MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Transportation
Seventy-First Session
April 3, 2001
The Senate Committee on Transportationwas called to order by Chairman William R. O'Donnell, at 2:14 p.m., on Tuesday, April 3, 2001, in Room 4100 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 Maurice Washington
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer
Senator Terry Care
Senator Maggie Carlton
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Bob Coffin, Clark County Senatorial District No. 3
Senator Alice Costandina (Dina) Titus, Clark County Senatorial District No. 7
Senator Jon C. Porter, Sr., Clark County Senatorial District No. 1
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Donald O. Williams, Committee Policy Analyst
Joan Moseid, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Robert D. Elliott, Lobbyist, MGM Mirage
Marjorie Holland, Concerned Citizen
Betty Willis, Concerned Citizen
Virginia (Ginny) Lewis, Deputy Director, Motor Vehicles, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety
Dennis Hetherington, Concerned Citizen
Hong T. Chin, Vice President, Public Finance Department, Salomon Smith Barney, Incorporated, San Francisco
John E. Jeffrey, Lobbyist representing California-Nevada Super Speed Grand Transportation Commission
Richann Johnson, Executive Director, California-Nevada Super Speed Ground Transportation Commission
Robert E. Campbell, Lobbyist, Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada
Steven E. Tackes, Attorney, Crowell, Susich, Owens and Tackes, Ltd.
F. Alex Ortiz, Lobbyist, Clark County
Robert B. Feldman, Lobbyist, Auto Agents Alliance of Nevada, Auto Insurance America, and Nevada General Insurance Company
Jim L. Werbeckes, Lobbyist, Farmers Insurance Group
Cliff King, Chief Insurance Examiner, Property and Casualty Section, Appeals Panel for Industrial Insurance, Division of Insurance, Department of Business and Industry
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens
Daryl E. Capurro, Lobbyist, Nevada Motor Transport Association
James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Captain, Patrol Division, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office
Fredrick M. Droes, P.E., Chief Safety Engineer, Nevada Department of Transportation
Cheryl C. Blomstrom, Lobbyist, Nevada Contractors’ Association
Chairman O’Donnell:
We will open the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 414.
SENATE BILL 414: Provides for limited issuance of special license plates to commemorate 100th anniversary of founding of City of Las Vegas. (BDR 43-317)
Senator Bob Coffin, Clark County Senatorial District No. 3:
Beginning with the commemoration of the 100th Anniversary of the founding of Las Vegas, there will be 5 years of celebration in this town which we have called home for many years. These license plates would benefit the centennial of the founding of Las Vegas and they would provide funds for the assorted events planned around the anniversary. I would simply preclude my opening remarks by saying Las Vegas is a town we are all proud of, its growth has been beyond belief. We never contemplated a village would grow so big. As of today, we have 70 percent of the population in the entire Las Vegas Valley, which includes two other cities in the valley.
Senator Care:
The sign picked for the license plates is almost 100 years old, it was in Las Vegas when I moved there in 1979, and I have seen it in movies, for those of us who have grown fond of the sign. Will it stay in Las Vegas? Do you have any knowledge of that, or how long it has been there, and where it came from, or what are they going to do with it?
Senator Coffin:
We have provided additional information for you in the form of a surprise witness who will elaborate.
Robert D. Elliott, Lobbyist, MGM Mirage:
Today, before taking off my MGM Mirage hat, I am appearing before you as a citizen of Clark County. I am a resident of Henderson and I am excited to bring forward my citizen participation in this particular commemorative license plate for the centennial of the City of Las Vegas. The genesis of the project actually came through a group of us who are participating in the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce’s Leadership Las Vegas program, Class of 2001. This is a tremendous program offered through the chamber of commerce, which allows you to go in depth into many different areas and issues affecting our community.
Mr. Elliott:
Our first session was history day, and on history day we learned about the 1905 auction where the idea of the City of Las Vegas started. Out of the original group’s ideas, there is not much left in Las Vegas that has been around for 100 years because we tend to do away with things and put up something newer and better. But the city itself has managed to survive and this is something we are celebrating. We came up with the notion to give all the citizens of southern Nevada and throughout the state the opportunity to support the centennial celebration through the creation of a license plate.
The license plate design is based upon the sign at the end of the Las Vegas Strip, and we have a special guest who is going to talk about the creation of the design. We are fortunate to have support from all the mayors in the Las Vegas area as well as the county commission, so it is truly a regional effort. I think part of what is exciting for us is we all consider ourselves a part of the Las Vegas experience, and we think that will generate some interest for this license plate.
Mr. Elliott:
The funds from the plate will actually be sent to the City of Las Vegas and they will be used for the centennial celebration. We have indicated, in the legislation, we would like to see some of the money used for historical markers, maybe the creation of historical tours, and if enough money is raised, obviously, it would allow us the opportunity for some historical preservation. There is not a lot here, but it would be fascinating to see some sort of historical markers fashioned or walking tours. One of the things I noticed on may way into town today in Carson City was there are those wonderful homes with historical markers in front of them, and I think we have some core areas throughout our valley certainly warranting that sort of demarcation. With that in mind, Mayor (Oscar B.) Goodman held a press conference this last week; he is very interested in launching the idea of creating some talk and energy around the Las Vegas Centennial Celebration. And with that launching, we are moving forward and asking for the support of this committee and asking the full Senate and Legislature to support this bill.
(Mr. Elliott submitted a sample copy of the centennial celebration license plate, “Celebrating a Century of Success, Las Vegas 1905-2005” [Exhibit C].)
Chairman O’Donnell:
How long have you lived in Las Vegas?
Mr. Elliott:
Actually, I have been in Las Vegas all of my life and I have lived in southern Nevada for about 12 years.
Chairman O’Donnell:
I came to Las Vegas in the advent of the “Atomic Age,” and I was there during all of the above-ground testing, that was a different era. So, I am very proud of this city, as well. I think this is a good thing. May I ask if the license plate is going to be handled any differently than any other license plate?
Mr. Elliott:
Yes, It is a little different. Once the plate goes into production it would be a limited issue. It will end in 2005; when the centennial celebration is over, the license plates will no longer be available. So, we hope it will create some interest in participating, getting in on an historical event; and the funds will be collected and used up by the end of the centennial celebration.
Chairman O’Donnell:
Will they be allowed to keep the centennial license plate after 2005, or will they have to turn it in?
Mr. Elliott:
Yes, they can keep it.
Chairman O’Donnell:
So, it is only an issue window between now and 2005.
Marjorie Holland, Concerned Citizen:
Over to my left shoulder toward the cameras is my mother, Betty Willis. Betty Willis is the original designer of, as she likes to refer to it, the “little sign that could.” Betty comes from an old pioneer Nevada family, her father, Steven R. Whitehead, was the first Clark County Recorder and Assessor. Betty was a pioneer in neon sign design, being the first woman in that field in Nevada. She designed the “Welcome to Fabulous Las Vegas” sign when she worked for Western Neon in 1956; it is not quite 100 years old. Little did she know when she was given carte blanche in its design, that sign would become the icon of Las Vegas. She had over 48 years of neon sign design experience in Las Vegas prior to her semi-retirement in December 1999, at the age of 76. She has often said she wishes she had a nickel for every time her sign is shown in the wide variety of media. Many have made remarks to her that when traveling back to Las Vegas on the “Old Los Angeles Highway” (U.S. 91) from California, the sign meant you were finally home. People have often asked why she has never copyrighted the original design. She believes copyrighting the sign would inhibit the use of it, and she feels it is better for Las Vegas to allow it to be freely reproduced. She is very proud her sign has been chosen to represent Las Vegas for the centennial license plates. Thank you.
Chairman O’Donnell:
Is the designed sign on the license plate going to be easily reproducible?
Virginia (Ginny) Lewis, Deputy Director, Motor Vehicles, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety:
As you are aware, law enforcement will have to take the plate out and test it for visibility, which has not been done at this point. We could have the highway patrol look at this to give us a preliminary evaluation, but before it is signed off by them, they would need to take it out on the road.
Chairman O’Donnell:
Betty (Ms. Willis), we are certainly proud of all the work. How many tries did it take to get to this final point?
Betty Willis, Concerned Citizen:
Once I was told the requirements, I had more or less definite ideas of what I wanted. My dad used to drive me to California when I was a little child. They always had sparkling neon and chasing lamps, so I knew what to put on it.
Chairman O’Donnell:
Have you seen a copy of the proposed license plate?
Ms. Willis:
Not up close. There should not be any trouble in reproducing it. I have done reproductive artwork, and the way the treatment is selected will determine it, and I am sure it will be worked out satisfactorily.
Chairman O’Donnell:
This is the copy of the proposed license plate. I am not partial to the yellow coloring, I am more partial to purple. But certainly your logo is prominently displayed. Can you see the TV monitor?
Ms. Willis:
Yes.
Chairman O’Connell:
I am very proud of the work you have done. Thank you for making this an “icon” for the rest of the nation.
Ms. Willis:
I would like to make one comment. My father was the president of the chamber of commerce back in those days, and yes, there were people who realized we would become what we are. His one comment was, “If we could just get one resort hotel on The Strip, we can get on the map.” I think we did that. He lived to see the El Rancho Las Vegas (1941).
Chairman O’Donnell:
I remember, as a child, opening up the United States map and studying geography and I would look for the town of Las Vegas and it was not on the map.
Ms. Willis:
We had our mail misdirected to Las Vegas, New Mexico, which irritated my father.
Chairman O’Donnell:
Were you responsible for the other notable signs in Las Vegas? All the way into town you saw a sign saying, “Welcome to Fabulous Las Vegas Nevada,” and on the way out of town a sign said, “Free aspirin and tender sympathy.”
Ms. Willis:
That was a very small sign down the road. No. Our sign read, “Please drive carefully and come back soon.”
Chairman O’Donnell:
Ms. Willis will you do us a favor? Would you be willing to autograph our license plates? It is sort of an historical committee, and we like to do a lot of things in transportation. We would be honored if you could autograph some sample license plates for us, so we may be able to hang them in our offices.
Dennis Hetherington, Concerned Citizen:
I am a 24-year resident of this wonderful area we refer to as Las Vegas. Twelve of those years I lived in the unincorporated areas of Clark County, and the last 12 years I have lived in the City of Las Vegas. During those 24 years, I have been able to travel throughout the United States and abroad saying, when asked where I am from, I am from Las Vegas. Las Vegas is not just a political subdivision or geographic area, it is also a state of mind. Now these plates will not only demonstrate our pride in Las Vegas, Clark County, and the state of Nevada, but they will help to inform and educate this huge influx of new residents we have coming in every day who really know very little about our history. I would certainly urge you to approve this legislation.
Chairman O’Donnell:
Ms. Lewis, do you have any comments regarding this particular measure? Would you gladly embrace this new plate amongst all of the other plates you have been saddled with?
Ms. Lewis:
I think this is similar to our other plates. As far as the ending date on the issuance, it sounds a lot like the bicentennial plate, so as long as customers are allowed to keep their plates and we would not have to recall it, I certainly believe we would support this bill.
Mr. Elliott:
The language in the bill is specifically based on a plate, I think, the Attorney General approved; the designs and colors were produced by Mark Brown and Partner, in Las Vegas. The color scheme of everything has been driven by the colors in the sign, and we are certainly willing to work with whosoever we would need to work with as a group to make this more palpable and more acceptable to law enforcement.
Senator Amodei:
I would like to congratulate you, Mr. Elliott, on the way you have worked this measure.
Chairman O’Donnell:
For the record, we have received a letter from Mayor Oscar B. Goodman of the City of Las Vegas supporting S.B. 414, and letters of support from Chairman Dario Herrera of the Board of Commissioners, Clark County, Mayor James B. Gibson of the City of Henderson, Mayor Michael L. Montandon of the City of North Las Vegas, Donald L. “Pat” Shalmy president of the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, and from Frank Wright, Curator of Manuscripts, Nevada State Museum and Historical Society.
We will close the hearing on S.B. 414 and open the hearing on S.B. 323.
SENATE BILL 323: Authorizes issuance of bonds, notes obligations or other evidences of borrowing the finance construction of super speed ground transportation system. (BDR 58-961)
Senator Alice Costandina (Dina) Titus, Clark County Senatorial District No. 7:
I am here this afternoon with Jack Jeffrey, who represents the California-Nevada Super Speed Train Commission; Hong T. Chin, Vice President, Public Finance Department, Salomon Smith Barney Incorporated; and Richann Johnson, Executive Director, California-Nevada Super Speed Ground Transportation Commission.
As you know, the Nevada-California Super Speed Ground Transportation Commission is an official, legislatively sanctioned state body, created by Senate Bill 406 of the Sixty-Fourth Session and enrolled under Chapter 705 of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS).
SENATE BILL 406 OF THE SIXTY-FOURTH SESSION: Creates California-Nevada Super Speed Ground Transportation Commission. (BDR 58‑1292)
The commission objective was to promote and facilitate the construction of a super-speed train between Las Vegas and Anaheim, California. You have before you a summary of the commission’s recent projects and some of its statistical information about what has taken place over the years (Exhibit D). Over the years, readership studies have been conducted and environmental impact statements have been completed, funding has been provided by the federal government as well as the State of Nevada, the City of Las Vegas, the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada and various local entities along the route in California, including the Cities of Barstow, Victorville, Ontario, and Anaheim. The project is now nearing the final stages and should be ready to break ground within the next 2 years for the first 40 miles, which is the stretch from Las Vegas to Primm. In order to make it happen we have to be creative and do some joint public-private financing.
Senator Titus:
United States Senator Harry Reid and others who represent Nevada in Washington, D.C., are committed to getting us our share of the construction funds authorized by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA‑21), which created the Magnetic Levitation (MagLev) Transportation Technology Deployment Program. In order for this to happen, the state must also show a commitment to the project. Now we know budgets are very tight and it is difficult to get a major appropriation for the project. Pennsylvania, one of our competitors for the funds has pledged $500 million in matching funds. We cannot do this in Nevada, so we have come up with an alternative. This alternative would both allow the commission to raise some money and show the State’s commitment to the project.
Senator Titus:
The alternative is before you today in S.B. 323. It would simply allow the commission to issue bonds. Those bonds could then be repaid and secured by the various means listed in section 1 of the bill. I would like to point out to you a special section, subsection 5 of section 1, which indicates the state would not be held liable for those bonds. If some unlikely event occurs and the funding dries up or the train project goes under, the state would not be held responsible for paying those bonds. A second important thing to remember is these bonds would not count against he state’s cap, they are outside the state’s cap.
Section 2, subsection 3, paragraph (b), of the bill updates the definition of speed train to refer specifically to magnetic levitation technology, which is what we are pursuing and to state that a super speed ground transportation system means a system capable of sustained speeds of at least 240 miles an hour; that is a pretty fast train. I urge you to support this bill because the project is on the brink of finally becoming a reality and it could not happen at a better time. This is a perfect example of public-private partnerships, creative financing cooperation between local, state, and federal governments and the private sector. The American Magline Group is the consortium of industries working with us. I will leave with you a copy of a report that was done from the university on the economic impact of the project. The report projects 13,000 jobs would be created in Nevada with the proliferation of gaming, and the tax return would be $122 million a year.
Senator Titus:
This would certainly be a plus to our tourist industry because it would provide quicker and very convenient access to Southern California, which is one of our biggest markets. The train itself is also a plus in a time of the increasing energy crisis and finally, last but certainly not least, it is good for the environment because it will take cars off the road and help with air pollution problems we are facing in southern Nevada. So I would urge your support, and if you have any questions about the bonding I would turn that over to Mr. Chin.
Chairman O’Donnell:
Mr. Chin, if the bond commission or the commission decides it is no longer needed, we could not go forward with this project. I understand they have already acquired property. What happens to the bond purchasers who might have purchased some of the right-of-way? Would the state buy it back, essentially, or will the state just automatically get it back?
Hong T. Chin, Vice President, Public Finance Department, Salomon Smith Barney, Incorporated, San Francisco:
The bond purchasers are not actually acquiring rights to the right-of-way itself. They are simply buying bonds and asking for the funds to be paid back in terms of interest and principal. In case they are not fully paid, they will be paid out of liquidation funds. This is a risk disclosed at the time of the purchase of the bonds.
Chairman O’Donnell:
Well, I understand the liquidation and they may not get all of it back but, however, to use some of the bond money to purchase rights-of-way, the rights would become an asset of the company and then, when the asset is liquidated, will this property’s rights-of-way go back to the states automatically, or to the company to be liquidated or sold back to the respective states?
Mr. Chin:
I cannot tell you, without going further into how it would be structured, if it could be liquidated and returned to the bondholders. In this case, the right-of-way along I-15 is an asset.
Chairman O’Donnell:
So, it will be using the public rights-of-way.
Mr. Chin:
Yes.
Jack Jeffrey, Lobbyist, representing the California-Nevada Super Speed Ground Transportation Commission:
The only property we anticipate the commission would purchase is the property necessary for terminals. The rights-of-way, the guideway itself, would primarily be along I-15. Whatever it takes to reach the right-of-way they might have to buy, but from there, it will all be on the freeway right-of-way.
Senator Washington:
Once you get to the California-Nevada state line and cross over, what obligation does the State of California have to complete?
Senator Titus:
This is a joint project worked on by both states, with members of the commission from both states, the first 40 miles is from here to Primm, the next stop is from Primm to Barstow, and from there to Anaheim.
Senator Washington:
Are they also requesting bond measures? How will they fund the other half?
Senator Titus:
It is not neatly divided, we fund half and they fund half. Certainly they have lobbied the California Legislature as we have done here. Right now they are not requesting bonds, but because we are one commission, we are recognized as the state entity, in Nevada. They are more of an appointed ad hoc group in California, not in the statute, so this seems to be the cleanest, legal way to do this.
Senator Washington:
And the bond obligation payment or repayment comes from pledges, advertisement, and fares.
Senator Titus:
Let me direct your attention to the summary (Exhibit D). It shows what they anticipate annually, how many people they expect to ride, what the costs would be, and how much they expect to take in. If you look on page 15, there is a project description chart. We expect the first stop, from here to Primm, would be a tourist attraction. You would go from here to Primm in about 7 minutes.
Senator Washington:
What private enterprises or entities have actually contributed?
Mr. Chin:
It is called the “American Maglev Group.”
Chairman O’Donnell:
Why did we change it from 180 mph to 240 mph?
Mr. Jeffrey:
Because of changes in technology, the speed has increased over the period of years.
Chairman O’Donnell:
It says at least 180 mph. Well, 240 is at least 180 mph. It just seems like the number was put in there to make it apply to a train that goes 240 mph, to distinguish it from a 220 mph train. Is this a valid statement?
Mr. Jeffrey:
I do not believe there is a train, outside of the Maglev, that runs over 150 mph at the present time.
Senator Titus:
When this project first started, they were looking at different kinds of technology such as the train in France, or in Japan, and then this Maglev we have in Germany. This was decided they would go with Maglev; the 240 mph applies to the Maglev technology.
Chairman O’Donnell:
So, what if it does not go 240 mph? What if it goes to 238 mph? Are we in trouble?
Senator Titus:
I do not believe so. The sustained speed of 240 mph means it goes faster than 240 mph. I do not think this would be a problem.
Senator Washington:
Did you say the state is not obligated against the bond capacity?
Mr. Chin:
Correct. This is also a disclosure made to the bondholders at the time of the sale; these are the only security provisions you are entitled to.
Senator Washington:
What happens if there is a default on the bond?
Mr. Chin:
It is a risk the bondholders take.
Senator Washington:
What is the capacity of the passenger carrier?
Mr. Chin:
It is 720 seats in 8 cars. Depending on the system we are talking about. At this time we are talking about the Las Vegas to Primm. As the system grows, it could increase to a maximum of 15 cars.
Senator Titus:
On page 15 of the summary (Exhibit D), you will see the times, the cost per ride, and how many departures, seats, et cetera.
I would like to share a booklet titled, “The Impact of the Maglev Train on the Economy of Clark County and the State of Nevada” (Exhibit E. Original is on file in the Research Library.).
Mr. Jeffrey:
This is really a great system. It has no maintenance because there are no motors. It has two sets of magnets, one to elevate the car and one to drive it.
Senator Jacobsen:
I would like to see a model or a video of the Maglev. How many years has this been going now?
Senator Titus:
Approximately 20 years. We do have a 10-minute video you can review.
Richann Johnson, Executive Director, California-Nevada Super Speed Ground Transportation Commission:
I have been working on this project for many years, and we have come before you on several occasions. The change today is there is a real appetite at the federal level now to put forward these types of trains as an answer to the transportation needs in this country. So it is much more than a train in Nevada, it is a train for this country for this century. What we are trying to do is introduce a new transportation system. In answer to the question, where is it going to happen? Hopefully, it will be here in Nevada. The climate is here in Nevada. We have rights-of-way that are very available, as compared to those in the eastern states. We also have the ability to put something like this in place, politically as well as uncomplicated environmentally. What we are asking you to do for us is to put the tools in place for us to be able to encourage the federal government. They are looking at the eastern states, politically. We have several champions at the federal level who are supporting this project and saying, “You need to put the magnetically level train out West where it could address the needs of long distances. The trains operate better at distances between 300 and 600 miles, these distances will show the technology at its best.
Chairman O’Donnell:
I could not agree with you more. Let us just take a look at history. In the 1930s, the government took upon itself the task of building Hoover Dam; in the 1960s, we sent a man to the moon; in the 1970s, we built the Alaskan pipeline; and in the 1980s, we had the space shuttle; in the 1990s, we really did not do much. When was the last time we did a national project of this magnitude?
Chairman O’Donnell:
We will close the hearing on S.B. 323 and open the hearing on S.B. 409.
SENATE BILL 409: Provides for issuance of special license plates to support preserving federal lands surrounding Las Vegas, promoting community stewardship of those valuable resources, enriching visitors’ experience and enhancing quality of life of local residents. (BDR 43-245)
Senator Jon C. Porter, Sr., Clark County Senatorial District No. 1:
We are here today, Robert Campbell and myself, to talk about a group called “Outside Las Vegas,” a third-party, nongovernmental, nonprofit organization created to help protect the public lands around Las Vegas, as well as educate the residents of the Las Vegas Valley. Outside Las Vegas is made up of leaders in the community who have stepped forward to help with the establishment of a nonprofit foundation dedicated to the preservation and conservation of federal lands in the Las Vegas area.
This is Outside Las Vegas Foundation’s mission statement and a brief summary of its goals (Exhibit F).
Senator Porter:
As you know, there are a number of governmental agencies in southern Nevada. There are four agencies that sometimes go unnoticed because they are federal agencies, including the National Park Service and the Bureau of Land Management. The purpose of this group is to organize local governments, local communities, and the federal government in finding ways to preserve and conserve the federal lands around the valleys. Not only is the growth of the valley affecting these lands, but tourists who visit these lands have a profound effect as well as the residents of the area. There are 18 million visitors a year to our recreational areas such as Lake Mead National Recreation Area, Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area (Bureau of Land Management), Valley of Fire State Park, and the Mount Charleston Wilderness. Outside Las Vegas will work across all four lands classifications to link with local and state initiatives to maintain the beauty of the lands for many generations to come.
Outside Las Vegas will help with programs such as those that afford transit opportunities utilizing public lands. As well as transit, trash removal from trails is a major issue conservators of public lands face on day-to-day basis. Outside Las Vegas will work with the National Park Service as well as the Bureau of Land Management to create a slogan to be used universally throughout the park system and southern Nevada’s public lands. The purpose of this is to support Outside Las Vegas in the future.
Robert E. Campbell, Lobbyist, Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada:
Speaking as one of the founding members of the “Outside Las Vegas Foundation,” and as current member of its board and executive committee. Senator Porter has explained very well what the Outside Las Vegas Foundation is, and you have before you our briefing paper (Exhibit F), which also includes a list of our board members that will give you an idea of the cross section of the community.
Mr. Campbell:
We have found a very effective mechanism for working with the federal land agencies present in Clark County. As this committee, we all know they control a great majority of lands in Clark County. It is a fairly unique situation and I understand there is only one other situation like this in the country, where the local citizens have come together, collaboratively, with federal land managers to form an organization of this type. It has been endorsed at the cabinet secretary level of the federal agencies involved in it. The letter handed out was presented from Mr. Tom Kuekes, Las Vegas District Ranger for the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest (Exhibit G).
In one of the sessions in the past, we received endorsement from this committee and permission from the Legislature for special Spring Mountains/ Mount Charleston license plates. It is the feeling of both the national Forest Service and our group, because we encompass it along with all of those other areas now. This, in essence, is a replacement for that particular, previously approved license plate. The Spring Mountains/Mount Charleston license plate did not reach the 250 minimum requirement, and since I believe our organization has a much wider base, and this license plate could be very effective in its mission, because of its much broader appeal.
Senator Porter:
If I can just touch on a couple of other areas along the theme of just outside of Las Vegas, one is, of course, the environmental education which I mentioned earlier. Number two is cultural preservation and interpretation. Number three is site restoration, from water clarity to school stewardship programs to science and research, and facility improvements as well as the externalities such as littering and illegal dumping. Also important is connecting the urban core to public lands.
For the record, I would like to read the mission statement for the Outside Las Vegas Foundation:
The Outside Las Vegas Foundation is dedicated to preserving the federal public lands surrounding Las Vegas, enriching the experience of its visitors and the quality of life for local residents and promoting community stewardship of these valuable resources.
To this, end the foundation protects natural, historical or archeological sites; develops and revitalizes park sites and facilities; renovates historic structures and interpretive exhibits; restores disturbed sites; acquires artifacts or historical materials; creates trails and publications; supports education, volunteer and outreach programs; and sponsors scientific research that enhances public and agency understanding of these complex ecosystems.
Mr. Chairman, a week prior to your work session we will have the final artwork, which would be of Lake Mead, Red Rock, Valley of Fire, and Mount Charleston.
Chairman O’Donnell:
Does this license plate have anything different than the normal license plates we normally process through this committee?
Donald O. Williams, Committee Policy Analyst:
I have reviewed the bill and it looks like it has basic provisions that are consistent with other special license plates bills, unless the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety has some concerns.
(Mr. Williams submitted a prepared work session document for the Senate Committee on Transportation, dated April 3, 2001 [Exhibit H].)
Chairman O’Donnell:
We will close the hearing on S.B. 409, and we will open the work session on S.B. 26
SENATE BILL 26: Creates fund for aviation. (BDR 44-696)
Steven Tackes, Lobbyist, Carson City Airport Authority:
I am appearing before the committee on behalf of the Carson City Airport Authority. In the last meeting, the testimony given were from three individuals from the Carson City Airport Authority, the airport authority itself was not active. We believe these amendments would take care of the concerns that were at hand.
Mr. Tackes:
Mr. Chairman, we would like to propose amendments (Exhibit H) for S.B. 26. The underlined passages are the only amendments. We made a couple of basic changes in response to comments presented to the committee in opposition of the bill. What we have done is include a provision in subsection 3, for the director to make the decision on where to spend the money upon consultation with the Nevada aviation technical advisory committee and down further you will see the technical advisory committee is made up of representatives of the public airports in Nevada. This allows there to be input from the airports to the director, as a director makes these spending decisions. That is appropriate because the money is coming from these public airports.
The only other change is in the “purposes for which funds could be spent” are in subsection 3, paragraph (b). We included expenditure prioritization as determined by the project’s purpose, benefit-to-cost analysis, its impact on airport safety, security, on maintenance of current infrastructure, impact to future development, any environmental impacts, and how it related to increasing system capacity. Those are the purposes for which the federal government allows us to spend money and they cover everything done to an airport. This satisfies the concern we had not been specific about what the money would be spent on. The only other change included was testimony from Jeff Fontaine, Deputy Director, Nevada Department of Transportation, who pointed out it should not say “a system director,” it should say “a director.”
Chairman O’Donnell:
What about the concerns the Carson City Airport had in terms of its allocation of funds and its revenue stream being applied to the overall plan for the development of the airport?
Mr. tackes:
I believe it takes care of it, because the bill is permissive. If the airports want to participate and direct their fuel taxes to the Aviation Trust Fund, they could do so, if they do not want to direct their fuel taxes, they do not need to do so.
Chairman O’Donnell:
There is an additional amendment, I believe, coming from John P. Sande III, Lobbyist, Airport Authority of Washoe County, and possibly another from Clark County.
F. Alex Ortiz, Lobbyist, Clark County:
I would like to refer to the work session document on S.B. 26 and ask that language be added to exclude both Clark County and Washoe County from this bill. It is our request at this time, and as I have spoken with Mr. Sande regarding this amendment, he also agrees and would ask that Washoe County be excluded.
Chairman O’Donnell:
I think the language should be added to exclude the airports operated by Clark County.
Chairman O’Donnell:
Boulder City and Mesquite airports may want to be able to participate in applying for funding, and they are not operated by Clark County.
Mr. Ortiz:
Correct. The airports we operate would be McCarran International Airport, which is the largest one and the first, and then we have five smaller airports.
Senator Jacobsen:
My main concern would be for the rural airports that are more or less multi- purpose, and I would single out the Douglas County Airport (Minden-Tahoe Airport), mostly. I would like to make sure these airports would not be left out because they are important to us.
Mr. Tackes:
We had close participation by Jim Braswell, manager of the airport. He has been very active in preparing this legislation and we are confident Minden-Tahoe Airport is covered and can participate in this fund.
Senator Jacobsen:
I just wanted to make sure they were compatible.
Chairman O’Donnell:
The chairman would accept a motion.
SENATOR AMODEI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 26.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Donnell:
We will close the work session on S.B. 26 and open the work session on S.B. 303.
SENATE BILL 303: Makes various changes relating to insurance for motor vehicles. (BDR 43-109)
Robert R. Feldman, Lobbyist, Auto Agents Alliance of Nevada, Auto Insurance America, and Nevada General Insurance Company:
We issue nonowner vehicle liability policies. Some of our customers do not own any vehicles whatsoever, they purchase the policy mainly because they need it for SR22 financial responsibility filings with the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, when their driving privilege has been suspended for cause: driving under the influence (DUI), involuntary manslaughter convictions, uninsured accidents and so on. Under this type of policy, as soon as they purchase a vehicle, the vehicle is automatically covered by the policy whether they purchase one or two vehicles. One insurance company actually includes motorcycles at the same premium rate. So, it would be impossible to live with an amendment saying they have to own multiple vehicles, when the purpose of the nonowner automobile policy is to insure people who do not own any vehicles. This is the main purpose.
Chairman O’Donnell:
Actually, Mr. Feldman you are wrong. Have you researched back into who initially put that legislation together?
Mr. Feldman:
Yes, I worked with the subcommittee that put this legislation together.
Chairman O’Donnell:
When?
Mr. Feldman:
In the summer of 1986, I gave them the language to put it together.
Chairman O’Donnell:
Do you know who pushed that bill through?
Mr. Feldman:
There was a disc jockey in northern Nevada by the name of Travis Hipp, who originally proposed the bill. Mr. Hipp supported the bill and as did many more people as well. The interim subcommittee heard the bill, then they pushed it through, or actually, the committee did.
Chairman O’Donnell:
Who put it through? Do they have a name?
Mr. Feldman:
The committee was co-chaired by Senator Ann O’Connell, Clark County Senatorial District No. 5, and Assemblyman Bob Thomas from Carson City. During the summer of 1986 they had heard several issues on rental cars, this one in particular. They wanted to give the public the choice of insuring the driver instead of just insuring the vehicle, and that was how this legislation came to pass.
Chairman O’Donnell:
I remember sitting in a recovery room after an operation down in UCLA Medical Center where my son had just had open-heart surgery. And Travis T. Hipp called me on the cell phone and said, “Why don’t you get my bill out?” And I said, “I am working as hard as I can but, unfortunately, I have a personal need right now, and I cannot work on your bill just yet. When I get back, I will do it. And when I got back, I did it.”
It was me that pushed this bill through and the intent behind the legislation was to cover Travis T. Hipp’s situation which was he had multiple cars and one driver.
I guess my concern here is the law says if you are going to drive a vehicle you have to have insurance. There is a policy out designed for a fleet or designed for multiple vehicles, there is also a policy being sold to people who do not own a car. It is outside the intent of what the chairman decided to do in the 1987 Legislative Session. I believe Senator Randolph Townsend was the chairman of the committee then, or maybe it was Senator Dean Rhoads.
I believe we are going outside of the intent of the law by allowing an operator’s policy to be sold to an individual with no cars whatsoever. It would be my intent to change the law to require an insurance policy that to be sold as an operator’s policy, must contain at least three vehicles. That way, we will make no mistake about what the intent of the original law was. Because you cannot use the law to get around the law, people have to be covered. And if you are covering DUI, manslaughter, and the like with this minimum policy, you are leaving the rest of the public at risk. I can appreciate the fact these people have to pay a tremendous amount of money to get their vehicles insured because of the operator’s behavior, but at the risk of the rest of the people, I am going to say that portion of the bill needs to be changed. Two attorneys on this committee see every day the catastrophic effects of what an automobile accident can do to someone.
Chairman O’Donnell:
The problem here today is the public has not had an opportunity to hear the testimony on both sides. If we take into consideration this subsection 2 of section 2 of S.B. 303, dealing with the limits without public notification, we will be doing the public a disservice. I only wish this had been introduced as a separate bill to be dealt with by this committee. I think the adjustments would have been made. However, we have a couple of amendments on this bill.
Jim L. Werbeckes, Lobbyist, Farmers Insurance Group:
If it is the intent of the chairman to go forward with the operator’s policy, yes, I would suggest you will need multiple vehicles on the policy.
Chairman O’Donnell:
No, I do not want to get rid of the operator’s policy. However, I do want to make sure the operator’s policy is used specifically for the right reason. We are not selling policies to get around people who have DUI and manslaughter charges, reckless driving, et cetera, so they would have to get rid of their cars, then buy an operator’s policy which is cheap, cheap, cheap, and then go out and borrow a car.
Mr. Feldman:
Excuse me; the operator’s policy is not cheap, cheap, cheap. It is filed at the same rate as an owner’s policy. First of all, we must maintain some provisions for financial responsibility in the financial statutes allowing for a person who has had a suspended driver’s license, if the license is suspended or revoked and who does not own an automobile. We have to have a method for him to comply with financial responsibilities laws and get his driver’s license back. Let us say he is a truck driver and is going to drive for a living or drive to work, so we have to have some form of nonowner auto policy because we have always had it, as has the other states.
Whether you would want to change the law so the operator’s policy is not acceptable to register motor vehicles in this state, that is another question altogether. The only thing coming across my mind is whether you can register vehicles with a named operator’s policy, because you must maintain some form of nonowner’s auto insurance for these people who must file financial responsibility with the State of Nevada, unless we change all of those laws. So, we do need a formal policy. I believe if you check Chapter 485 of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) it has requirements for everybody who has a suspended driver’s license.
Mr. Werbeckes:
Again, the intent is to move this bill along. Farmers Insurance Group also has a policy requiring all licensed drivers in the household to have their operator’s policy as well.
Mr. Feldman:
I do not know how you can do that. The largest writer of this policy for the last 14 years, our agency operations represent most of the companies that have written this policy. The number one writer is Dairyland Insurance Company; it has approximately 5000 of these policies out there. My own company has approximately 1500 policies; between the two companies, we have probably written 20,000 of these policies over the last few years. Farmers Insurance Group has written 300 of these policies and I do not believe they started writing them until recently. We have the experience for these types of policies. Let me give you an example, if you buy an operator’s policy versus an owner’s policy, the normal owner’s policy excludes your use of a nonowned vehicle. For example, if a vehicle is furnished for your regular or frequent use, this is an exclusion on everybody’s insurance policy; if a vehicle is owned by a member of your household, that is an exclusion on everybody’s insurance policy. These operator’s policies are the broadest form of policy available in the country. They insure the named operator to drive any motor vehicle, whether it is owned or not owned by a member of the household or not. This is one of the reasons why it is beneficial for the higher-risk driver to make sure they are covered driving any vehicle out there. If they happen to be driving a vehicle that has primary insurance, this would apply as an access coverage in addition to the primary insurance. If they happen to be driving an uninsured vehicle, they are covered to drive that vehicle and the public is assured that at all times these people are covered to drive any motor vehicle. This is the reason why this policy does a service for the public, and I do not believe we passed this bill because of Mr. Hipp, and I know I did not work with the committee in 1986.
I spent hours and hours at the Legislative Counsel Bureau, and it was not because of Travis Hipp. It was because the public wanted a policy whereas we could insure more than one vehicle, the driver instead of the cars, and it was more than just Travis Hipp involved.
Again, the only proposal that would work on this bill is for the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety to stop accepting operator’s policies for registered motor vehicles. It is the only thing I can think of that would work properly because we do have to maintain this form of policy.
Cliff King, Chief Insurance Examiner, Property and Casualty Section, Department of Business and Industry:
First of all, we do receive a number of consumer complaints because an individual would purchase an operator’s policy, loan his vehicle to someone else who is a promiscuous user, and if the person who borrows the car does not have insurance, the vehicle is uninsured. That is a problem. We have a large number of people who, when they register complaints after an accident, state, yes, they purchased the policy and they did not realize the limitation was in there.
If you take a look at what the Nevada Supreme Court has ruled with regards to driver exclusions, for example, if you took the same family, and they purchased an owner’s policy which excluded a driving member of the family, and then they are involved in an accident, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled, about 2½ years ago, the minimum limits for financial responsibility would still apply, even though the driver was excluded, because he was driving with permission. So there are some problems we have with the operator’s policy. We do not object to the operator’s policies; however, they do need to be made clear that it is limited. So the problem really gets down to the financial responsibility for a vehicle.
Senator Carlton:
Mr. Feldman said earlier we needed this to protect a certain group of people he is being a proponent for. What did we do before 1989, in those particular cases before this bill existed? Apparently there was something in place then. Could we just go back to what we had before?
Mr. King:
Many companies offer something called a “name nonowner” policy for individuals who do not own an automobile so they would have liability insurance. Mr. Werbeckes has a page out of the Insurance Office Service Manual (IOS) for the industry and there are still provisions in the manual for name nonowned auto policy. Those are available, they do not necessarily meet the situation where one individual, one driver, owns a lot of cars. There you are faced with, “Do we still insure every vehicle or do you insure one driver for all those cars?” The problem seems to be stemming from people who have multiple drivers for a vehicle, but only one person is insured. It is the most common problem we are encountering.
Chairman O’Donnell:
The chairman would accept a motion to include Mr. Feldman’s amendment to allow the department to utilize any stream or data to process the efficiency of the program for insurance verification and limit the operator’s policy to three or more vehicles.
SENATOR CARLTON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 303.
SENATOR AMODEI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator Washington:
In section 2, subsection 2, dealing with the 15-30-10 ($15,000, $30,000, and $10,000 amounts of insurance coverage required). Do you want to deal with this in a separate bill?
Chairman O’Donnell:
Correct, we cannot authorize a bill because it is beyond the deadline. However, what we can do is encourage the leadership to take a look at this during the interim. I believe there was an interim committee last session dealing with liability limits on local governments.
Senator Washington:
Correct, I think I sat on that committee.
Chairman O’Donnell:
This would have been another perfect fit for that particular committee to deal with, looking at this exact issue.
Senator Washington:
There is a limited liability bill on its way to this committee.
Chairman O’Donnell:
Are they limiting the government’s liability?
Senator Washington:
Yes, raising the capital. How many emergency measures are there? Is it restricted to the leadership?
Chairman O’Donnell:
Yes, it is just restricted to leadership. Committee members, do you know if there are any other bills coming to this committee with these same provisions?
Mr. Williams:
I can do some research and find out for the committee.
Chairman O’Donnell:
In the meantime, I think the issue needs to be raised, at least the profile of it. But it is pathetic taking a human life is only worth $15,000. You cannot get an attorney to take the case for that much money.
Chairman O’Donnell:
We will close the work session on S.B. 303 and open the work session 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)
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens:
With regards to this bill, our concern was simply the furtherance of a double standard between government and citizenry. We were looking at page 3, section 2, the statement saying a volunteer appointed pursuant to this subsection shall not issue a citation to a governmental entity for a violation of the appropriate Nevada Revised Statutes.
We feel the government should be treated the same as the citizen.
Chairman O’Donnell:
Well, it certainly sends the wrong message, namely, government has a different standard than private individuals, and I do not think the message we want to send from this committee. We will include it as one of the amendments to this particular bill. This bill is certainly more far-reaching than anything done in the past.
Senator Jacobsen:
What I think is really a problem within the state of Nevada with our laws today regarding subdivisions and shopping malls is you have to designate so many spots as handicapped parking as opposed to designating what handicapped parking you can enforce. Douglas County, of course, found this out. The seniors complained to me there was always somebody else parked in the handicapped parking spots. It was coordinated with the sheriff’s office, and came to find out the sheriff’s office had no jurisdiction to enforce or police the designation, and did not have the personnel. The sheriff’s department found out they could write citations, but nothing would happen. Then they became concerned. We cannot put laws on the books just for the fun of it; they have to be enforced if they have any value at all. We can all admit handicap parking is a must for some people today. This is a necessity and we do need to adhere to it.
Chairman O’Donnell:
What if we amend this bill to take out the requirement for the county commissions and the city councils to adopt regulations, and also, amend it to make it apply to both government employees and private citizens alike? In other words, take out the provision and then bring the bill back to the committee so we can see what the bill looks like and see what it does, because with the limited amount of time we have, it is hard to analyze these bills in detail as far as what they would do.
The problem I have is the boards of county commissioners wanted to be opted out of the bill, which puts all of the responsibility on the state. Who is going to police this bill, the highway patrol?
Senator Jacobsen:
No, I believe it comes down to local enforcement, where the emphasis should be, so the parties involved have to work together if it is going to work.
Chairman O’Donnell:
I would like to hear a motion to have the bill amended and then referred back to the committee, so we can take a look at it.
SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED TO AMEND AND RE-REFER S.B. 374 TO THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION.
SENATOR AMODEI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
(Subsequent to the meeting, this motion was determined to be incorrect and the original motion was rescinded in the committee meeting of April 12, 2001.)
Chairman O’Donnell:
We will close the hearing on S.B. 374 and open the hearing on S.B. 396.
SENATE BILL 396: Makes various changes regarding traffic laws. (BDR 43‑1219)
Mr. Williams:
I asked our legal counsel to look at the public safety issues brought to the committee’s attention by Daryl E. Capurro, and the Nevada Motor Transport Association. Counsel suggested adding some language to section 2, line 10, paragraph (b), which currently reads, “Wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exits,” they suggested adding, “and the driver may safely turn off the roadway.”
Daryl E. Capurro, Lobbyist, Nevada Motor Transport Association:
I think it still leaves it to the subjective discretion of the officer as to where, and whether or not an area exists for the driver to pull off. One of the problems I have is the safety issue because, if in the first place I am driving down the highway, I am now more concerned about how many vehicles are piled up behind me and if I get five vehicles behind me, then I am more concerned about trying to find a safe turnout instead of actually driving. I am not sure this would convey the intent of the bill.
I would recommend taking line 10 out altogether, and make sure that it is a posted turnout area. There are some insurance considerations in this measure. If, for example, a driver pulls off onto a safe-looking area, but it is a soft shoulder and the vehicle turns over, there would be insurance considerations. Would the company cover the loss in the event, or disallow it, saying he should have known it was not safe?
Mr. Capurro:
I think slow-moving traffic turn-out requirements should be restricted to those areas where there are posted, designated turnout areas. I would also ask you to consider one other amendment the same section where, on line 5, it says, “the driver of a slow-moving vehicle.” I would like for the committee to say, “the driver of a vehicle traveling less than the speed limit,” because if the vehicle is traveling at 65 mph, even if there are vehicles stacked up behind it, it is traveling the legal speed limit.
Chairman O’Donnell:
I like having line 10 in the bill. I would imagine most of these situations are not going to occur behind trucks carrying loaders and graders and other equipment, but it certainly would apply, however, when most of these situations do happen.
James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Captain, Patrol Division, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office:
With regard to vehicle speed, if you look at subsection 3 of section 2, you could add the language, “below the speed,” because it would define a slow vehicle.
I agree with Mr. Capurro about soft shoulders, but there are times, and Mount Rose would be a good example, where there are several places designated as turnouts, but there are areas in which slow-moving traffic can pull over. I have seen this happen on the Mount Rose Highway (Nevada State Route 431) and it works very well sometimes. So I would support the bill as written.
Fredrick M. Droes, P.E., Chief Safety Engineer, Nevada Department of Transportation:
I reviewed the proposed amendment language for moving vehicles in emergency situations. I think the department’s concern would be if a vehicle is moved under these conditions, say if it comes from Reno and goes to Lovelock. Then the vehicle could be on its way to Austin or Eureka or going to another destination, or it could be sitting for a period of time and then moved without the department being aware of it.
Chairman O’Donnell:
If they were going to move the equipment from Reno to Winnemucca, will they have to get a permit?
Mr. Droes:
If it is oversized or overweight, yes.
Chairman O’Donnell:
Would you like to limit this measure to a particular number of miles?
Mr. Droes:
If we had just authorization in the conditions for moving the vehicle I would think verbally, if you tell you could move it to Lovelock and bring it back to Reno. We can live with it. I believe the language could be made clearer.
Chairman O’Donnell:
Ms. Blomstrom, do you have a problem with limiting the number of miles equipment can be moved? For example, if you have an emergency situation where there is gravel over the roads and the highway patrol trooper says to get the grader here now, because I have a catastrophic problem. The driver removes the gravel off the road and realizes he needs to return the grader, does he have to have a permit to take it back? Would you mind if we limited the language to say, 20 or 30 miles or back to the equipment’s original location?
Cheryl C. Blomstrom, Lobbyist, Nevada Contractor’s Association:
I do not have a problem with adding the limitation of a domicile location. I do have a problem with a limitation of mileage. As to vehicles sitting for any length of time, we would go after a permit to get it back. It is too expensive to let the equipment sit.
Chairman O’Donnell:
In reading the proposed amendment to S.B. 396, Ms. Blomstrom, I do not see where this language would help you. What if there is no emergency condition?
Ms. Blomstrom:
Exactly our point, when we go to an emergency, when we respond at the request of local law enforcement, we need to be able to go without waiting until business hours at the Nevada Department of Transportation to get a very expensive piece of equipment back to its domicile.
Chairman O’Donnell:
Mr. Droes, would you give such permission?
Mr. Droes:
It is hard to say. We would have to look at those situations very closely.
Chairman O’Donnell:
Can we try these measures for two years, and if it is a problem, you could come back next session and state your case.
Mr. Droes:
Senator, we can try anything.
Senator Amodei:
I think with the words ”slow-moving” in the measure, these words almost mean nothing to me, being a former traffic court prosecutor. This would be very hard to prosecute today.
Senator Care:
I note traffic law is nonpartisan, and Senator Amodei makes a good point. I heard from a constituent whose best friend lost a son on the highway as a result of precisely this situation. There must be language somewhere to address the matter of impediments.
In Kansas City’s turnpike you can get a ticket for driving under a certain speed and a ticket for driving over the speed. I know what is intended to happen, and I do support it.
Chairman O’Donnell:
Should we use the language, “The driver of a vehicle going less than the posted speed limit, behind which five or more vehicles are formed in line?”
Senator Carlton:
Just so we understand, are we are talking about the maximum speed limit or if there is a minimum posted, are we talking about the minimum speed limit posted?
Chairman O’Donnell:
I do not believe we have any minimum posted speed limits in the state of Nevada. In subsection 3 of section 2, we will define “slow-moving” as “a vehicle traveling less than the posted speed limit,” instead of, “a rate of speed below that of the normal flow of traffic.”
SENATOR AMODEI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 396.
SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Donnell:
There being no further business, the hearing is adjourned at 4:29 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Joan Moseid,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator William R. O'Donnell, Chairman
DATE: