MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Transportation
Seventy-Second Session
March 20, 2003
The Committee on Transportationwas called to order at 1:40 p.m., on Thursday, March 20, 2003. Chairwoman Vonne Chowning presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada, via simultaneous videoconference in Room 4401 of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
Note: These minutes are compiled in the modified verbatim style. Bracketed material indicates language used to clarify and further describe testimony. Actions of the Committee are presented in the traditional legislative style.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mrs. Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall, Vice Chairwoman
Mr. Kelvin Atkinson
Mr. John C. Carpenter
Mr. Jerry D. Claborn
Mr. Tom Collins
Mr. Pete Goicoechea
Mr. Don Gustavson
Mr. Ron Knecht
Mr. Mark Manendo
Mr. John Oceguera
Mr. Rod Sherer
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Marji Paslov Thomas, Committee Policy Analyst
Jackie Valley, Committee Manager
Nancy Elder, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT
Brent Bell, Chief Operating Officer, Whittlesea Bell Transportation
Michael Sullivan, President, Whittlesea Bell Transportation
Gary Milliken, Representative, Yellow-Checker-Star Transportation Company
Jimmy Gomes, Representative, Nellis and Desert Cab
Jennifer Angel, Private Citizen, Hispanic Community
John Sande III, Attorney, Jones and Vargas, Nevada Franchised Auto Dealers Association
Wayne Frediani, Executive Director, Nevada Franchised Auto Dealers Association
Annette Cornish, Field Services Manager, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles
Susan Martinovich, Assistant Director, Engineering, Director’s Office, Nevada Department of Transportation
Chairwoman Chowning:
The Assembly Committee on Transportation will now come to order. [Roll was called, and a quorum was present.] We will open on A.B. 226. Assemblyman Oceguera, please proceed with the piece of legislation you have brought us.
Assembly Bill 226: Requires certain passengers of taxicabs to wear safety belts. (BDR 43-1079)
Assemblyman John Oceguera, Clark County District No. 16:
Iam pleased tocome before you today on A.B. 226, and thank you for this opportunity to introduce this bill as amended to the Committee. Under current Nevada law, adult and child passengers in taxicabs are not required to wear seat belts, although taxicabs are required by law to be equipped with seat belts. A.B. 226 seeks to amend Chapter 484 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), which is where our seat belt law can be found. The bill adds a new provision to Chapter 484 that specifically requires adult and child passengers in taxicabs to use the seat belts that are available.
[Assemblyman Oceguera] In my position as a captain on the North Las Vegas Fire Department, I have seen too many vehicle accidents involving taxicabs, vehicles in which folks are not wearing their seat belts, and one too many accidents where passengers were injured who may not have been injured if they had been wearing their seat belts. I have actually been involved in an accident where people have been killed. When you consider that seat belts improve chances for half the passengers surviving a crash and are the biggest single factor in determining whether a person survives an accident, you can appreciate how this bill can have an impact on the safety of an adult and child passenger in taxicabs. When you consider that Las Vegas taxicabs alone provide 21 million trips each year, you can further appreciate how this bill can impact the safety of adult and child passengers in taxicabs.
Finally, consider that Las Vegas taxicabs were involved in 3,800 accidents last year, two of which involved fatalities. With mandatory seat belt use, injuries to adult and child passengers would either not occur or would be less severe. A.B. 226 also requires taxicabs to put signs in their vehicles, informing passengers of the law and the penalty for not wearing your seat belt. Hopefully these postings will serve as another purpose besides informing passengers of the law. This would be to provide additional encouragement to those passengers who do not automatically buckle up. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this bill. If there are any questions concerning A.B 226 or the amendment that I have provided (Exhibit C), I would be happy to answer them if I can, and if I can’t, I have some of the industry experts here with me as well.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Before we take questions, Assemblyman Oceguera, would you explain the proposed amendment? I presume that you are in favor of this amendment.
Assemblyman Oceguera:
Certainly, could I have some of the industry representatives come up and work with the amendment?
Chairwoman Chowning:
Go ahead and come up. Are there members of the Committee who have any questions at this time of Assemblyman Oceguera?
Assemblyman Claborn:
I love the bill, but let me relay a bit of a story here about a person I know who was in New York City as well as in Washington D.C. When you have to fish for a seat belt, because it is not in plain site, they say not to reach for a seat belt you cannot see, because you might find a needle or something that you are not looking for. I would like to see in your bill that the seat belts would have to be in plain view.
Assemblyman Oceguera:
There was a section in this bill that said, “If one is available for seating position,” and we deleted that language for the reason that sometimes the seat belts are not there. Sometimes they are stuffed down deep in the seat. I think the industry will tell you that they plan on implementing this as an administrative regulation to their employees beyond this bill. I think they will certainly be looking to put those belts out to be accessible.
Assemblyman Claborn:
I would certainly appreciate that and I thank you.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Are there any other questions specifically of Assemblyman Oceguera?
Assemblyman Knecht:
What would be the enforcement regime be for this with regard to the driver and the passengers? What if the passengers refuse to buckle up, or if they unbuckle during the course of the transport? Also, would this be a primary offense that would allow an officer to stop a cab primarily on that basis? Can you talk a little bit about how this would work?
Assemblyman Oceguera:
There are two questions to answer here. One, it is a secondary offense, so you wouldn’t be pulled over for not wearing a seat belt; there would have to be another violation for you to be pulled over. Secondly, the passenger would be cited; the driver is not the one who is being cited.
Assemblyman Knecht:
Is the driver required to check or give instruction, or do anything before pulling away from the curb? Is there any affirmative responsibility on the driver to monitor or attempt to enforce beyond having the sign posted?
Assemblyman Oceguera:
There is a challenge; there is no doubt about it, but like any of our other safety belt laws, there is a challenge. I think the industry can set some policies inside of their industry, but the bill covers who will be cited and how that will work.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Are there any other questions at this time? [There were none.] There are many members of the industry here, who wants to speak next?
Michael Sullivan, Whittlesea Bell Transportation:
[Introduced himself] I hope all of you had a chance to review the handout I gave you that had a column from the Las Vegas Review Journal. It explained a little bit. I brought today Brent Bell, president of the company, to talk about that and give his first hand representation.
Brent Bell, Chief Operating Officer, Whittlesea Bell Transportation, Las Vegas, NV:
Good morning. [Introduced himself] We operate two taxicab companies in Las Vegas and one in Reno. I asked Assemblyman Oceguera to sponsor this bill mostly because of a very tragic event that took place on December 30, 2000. We had a tragic accident where one of our taxicabs made an ill-advised left hand turn in front of oncoming traffic on Paradise Road. The oncoming traffic was moving at a high rate of speed. The taxicab was hit and it flipped over. The passenger [Mrs. McMillan] in the back did not have her seat belt on, and she died of head injuries. Our driver did have his seat belt on, and he walked away with a scratch on his forehead.
The Nevada Highway Patrol did an investigation of the accident. They discovered that if she had been wearing her seat belt, she would be alive, and Mrs. McMillan would be here with us today. Her husband was also with her. He was on the impact side of the cab, and luckily, he was not severely injured. The taxicab driver was on the same side of the cab that Mrs. McMillan was on, and had his seat belt on and he walked away with a scratch. She was thrown out of the vehicle and died of head injuries.
I was thinking, all of us, every day, get in our vehicles and we are required by law to put our seat belts on before we drive down the road. I thought it didn’t make sense that we didn’t require passengers of taxicabs to wear their seat belts.
The other important part of this bill is the sign all the taxicab operators would be required to put in the cab, so passengers could see it is state law that requires them to wear their seat belts. I think that is extremely important. Obviously, not 100 percent of the people who see that sign are going to put their seat belts on. In Mrs. McMillan’s case, she happened to be an attorney and a part-time family court judge in Tucson, Arizona. I would be willing to bet that if she got in the back of that taxicab, saw that sign and realized that it was Nevada law, that she would be here today. I think it is very important, and I urge you to give this legislation some very serious consideration.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Thank you. We do not have that article here, but we are very grateful that you told us that. As the Chair of this Committee, I would like to commend you for bringing this piece of legislation forward, because it does make a powerful statement that we in Nevada are looking out for the safety of not only our own citizens, but the good people who are visiting our state as well. It does say a lot for the industry that you are agreeing to a mandate to put a sign in the vehicles as well. Often when the Legislature implements mandates, the industry is not very happy, but this one we can proudly say is coming from the industry. I noticed that in the amendment you want to delete limousines? Can you tell us why?
Brent Bell:
We are deleting limousines because there are approximately 54 limousine companies in southern Nevada right now, and another handful up in northern Nevada. There are only 14 cab companies in Las Vegas and just a couple in the north, and I am very confident thatwehave the support of all of the cab companies with this bill. I can’t sit here and say I have that same support with the limousine companies, and that is why they have been deleted.
Chairwoman Chowning:
It might be difficult in a limousine as to where to put the sign for everyone to see it. Also, taxicabs are presently regulated by the state, and the limousines are not, so perhaps that is another good reason.
Brent Bell:
Limousines are a whole different animal. Assemblyman Gustavson made an excellent point that when you put the privacy partition up in the limousine, you cannot see the passengers anyway. Accident statistics prove there are far fewer accidents in limousines and many fewer people injured in limousines than there are in taxicabs.
Chairwoman Chowning:
That is a very good statistic that you have given us.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
One question I have is that you have been mute about child car seats, on the 40-pounds or 5-years-of-age requirements. Are you going to address that?
Brent Bell:
I am definitely in favor of the way the language is written, and I think they have done an excellent job. One more thing I failed to bring up earlier has to do with child safety restraints. When I discovered that it did not make sense that we all wore our seat belts in our personal cars, and yet passengers did not wear them in taxicabs, I interviewed several of our cab drivers. Some of the comments I got were very interesting. When we have people in town from California, some of them ask our cab drivers if they are required by law to wear their seat belts. The cab drivers answer no, so some of them do not put their seat belts on. I have a colleague in Van Nuys, California, whom I called. He sent me their legislation, and that is where this language was developed from. The state of California has language very similar to what we are proposing here, and I understand it is successful.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
To follow up if I may, in Section 2 of your amendment, you address a child who is 4 years old or younger or who weighs less than 40 pounds cannot ride in the front seat, but again, I think there is legislation out there right now that is going to require that they be in child safety seats in the car. I am just wondering if you are going to attempt to address that. What would you do if somebody who had booked a fare came with his or her child who was clearly under four years of age? Would the cab driver say you have to put the child in a car seat, or refuse the fare, or would you just go ahead and haul him? Again, there is legislation that will require that the child be put in a child seat.
Brent Bell:
That is absolutely correct. Right now our company policy is that they have to go in the back seat. We are going to continue with that company policy. We want to make sure that not only is a car seat provided, but also that it gets installed in the back seat of the vehicle.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Are there any other questions?
Assemblyman Knecht:
The original text on page 2, lines 9 and forward, held the driver liable at least for children under 18 and over 5, and now that has been changed to the adult passenger. I am just wondering how this would work. If an adult passenger does not have her belt buckled, does the driver have to make any verification? Does the driver have to pull over to the curb, or is the driver protected by the placement of the sign?
Brent Bell:
We tried not to put the responsibility on the driver for this particular bill. In our company, and we hope at the other cab companies in Las Vegas, we plan on doing a public relations campaign with our drivers to let people know it is state law. We will now have the sign there; we are going to encourage our drivers to make sure the passenger’s seat belts are fastened. Also with respect to the child, we certainly wanted to make sure the parent or guardian of the child was responsible, not the driver.
Assemblyman Knecht:
So the essence here is that there is a requirement for the driver to have his belt buckled, and there is a requirement for each passenger to be belted in. The driver is responsible for himself, and the passengers are responsible for themselves. If one of the passengers is a minor, then the parent or guardian is responsible for that passenger, and it is a secondary offense, and not a primary offense.
Brent Bell:
That is correct.
Assemblyman Knecht:
Is it accurate then to say that in the amended version, this bill would essentially make the same standards apply to taxis that apply to passenger vehicles that are driven by their owners? Is that correct?
Brent Bell:
This bill does not make the drivers required by law to wear their seat belts. The drivers we will work on through a company policy.
Assemblyman Knecht:
Setting that aside, with regard to the passengers, is the requirement essentially the same as passengers in a private passenger vehicle?
Assemblyman Oceguera:
Assemblyman Knecht, I think we would have to ask our research analyst to look at that statute to see if that is accurate.
Assemblyman Knecht:
Madam Chairwoman, I would appreciate the gentleman’s answer, and I would request that we have an opinion from staff. All I am looking for here is some reassurance that we are not imposing a duty on passengers in taxis that is not imposed on passengers in a private vehicle.
Chairwoman Chowning:
We are having Research look into that as we speak.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
I am wondering why the driver does not have to wear his seat belt.
Chairwoman Chowning:
I remember that you were part of the Assembly Committee on Transportation in 1995, and there was a taxicab driver bill that was brought forward and passed. It said that drivers of taxis would not have to wear seat belts for their own safety. That was because there were many drivers in the north and the south who were robbed and killed. It was the drivers’ plea to this Legislature that they would be given the opportunity if they so chose, to not have to wear the belt, so they could escape the vehicle as quickly as possible. Both houses of the Legislature and the Governor agreed to that legislation. I still think it is important that this Legislature hold to that agreement for their safety.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
You have a better memory than I do, but now I remember that discussion quite well. If you are going to emphasize to the drivers that they should buckle up, then that will be okay.
Brent Bell:
I would concur with the Chair. We do have those concerns, and that is why it was left off. We are hoping that when the passengers see the sign and that the drivers are buckled up, that the passengers will buckle up. We do have a few drivers out there who are very concerned for their safety, and they want to be able to flee the cab if a knife gets pulled on them. We feel it is important to allow them to make that choice.
Assemblyman Gustavson:
If the child is going to be required to be in a car seat, how are you going to handle the logistics of it? Most passengers probably do not have children under five years old. How are you going to distinguish which drivers are going to carry car seats and which are not? When they pick up passengers at the airport, most of them might have a place they can keep car seats there, but if not, or if they’re on the road somewhere, how are the drivers going to keep car seats with them?
Chairwoman Chowning:
Assemblyman Gustavson, this bill is not requiring a car seat; this bill is just requiring that the child be placed in the back seat.
Assemblyman Gustavson:
I know I did not see car seats as part of the bill, but they did mention car seats earlier, and I just want to see how they intend to carry it out.
Chairwoman Chowning:
That is something this business owner said they would take upon themselves to install car seats in the seats. That is obviously a very good safety measure on their part, but the bill does not require the car seats.
Brent Bell:
Most of our experience is that people who have kids, and travel with kids who need car seats, bring their own car seat. They bring them on the plane. If they do not have a car seat, we are not going to provide them with the transportation. We do not carry them around; most of the parents do, so it does not end up being an issue.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Are there any other questions at this time? [There were none.] If there is anyone else who wishes to speak for or against A.B. 226 please come forward.
Gary Milliken, Representative, Yellow Checker Star Transportation:
We are in complete agreement with the proposed amendment to A.B. 226.
Jimmy Gomes, Representative, Nellis and Desert Cab:
We are also in agreement.
Chairwoman Chowning:
We are going to ask our research analyst if she has the answer to the question at this time. We can answer questions in our work session, so we will not be voting on this bill today. Ms. Paslov Thomas will give us what she thinks is the answer, and either way, we will answer it in our work session.
Marji Paslov Thomas, Committee Policy Analyst:
I believe that under NRS 44.641, Section 4, the Department shall exempt those types of motor vehicles or sitting positions from the requirements of this section when compliance would be impractical. According to the index under taxicabs, it says safety belts for passengers are unnecessary in taxicabs.
Assemblyman Collins:
I appreciate that you refreshed some of us on those issues in the past. For the benefit of the Committee, we should know that over the years in this Committee, we have addressed public transit drivers of all kinds, to bullet-proof windows being required, to the safety of the drivers of such vehicles whether they be taxis or limos or busses. Over the years we have exempted those vehicle drivers from wearing seat belts, and now coming forward to put seat belts in place for the passengers for their protection is appropriate, as is providing the leeway for those drivers to make that call. That comes from years of that type of testimony in this Committee that some of us have heard more of than others.
Chairwoman Chowning:
We will discuss this in work session. If anyone has any proposed amendments, naturally it is common courtesy, and the Chair absolutely insists, that if people do have amendments, they need to work with the sponsor of the bill. We will close the hearing on A.B. 226. We will now open the hearing on A.B. 223. This is being proposed by one of our Committee members, Assemblyman Atkinson.
Assembly Bill 223: Requires certain vehicle dealers to provide copies of certain documents translated into Spanish for viewing by purchaser or prospective purchaser of motor vehicle under certain circumstances. (BDR 43-941)
Assemblyman Kelvin Atkinson, Clark County District No.17:
I am presenting A.B. 223. As you can see from the 1.5 page document, it is a very simple bill. It requires that car dealerships make contracts in Spanish available to the customer if the transaction is being conducted in the Spanish language. Currently, dealerships are advertising in the Spanish language and conducting vehicle sales transactions in Spanish using translators, but the contract documents that a Spanish-speaking person signs are all in the English language. Individuals are being exploited every day, because they do not understand what they are signing.
If an individual purchases a car, which is almost always a major investment, shouldn’t the person be able to review the contract at home, without a translator? I have a case in front of me where a Spanish-speaking person from San Jose purchased a vehicle and did not understand what he was signing. We all know dealerships do not make anything off the base price of a car, but that the money is made off the extras. This individual was charged an additional $6,000 in upgrades without his knowledge. The individual took the dealership to court, and he prevailed.
Nevada is currently fifth in the nation when it comes to Hispanics living in our state. That number means 20 percent of our population are of Spanish origin. When we have 20 percent of our people speaking another language, then we need to take a serious look at the consequences of depriving customers their right to valuable information in a language he or she understands. The practice of advertising in Spanish to lure Spanish-speaking individuals and not offering that customer a contract in their own language is a very bad business practice. It is my opinion that this bill not only protects the buyer, but it also protects the seller as well. This bill removes any doubt that an individual is not clear on what he or she is signing or agreeing to.
[Assemblyman Atkinson] This is a consumer bill very important to my Spanish-speaking constituents. I believe as legislators we have the responsibility to protect our consumers. I believe this bill is another tool in the effort to accomplish this, so I urge you to join me in support of A.B. 223.
I do have a statement from Dr. Emma Sepulveda, Professor, University of Nevada, Reno. May I read it now?
Chairwoman Chowning:
She was not able to be here today?
Assemblyman Atkinson:
No, she was not.
Chairwoman Chowning:
That is appropriate, it is regarding this bill.
Assemblyman Atkinson:
[He read the following into the record]
Assemblyman Atkinson and Committee Members,
I would like to give my full support of A.B. 223.
This bill is about good business practice and protects the right of the consumer. Car dealers that advertise in Spanish need to provide for the prospective buyer who is not fluent in English, a complete transaction of the documents to be signed at the time of the transaction. Too many times Latino customers are attracted by the Spanish media to the dealership who advertises in Spanish, and after making the decision to purchase the car, they find themselves signing documents that are poorly translated on the spot, either by the salesperson or a child who accompanies the parent. As a result of the lack of translated documents, the buyer often does not have a clear picture of the financing or the terms required under the contract. Such a situation can lead to the customer being taken advantage of and often does. Or there is a misunderstanding of the extent of the exact deal. Translating the necessary documents for the transaction will protect the buyer and even the seller who eliminates liability by presenting in a clear manner, the terms and conditions of the sale.
A.B. 223 is simple, the right way to do business in our state and the best way to protect the rights of the customers who do not speak English well. This requirement is long overdue. Thank you, Assemblyman Atkinson for sponsoring A.B. 223.
That’s my testimony.
Assemblywoman Ohrenschall:
How are you going to provide translation in Spanish and certify that the translations are correct?
Assemblyman Atkinson:
From what I understand, there is a process in place by which documents are reviewed. Once the documents are translated, they will go through a legal review to make sure they are compliant and in the right content.
Assemblywoman Ohrenschall:
Are you going to use a county certified translator or what are you going to do?
Assemblyman Atkinson:
Consumer Affairs has a division by which we could get that accomplished.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Thank you for stating that, because I don’t see a fiscal note with this bill. That is something before the bill is processed that would have to be checked on to verify that that mechanism is in place.
Assemblyman Knecht:
Thank you, Assemblyman Atkinson, for that crisp presentation. I was happy to sign on to this, but I have one question about its execution. I understand the intent very well, and I support the intent to hold somebody who advertises in Spanish to do business completely in Spanish, if the customer wants them to provide the documentation is Spanish. My question is how do we know under the terms of this bill, page 1, line 3, if each vehicle dealer who conducts business in Spanish has established a basis for someone to request documentation to be in Spanish. For example, if they say, ”Buenos Dias, Assemblyman Knecht,” have they established a basis for me to request that they provide documents in Spanish?
Assemblyman Atkinson:
I do not believe that is how business is conducted at an auto dealership. I think once an auto dealership finds a customer is having issues with the English language that is when they need to offer the contract in the Spanish language. If you are using a translator to conduct the business sale, and not speaking to someone through casual conversation, but conducting the sale, then that contract needs to be offered to the individual in Spanish because there is a language barrier.
Assemblyman Knecht:
I appreciate the distinction and I would hope that some language could be crafted that would help establish in this statute that distinction.
Chairwoman Chowning:
I am sure those kinds of things can be worked on. It is obvious in Las Vegas when you have auto dealers advertising their sales on television in Spanish that they are asking for Spanish-speaking customers to come to their place of business. It is quite obvious they are not asking them to come to end up speaking to them in English. That type of advertising is relevant and very easy to understand, and perhaps something could be amended to say that if a car dealer advertises in Spanish, then the follow-up documentation should be in Spanish; no en Inglés, pero todo en Español.
Assemblyman Gustavson:
I don’t know if you answered this question or not, but talking about these documents, I agree with you that I hate to see anyone buy something when they have to sign a document they cannot read. My question is, are these documents legal, and will they hold up in a court of law? I think documents have to be issued in English. Will the DMV [Department of Motor Vehicles] accept documents in Spanish?
Assemblyman Atkinson:
I cannot answer that question fully, but from what I understand about our court system, and I have had the opportunity to talk to a judge recently, when the judges need a translator for documents for anything that is in the Spanish language, they do utilize translators for that. Is the contract going to be legally binding, is that what you are asking?
Assemblyman Gustavson:
I am asking if it will be legally admissible in the courtroom.
Assemblyman Atkinson:
Yes, those documents will be legal.
Chairwoman Chowning:
All of these questions are being noted and they will be answered whether they are legally admissible. We will have an opinion given to us by our Legal Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
Assemblyman Oceguera:
Do you know how the federal consumer protection act interacts with your bill?
Assemblyman Atkinson:
No, I am sorry.
Assemblyman Oceguera:
I think that that act already requires dealers to transact in Spanish and offer a buyers guide in Spanish. Is this more extensive than that?
Assemblyman Atkinson:
I have not looked into that, but before this bill goes through, these are the types of things we will nail down.
Chairwoman Chowning:
I am sure the Committee members know that if there is a federal law in place, a state can pass their own legislation that would be more restrictive than the federal law.
Assemblyman Claborn:
I want to commend you for bringing this bill before the Committee. I think it is really needed. There are a lot of Spanish-speaking constituents in my area too.
Jennifer Angel, Private Citizen, Hispanic Community:
My message is from the Central American Coalition of Nevada. The Central American Coalition of Nevada appreciates and supports your proposal of A.B. 223 to the Assembly Committee on Transportation. As a realtor, I have noticed the need for translation of contracts in real estate and escrow transactions, and primarily for loan applications. In this case we are speaking about vehicles. In real estate contracts, for a contract to be valid, the purchaser has to be fully capable of understanding the contract at the time of entering into an agreement. We will work to find ways and support for this need in the Spanish-speaking community and we appreciate your present input in the proposal of A.B. 223.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Do you think there is a professional organization that would be willing to help with the translation of legal documents?
JenniferAngel:
I also work for the City of Las Vegas, and we were having the same problem. Any time documents are translated into Spanish, you have to be careful with the different countries and the different words being used. For Reno, we were talking about bringing certified translators, opening up a business that will certify translators, or having a course run through a university or a community college.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Does the City of Las Vegas translate certain documents presently on behalf of the city?
Jennifer Angel:
Presently they do, but they are looking for another way, such as to have a school provide certification. You cannot have just anybody translate.
Chairwoman Chowning:
We will check with the City of Las Vegas and see how they are translating certain documents. As you stated, this is a legal and binding contract. It seems like the same assurance would have to be provided for documents in another language as well.
Jennifer Angel:
Maybe then we could have the state certify a group of individuals or a company that will open for business that can serve city, county, dealerships, real estate, and everything.
John Sande III, Attorney, Jones and Vargas, Nevada Franchise AutomobileDealers Association, NFADA:
[Introduced himself] I am here today representing the Nevada Franchised Automobile Dealers Association. We have already discussed this legislation with Mr. Atkinson. The question is how do we get to that point? In Nevada we have a contract of sale that is approved by the state. It is actually done by the Commissioner of Financial Institutions. Here is a copy of that which I will leave with the Committee for your reference (Exhibit D). It is a very detailed contract that has been reviewed by not only all the car dealers, but also the interested parties, and we spent a lot of time on it before the Commissioner of Financial Institutions.
Our problem is not with the intent of trying to educate those who cannot speak English or understand English in a written form and desire to have some type of translation. Our problem with the bill is that it would require a car dealer to provide a copy of the contract in Spanish. It would not say that the contract would actually be in Spanish. If we were required to execute contacts in Spanish, we would have a major problem for a couple reasons. One is that most dealerships, especially the small dealerships, do not have sophisticated people who can fill a contract out in Spanish. That is a difficulty. There are sales people that may talk in Spanish, but the actual contract is done with the Finance and Insurance Department in the back room. It would be a huge burden to execute contracts in Spanish.
[John Sande] Equally important is I am not aware of any court that can interpret these contracts in Spanish. We would recommend that somebody in state government should take this form and hire somebody who is an expert, as you would not want to have each dealership interpreting this form, and drawing it up in Spanish. I think it would be much better to have the state of Nevada prepare the form, or maybe even better yet, to go and actually give a description of what the contract does and what they should be looking at.
I can say, on behalf of the Nevada Franchised Automobile Dealers Association, that we would voluntarily try to work with you, and I think we can do this where we would hand that out to anybody who spoke English without the necessity of requiring it. We would welcome the opportunity, if the state would provide us with a copy of something to provide to anybody that did not speak English.
Two other things:
I did not understand what that meant there. Did that mean we have to somehow be licensed? There are no licensing provisions in the bill now. Other than that, I just want to emphasize that we want to work with the Committee. If the state of Nevada would hire a Spanish interpreter to translate this, we would certainly make sure that our Nevada Franchise Automobile Dealers Association potential Spanish-speaking customers had a copy of it.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Thank you, and I think your assessment of the language of the bill is absolutely correct. In Section 1, line 6, it most specifically reads, “Copies of all sales forms.” On page 2, line 6, it reads, ”The perspective purchaser should be allowed to view the copies.” At least the customer would be able to view an exact replica of the contract in Spanish, but of course the contract itself would be in English. Do you agree that auto dealers who advertise in Spanish should offer copies of the form in Spanish, since they are very actively soliciting a certain population of our state to be their customers?
John Sande:
Yes, we have no problem with that. What I think would make sense is you want something consistent. We have one form already in state law. There should be one form that everybody agrees on.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Has anyone in your office brought this up as a concern, or ever hired someone to translate items into Spanish?
John Sande:
Not to my knowledge, but the one dealer I did talk to, which was Champion Chevrolet in Reno, has a great relationship with the Latin Chamber of Commerce. It is a good policy to make sure that everyone understands what he or she is signing.
Chairwoman Chowning:
I think it is a matter of good business, and a matter of full disclosure. It would help the personal and business relationships of the dealer. It would also put the dealer and the buyers on a stronger legal standing.
John Sande:
As an attorney, I would be very cautious as to what was being translated, because if it is not the actual document you are using, you better make sure that it is consistent. That is why you would want to have somebody in state government do it, so you would not get down the line and have someone say that you have misstated what that contract says. I think it would be beneficial to have some state agency actually do the translation, and we would make a commitment to get it out to the Spanish-speaking people.
Assemblyman Atkinson:
Mr. Sande, you mentioned that there was a description that is being given out to Spanish-speaking customers that would explain each thing that they are signing. I have a few issues with that. Are you suggesting that those forms are a part of their contract?
John Sande:
No, I think that the safest thing for all concerned is to have a verbatim translation of the contract that we have here in English.
AssemblymanAtkinson:
Are you aware that the Federal Consumer Protection Act has a buyers’ guide, which is posted in the window of vehicles when you are in dealerships? That act says if a person is buying a vehicle and that dealership is advertising in Spanish, that those buyers’ guides need to be in the Spanish language. Is that occurring? I have not seen one yet.
Wayne Frediani, Executive Director of the Nevada Franchise Auto Dealers Association:
To my knowledge that is happening. We have instructed our dealerships over the years to have those in hand and to provide the buyers’ guide with the cars that they are selling.
Assemblyman Collins:
I am not sure if I understand this. First of all, you have mentioned a contract in Spanish. The other thing is in Section 1, lines 5 and 6, it reads, “Arrange for, or otherwise cause, a translation of English into Spanish of copies of sales forms.” Meaning any kind of sales forms would be in Spanish, so you would have the English one and the Spanish one. They would sign a Spanish contract, and I think I am hearing a testimony that they would sign an English contract, and be given one like it in Spanish. The contracts you sign already are confusing enough. I would not want to try making them any longer.
I don’t know how many businesses advertise in Spanish, only that they would have to do all this work. Have there been any problems there? I can see lots of potential for problems.
John Sande:
Like I have stated before, what I read here is that this bill is proposed to provide a copy of the agreement in Spanish.
Assemblyman Collins:
I thought it meant that if there was a contract, a copy of the contract would be in Spanish if you were advertising in Spanish. The copy that I signed would be the only legal and binding contract. Maybe Research could clear this up.
John Sande:
You could clean up the language to make it clear that the contract must be in Spanish, but as we pointed out, we would have a major problem with that because of the fact that that would require us to have people who are experts on the premises at all times to execute a contract in Spanish. It also means that you would basically be enforcing a Spanish-language contract before a court in Nevada. I do not think the courts in Washoe County have that capability, but I may be wrong.
Assemblyman Chowning:
Are you aware of any other state that requires that contracts be in another language to be signed by the customer?
John Sande:
Not to my knowledge. I have heard that California may have something, but I do not know what the terms are.
Chairwoman Chowning:
We will ask Research to follow up on that.
Assemblyman Oceguera:
You mentioned that you think you are in compliance with the federal act. It seems to me that the buyers’ guide is already published in Spanish. Maybe the state would come up with language that everyone agrees on, and I would think we could do a Spanish version of that by the same people who did the buyers’ guide.
John Sande:
This simple interest vehicle contract and security agreement is only in Nevada. This is a Nevada form. The Legislature decided there should be only one form for the sale of a motor vehicle until you have directed the Commissioner of Financial Institutions to adopt regulations – and this is actually in the regulation, and then it is printed and distributed to all dealerships for use. What we are proposing is that if you elected to do something, go to some state agency so that it would be consistent, and every dealership would be sending out the same Spanish translation. You would have to select which dialect of Spanish would be in the best interest of all Spanish-speaking people.
AssemblymanAtkinson:
I find it appalling that you say that if we execute this legislation that individual dealerships would have to have someone sophisticated enough to be able to translate. That is a bit disturbing to me. If they are conducting business and advertising in Spanish, should they not have to already have someone sophisticated enough that is translating those English documents to a Spanish-speaking customer?
John Sande:
That depends on what you think a dealership’s responsibility is. I suppose you could tell a dealership that if somebody comes in and speaks Spanish, you cannot do business with them because you do not have anyone to translate. I think the dealerships are trying to accommodate the Spanish-speaking people, and to an extent they can. They’ll try to translate. Just like when I have people in my office, as I have in the past, which have spoken other languages, I try to bring somebody in. A good example is Italian. There is a lawyer in our office, Albert Ponti, who is Italian, and speaks Italian. I had a client come in, and I tried to accommodate them in drawing up an estate plan for them. Even though the estate plan was in English, I wanted him to explain it to the best extent he could in Italian.
Assemblywoman Ohrenschall:
I am a little confused. In the sale of new cars and documents of financing, are we not bound by Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) forms, or has that been overturned?
John Sande:
There is referencing in the contract to the UCC, which does govern these contracts. To secure such payments, you grant to us a purchase money security interest under the UCC. In the collateral and all the exceptions to the proceeds, the UCC does apply, and it is specifically mentioned in this contract. I think you would have to be referring to a law that was in English, and I don’t think it would be necessary to do anything other than to translate what the UCC means in Spanish, and you would put that in the contract.
Assemblywoman Ohrenschall:
If the original version was formed by Uniform Commissioners, then subjected to the different states who listen to it and their legislature accepted it, then to have a translation that was considered accurate, you wouldn’t have to go back to the source that drew up the original document?
Chairwoman Chowning:
We are going to wrap this up. It is a very good point that if the state of California already has this in process, then our state would not have to spend as much money, because the documents would probably be almost complete. That is something we will look into. Mr. Atkinson, you may make your final statement.
Assemblyman Atkinson:
I was going to mention what you mentioned, that California is probably a state that would have that. We researched and found that California required that all transactions negotiated in Spanish be given a Spanish contract. There is existing law there.
Chairwoman Chowning:
We are adjourning the hearing on A.B. 223. We will now open the work session on A.B. 170, sponsored by Assemblyman Mark Manendo, that we heard last week.
Assembly Bill 170: Provides that certain applicants for drivers’ licenses, instruction permits and identification cards may authorize Department of Motor Vehicles to forward to Selective Service System personal information necessary for registration with Selective Service.
Marji Paslov Thomas, Committee Policy Analyst:
[A work session handout was provided, Exhibit E] A.B. 170 provides that certain applicants for drivers’ licenses, instruction permits, and identification cards may authorize the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to forward to the Selective Service System personal information necessary for registration with the Selective Service System. As you will recall, this was heard on March 11 and no action was taken. There was one amendment proposed by Carol Mills from the Selective Service. It was to provide that DMV’s application for a driver’s license, instruction permit, ID card, or a commercial driver’s license inform males at least 18 years of age, but less than 26 years of age, that by registering with the Selective Service, they will remain eligible for federal student loans, grants, job training benefits, most federal jobs, and U.S. citizenship for male immigrants seeking citizenship (Exhibit E).
I would also like to remind you that she had put in some information regarding her initial proposal, regarding opt-in language and opt-out language for the applicant. The bill, as it is written already, provides for males to opt-in to have DMV provide that information to the Selective Services, so it is not provided as an amendment.
Chairwoman Chowning:
The reason it is not provided is because it is not necessary, correct?
Marji Paslov Thomas:
Correct.
Chairwoman Chowning:
This applies to males who are between 18 years and 26 years of age. When applying for their driver’s license they would be provided with the information that by registering with the Selective Service Commission, they would be eligible for federal student loans, grants, job training benefits, most federal jobs, and U.S. citizenship for male immigrants seeking citizenship.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
I think the Selective Service Law requires that you sign up within 10 days of your 18th birthday, or within 30 days. It is a very short time frame. If you waited until you were 20, you would clearly be in violation.
Chairwoman Chowning:
All this does is provide the information to them. If they are in violation, they go down and sign up.
Assemblyman Claborn:
In regards to this bill, DMV has enough problems of their own, without taking on anything else. I will not be supporting this bill.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Can we have a representative from the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) come forward and state what your position was when we originally heard this bill?
Annette Cornish, Field Services Manager, DMV:
[Introduced herself] We are neutral on this bill. How it is written, and with the amendments that have been made, we are in agreement.
Assemblyman Mark Manendo:
I have a question in regards to the fiscal note. The contract programming hours, the 610 hours, at $125 per hour, what does that entail? I know that Selective Services said they would kick in the public relations campaign dollars.
Annette Cornish:
We would be electronically submitting this information to them, so it would take programming within our system to do that.
Assemblyman Manendo:
Are you doing something similar to this already, where you are using the same type of software to forward information to other DMV facilities?
Annette Cornish:
I would have to get back to you on that.
Chairwoman Chowning:
So the fiscal note is $82,000?
Annette Cornish:
Correct.
Assemblyman Gustavson:
I know they are still having a major problem at the DMV [Department of Motor Vehicles]. I hate to see us mandate anything else that is going to incur electronic transmitting between the Selective Services and the DMV, because too many people, including myself, are being affected by this problem with insurance verification. I would certainly hate to have a problem arise now with Selective Service. For this reason, I do not think I can support this bill.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Does the DMV do this type of notification in any other instances? This particular piece of legislation is already in place in 30 other states. It seems as though those states have not had any problem implementing this. They already do something like this with the insurance, don’t they?
Annette Cornish:
It is a slightly different program that they are running for the insurance, but I would have to get back with you on that.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
We have heard in previous testimony about the waiting lines at the DMV, where they are at least 40 minutes long in the north, and almost 2 hours long in the south. I concur with my colleague from Reno. I can’t see putting any additional load on these people.
ASSEMBLYMAN JERRY CLABORN MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 170.
ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Manendo:
I think this is a great opportunity for Nevada to join other states in making it easier for our young men 18 to 26 to register with the Selective Service. Nevada is the 48th state in the nation for complying. It’s 62 percent. It is dismal. We need to do more. Maybe some of my colleagues have missed what is happening on television. I will make sure to forward them a copy of the latest version of the news, so they can see what is happening in our world. Yes, males between 18 and 26 have the responsibility to sign up, but for whatever reason in Nevada, they are not doing it. We can put something right at their fingertips as simple as a check box to do this to help them comply.
[Assemblyman Manendo] When they don’t do this, they don’t realize that they are gone forever from things such as higher education funding. There is no opportunity for some of these folks to get an education. They don’t even realize it until they go to get a loan, and find out that they don’t qualify for it because of not registering. As far as the dollars on the DMV [Department of Motor Vehicles], that will be a different Committee fight. I understand that if we don’t have the money to do it, then we can’t do it. This should be about whether this is good for our citizens. I would argue against the motion at this time.
Chairwoman Chowning:
I also view this as a positive form of notification to males between the ages of 18 and 26. Should they not register, there are several things they will be missing out on, and one of them is, if they are immigrants, they may not be able to become citizens of the United States. I, for one, want as many people as possible who want to become citizens not have this be an impediment. Those folks may not be seniors in high school and receive this information. I also think federal jobs and federal loans are extremely important to a lot of people. This would be a form of notification, and that is all it is.
Assemblyman Knecht:
I have listened to all of my colleagues and thought carefully about this, and I am persuaded by your remarks, and by those of Assemblyman Manendo, that we should give this a try, and that is where the balance of merit lies. I will be voting against the I.P. [indefinitely postpone] motion, in hopes we can put this recommendation out with a Do Pass recommendation. Thank you.
Assemblyman Oceguera:
I would agree with my colleague, Assemblyman Manendo. I think we should do anything we can to support and encourage this participation. Although it is a law already, I know we can help out. He made some good points about education and funding, and being excluded. I think just with what is going on in this country at this very moment, it would be inappropriate to I.P. a bill of this nature.
Assemblyman Sherer:
I also agree with my colleagues to put this bill forward. I think it is an opportunity for the state to help some things out and be an integral part, since we do have two of the best facilities in the world in Fallon and in Nellis. I would like to reconsider our position on the I.P.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
I too would vote against an I.P. of the bill. I think it needs to run its course, but I will be voting against the bill when it comes to a full vote.
Assemblyman Claborn:
I was just about to pull the motion.
ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN WITHDREW HIS MOTION TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 170.
ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON WITHDREW HIS SECOND OF THE MOTION.
********
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 170.
ASSEMBLYMAN KNECHT SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMAN GOICOECHEA, ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON, AND ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN VOTED NAY.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Any other items of business to come before the Committee? There are some other folks here. Did those of you from NDOT [Nevada Department of Transportation] want to speak here? [The NDOT representatives announced that they had come to do a Sound Wall Presentation.] Please come forward and give us the report that we requested regarding sound walls. I apologize because I went right into work session, without allowing you to give your presentation. For that I humbly apologize. We are very appreciative of your hard work, thank you.
Susan Martinovich, Assistant Director, Engineering, Director’s Office, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles:
[Introduced herself] I am here today to give a brief presentation on your request for the Sound Wall Presentation, and the follow-up to I-515 Corridor issues that were brought up at the last meeting.
[Ms. Martinovich provided each member of the Committee with an information packet, Exhibit F, and a copy of the PowerPoint Presentation, Exhibit G.]
Until 1995, sound walls were not installed along new highways in Nevada. And until a few years ago there was no mechanism to go back and retrofit those facilities and construct walls. Today is a new day, and we do business differently.
A traffic noise study is required under National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) when we do sound walls. The purpose of the noise study is to try to find solutions to mitigate. The noise study is needed for capacity improvements such as a new highway, added lanes, and major geometric changes to an existing highway.
Noise studies are also done at the request of property owners adjacent to existing facilities. The basis of our noise study is a computer model. Our environmental division sets up a model and they evaluate the effects of the traffic volumes, the traffic speed, the number of heavy trucks, vegetation, and the shadow zone of the barrier. As an example, in the traffic volumes, 2,000 vehicles per hour sound twice as loud as 200 vehicles per hour. For the speed, vehicles going 65 miles per hour sound twice as loud traffic at 30 miles per hour. One truck at 55 miles per hour is as loud as 28 cars at 50 miles per hour. Vegetation of the area also affects the loudness.
The “Shadow Effect” is how a barrier affects the adjacent properties. A wall may protect a property down lower, but a property up on an elevated facility is affected.
As part of the model, we monitor the existing sound levels and then correlate those levels to a decibel reading. Here are some examples of the monitor set up at a location, and some of the readings that we have been able to take from the monitor, and then the decibel chart. There is a copy of this in your book (Exhibit F).
The geometry of the highway design is also included in the model. This is an area where designers can adjust the design to reduce the noise impact. As an example, concrete, while it is a long-term maintenance, also has more noise impact. Asphalt tends to be quieter than concrete.
Once the model takes all of that into account, the volume, the location, the footprint, it summarizes it in the decibel impacts.
[Susan Martinovich continued, with references to Exhibit F and Exhibit G.] If a residential area is expected to have a noise level 66 decibels or higher, averaged over an hour, or there is an increase of 15 decibels or more on the existing sound levels, then the wall is eligible for federal funds and for mitigation.
In determining the types of mitigation that we put up, consideration is given to:
The model is also applicable for retrofitting locations. It is NDOT’s desire to mitigate noise problems along the freeway during the next 20 years. As a way to address those areas that are not undergoing capacity improvement in the short term, and to identify less expensive methods of mitigating noise, NDOT has initiated the Sound Wall Retrofit Program. [Slide show of actual programs is shown, Exhibit G.]
As part of the program, NDOT [Nevada Department of Transportation] allocated $2 million per year to address the problems along existing facilities that were experiencing noise impacts due to the growth that had occurred over time. The theory was to address the problem over a period of years, not all at once. Our state resources would be leveraged by asking local governments to match the state funds, since they share the responsibility by their approval of the freeway alignments, and they control the development. This is a listing of criteria that qualifies areas for the program, and I-515 meets that criteria.
A.B. 424 of the Seventy-first Legislative Session directed the Department to work with the City of Las Vegas and Clark County in an attempt to resolve the traffic noise issues along I-515. It is estimated that there are seven miles of residential areas between Las Vegas Boulevard and Russell Road that might be considered for sound barriers. The noise levels in most of those areas average 69 decibels. They are within qualification. [A map of the area is shown.]
NDOT has developed solutions and has a plan to address the issues. There is a long-term study of the I-515 Corridor underway to evaluate the future transportation needs of that highway. The study will identify future widening and capacity projects. It will include noise mitigation. We think we can provide noise mitigation over the next three to four years. That’s our presentation, and I will be happy to answer any questions.
Assemblyman Knecht:
You referred to a $15,000 per resident test, and there was a $12,000 and $15,000 criteria listed on the slides. How do you use that fee to make policies or decisions in this regard?
Susan Martinovich:
It is $15,000 per resident. What that means is when we are looking at the cost of putting a wall along the facility and we look at that cost and look at the type of wall, then we look at how many people, or how many residences are being provided for and mitigated for. There have been instances where there was one person, and instead of putting a large type of sound wall, we might look at other mitigation methods.
Assemblyman Manendo:
How many years had the $2 million retrofit been in place?
Susan Martinovich:
Since 1997 or 1998.
Assemblyman Manendo:
We are talking at least 6 years and that is $12 million. How much of that $12 million have you spent?
Susan Martinovich:
We have not spent all of it. I would estimate that we have spent about half of it on walls.
Assemblyman Manendo:
If NDOT [Nevada Department of Transportation] would have spent the full amount, the $2 million every year, I would say that, just looking at the time frame, 3 to 4 years for only 7 miles being completed is not satisfactory. Now these folks have to wait another 3 or 4 years if you spend the full amount of money. What reassurances do the people in my district, who have been waiting, have? There were residents between Tropicana Avenue and Russell on I-515, who were actually there prior to the highway even going in. How much longer do those people have to wait? I am looking for a commitment on record today from you folks.
Susan Martinovich:
The program is a matching program, and the reason the entire $2 million has not been spent is because we are working with the local agencies in matching that amount. At any time the local agencies and the local government could have come forward and sought matching funds to address the issues. We have been in contact with the RTC [Regional Transportation Committee] director, Jacob Snow, and he has indicated on passage of their ballot question and budget that they are committed to work forward on this, and we have already worked on how we would approach the project. We would be looking at starting on the north end of the I-515 Corridor, since that was built first, and then working south, so looking at projects in the $4 million to $5 million range. I cannot provide a commitment to start work on it; but a commitment to continue our efforts with RTC in getting the funding and then moving forward with the projects, yes, I can commit to that.
Assemblyman Manendo:
So as long as the locals stall, the $2 million could be zero, and thus our constituents, the taxpayers, those residents who have a vested interest in their communities and their schools and their churches, get nothing. Why allocate anything at all, because if they are going to drag their feet, you won’t spend anything. If you are going to allocate the $2 million, then spend the money. It would be nice for the locals to kick in and they should, but I-515 came through an existing area, so the state should be responsible to begin with, not the local jurisdictions.
Susan Martinovich:
Assemblyman Manendo, all of our freeway projects must be approved by the local entities. It is not in a vacuum that NDOT [Nevada Department of Transportation] moves forward with projects. There is quite a bit of coordination with the local entities and we feel that they also have an obligation to participate in the features of the facilities that will impact the developments that they have approved or will approve.
Chairwoman Chowning:
There have been some very interesting and some very good statements here. These state highways were not allowed to come through a community without the agreement from the community. Perhaps, Assemblyman Manendo, your constituents as well as any other constituents listening to this today, could help the legislators to demand a public hearing so that all parties can be heard. Perhaps the constituents need to pack the hearing room and make their voices heard. As the state agency stated, the money is there, but without the agreement from the locals, they cannot go forward. It is really terrible because those citizens are being impacted daily and severely. You can’t sleep in those homes because the noise is so severe. When you purchase a home, it is supposed to be for your peaceful enjoyment, and they cannot have their peace any longer.
Assemblyman Manendo:
Those folks were there first, and they have been there for a long time. The state has a responsibility. If they are not going to spend the $2 million and they are going to wait, it is like each entity is just dragging their feet, and the thing is that we need to service our constituents. If the locals are not going to do it, then we need to do it. Maybe we need to find a bill that says we have to mandate that they spend the $2 million. If the locals do not kick in, then shame on them, and those constituents can talk to their local representatives and ask, ”Why haven’t you done this?”
Chairwoman Chowning:
What does happen when the money goes unspent?
Susan Martinovich:
The money is not saved. We have needs throughout the state, and we try to spend every penny that we have every year. If it is not spent on the sound walls, or not matched, then it probably goes into a maintenance project or something else. We have been in contact with Jacob Snow [RTC Director] from Clark County, and they are open to this, so we will keep pursuing that strongly.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Thanks for the report. There is nothing to keep us from asking for a meeting and NDOT [Nevada Department of Transportation] accommodating us right in their conference room. We did so regarding some concerns from Henderson residents. We were able to get resolutions because the national representatives brought some money in, and the locals did agree to participate in the solution as well. Thank you for your presentation. This is extremely helpful information. We can conclude by saying that this subject is not finished.
Susan Martinovich:
We can work on facilitating a meeting with the Assemblyman and with the local RTC [Regional Transportation Commission].
Chairwoman Chowning:
We appreciate that commitment and we will make sure that that meeting happens very soon. Thank you. Assemblyman Atkinson, will you handle the Floor statement on A.B. 170 tomorrow? Assemblyman Sherer, would you like to handle the Floor statement on S.B. 77? Thank you. [Chairwoman Chowning adjourned the meeting at 3:39 p.m.]
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Erin Channell
Transcribing Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman
DATE: