debate should be how to plug the hole. He commented telephone companies use snowmobiles to reach their remote sites in the winter. He suggested perhaps S.B. 220 should be written to say vehicles for recreational use instead of off-road vehicles.
In addition, Mr. Holmes questioned whether the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV/PS) could handle the increased workload of registering these vehicles. He called attention to section 10, subsection 2, of S.B. 220, which discussed certificate of ownership. He commented this added another step to further burden DMV/PS.
Mr. Holmes suggested fees collected from sales of recreational vehicles could be distributed to an organization that would use the funds to support trails and for the upkeep of trails, instead of DMV/PS handling fund distribution.
Senator Care asked whether there was a difference in the pricing of off-road vehicles between Nevada and Utah. Mr. Holmes answered if a person was shopping both locally and on the Internet, and informed the dealer of this fact, competitive negotiations could take place.
Casey Folkes, Concerned Citizen, representing Best in the Desert, stated his off-road organization had approximately 1000 members in Las Vegas and was the oldest established motorcycle dealership in the Las Vegas area. He testified in opposition to S.B. 220. His organization did not want to be confined to the trails which were mentioned in the bill. He acknowledged buyers were frequently going out of state to purchase vehicles because of lower costs.
Mr. Folkes emphasized if off-road vehicles were registered in this state, the sales tax would be paid at the time of registration. He clarified registration of the vehicles provides a Nevada title, which then provides documentation if the vehicle is stolen. He said most Las Vegas dealers were not members of the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce (LVCC) and had a different opinion than the LVCC. He emphasized the off-road vehicle industry of Nevada does not want to pay more taxes. He stressed taxes are already paid for helmets, gloves, boots, gasoline, food, and trucks to haul equipment to riding sites. He asked, “Who will police this?”
Gary Clinard, President, Dunes and Trails ATV Club, testified against S.B. 220. He stated there was an overwhelmingly negative reaction to this bill by off-road vehicle users. First, he said, the bill was drafted for the benefit of just a few dealers without input of the people who would have to pay the fees; secondly, the bill benefited primarily the dealers, not the owners of the vehicles. He suggested the bill was drafted without adequate research and input from experienced sources. He explained use of the term “off-road vehicle” is archaic and was changed to “off-highway vehicle” a number of years ago.
Mr. Clinard asserted if there had to be a program, registration fees should not be so expensive. He noted research of nearby states had shown that most states charged $10 to $15.
Chairman O'Donnell asked Mr. Clinard if he had seen the suggested amendments to the bill and Mr. Clinard answered yes.
Sallie Clinard, Concerned Citizen, testified the amendments to S.B. 220 were not supported by the owners of off-highway vehicles. She remarked some issues not addressed by the proposed amendments were: snowmobile and dune buggy owners would pay the registration fee but their interests would not be represented on the proposed board; street licensed off-highway vehicles, such as trucks and jeeps, would pay into the fund via the gasoline tax, but would not be represented on the board; the bill would require registration of desert racing vehicles, which would not be represented on the board; there were no term limits stated for board members; there should be a representative from the forest service (U.S. Forest Service) on the board.
Ms. Clinard queried where and by whom would this program be administered. She added this program should be administered by a separate department, since off-highway vehicles were not allowed within state parks and their focus was much different from other programs. Chairman O'Donnell asked Ms. Clinard if she would work with Mr. Carter to develop a program. She responded everyone involved in the issue needed to meet to develop legislation similar to programs in other states.
Chairman O'Donnell commented it was important to keep trails and public lands open for this type of recreation and to protect this industry. He noted this bill was an effort to avoid some of California’s problems as far as open land use for off-highway vehicle recreation. He continued, in California, environmental groups mount lawsuits and the off-highway vehicle community is not prepared, not organized, and not funded to deal with the issues. He remarked Nevada would see this same kind of problem if measures were not taken.
Mr. Clinard opined S.B. 220, as written, would not address the problems.
J. C. Martinez, President, Motorcycle Racing Association of Nevada (MRAN), said MRAN had 1000 members in Las Vegas and held racing events in Caliente, Tonopah, Pioche, Alamo, Searchlight, Hiko, and Ely. He emphasized his group had a good working relationship with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) with respect to the trails and washes which were used for events.
Mr. Martinez testified against S.B. 220. He pointed out MRAN felt the bill was not written by people from the off-road community. He stressed the way to get local business was to go out and mingle with the off-road community at events and activities. He said the most successful businesses were those that were active and visible at events. He noted MRAN referred to this legislation as the green sticker bill. A similar bill in California was a death warrant to off-highway vehicles.
Mr. Martinez questioned earlier testimony with regard to out-of-state sales. Those sales, he said, were highly inflated and easily made up by sales in accessories, gas, and supplies used in racing. He maintained this should be a non-issue. He concluded by saying, “We like the thought, but we do not need the help.”
Dennis Belingheri, President, Motorcycle Racing Association of Northern Nevada and Owner, Reno Motor Sports, testified regarding the proposed amendment to S.B. 220. He said BLM had funds available, at the present time, to maintain trails for off-road motor vehicle use. He pointed out mail-order companies can beat local prices, and the consumer does not pay sales tax; however, customers want warranties on products and good service, and they were willing to do business locally.
Richard Capurro, Concerned Citizen, testified on behalf of his brothers and other ATV owners saying S.B. 220 just created another tax. He noted taxes and privilege taxes are paid on vehicles used to haul off-road vehicles, and this would be an additional $2 per month for a limited-use vehicle. He said many friends who have ATVs and motorcycles use their vehicles exclusively on private property, not government land. Mr. Capurro concluded, “This bill is not needed or wanted and should not be passed into law.”
Tom R. Skancke, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority, said it was important for the committee to understand this bill, if passed, would impact the DMV/PS. Implementing this bill, he stressed, would generate dollars, but the impact would be much more significant than the dollar amount collected.
Chairman O'Donnell summarized there appeared to be support and opposition for the bill. He asked the proponents and opponents of the bill to find a common solution to make the bill work for everyone.
The following testimony was submitted for the record: a memo entitled “S.B. 220 and Off-road Vehicles License” by Juanita Cox; a letter from Elsie Dupree, President, Nevada Wildlife Federation, Inc.; a position statement from Wayne Perock, Administrator, Division of State Parks, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources; letters from Roberta K. Skelton, former commissioner, and Brad Roberts, Commissioner, Elko County Board of Commissioners (Exhibit D).
Chairman O'Donnell closed the hearing on Senate Bill 220 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill 270.
SENATE BILL 270: Makes various changes to provisions governing fully regulated carriers. (BDR 58-553)
Bruce Breslow, Commissioner, Transportation Services Authority, Department of Business and Industry, introduced the following persons from Transportation Services Authority: Paul J. Christensen, Chairman; Sandra Lee Avants, Commissioner; Dave Kimball, Deputy Commissioner; John Plunkett, Manager of Transportation.
John Plunkett, Manager of Transportation, Transportation Services Authority, Department of Business and Industry, said his background was in law enforcement, most recently in the organized crime and narcotics program in Las Vegas. He explained this background gave him a different perspective on issues. He noted, previous to when he retired from law enforcement, there were several major investigations of organized crime associates in Las Vegas involving escort services and narcotics operations. Mr. Plunkett noted drivers from the transportation industry facilitated some of these activities. He explained S.B. 270 would clarify definitions, impose an annual fee, establish a driver’s permit section, and create a code of conduct.
Mr. Plunkett continued the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) had some adopted regulations; however, this bill added additional requirements such as requiring owners to provide a copy of Chapter 706 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), regulations, driver’s dress code, safety issues, driver behavior, and other housekeeping items. He noted sanctions, stricter definitions of penalties for gross misdemeanor versus misdemeanor, adding household goods impounds, deletion of a $20,000 bond requisite (having to do with the impounds), and additional penalties for false statements made by individuals attempting to obtain certificates, were also addressed.
Dave Kimball, Deputy Commissioner, Transportation Services Authority, Department of Business and Industry, explained the costs to implement S.B. 270. He testified the current fees were examined along with the costs required to implement the new legislation. He said six additional employees would be needed to cover the new responsibilities. He added a fee structure of $350 would be used for limousines in Clark County and $75 for taxicabs and limousines in counties with populations of less than 400,000. Mr. Kimball added there would be no change in the fees for tow trucks, household goods movers, van pools, warehouses, or applications.
Mr. Kimball explained funds had been put aside for a study of the industry. He summarized an analysis showed the bill would totally fund itself the first year, and $35,000 in programmed revenue would be available for unknown items. He emphasized the bill would solve many problems in enforcement and sustain itself. In conclusion, Mr. Kimball noted there were amendments forthcoming which would have to be examined to see how they would impact S.B. 270.
Mr. Breslow concluded in some areas of Nevada you cannot get a driver’s license if you have had driver infractions, but you can drive a limousine even if you have committed murder. In other areas of the state, he continued, there were strict regulations for becoming a taxi driver but no regulations for becoming a limousine driver. He noted this bill would bring uniformity to protect the public.
Senator Care disclosed his firm currently represents a limousine company in Las Vegas and he might have to abstain from voting on this bill. He added taxis and limousines were regulated to protect the public. He asked for an explanation of the consequences if this bill is not enacted.
Mr. Plunkett answered, in Clark County, taxicab drivers have undergone strict scrutiny. He noted other counties issued work cards, but they did not have strict standards. He said a great concern was the lack of background checks on limousine drivers. He voiced many agree with the need for this legislation.
Mr. Kimball commented there was a disparity in the fees paid throughout the industry. For example, fees charged for limousines could be cheaper than hiring a taxi; yet limousines paid no annual fee beyond the initial application. He concluded taxis pay $2700 a year to cover necessary fees, so there is a disparity (from zero to $2700) between the competing companies.
Paul J. Christensen, Chairman, Transportation Services Authority, Department of Business and Industry, addressed Senator Care’s question by giving examples of problems experienced by local persons attempting to use limousines in the Las Vegas area. He noted this legislation is important and needed in the industry.
Mr. Breslow commented a local man who was recently released from death row, and awaiting retrial for murder, is driving a taxicab in Reno. He said the public has demanded background checks be done to prevent this kind of thing from continuing.
Chairman O'Donnell commented this issue had been addressed in previous sessions but nothing was legislated. He asked how limousine companies could be regulated without regulating the number of actual limousines. He said, “An allocation process from this committee is very much welcomed in the limousine arena.”
Mr. Breslow testified this bill was created primarily to address public safety issues and the ability to impound household-goods movers’ vehicles.
Mr. Christensen said another bill had been drafted for introduction but it had lost the support of the industry at the last moment. He continued:
I would like to correct one statement. We have not had the teeth to keep from licensing companies and sometimes there is not much we can do, but all of the companies have been severely limited in numbers for just that reason, because we do not feel it is proper to give out an unlimited certificate to someone who only shows a balance sheet of four cars. It does not make sense so we have severely limited all of those.
Chairman O'Donnell said:
Something needs to be done about the licensing of the limousines. I will send a message to the taxi and limousine community that if they do not agree, and they try to kill this bill at the very end, we will go back to what the Chairman of the Transportation Services Authority desires; and we will look at that specifically and get that bill out.
Mr. Christensen declared too many amendments on this bill could change the $350 fee structure listed in the bill.
Sandra Lee Avants, Commissioner, Transportation Services Authority, Department of Business and Industry, asked for support for S.B. 270, because it would protect the public. She noted there were daily complaints of violations, and stricter enforcement is needed.
Robert Broadbent, Lobbyist, Bell Trans and Frias Companies, presented amendments to S.B. 270 (Exhibit E). He spoke in support of the bill, including the increase in fees, because Las Vegas taxicab companies have demanded driver regulation. The proposed amendments would allow the Transportation Services Authority (TSA) to allocate and regulate the 1000 limousines currently in Las Vegas. He mentioned a bill to combine the TSA and Taxicab Authority (TA) in Clark County was drafted last session, but lost support.
Chairman O'Donnell questioned the allocation process.
Mr. Broadbent said the allocation process in this bill is similar to the Taxicab Authority regulations, except a requirement was added that the company be financially capable to buy the cab and to operate it over a period of time.
Chairman O'Donnell said:
Depending upon the administration, they will appoint members to the TSA or the TA to either benefit or not benefit the taxicab drivers or the owners of the company . . . They will try and balance it; however, it may be slanted towards the ownership of the companies or slanted towards the drivers. What will happen, if it is slanted towards the drivers, is the TSA or TA is reluctant to allocate the proper number of limousines and taxicabs needed for the community to function. Last session an automatic trigger was put in the taxi law so we would not have to go through this war anymore. We can automatically determine whether or not it is necessary; and it is working well. I would like to see similar language in here.
Mr. Broadbent said there is a provision in the amendment (Exhibit E), page 2, number 5, which says, “After considering all information relevant to the operation of limousines in a county whose population is 400,000 or more, the authority shall adopt regulations relating to the number of vehicles that will be allocated when the authority determines a system of allocation is necessary.”
Mr. Broadbent said the problem with the TA today is their reluctance to increase the allocation due to pressure from the drivers, even though there is a need for more taxicabs. He added the limousine owners would be very active in making sure this issue is resolved.
Chairman O'Donnell said:
Here is the language that really bothers me: “Adopt regulations relating to the number of vehicles that will be allocated when the authority determines a system of allocation is necessary.” With a three and three split, you may never get an allocation process that is deemed necessary . . . Let us put in an automatic trigger so if this happens, and we review it every year, we either allocate or not allocate. Maybe we can leave this for discussion in the work session.
Mr. Broadbent said he was comfortable with the present management of the TSA, and the allocation could be left to them. He stated one of the problems with the original bill was it tried to mandate, and then circumstances changed. He said a process of allocation by TSA would be acceptable.
Gary E. Milliken, Lobbyist, Yellow-Checker-Star Cab Company, said he would like to see wording added about criteria needed.
Chairman O'Donnell asked staff to research the language in the existing taxicab law to see if it was applicable to the allocation of the limousines.
Robert G. Anselmo, Administrator, Taxicab Authority, Department of Business and Industry, testified in support of S.B. 270. He commented this legislation is long overdue and will maintain the welfare and best interests of the traveling public.
Chairman O'Donnell asked Mr. Anselmo if he was aware of any taxicab driver or potential taxicab driver who had been terminated, or not licensed under the TA, who was now a limousine driver?
Mr. Anselmo said he was aware there were drivers who had applied for taxi licenses, who had been refused certificates, who were currently employed as limousine drivers.
Daryl E. Capurro, Lobbyist, Nevada Motor Transportation Association, testified in favor of S.B. 270, with two exceptions: section 4, which refers to household goods carriers only and would allow carriers to apply for up to $350 per year per vehicle for regulation of that activity; section 20, the language broadened the impound authority to include any kind of transportation of passengers or property, even those types of transportation that are only partially regulated at this time. He stressed he was simply calling attention to those two items which broadened the impound authority.
Mr. Capurro stated there were concerns with the proposed amendments in Exhibit E. He noted, in section 24, the reference to a non-taxi, fully regulated carrier of passengers (anything other than a taxicab) was a broad definition. The testimony regarding per capita limousine operations, including busses, he added, was probably not appropriate. He clarified the definition of a livery limousine and a traditional limousine meant “equipment that was manufactured for that purpose.”
Mr. Capurro continued one of the provisions in the legislation from the last session was to raise the limousine definition up to a 21-passenger bus. The problem in setting a number, he noted, was it had to be the number for which the vehicle was manufactured, and this definition was overly broad. He said it also included special services buses, which were per capita and used extensively for large conventions. He stressed it would be appropriate to discuss this issue as well as allocation issues. He concluded he understood the problems and hoped solutions could be found.
Michael K. Sullivan, Lobbyist, Nevada Limousine Coalition, said he represented the smaller limousine companies. He said he supported S.B. 270 but had just received the amendments and needed to review them.
Senator Care disclosed that Mr. Sullivan was his campaign consultant in 1998.
Ray Chenoweth, Owner, Nellis Cab Company, spoke in favor of the bill. He said:
I would like to call attention to page 1, section 26 of the amendments (Exhibit E): “The establishment of a system of allocation for non-taxi, fully regulated carriers of passengers (that is limousines) must be adopted by January 1, 2002, and based on data relevant to those vehicles, without regard to the conditions affecting taxicab motor carriers.”
When we worked on this amendment, we decided it would be easier and better to leave this up to the agency itself to take into consideration the concerns of all of the operators and have a hearing to discuss this issue with the TSA. But if the bill were to pass with the amendment, it establishes a time limit to be in place in 7 or 8 months. I support that language and would urge you to adopt this amendment and pass the bill.
Chairman O'Donnell said he read the amendment differently. He stated the regulations could be drafted before 2002; however, the language said the authorities shall adopt regulations relating to the number of vehicles that would be allocated when the authority determined a system of allocation was necessary. He questioned this language and asked that this could be examined for clarification purposes.
Don Drake, Owner, Baker and Drake, Incorporated, doing business as Deluxe Taxi, Yellow Cab, and Star Cab in Washoe County, said he was in favor of driver permits and sanctions. He added Mr. Plunkett was well qualified as a representative of TSA to deal with these issues and he favored Mr. Plunkett’s ideas.
Mr. Drake presented proposed amendments (Exhibit F) which would benefit the public by taking the responsibility and placing it in the proper place. He said, “Taxicab companies were bound by NRS 706.072, 706.126, 706.151, 706.166, 706.168, 706.361, 706.366, 706.371, 706.481, 706.491, and also various sections of the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC).” He said with the addition of the amendments, the problems would be taken care of and he would support the bill.
Chairman O'Donnell asked if the TSA had seen the proposed amendments and the answer was yes.
John Cardinalli, Sunshine Cab Company, testified as an operator based at Stateline, Nevada, he competed with California taxi operators, who operated strictly and solely on a lease to the driver program. He pointed out it was very important to keep this bill from eliminating leasing because it would eliminate the ability to compete in the Lake Tahoe market. He noted suggested changes in wording had been passed on to Mr. Plunkett, but he generally supported the bill.
Chairman O'Donnell asked if the language still made the agent responsible instead of the broker. Mr. Drake answered this was addressed in his proposed amendments (Exhibit F). He remarked there is room to negotiate and work out the differences.
A. R. (Bob) Fairman, Budget Chauffer Drive, owner of a taxicab company in Douglas County, said he would like to see the wording changed to specify taxicabs and limousines only.
Chairman O'Donnell closed the hearing on S.B. 270 and opened the hearing on S.B. 374.
SENATE BILL 374: Revises provisions concerning duty to erect and maintain signs to designate parking spaces for use by handicapped persons. (BDR 43-710)
Senator Jacobsen said this bill came to his attention during the interim period because of the need to improve handicapped parking, especially signage.
Ronald Pierini, Sheriff, Douglas County, said he did a survey as a member of a legislative committee (Exhibit G). Mr. Pierini stated a questionnaire was sent out asking:
Are private businesses in compliance with handicapped parking requirements, NRS Chapter 484.408(1)? Have you experienced business owners’ refusal to address the issues as outlined in NRS 484.408? Do you have volunteers that enforce handicapped violations on behalf of your department?
Sheriff Pierini said volunteers were used to enforce handicapped violations in Douglas County and this had worked extremely well. He said, currently, violation complaints were minimal; however, through the survey, it was noted that several businesses were not in proper compliance with NRS 484.408. When the businesses were told they were not in compliance with the statutes, business owners refused to spend the funds to comply.
It was important, Sheriff Pierini said, to give the local sheriff and police departments the ability to contact businesses who were out of compliance and explain the importance of proper signage. He remarked with this legislation, if the business fails to follow the law, a citation could be issued.
Sheriff Pierini said he felt the bill draft request language needed to be revised to be made less cumbersome for local governments. It would be easier if the police or agency authorities had the authority to give citations to the people, who would then go to the local justice of the peace or to city court. He commented local entities would be more in tune to doing that. He said he visualized the following:
If a handicapped enforcement person reported a business which was not in compliance, we would send them a notice or letter and say this is what you need to do to get up to the standard, and we will give you a 30-day window to get proper signage and do what needs to be done to be in compliance with the NRS. At that point, after 30 days or 60 days, or whatever it might be, if the business was still not in compliance, we would send an officer to give a citation. Hopefully at that point it would be corrected and the justice of the peace or judge would have enough influence with this person to get something done.
Chairman O'Donnell summarized the majority of the cases, when notified, would correct the action if they knew they were under penalty of a misdemeanor.
Sheriff Pierini said right now there is no way to correct it other than to ask them to comply; if they do not wish to, there is no recourse. He noted the federal government regulations are a possible avenue for correction. He expressed, “Some time ago a Douglas County casino failed to be in compliance and the federal district court ordered them to improve the property to include access for disabled persons.” He voiced the mechanism needs to be in place so that businesses would have to comply.
Senator Care asked if there were overenthusiastic volunteers which brought about the statement in section 2 of S.B. 374 which said, “shall not issue a citation to a government entity.”
Sheriff Pierini said the volunteers do a really fine job but it was thought that enforcement issues should be handled by a full-time law enforcement officer. He stated if a governmental agency failed to comply, a mechanism needed to be in place where the sheriff or chief of police could meet with county or city government to get the agency to comply.
Walter Johnston, Concerned Citizen, and Douglas County volunteer, said he felt Douglas County volunteers were not overly aggressive. He noted non-compliant business owners brought about this bill by avoiding the issue or openly defying the suggestion to comply.
F. Alex Ortiz, Lobbyist, Clark County, stated the county had reviewed the bill and favored S.B. 374 with the proposed amendments.
Senator Care commended the volunteers for the work they had undertaken.
Sheriff Pierini clarified the bill dealt strictly with signs and making sure the signs were in proper compliance.
Tom McGowan, Concerned Citizen, said he was in favor of S.B. 374.
Chairman O'Donnell closed the hearing on S.B. 374 and opened the hearing on S.B. 303.
SENATE BILL 303: Makes various changes relating to insurance for motor vehicles. (BDR 43-109)
Robert B. Feldman, Lobbyist, Nevada General Insurance Company, said he had worked on this bill through the Nevada Insurance Council. He said S.B. 303 clarified three separate items at the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV/PS) to include the registration of motor vehicles, insurance verification program, and some information that insurance companies need to assist people with claims. Mr. Feldman went through the bill giving an explanation of each recommendation.
Mr. Feldman suggested an additional amendment, which would add a clause to section 6 of S.B. 303: “Nothing in this section shall prohibit DMV/PS from utilizing an edit, string, or other data processing tool to improve the efficiency of the program.” Mr. Feldman noted, through meetings to resolve these issues, the council had established a good working relationship with DMV/PS. He requested including the additional language as an amendment to the bill.
Senator Care said section 5 of the bill, disclosing information to the authorized insured, could be accomplished by a simple power of attorney. He noted this presumed the owner wanted the insurer to have the information. He asked, “What if the owner did not want to submit the claim to the insurance company and the insurance company found out about the accident in some other manner?”
Mr. Feldman responded:
I understand what you are saying, but generally there already is a claim reported because it happens when an investigation is underway. We have some accident cases where we cannot really decide whether the adverse vehicle is insured or uninsured; people have given us incorrect information, there is sketchy information on police reports, people disappear and move around . . . We already have accounts established with DMV/PS to get driving record information. We can get certain registration information on people right now . . . All I am suggesting is we can also get insurance information. I do not see it as much different from getting the other information. I am certain there will be a few people who do not want this information revealed, but we are trying to assist victims of accidents.
We can get a power of attorney if we can find the person, but I am told that under the current regulations, it takes up to 6 weeks to get the power of attorney, send the information to DMV/PS, and get the information back; and by that time it is almost history. This would speed up the process and allow them [DMV/PS] to provide the information.
Dana Mathiesen, Administrator, Central Services and Records Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, agreed with the provisions in the bill and Mr. Feldman’s recommendations for the change in the matching criteria (his proposed amendment).
Mr. Feldman said he had just received the bill and would like to add additional language to section 6 of S.B. 303.
Mr. Capurro pointed out if S.B. 220 passed, those vehicles would require insurance also, for instance, the ATVs that he owned.
Jim L. Werbeckes, Lobbyist, Farmers Insurance Group, testified he supported S.B. 303 for the most part. He stated in section 2, financial responsibility limits in the state of Nevada of 15-30-10 ($15,000 per person, $30,000 per accident, and $10,000 for property damage) needed to be increased because the value of new vehicles is currently in excess of $20,000.
Chairman O'Donnell asked what will this do to our insurances rates and how long these amounts had been in place.
Mr. Werbeckes said it would depend on the amount of the raise, but it could be a 12 to 15 percent boost in the rates.
Mr. Feldman said 29 years ago the state of Nevada had liability limits of 15-30 and $5000 for property damage; however, about 15 years ago the property damage limit was raised from $5000 to $10,000. None of the other limits have been changed, although several bills have been drafted. Nevada currently has the seventh highest insurance rates in the United States. To increase those limits would impose a financial burden of approximately 15 to 18 percent. He questioned whether people could afford the additional premium at this time with the increase in utility bills. California had enacted a low-income policy for people to carry lower limits because of the affordability problem at this time. He concluded this issue needed to be addressed, perhaps with a separate bill, following a period of study and research as to the financial impact to the public.
Andrew J. Thomas, Secretary, Nevada Trial Lawyers’ Association, spoke in support of an increase to basic liability limits. He noted the 15-30-10 limits have been in place for a long time, and those limits are no longer enough because medical bills and car repair costs have gone up. He explained the result is good drivers pay higher rates to cover a subsidy for the underinsured driver. Mr. Thomas suggested a modest increase to 25-50-20.
Chairman O'Donnell asked, “Do most people carry more than the 15-30-10 coverage?”
Mr. Thomas replied most people in this state carry the minimum coverage.
Mr. Werbeckes discussed section 3 of S.B. 303. He noted Nevada is one of two states to have this provision. He said his company does write this policy and they have concerns with this legislation. He added the additional language in section 3, subsection 7, protects the public. He concluded something should be added to dictate this type policy should not be issued to anyone unless they have multiple vehicles in their household.
Mr. Feldman disagreed with Mr. Werbeckes’ comments. He said there are occasions where this type of coverage is applicable. He added this coverage is very broad and this legislation will help to fix the problems.
Mr. Thomas said the cases his law firm dealt with frequently involve low-income families who may have not understood that only the head of the household is insured to drive the vehicle. He also stressed it would be better to have every vehicle covered by an owner’s policy.
Mr. Feldman clarified the bill proposes to correct the situation where there are multiple people listed on the vehicle registration but only one member of the household has insurance. He expressed the policy has done more good than harm, and modification would correct some of the problems.
Mr. Werbeckes stated, if the bill goes forward, he would suggest adding the verbiage, “this policy is written for a person who has numerous cars but one person is the sole driver.”
Mr. Feldman said he did not agree with Mr. Werbeckes.
Chairman O'Donnell stated the $10,000 limit was increased in 1981; the $30,000 limit was increased in 1969.
Chairman O'Donnell closed the hearing on S.B. 303 and opened the hearing on S.B. 396.
SENATE BILL 396: Makes various changes regarding traffic laws. (BDR 43‑1219)
Senator Mike McGinness, Central Nevada Senatorial District, said the justice of the peace in Fallon had asked him to introduce this bill because of the two-lane highway situation between Fallon and Fernley. He noted in the past year there had been about eight to ten traffic fatalities on the 25-mile stretch of road.
Senator McGinness said the Nevada Highway Patrol Division and the Nevada Department of Transportation have been very responsive in trying to help alleviate some of the problems. He reviewed sections 2, 3, and 5 of S.B. 396.
Cheryl Blomstrom, Lobbyist, Nevada Contractor’s Association, presented a proposed amendment to S.B. 396 (Exhibit H), which would clarify a problem that occurred after the 1997 flood in Reno. Current regulations allowed heavy equipment to move to an emergency without a permit. The request is to be able to move the equipment back after the emergency and then obtain a permit on the next business day.
Mike Rich, Truck Supervisor, Q & D Construction, Incorporated, testified the problem was getting the equipment back to the job. He noted often the permit office is closed, and there was no way to obtain the permit. This amendment would allow the equipment to be moved back to the jobsite.
Mr. Capurro said he was concerned about section 2, subsection 1, paragraph (b), subparagraph 1, “Wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists.” He stated this was a very subjective item and an area to turn out did not always exist. He recommended removing subparagraph (b) or changing the wording. Mr. Capurro said he did agree with the proposed amendment offered by Ms. Blomstrom.
Chairman O'Donnell closed the hearing on S.B. 396 and there being no further business, adjourned the meeting at 5:56 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Alice Nevin,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator William R. O'Donnell, Chairman
DATE: