MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Transportation

 

Seventy-Second Session

May 8, 2003

 

 

The Committee on Transportationwas called to order at 2:08 p.m., on Thursday, May 8, 2003.  Chairwoman Vonne Chowning presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, 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:

 

Senator Dennis Nolan, Clark County Senatorial District No. 9

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Marji Paslov Thomas, Committee Policy Analyst

Nancy Elder, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Karen Kavanau, Lobbyist, Nevada Judges Association

Ginny Lewis, Director, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles

Ron Titus, Director and State Court Administrator, Administrative Office of the Court, Supreme Court, State of Nevada

Dana Mathiesen, Deputy Director, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles

David Schumann, Nevada Committee For Full Statehood, Independent American Party

Jim Parsons, Administrator, Management Services and Programs Division, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles

Tracy Filippi, Highway Safety Representative, Nevada Office of Traffic Safety

Eric Guevin, Coordinator, Washoe County SAFE KIDS Coalition, Regional Emergency Medical Services Authority (REMSA)

Sandra Avants, Commissioner, Las Vegas, Transportation Services Authority, Nevada Department of Business and Industry

Andreas (Ted) Pribnow, Manager of Transportation, Chief of Enforcement, Transportation Services Authority, Nevada Department of Business and Industry

Gary Milliken, American Medical Response, Yellow-Checker-Star Transportation

Michael Mersch, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, State of Nevada

Kimberly Maxson-Rushton, Commissioner, Las Vegas, Transportation Services Authority, Nevada Department of Business and Industry

Barry Jones, Carson Valley Movers

Bruce Breslow, Commissioner, Sparks, Transportation Services Authority, Nevada Department of Business and Industry

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

[The Assembly Committee on Transportation was called to order as a Subcommittee by Chairwoman Chowning.]  We apologize; there are a lot of meetings going on at the same time.  Mr. Atkinson, Mr. Sherer, and I will have to leave in order to testify in the Senate Committee on Transportation on two bills.

 

The first bill, Senate Bill 356, Senator Washington’s bill, that was on the agenda for today is being cancelled.  The person who wanted to testify is stuck in the snow somewhere and cannot be here.  It will be rescheduled for Tuesday.  Senator Washington is here, but the person testifying on the bill is not here.  Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall will conduct today’s hearing, starting with Senate Bill  479.  Mr. Atkinson, Mr. Sherer, and I will return as soon as our two bills are heard.  [Roll was called.]  We are now a full Committee.

 

Senate Bill 479 (1st Reprint):  Prohibits Department of Motor Vehicles under certain circumstances from renewing registration of motor vehicle if court has filed notice of nonpayment of certain outstanding criminal fines and fees with Department. (BDR 43-618)

 

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall, Acting Chairwoman:

This is the time set for the hearing on S.B. 479.  Please come forward and identify yourselves for the record as each individual testifies.

 

Karen Kavanau, Lobbyist, Nevada Judges Association:

[Introduced herself]  Judge Ed Dannan, a Justice of Peace in Reno, had planned to testify on this bill today but had to stay in his Court this afternoon.  With me today is Ron Titus, Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts.  This bill was submitted by the Nevada Judges Association in response to a legislative audit that suggested courts should do more to improve collections.

 

S.B. 479 authorizes the Registration Division of the Department of Motor Vehicles to refuse to register a vehicle if the court has notified the Division electronically that the owner of the vehicle has not paid his or her court ordered penalties.  To be able to register a vehicle, the owner must return to the court, pay the outstanding monies due, and return to the Registration Division with a receipt from the court that proves payment was made.  The bill also authorizes the Registration Division to define the procedures for its data exchange with the courts, the data required from the courts, and the format of that data.

 

The purpose of S.B. 479 is twofold.  First, it helps underscore the importance of following the law and complying with court orders.  Second, it helps maximize the collection of court ordered financial penalties.  The bill is aimed at people who have received traffic citations and never appeared in court, or who went to court but did not pay their fines.  I’d be happy to take any questions.

 

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:

I have two before we open it up further.  First of all, you said it authorizes the DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles).  It mandates it, doesn’t it, when it says, “The Department shall not renew.  .  . ”?

 

Karen Kavanau:

It does. 

 

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:

Second, what happens to people who may fulfill part of their obligation, for instance, they went to traffic school, but didn’t pay whatever they needed to pay at the end of traffic school, if there is something.  I think that varies by county, doesn’t it?

 

Karen Kavanau:

It does, and, in this case, we’re aiming at the actual cash payment, if any, assessed to the defendant.  The court would require payment of that; it could be an administrative assessment, it could be a fine, it could be a fee.  It’s whatever the Court identified as the cash portion, if there is one, to the penalty for the citation.

 

Assemblyman Gustavson:

I understand where you’re going with this bill and the purpose of the bill.  I agree with you that we need to collect these fines and penalties.  If a typical family of four, which is not really typical anymore, had two or three vehicles, as the case may be, with each vehicle registered in this family’s name, how would the spouse get to and from work to make money to make some of these payments if their vehicle registration was cancelled?

 

Karen Kavanau:

My understanding is that if the car is actually registered in one person’s name, all of the cars – one or more – and that person has outstanding fines or fees owed to the court, then the cars may not be registered.  However, I have talked to the judges who deal with this on a daily basis. I think Ginny Lewis will be a more preferred expert to respond to this, but my understanding is that this instance happens so seldom that it’s a very small minority, but it could happen.

 

Assemblyman Gustavson:

I was just curious.  I don’t want to put people in a situation where they can’t make a living to pay these fines.  I do have a problem with that part.

 

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:

Are you saying that it’s very rare to have a car registered to John or Mary Jones, if it’s a family with only one vehicle?

Karen Kavanau:

The way I understand it is, if it’s registered to a “John or Mary Jones,” Mary came in and had no court fines assessed on her, and no notification, then the registration would take place.

 

Ginny Lewis, Director, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles:

[Introduced herself.]  To answer that question, if the court notifies us of a vehicle that we are to take action on, they’ll supply the license plate and other identifiable data so that we ensure we have the correct vehicle.  If there are three or four registered owners on that vehicle, that vehicle registration will be stopped until the fine is paid.  Unfortunately, everybody on that registration would be affected.

 

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:

Then, Mary Jones could not go to work, because John had the fines?

 

Ginny Lewis:

That would be correct.  The Department of Motor Vehicles would have no way of pulling off one name on that registration.

 

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:

Or take her children to school?  That’s rather draconian, isn’t it?

 

Assemblyman Claborn:

I think that’s very unfair.  Why should you punish the family if it’s only one person involved?  That is very unfair; you should come up with a better bill than that.

 

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:

Would there be an excuse to the school district, which requires uniform child attendance at public schools?  Could the parents then say, “We didn’t bring our children to school because the DMV won’t let us register our car”?

 

Ginny Lewis:

I would like to clarify that the Department is acting on information that the Court is providing us.  We would be in compliance with the law.  It’s really not the DMV who is taking this action; we’re doing this on behalf of the court.

 

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:

I understand; I didn’t mean to attack the DMV. I guess I was asking if, in the language of the bill, is there any provision made?  I can think of a hundred different things that a family with children is required to do for their children, such as taking them to school every day, making sure they get regular medical checkups, things that Children’s Protective Services can come in and say child neglect or abuse and take your kids.  I’m asking, is there anything in this bill that would protect parents who can’t afford to get into a taxi if they don’t have a car?

 

Karen Kavanau:

The answer is, “No, there is nothing in the bill.”  The judges simply came up with the bill in an attempt to close all the loopholes and respond to a legislative audit.  We did not have that in mind, that’s true, when we drafted the bill.

 

Assemblyman Gustavson:

If we didn’t have this bill in place, wouldn’t the judge still be able to do something to penalize an individual, other than taking away his right to register his vehicle?

 

Ginny Lewis:

The court would follow up, and there are much stronger collections activities going on.  As the most recent audit indicated, our courts are collecting at a very high level now.  This was simply an effort to respond to a legislative concern that the courts were not doing everything they could possibly do to collect on monies owed.

 

Assemblyman Gustavson:

I understand that, but I have some real problems with this procedure.

 

Assemblyman Claborn:

Do they still issue warrants for penalties that have not been paid, whether it’s a speeding ticket or drunken driving ticket?  They still issue warrants. Is this taking the place of a warrant?

 

Ginny Lewis:

No, it’s in addition to the warrant. 

 

Assemblyman Claborn:

Why would you want to do this one as a warrant, if you had a warrant for his arrest, and it’s come up at the DMV that he’s still living at a certain address? Why not send somebody out there to his address, pick him up, and put him in jail?  You have a warrant.

 

Ginny Lewis:

The answer is resources.  If they have someone to serve that warrant they will; if they don’t, the warrant isn’t served.

 

Assemblyman Claborn:

So this is a backup.  If you don’t have anybody who wants to go out there, you make a hardship on the family.

 

Ron Titus, Director and State Court Administrator, Administrative Office of the Court, Supreme Court, State of Nevada:

[Introduced himself.]  To address the question, warrants are the most expensive way to try to collect, because you are using a person to go out, arrest that person, and bring him or her in.  You are using jail time, you’re using services of the Sheriff’s Department, and the audit reflects that the warrants are the poorest way to try to collect these fees.  It should be noted that something like this is generally the last step.  The individuals, if they work with the courts, can get help; the courts work out all kinds of payment plans for them.  The courts bend over backwards to make sure that they do pay.  If they are indigent, the court has the authority and responsibility to forgive those fines. 

 

The courts are not trying to collect from the individuals or the families when they are responsible.  If the family or individual is irresponsible and is not working with the courts to pay off the fines, then this would go into effect.

 

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:

Once it’s computerized, though, how are you going to prevent the computer from automatically hitting every family?  The computer has no way to look and say, “This family has an income of $20,000 per year, that one has an income of $40,000; we can go after the $40,000 family but not the $20,000 family.”

 

Ron Titus:

The computer in the court system does not do anything automatically.  It requires a clerk or a judge to press a button saying a person has not appeared or has ignored all the notices they’ve sent, and then they will proceed with additional collections, either through a collection agency or through other means.  This is just another avenue to provide those collections, similar to the driver’s license.  There are lots of other states that are doing this; I don’t have those states with me now.

 

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:

How does the court know the relative financial status of the family?

 

Ron Titus:

If the individual is there, and they say they can’t pay, they set up a payment plan.  They normally do a check on their financial resources and follow up on verifying weekly, monthly, or annual salaries to determine what they can pay.  We’re targeting those who are irresponsible in paying the penalties.

 

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:

What do you do with the person who doesn’t show up because he knows he’s broke and knows that when he goes to court, they’re going to ask him to pay something so why bother?

 

Ron Titus:

I would classify that type of individual as . . .

 

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:

He’ll put it off until he gets a job.

 

Ron Titus:

If he’s unemployed and comes to court and tells them that he’s unemployed, then the court will work with him.

 

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:

If he’s unemployed, chances are he doesn’t have a lawyer to tell him to go to court.

 

Ron Titus:

What this bill does is alert the individual; he may see that he owes us on his registration notice and can’t register until he takes care of it.  That does not necessarily mean that the judge will require him to pay, but he is now at least showing up in court, and he can take care of it.  The court can relieve or remove the restriction to allow him to register.  If he then doesn’t pay after that, the next time around it might show up again.  At least it gets him into court to say, “I’m here, you got my attention, and this is my situation.”  Nine times out of ten, I would expect the judges that I know to say, “We’ll remove the restriction, you can register the car and start making these payments.”

 

Assemblyman Claborn:

I can remember back in about 1957, I got a ticket for excessive noise because of the pipes on my Chevy, and I got a $15 ticket.  I went to California for a while and when I came back 6 months later, they pulled me over and harassed me a little because my license plate wasn’t 12 inches above the ground.  The bench warrant was $100, and the ticket was $15.  I don’t know if bench warrants have escalated or not, but, if they didn’t, for $100, if you had his address and he’s in Las Vegas, I’ll go hunting all day for $100 a head.  That’s pretty reasonable.  I don’t know how much the bench warrants have been raised, but I think maybe you should look at getting a bounty hunter. 

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:

Are there any other questions of this witness?

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

The language on page 3 of the bill, what is that there for?

 

Karen Kavanau:

Could you be more specific about which language on page 3, like the new language? [Assemblyman Carpenter indicated he meant the new language.]  Basically, it’s to let the courts know what minimum data should be included when it sends the information to the Registration Division.  It also requires the courts to provide the information to the Registration Division in an electronic form.

 

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:

Are there other questions at this point?  Please continue if you have anything else to add.

 

Ron Titus:

I have nothing else to add, I covered my testimony in my responses.

 

Ginny Lewis:

We currently have a process in place with some of the counties where we handle parking ticket violations through electronic transmission.  McCarran International Airport will transmit a list of license plates; we would notify the individual on their renewal notice for that registration that they have an outstanding parking violation with that jurisdiction and that before the registration can be renewed, they have to clear it up.  The concept that the courts have approached us with is something that we currently have in place.  I envision this as being a very similar type of program.

 

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:

How is the program authorized that you have at the moment with the airports and counties?

 

Ginny Lewis:

It’s authorized through the legislative statutes.

 

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:

Do we already have statutes in place that authorize this?

 

Ginny Lewis:

On parking ticket violations, yes, we do.

 

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:

But those statutes aren’t broad enough, I take it, to include what you want to do?  Are there other questions?  Is there anyone else who wishes to testify in favor of this bill?  Is there anyone who wishes to testify against this bill?  Is there any further discussion?

 

Assemblyman Claborn:

I apologize to the people up there; I was a little funny there.

 

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:

Seeing no further testimony and discussion, I will bring that bill back to the Committee to be considered further at a future work session.  We’ll now open the hearing on S.B. 483.

 

Senate Bill 483 (1st Reprint):  Revises provisions regarding identification cards, drivers’ licenses and driving privileges. (BDR 43-483)

 

Dana Mathiesen, Deputy Director, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles:

[Introduced herself.]  This bill has four provisions.  The topics jump all over the bill by section.  Rather than going through it section by section, I’ll just talk about the topics and address which sections apply to them.

 

The first three sections, Sections 1, 2, and 3, allow the Department of Motor Vehicles to sanction nonlicensed drivers.  Currently, driving sanctions are only applied to licensed drivers.  It would authorize the Department to record convictions, assess demerit points, and suspend the future driving privilege of Nevada I.D. (identification) Card holders who have committed traffic offenses. 

 

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:

Did you say only of Nevada I.D. card holders?

 

Dana Mathiesen:

Yes.

 

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:

So if you had an unlicensed driver who did not have a Nevada I.D., maybe because he was too young, it wouldn’t apply to him?

 

Dana Mathiesen:

No, because, if there is an unlicensed driver, we wouldn’t know if they were a resident, unless they have an I.D. card. 

 

To give you an example of how this works under the current law, let’s say you have a driver’s license, and I don’t.  We go out driving and commit the same offenses to the point where you would accumulate 12 points against your driving record.  On the same day, your license would be suspended.  At this time, I could go in, apply for a license, and get a license with a clean driving record.  If you moved out of state, they would check the Problem Driver Pointer System (PDPS), and it would prevent you from being licensed in another state because of your suspension in Nevada, but I could go to another state and obtain a license in that state.

 

What we’re asking is that the same sanctions apply to unlicensed drivers holding Nevada I.D. (identification) cards as they would to a licensed driver if they committed the same offense.

 

Sections 5, 6, and 8 of S.B. 483 revise the definition of licensed to include a future driving privilege, which allows the Department to carry out the provisions of Sections 2 and 3.  Sections 9 and 16 authorize the removal of three demerit points from the records of a nonlicensed driver after successful completion of a traffic safety school.  That’s the same law and is consistent for licensed drivers.

 

The second major provision of this bill places an expiration date on Nevada Identification Cards.  Currently, Nevada Identification cards, once issued, are valid indefinitely and have no expiration date.  The four year expiration date on an I.D. card would be the same as a driver’s license and would allow the Department to retain current photographs, addresses, physical descriptions, and identify whether the I.D. card holders are still Nevada residents.  Also, if the Homeland Security Bill passes this session, the expiration date of an I.D. card or license will be tied to the expiration date of an immigration document, and it would be necessary to place expiration dates on I.D. cards.

 

Section 10 identifies a fee structure for I.D. card renewals.  No fees would be charged for applicants 65 years of age or older, $3 if they’re under 18, and    $9 for any other person.  Sections 11 and 13 change the language to address the renewal and expiration of I.D. cards and also change the number of days required to report name or address changes from 10 to 30 days, which makes it consistent with driver’s licenses.  Section 18 provides that an applicant for a renewal of an Identification card would be offered the opportunity to vote just like for a driver’s license.  Section 19 states that the renewal of the identification cards would only apply to new Identification cards issued after October 1, 2003.  Any I.D. cards that have already been issued by the Department would not have an expiration date placed on them until the applicant came in to make a change on that I.D. card, and then the expiration date would be applied.

 

[Dana Mathiesen continues.]  The Department also submitted a fiscal note showing $525,000 in projected revenue in FY2007 resulting from the renewal of I.D. cards.

 

The third major provision of this bill revises documents accepted by the Department for proof of name and age for issuance of Nevada licenses or I.D. cards.  The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) has been working to establish federal legislation that will standardize driver’s license and I.D. card issuance processes for all states.  In the interim, they have developed a standardized list, and released the recommendations to the state of which I.D.s should be accepted for proof on name and age.  Sections 7, 12, and Section 17 contain identical list, but they apply to sections pertaining to driver’s licenses, I.D. cards, and motorcycle licenses.

 

I can either go through those changes, or move on to the next section.

 

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:

Would you go through the changes to ensure understanding? 

 

Dana Mathiesen:

The changes, currently, are split between the applicants who are born in the United States and applicants who are born outside the United States.  The changes that are occurring within the statute for applicants born in the United States expand the acceptance of state issued birth certificates to include birth certificates issued by cities and counties.  It will also change to include birth certificates issued by U.S. Territories such as Puerto Rico, America Samoa, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

 

It removes baptismal certificates from the documents.  It’s difficult to determine whether a baptismal certificate is valid.  The Department of Motor Vehicles can’t verify validity of a baptismal certificate, and they are too easily counterfeited.  It adds military I.D. cards and military dependent I.D. cards, or DD214s, military separation papers.  It also adds proof of Indian blood degree issued by the federal government.

 

The changes for applicants born outside the U.S. are as follows.  It removes the arrival‑departure record.  For the Immigration and Naturalization Service, an arrival-departure record is not valid proof of name and age unless it is accompanied by a foreign passport.  The Department has currently identified that through regulation.  It removes the United States Citizen Identification Card and Letter of Authorization; per Immigration and Naturalization, these documents are no longer issued.  It adds Resident Alien Cards and Temporary Resident Identification Cards, which are new cards issued by the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

 

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall:

What do you do for naturalized citizens?

 

Dana Mathiesen:

Naturalized citizens can submit a Certificate of Naturalization for proof of I.D. 

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

I believe that last session we got into a discussion of baptismal certificates.  People wanted to remove them, and the Legislature thought it was a good idea.  Explain to me why they wouldn’t be good.

 

Dana Mathiesen:

Baptismal certificates are generally issued by churches in the United States.  The certificate itself, blank certificates, can be purchased at almost any office supply store and counterfeited.  It’s impossible for the Department, generally, to find the number of the church that the baptismal certificate was issued from or to reach the church during the regular workweek to validate that information.  We have received several fraudulent baptismal certificates—I have a couple samples here if you’d like to see them—that are difficult to determine if they are really fraudulent. 

 

When we took them back to call the church, the applicants fled the room.  We believe these are fraudulent documents.  It’s almost impossible to tell whether the document is valid or not, and whether it accurately identifies the name and date of birth of the person who is bringing it into the office.

 

[Chairwoman Chowning returned to the meeting.]

 

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall:

What do you do with the baptismal certificates that come from countries where church and state are tied and where one must obligatorily record the baptism of the child, and what religion he was baptized into, and, in fact, where all of the identification cards of the country include religion and dates on it?  You would not accept those as valid?

 

Dana Mathiesen:

No, we would not.

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

Do you have the ability, through the DMV, to determine whether a Permanent Resident Card or Temporary Resident Card is valid?  I know some forgeries are very good.

 

Dana Mathiesen:

For every document that the Department currently accepts for name and date of birth we can call the issuing agency, and we can determine that the information on the document being presented to us is identical to the information they have on their issuance records.  We do contact the Immigration and Naturalization Service if we have any doubts about the validity of the card to verify that the information is correct.  We also provide fraudulent I.D. training to staff so they are able to determine whether a card has all of the security features that it’s required to have.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

I see where the bill is heading, but, as it exists today, if a person had an out-of-state driver’s license, you would use that out-of-state license to issue a Nevada driver’s license, correct?

 

Dana Mathiesen:

Yes, that’s correct.

 

Assemblyman Gustavson:

On pages 11 and 12 of the bill, it talks about the issuance of a commercial driver’s license with endorsements for hazardous materials.  The applicants have to be fingerprinted at this time and are charged an additional fee for that.  When reading this bill, it just says for the issuance of one.  What about a renewal; is that included in there?

 

Dana Mathiesen:

Yes, it is.  As a matter of fact, this week we received a final federal ruling on this provision, and it states that no state will issue, renew, transfer, or upgrade a commercial license with a hazardous materials endorsement until the federal background check has been completed.

 

Assemblyman Gustavson:

Since I do have a commercial driver’s license with a hazardous materials endorsement, and it expires this July, I have time to have the background check done.  Do I have to do this prior to my renewal?

Dana Mathiesen:

The states don’t have to be in compliance with this new ruling until November 3, 2003.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

I have a follow-up on Mr. Gustavson’s question.   I think it takes a month or two to get those background checks.  What does a person do then?

 

Dana Mathiesen:

Right now, the provisions of federal legislation state that the Department of Motor Vehicles is required to notify any commercial driver’s license holder with a hazardous materials endorsement on their license six months prior to the expiration date and advise them to get started with the fingerprinting process so that they can be submitted and the results of the criminal history background check returned before their actual renewal date.  A provision of the federal regulations also allows the Department to extend the expiration date of a hazardous materials endorsement holder if we haven’t received the information from the federal government for 6 to 12 months after the legislation takes effect.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

Do you have the means to do that now, or are we going to have to put something else on your computer to notify all these people?

 

Dana Mathiesen:

We’re going to have to make some form changes and some computer changes.  We do have the means to implement this legislation, but we need to make some changes, work out the fingerprinting process with the criminal history repository, and work out the communication problems with the federal government.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

It seems to me that we’re requiring so many of these background checks, if we want to call them that, that it seems this system is going to melt down one of these days.  I’m worried about it; I can see why you need them, but I don’t know whether our system, or the F.B.I.’s (Federal Bureau of Investigation), is going to be able to keep up with them.

 

Dana Mathiesen:

We don’t either.  It was part of the U.S. Patriot Act, and it was mandated for all of the states to comply with this new legislation.

Assemblyman Gustavson:

On the same lines, these background checks are being required for more and more professions; teachers have been doing it for years.  When you carry a permit or, now, for hazardous materials, is it necessary to get another check done, even if you just had a recent background check done within six months?

 

Dana Mathiesen:

The federal regulations state that the background check will need to be run any time you renew your commercial license, transfer it to another state, or upgrade it to include a hazardous materials endorsement.  I imagine it will be primarily applied to first time issuance or renewals, which is every four years.  If, in the meantime, someone transfers to another state, they would have to have another background check.

 

Assemblyman Gustavson:

What I’m trying to get at is if there is a way in which an individual can get a background check and have it be valid for other items for a certain amount of time, for different professions or reasons. 

 

Dana Mathiesen:

I don’t know the answer to that.  It would depend on the other agency, I would imagine.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Are there any other questions?  Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak for or against S.B. 483?

 

David Schumann, Nevada Committee For Full Statehood, Independent American Party:

[Introduced himself.]  I’d just like to draw the Committee’s attention to what I think is a major loophole in Section 2, page 4.  One of the documents that will be accepted for issuance of a driver’s license is a driver’s license issued by another state.  I’m a recent escapee from California, and, in California, illegal aliens are welcome to get a driver’s license.  If I come here with a California driver’s license and present it to the Nevada authorities, they would think, “He’s got a California driver’s license,” and he’s through the process of getting a license here.  Once you’ve got a driver’s license, that’s proof of citizenship.  Amazing.  It wasn’t when I was kid, but it is now.  I’ve come in and out of this country, I have a passport, but coming in on the train you can use your driver’s license to get into the country.

 

It blew me away; but you can also use it when you go down to register to vote.  They don’t ask you for your birth certificate; they ask you for a driver’s license.  The Motor Voter bill, which passed a decade ago in Congress, prohibits the people that run the voter registration from inquiring of a person’s nationality.  If they check on voter registration that they are an American, and they present a valid Nevada driver’s license, they have a right to vote.  They are then “citizens.”  I think you might want to close that loophole and say that those coming in from another state have to present some kind of proof that they were born here or that they have documentation giving them the right to be here. 

 

Assemblyman Claborn:

You say a driver’s license proves that you have citizenship?

 

David Schumann:

Yes, sir.  It’s amazing but it’s true.  If you go to vote, the only identification you will have to provide them is a driver’s license.

 

Assemblyman Claborn:

What about if you want to get a passport?

 

David Schumann:

The U.S. State Department requires a birth certificate or some other—by the way, thank you for adding political subdivisions, because when I got my passport, the State of Pennsylvania had lost my birth certificate, but the City of Philadelphia still had it.  If that were still being used here, I’d be in deep trouble because the State of Pennsylvania doesn’t have my birth certificate, but in the records of the City of Philadelphia, now that you’ve done this, I’m legal.  The State Department is very thorough.

 

Assemblyman Claborn:

The reason I was asking you is that my brother is a graduate from Fresno University and was also in the military for four years, and he planned a trip to England to visit his daughter.  He applied for a passport, and he still hasn’t gotten a passport.  He was born in Arkansas on a kitchen table and doesn’t have a birth certificate.  I was born on the same table, but I have a birth certificate.  Without a birth certificate, he has not been able to get a passport to this day.  He was going to leave in June, but he had to cancel the trip.  He contacted me to see if I could do anything for him, and I gave him the same information for what I did, wrote to the Bureau of Vital Statistics and got my birth certificate, but he doesn’t have one.  He’s still in limbo and has to go back to find school teachers. He’s 67 years old so I don’t think he’ll have much luck, so he’s in a dilemma.  I thought maybe this was one way I could call him and say, “I found your out.”

David Schumann:

I can ratify everything he said because I fell in the same trap.  I went to the State of Pennsylvania to get my birth certificate so mine got delayed.  The City of Philadelphia had a birth certificate for me, but it was an extra six weeks or so before I got it.  I know those guys are thorough; if you don’t get a passport, it’s tough. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Ms. Mathiesen, could you clarify a statement Mr. Schumann made, and that is that the state of Nevada has to accept a driver’s license from another state?  I thought that was one point the bill was trying to rectify.

 

Dana Mathiesen:

We had originally removed driver’s licenses from the identification documents in this bill and attempted an amendment in Senate Transportation to include a provision allowing the Department of Motor Vehicles to refuse licenses from states that have less stringent issuing standards than Nevada.  The amendment didn’t pass on the Senate side.  However, A.B. 441, the Homeland Security bill, currently has that provision in the bill that would allow the Department to determine whether or not all states accept the same documents that Nevada does.  If they do not, Nevada could refuse a driver’s license issued by a state.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

I think that’s very important.  I’m very well aware that there are some people who charge a lot of money to people and take them by the busloads to other states, which have less stringent regulations, and then they get a driver’s license, come back here later, and our state is forced to accept that license.  That’s not something that our state should have to do.  I hope that does pass in another bill; it could be amended back into this bill but then it would probably get into trouble in Conference Committee.  One house doesn’t like the other to mess with its bills.  Not that it never happens; it happens all the time.

 

Assemblyman Gustavson:

Mr. Schumann, you made a very good point that I was concerned about.  I just wanted to make sure that this is taken care of.  I’ve had a bill draft request out there to address this same issue, but I was convinced that we weren’t having this problem in Nevada.  I wanted to make sure that the DMV knows that the Committee is aware of this situation, that we don’t want people coming to Nevada under false pretenses, and showing an I.D. card or driver’s license from another state and saying it’s a valid I.D.  As Mr. Schumann said, if they wanted to come here to register to vote and just show a driver’s license, we need to have some type of proof that they are a citizen of this country before they can vote.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

I apologize; I didn’t get a chance to go over this bill intimately.  Is there a part in this bill that addresses people’s voting rights?  Or was that just a statement made? [Mr. Schumann indicated it was just a statement he made.]  Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak for or against S.B. 483?  There are none, so we’ll close the hearing on it; we won’t take action on either of the Senate bills today.  We’ll open the work session.  Senator Nolan, regarding S.B. 116, is downstairs in Senate Transportation Committee, and I know he wanted to be advised.  We’ll go to S.B. 405 instead.

 

Senate Bill 405:  Allows certain owners of fleets of motor vehicles to apply for participation in program allowing electronic submission and storage of certain documents relating to registration and ownership of motor vehicles. (BDR 43-411)

 

Marji Paslov Thomas, Committee Policy Analyst:

Basically, owners of fleets composed of 200 or more vehicles could apply to the Department of Motor Vehicles to participate in the electronic submission and filing of documents.  Current law provides that the Department may establish a program for the electronic submission and storage of the documents.  With this measure, if the Department creates such a program, owners of fleet motor vehicles would be able to register their fleet vehicles electronically. 

 

As you may recall, some questions came up during the hearing.  The Department was asked about the $20 permit fee being refunded when a fleet asked for a temporary 20-day permit.  The DMV responded that the fee is deducted from the registration fee.  Additionally, a question was asked about how long it would take the Department to implement the changes to their system to bring the electronic lien, title, and fleet transactions online.  The DMV responded by explaining that electronic lien and title transactions are directly related to the fundraising capabilities at the financial institutions.

 

To date, they have only raised $10,000, which is half of what is required to start the project.  Completing fleet registrations online is not the same as title transactions and would not require a third party vendor, therefore there would just be minor modifications to their computer system, and they could get this going within 6 to 8 months of programming.  There are no proposed amendments.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

There are no proposed amendments nor was there any opposition voiced during the Committee hearing.

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

This has a figure of ten or more. Does that mean if you have ten vehicles registered, you have a fleet?

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Mr. Parsons, if you have ten or more vehicles?

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

If you have ten registered, are you considered a fleet?  Do you have to have a fleet designation with more than ten vehicles?

 

Jim Parsons, Administrator, Management Services and Programs Division, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles:

[Introduced himself.]  If you have ten vehicles registered to yourself, you are considered a fleet.

 

Assemblyman Claborn:

What if you had these vehicles registered to your company?

 

Jim Parsons:

You would still be considered a fleet.  Ten or more vehicles that are registered to a company or person would be considered a fleet.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Seeing no further questions, the Chair will accept a motion

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 405.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Collins was absent for the vote.)

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

We’ll now move to S.B. 116 since Senator Nolan is here.

 

Senate Bill 116 (1st Reprint):  Revises provisions relating to use of equipment to secure children traveling in certain motor vehicles. (BDR 43-87)

 

Marji Paslov Thomas:

S.B. 116 requires children who are less than nine years old and who weigh 80 pounds or less to be secured in a properly installed child restraint system when traveling in vehicles with an unladened weight of less than 10,000 pounds (Exhibit C).  Currently, children under the age of five weighing less than 40 pounds have to be restrained.  The measure also includes fines; it increases the current fines from $35 to $50, and to a maximum of $500 from the original $100.  It also provides that the court give a list of persons and agencies approved by the court to conduct programs of training and to perform inspections of child restraint systems.  The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has the authority to establish the standard for proper child restraint systems and their safe installation. 

 

There are proposed amendments.  The first one has two parts, proposed by Chairwoman Chowning; first to amend the bill to include an integrated child seat as defined by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for children under 50 pounds in the definition for a child restraint system.  That would most likely be placed in Section 1, subsection 6.  The proposed amendment would also require the child who is less than nine years of age, weighing between 40 and 80 pounds, to use a booster seat or seatbelt, if the seatbelt can be adjusted for the size of the child being restrained.  The reason it does classify these children between 40 and 80 pounds is because current law would require that children are still in a child restraint system for 40 pounds and under.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

I did speak with Senator Nolan about this, and I would like to get his feedback.  There are several people who have made the statement that, with the new vehicles, there are adjustable seatbelts, and some vehicles have built-in booster seats.  It was my wish that we not require something that is not necessary.  In other words, when we passed the tinted window bill and others, we always allowed for manufacturers’ regulations.  That was what I was trying to address here.  The bill, as written, would apply for all vehicles, unless the manufacturer has installed seatbelts that are adjustable and/or booster seats.  That’s the concept of my amendments.  I want to see what Senator Nolan has to say.

 

Senator Dennis Nolan, Clark County Senatorial District No. 9:

[Introduced himself.]  I think those are appropriate.  We have to make sure the language is such that the manufacturers’ devices were designed to accommodate children of that age.  Some seatbelts are adjustable for different reasons, but not for the purpose of securing children.  We want to make sure the language is such that the device is specifically for that, and that if there are built-in booster seats, those are fine as well.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Is there anyone else who wishes to amplify or discuss the seatbelts or booster seats, per manufacturer installations?

 

Traci Filippi, Highway Safety Representative, Nevada Office of Traffic Safety:

[Introduced herself.]  We do want to clarify, or educate the Committee, regarding the amendment of using an adjustable seatbelt in lieu of a booster seat for these children and explain why.  In the original handouts given to this Committee on April 24, we outlined a Crash Injury Research and Engineering Network (CIREN) Report, which was a study about kids between ages five and eight and between 40 and 80 pounds.  There is the injury of a shoulder belt lying across their necks instead of across their collarbones where it is designed to lie.  The lap belt or seatbelt syndrome the emergency room doctors are seeing is actually from the lap belt portion.

 

The adjustable seatbelts, in the vehicles that I believe you are referring to, just adjust the shoulder height.  In fact, I use it in my car because I’m 5 feet 1 inch.  On the lowest level, it just hits my collarbone, but it is not adjusting the seatbelt to fit a person any shorter than 4 feet 9 inches, especially the lap belt portion.  That is the portion that rides up on a child’s tummy because they are not tall enough for the seat belt, because seatbelts are made for adults.  They are getting internal and spinal injuries from wearing a seatbelt in the event of a crash.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Perhaps the wording could be as Senator Nolan stated, that would apply to any vehicle unless the vehicle manufacturer or the vehicle is installed with child safety restraints.  Would that be appropriate?

 

Senator Nolan:

I think we can strike the language.  The federal legislation will eventually mandate that cars be equipped with some type of mechanism for children; you may actually have automobile manufacturers who will find a way to design a lap belt that might fit small children.  If the language is constructed such that it’s specifically designed to accommodate children of that age and weight in both the shoulder and lap belts, then we would probably be progressive and forward‑thinking in accommodating that.  Additionally, the same can be applied to the built-in booster seats that you may find in the big SUVs (sport utility vehicles) that fold out of the seat.  I think the language can be constructed to accommodate both of those.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

That’s what I was thinking.  Often we put legislation forth that then becomes antiquated because of technological advances or innovations that are made.  Then we would have a law that would be useful.  If we could put in language like that, that would be my amendment.

 

Eric Guevin, Coordinator, SAFE KIDS Coalition, Washoe County:

I concur with Senator Nolan.  I think the seat needs to be engineered to protect the child as Senator Nolan stated.  They may have an integrated booster seat, but the main thing is that many of the devices out there don’t currently protect the children.  If we had the foresight to say that it’s engineered for a child, I think that would be good.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

In the future they probably will.  We never thought they were going to have booster seats.  I guess Volvo, and Mr. Hillerby, the Governor’s Chief of Staff, has one, has child safety devices that protect children. 

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

In the meantime, until we all can afford a Volvo, we would have booster seats; is that what we’re talking about?

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Yes sir, and in some SUVs, they also have foldout booster seats, so you don’t have to go buy one; they’re already there for your grandchildren.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

In your amendment, it says “require a child who is nine years of age,” but in the bill I thought it said “less than nine years of age” so you’re getting another year with your amendment.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

That’s not the intention.  Ms. Paslov Thomas did correct that, and it should state “less than nine years.”  How observant; he’s been reading.  Both of those, amendments one and two, would be combined into some sort of language that would say that the law would apply only to those vehicles that do not have child restraint systems installed in the vehicle.  Until we get the Legal Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau working on it, that’s pretty good.

 

Traci Filippi:

In your current reading of the bill, you’re also requiring to install the seat per manufacturers’ instructions.  If you have those integrated seats in the vehicle, they also have instructions with them.  That covers that base.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Except there wouldn’t be any instructions needed to install them because they would already be installed.

Traci Filippi:

I was referring to usage of the seat.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Amend the bill to include any integrated child seat, restraint, or protection?

 

Eric Guevin:

One suggestion we had was it might be good if we had “child safety seat or integrated safety seat,” and I think it would make all the provisions that you are looking for.  If we amended the bill to say “child safety seat or integrated child safety seat,” or even “integrated seat.”

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

That would handle that one.  It doesn’t handle the seatbelts; how would we handle that?

 

Senator Nolan:

We can use “a safety restraint system specifically designed to accommodate children in. . .” this age and weight category, stating the age and weights desired.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

“Safety restraint system” or “items”?

 

Senator Nolan:

The safety restraint device, I think, is the way it’s used in statute currently.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Use “integrated safety restraint device” and the integrated language would mean that it is built into the vehicle, correct? [Senator Nolan indicated that was correct.]  We’re amending the bill to include “an integrated safety restraint device.”

 

Marji Paslov Thomas:

As you’ll recall, Justice Becker, from the Nevada Supreme Court, proposed the following amendment during the hearing.  It is to amend the bill on page 2, Section 1, subsection 2, lines 18, 29, and 37, by deleting “Court” and replacing it with “the Office of Traffic Safety, Department of Public Safety.”  The Office of Traffic Safety would approve the programs for child restraint systems.  The court felt they did not have the knowledge to make those decisions.

Chairwoman Chowning:

They testified to such in the original hearing.  Senator Nolan, did you understand and agree to that?

 

Senator Nolan:

Yes, I did.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

I think it’s probably in your best interests to agree to that one.  Are there any other comments?

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

In relation to the weight of the vehicle that is less than 10,000 pounds, are some of those SUVs getting up to that weight?

 

Senator Nolan:

That was amended in the Senate Transportation Committee at the request of the DMV because that is the case.  Some of these SUVs, Excursions and such, exceed 6,000 pounds and are getting close to 10,000 pounds.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

The bill, as amended, addresses that concern. Is it okay? [Senator Nolan indicated that was correct.]  Are there any other comments?  There are no other amendments, just the two before you.  With no other comments or amendments, and the two amendments before you, the Chair will accept a motion.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 116.  THE AMENDMENTS WOULD CLARIFY WEIGHT AND AGE CATEGORIES OF CHILDREN AND THE MOST EFFECTIVE RESTRAINT SYSTEM REQUIRED.  THE SECOND AMENDMENT WOULD TRANSFER RESPONSIBILITY FOR APPROVAL OF RESTRAINT SYSTEMS FROM THE COURT TO THE OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Assemblyman Gustavson:

I have some problems with the bill.  We all realize that seatbelts do save lives; helmets sometimes save lives; airbags save lives; but all of these also cause serious injuries and death.  I believe that we’re looking at a bill here that is trying to restrict the general public as to what size a child is who must sit in this child restraint or booster seat.  As we all know, children come in various sizes and weights, as do adults.  We have some children who are large for their age or small for their age; the same is true for adults.  This could even be applied to some adults as far as size and weight go.  I believe this to be a difficult law to enforce, overall. 

 

[Assemblyman Gustavson continues.]  I think this is more a freedom of choice issue, the same as I feel about helmets and seatbelts.  I believe in seatbelts; I put them in the very first car I had in 1959, and I’ve always used them, but there are other people who have had problems with them and serious injuries because of them.  I think this, along with other issues, should be a freedom of choice issue.  I cannot support the bill.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Thank you, Assemblyman Gustavson.  I do support the bill; I struggled with the age and weight issue as well.  The way the bill is written, it’s less than nine years of age with a weight of 80 pounds or less.  Therefore, if a child is less than nine years old and weighs more than 80 pounds, that child would not fall under this legislation and would not need the child restraint devices.  But I do feel that if we had never passed a law that required child seats for children from birth to four years of age, I firmly believe that we would never have had as much compliance as we do today.

 

Unfortunately, a lot of people don’t pay attention to safety measures unless we pass a law.  I wish it were different, I truly do, but I remember the testimony stating that seatbelts are designed to protect people who are over 80 pounds and, therefore, there is a gap between the 40 pounds and the 80 pounds.  That’s why I support the measure, because I think we need to take a stand and say we are protecting children.  Too many people don’t protect children.  That’s my statement.

 

Are there any other comments?

 

Assemblyman Knecht:

First of all, I don’t believe that just because someone doesn’t do x, y, or z, that they don’t care about children or that they’re not considering safety.  I agree with Assemblyman Gustavson that this ultimately is best left as a matter of choice.  I will point out that I think he raised a very good point when he talked about people who have been injured by seatbelts, airbags, et cetera.  I had a very close and dear personal friend who was killed by an airbag.  I’m sure that when the airbag laws that required that airbag were promulgated, nobody gave any thought to that, and nobody ever took responsibility for it.  It’s things like that, and I know other people have been injured and perhaps even killed, by seatbelts.

 

[Assemblyman Knecht continues.]  Let me give you one other reservation on this.  Those of us who have small children live with the burden of these laws.  Almost to a certainty, when you get in your car, you’re not going to have an accident, but you are going to incur not only the monetary cost but the inconvenience of various restraint systems.  It makes it very difficult, for example, to take children on a four-hour drive to visit grandparents or to have other experiences.  Because I know that there are two sides to this question, and it’s not sufficient to posture and claim that maximal restraint is a vote in favor of safety and it’s the only way to go. Because I know that this is a question of balance and not a simple symbolic one of embracing maximal restraint in all cases, I take a different view.

 

I think this, in general, is better left up to the individual.  I think parents have the concern about their children, and they are the ones who judge best where the balance falls, not other people looking down their noses, pontificating about safety.  That said, I don’t know whether I want to support this bill or not; therefore I will vote for it here in Committee, as I consider further as it moves to the Floor, what my ultimate vote will be.  That’s my position; I will be voting for it, but I reserve the right to change my mind.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Understood.

 

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall:

I am a defender of individual liberties and civil liberties; there is no doubt about that.  But here we’re talking about children who are too young to think for themselves, protect themselves, who, in a moment of a parent’s negligence, can become victims, that neither the parent wanted to have happen nor society.  It’s the child who will pay the price.  Because of that, I will not hesitate in supporting and voting for the bill.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Is there any further discussion on the motion to amend and do pass S.B. 116?

 

THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON VOTED NAY.  (Mr. Atkinson and Mr. Collins were absent for the vote.)

 

Senator Nolan:

I want to thank you for your deliberations and vote.  I know this is a difficult issue; we struggled with it as well.  I think the gratification will come after this has been initiated and seeing the reduction in the mortality rate of children in this age group.  We’ll all be happy about that.

Chairwoman Chowning:

We’ll close S.B. 116 and open the work session on S.B. 192.

 

Senate Bill 192 (1st Reprint):  Makes various changes to provisions governing certain motor carriers and drivers. (BDR 58-537)

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Before we start S.B.192, I need to ask someone from the agency (Transportation Services Authority) to come forward, because I honestly do not know how to proceed.  This bill is going to affect some people who, because of the notification to speak that was given the other day, have stated that they knew nothing about this proposed regulation.  Therefore, they are in opposition. Because of that, it makes me uncomfortable asking the Committee to vote on a measure when people have not had the ability to testify.

 

They went to the Grant Sawyer Building today thinking that this Committee would be videoconferenced.  However, it was the Senate Transportation Committee that is being videoconferenced.  Therefore they have had no opportunity to testify.  We tried to get the phone so they could testify over the phone, in a speaker arrangement, but, by that time, they had already left the building. 

 

We can listen to the amendments today, but that’s really not usually a position we take when we pass something that is going to impact someone and charge a fee to which they have not had an opportunity to respond.

 

Does anyone from the agency (Transportation Services Authority) have a comment about that?

 

Sandra Avants, Chairman, Las Vegas, Transportation Services Authority, Nevada Department of Business and Industry:

[Introduced herself.]  After our Tuesday hearing, we did send an e-mail and fax to the three companies that are the emergency providers indicating there would be a work session following today’s 1:30 p.m. meeting telling them that it did affect them and that they should contact you or provide testimony. 

 

Personally, I have received a telephone call from one of them, from the General Manager of Medi-Car.  At first he was concerned with the bill and said he would be in opposition.  I spent some time with him and asked what his issue was.  The only issue, he indicated, was with the criminal background checks and the licensing of drivers.  He said he already did a criminal background check.  I said he didn’t need to be opposed to the bill, you can ask for a waiver if you can prove that you have that.  I can ask my staff if anyone else contacted them.

 

Andreas (Ted) Pribnow, Manager of Transportation, Chief of Enforcement, Transportation Services Authority, Nevada Department of Business and Industry:

I had an opportunity to speak with Mr. Craig Clark, who is the General Manager of Medi-Car.  He indicated to me that he conducted background investigations, and he felt they were criminal background investigations.  His industry was required by law, because they were transporting people with handicaps or physical ailments that may preclude them from defending themselves against any kind of assault.  He indicated that his company used a private company to do the background checks.  I questioned whether they actually did a full NCIC (National Crime Information Center) or national criminal background check through the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigations).  He believed it did, and he thought everyone else in the Medi-Car type industry had the same requirements.

 

When I further questioned him, he started saying the investigation he conducted found that his competitors were not as thorough.  Our request was for the background check, at the cost of $50, and he thought he could do it cheaper; we said that as long as you can show that it’s the same type of check, it would be accepted.

 

Sandra Avants:

The fact that there are only three companies that we’ve certificated, and the indication is that, because they do provide a public service like AMR (American Medical Response), we have no problem with exempting them from this provision.  That might help us move along today.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

I believe there were four companies.  I asked Ms. Paslov Thomas to try to contact the companies to provide feedback.  We don’t have the copy of the fax that you provided for us; there were four companies on there.

 

Sandra Avants:

We do not mind exempting them.

 

Assemblyman Oceguera:

Do you have the names of those four companies?  For this reason, I think some of these companies are represented by people in the building.  I don’t feel the need, if they can’t keep track of what we’re doing here, if they’re represented in the building, I’m not really too concerned.  Second, more importantly, I think it’s not much of an onerous provision, as was stated by the employee of the TSA (Transportation Services Authority), to have background checks on people who transport elderly, disabled, sick, or injured people.  I don’t see that as a really onerous provision at all.  I think it’s needed.  I would love to see who they are so I can see if they are represented in the building.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

I don’t believe that any of the companies are represented by anyone in the building.  Again, if they are represented by anyone in the building, we don’t know, because no one has ever come forward and spoken.

 

Gary Milliken, American Medical Response, Yellow-Checker-Star Transportation:

[Introduced himself.]  TSA (Transportation Services Authority) had mentioned this to AMR (American Medical Response) a long time ago.  I think we have ten nonemergency vehicles, but we have no opposition as far as the drivers go or as far as the ten vehicles go.  I don’t know who else has other vehicles, but we have ten.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

You’re one of the four companies, so we have heard from one of the four.  I guess we have to deliberate whether or not we want to consider their concerns of the other companies that haven’t been able to testify.

 

Assemblyman Claborn:

I missed this bill on Tuesday.  On page 7, Section 16, subsection 2, regarding application and filing fees, the escalation of those fees is about double.  I’m surprised no one has contested that.  Apparently no one has, is that correct?

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Mr. Milliken, since you’re sitting at the table wearing many hats, would you like to address this application fee increase from $200 to $400?  It says, “application fees and filing fees may not exceed. . . for any other application, $400.”  On the first hearing of the bill, we addressed each and every one of the fees.

 

Gary Milliken:

We had no opposition to the $200; I’d have to check with my boss before I respond on the $400.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Originally the language stated “for applications,” so all applications were $200.  Now, it stipulates that there are three scenarios: for an application to modify a tariff, it would not exceed $100; for any other application, it would not exceed $400; and for the filing of a petition, seeking affirmative relief, it is $200.

Gary Milliken:

You’re talking about new applications, correct?  We have no opposition to new applications at $400.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Thank you for the clarification.  For each tariff page that requires public notice and is not attached to an application that was $10, and was struck.  To answer Assemblyman Claborn’s question, there was no opposition to that, so that is all the Committee can act upon; if there’s no one speaking up, then we cannot listen to them.

 

Assemblyman Claborn:

Someone spoke with me about this not too long ago.  If they want to pay $400, it’s their money.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

I guess we’ll have to think about the people who were not able to be here to testify.  They did state that they were in opposition, and largely because they didn’t know the bill was going to affect them.  Part of their opposition was the background checks.  The Chairwoman of the Transportation Services Authority has stated they, the TSA, would waive that provision if they provided the back-up material that is essentially the same.  That statement is now on the record.  I don’t know if they stated that they were against the fee; they were opposed to the $200 fee as well.  I don’t know if the Chairwoman is still willing to say that she would be willing to amend those out of the bill.  We have some here saying that it’s fine.

 

Sandra Avants:

From the representations that were made to me by Medi-Car, indicating he had spoken to others in his industry, apparently when our e-mail got to them, everyone called him.  The fact that he represented that they have an excellent background check, I don’t feel that it would be a concern for us for those companies not to have our permitting and licensing requirement.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

And what did they say about the $200 per vehicle fee?

 

Sandra Avants:

He said they had absolutely no problem with $200; it could be $350.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Which company was this?  Medi-Car?

 

Sandra Avants:

Mr. Craig Clark of Medi-Car from Las Vegas.  Their legal name is American Investment Enterprises, Inc., doing business as Nevada Medi-Car.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

The others that stated their opposition are who? Pegasus Network?  Land and Cattle Company, doing business as Medicoach Service?  American Investment Enterprise, you stated, was not in opposition.

 

Sandra Avants:

That’s what Mr. Clark told me on the telephone.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Med-Express Transport, Inc.?

 

Sandra Avants:

I believe that’s who Mr. Milliken represents.

 

Gary Milliken:

I represent American Medical Response.  I would say it’s probably Nevada Medi‑Car.  I talked with them this morning, and we had no opposition at this point.  We only have ten vehicles.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

I guess it’s possibly fair to say that half of the nonemergency medical industry is not in opposition, and possibly half is in opposition.  We have some amendments, Committee, if you’d look in your work document.

 

Marji Paslov Thomas:

I put the proposed amendments in alphabetical order since there were four different proposals (Exhibit D, Exhibit E, Exhibit G. Exhibit H) by four different people. 

 

The first one is from Bob Fairman of Sunshine Taxi, Incorporated [presented a letter from John Cardinalli with proposed amendments to Sections 6, 9, 10, and 34, (Exhibit D).  The first one was to amend the bill to require that an applicant has a valid and appropriate license to drive in this state, or if the applicant resides within 50 miles of Nevada, in a bordering state, he has a valid and appropriate license to drive in that state (Section 6, subsection 2(b)).  As written, the bill would only allow a person to apply if they have a license in Nevada.

 

[Ms. Paslov Thomas]  Mr. Fairman’s second proposed amendment is to amend the bill to allow a person who is applying for employment with a fully regulated carrier of passengers to submit a physician’s certificate from a physician who is licensed to practice medicine in any state (Section 9, subsection 1).  The bill as written would require a physician who is licensed to practice medicine only in Nevada. 

 

The third amendment is to require that a person operating as a driver of a fully regulated carrier of passengers has a valid and appropriate license to drive in this state, or if the applicant resides within 50 miles of Nevada in a bordering state, he has a valid and appropriate license to drive in that state (Section 10, subsection 1(a)(1)).  This goes back to where the bill, as written, requires that the person operating a vehicle have a license only in Nevada.

 

The fourth proposed amendment is to delete the provisions that require a person be a resident of Nevada for 30 days before his application for a permit as a taxicab driver (Section 34, subsection 2(b)).

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

We had testimony from the Authority (TSA) that they were not in opposition to the 50-mile grace area, regarding the driver’s license and physician’s certificates, but I don’t recall any comment about the 30-day residency requirement.  Would that be within the 50-mile area as well, or throughout the state?  Throughout the state, someone could come today and apply to be a driver tomorrow.

 

Sandra Avants:

We do wish to remain with the 30-day residency requirement, except for those licensees within the 50-mile radius from out-of-state.  We believe that it is essential that a driver know a little about the city and that they have some roots before they start taking people around and using a vehicle.  It’s also the same law the Taxicab Authority has, which is the 30-day residency requirement, in Clark County.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Are there any comments from the Committee about these four amendments?

 

Assemblyman Collins:

The question is, are these Class A, B, or C licenses going to have an effect on the in-state or out-of-state qualifications?  I’m not sure we could support an out-of-state resident depending on the type of license they are driving with.  We need to check that out.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

That’s a good question.

 

Michael Mersch, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, State of Nevada:

[Introduced himself.]  My understanding from talking with the Manager of Transportation is it would just be a standard Class C driver’s license.  I don’t think there would be a distinction as to which type of driver’s license in that matter.

 

Assemblyman Collins:

If you’re talking only about a taxicab. But I think there are provisions because you’re hauling a person; I think it’s a Class B chauffeur license.  [From the audience there was a comment that it was not.]  It is not any longer; it probably should be then.

 

Assemblyman Gustavson:

On the 30-day amendment, you mentioned you were concerned that a person really doesn’t know the area in one day if he just moves here.  This is true.  Does he really know his way around in 30 days?  I don’t think so; it took me longer than that to learn my way around.  I drive a lot, so I learned quicker, but some people may be here even six months before they really know their way around.  Thirty days doesn’t sound like enough.

 

Sandra Avants:

I agree with everything that you’ve said.  The attempt is to try to protect the public by having a driver who does have some knowledge of the area but to not be onerous or to keep someone from being employed in an unreasonable manner. 

 

Assemblyman Gustavson:

What’s a reasonable time frame?  Generally, you’ve given them a map; I’ve lived here many years and was given a street map to learn my way around.  I don’t know every street, and I’ve lived here many years.  I don’t know if that’s something we need to put into this.

 

Kimberly Maxson-Rushton, Commissioner, Las Vegas, Transportation Services Authority, Nevada Department of Business and Industry:

[Introduced herself.]  If I could point out, these were not in the original bill.  These were amendments as proposed by the industry.  We agree with the industry; this is what they feel, in practice, is appropriate for their drivers to learn the area.  Based on the fact that they are truly experts in knowing what is best for their drivers, and they have demonstrated that to us in the TSA (Transportation Services Authority), we therefore have agreed to the amendment as proposed by the industry.

 

Assemblyman Claborn:

The 50-mile radius and the 30-day waiting period, is that for their background check?  Can they get it that quick?  Is that why we have the 30-day wait?

 

Kimberly Maxson-Rushton:

This was something, in conjunction with the industry, which we agreed to with respect to the 30 days.  That gives us the appropriate time to do the background check, and it also gives the drivers the appropriate amount of time to learn the law of the area itself.  It does not conflict with the 50-mile radius.  If someone has been a resident of a state that borders Nevada, but within the 50-mile radius, then that also meets that standard of the bill.

 

Assemblyman Claborn:

I don’t have a problem with the amendment; I was just trying to get a clarification that it’s been said that it can take longer than 30 days to get a background check.  I don’t have a problem with it either way.  I was just looking for clarification.

 

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall:

It’s somewhat late to ask this question, but does the TSA now, or would it under this bill, have any authority over these companies and their drivers that delivery packages like FedEx, UPS, and so on?

 

Sandra Avants:

No, those were regulated a number of years ago.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

I would like to have all of the amendments presented and then vote on the bill.  If a member wishes to vote on each amendment by itself, please let me know.  Let’s move to the next amendment, Exhibit E.

 

Marji Paslov Thomas:

Barry Jones, Carson Valley Movers, proposes the following amendments (Exhibit E), and a copy of NRS 706.756 (Nevada Revised Statutes) (Exhibit F) is also provided since it is referenced in the amendment.  The proposed amendment is to amend the bill to include that an applicant for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to operate as a motor carrier, other than an operator of a tow-car, cannot have been convicted of any violation of NRS 706.756, subsection 1, for a period of five years preceding the filing of the application to the Transportation Services Authority.

 

The second of his proposed amendments is to provide that the person who advertises as providing the services of a fully regulated carrier, or a towing service, without including the number of his certificate of public convenience and necessity or contract carrier’s permit in each advertisement, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Current law only has it as a person who advertises; this would include someone who permits advertising.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Would you quickly state the two provisions of this amendment again?

 

Marji Paslov Thomas:

The first one is to provide that a person who is applying for a certificate of public convenience and necessity, for the five years preceding the filing of the application to the Transportation Services Authority, cannot have been convicted of any violation under NRS 706.756, subsection 1.  The second is to provide that a person who permits advertising as providing the services of a fully regulated carrier or a towing service, without including the number of his certificate of public convenience and necessity or contract carrier’s permit in each advertisement, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

 

Assemblyman Collins:

I think we’ve had a number of years where we’ve battled over First Amendment rights of the phone book to take or not take an advertisement.  I don’t know if you can get away with permit advertising.  Some of the members here who have been on the Judiciary Committee might know what you can get away with.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

I did ask Ms. Paslov Thomas to consult our Legal Division on this; perhaps she can amplify.  We do have a big problem in all businesses with people who are not licensed continuing to advertise in the Yellow Pages.  It’s always seemed to be that they don’t care, and they’ll take the ad anyway.  Yet, we don’t seem to ever pass any legislation that has any teeth to stop them.  Ms. Paslov Thomas, can you tell us what the legal opinion is?

 

Marji Paslov Thomas:

I spoke to the Legal Division; they said that if you decide that you would like to adopt this amendment, and then they would draft it very carefully to avoid any impermissible interference with commercial speech if the content is not false or misleading.  You can make that decision if you’d like to.

Chairwoman Chowning:

Okay, that’s a plus.  That’s it for that amendment.

 

Marji Paslov Thomas:

Mike Sullivan, representing Whittlesea Bell, proposed the following amendment (Exhibit G), which was to require the Transportation Services Authority (TSA) to use additional economic factors for determining an application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to operate as a motor carrier other than an operator of a tow car. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

I forgot to ask the Transportation Services Authority if they had any comment on the prior amendment.

 

Kimberly Maxson-Rushton:

With respect to page 1 of Mr. Keele’s proposed amendments (Exhibit E, presented by Mr. Barry Jones), I have some concerns about it based on the fact that, as many of you know, presently the TSA takes into consideration multiple factors in determining the fitness of an applicant to be certificated.  We look at whether or not any violations of NRS Chapter 706 have occurred.  Although it’s an important factor for consideration, whether or not a violation of NRS 706.756 has occurred, I think it’s quite onerous to not allow someone to participate in the industry for a period of five years because of the fact that they have been convicted of a misdemeanor.

 

I think it’s an important factor for consideration, but I think it strips the authority of the Transportation Services Authority of their ability to look at the totality of the qualifications of an applicant in determining whether or not he or she is fit to be a carrier.  I would recommend that the proposed language use that as a factor for consideration, but an out-and-out prohibition for a period of five years would, in essence, work to keep someone out of the industry for a long period of time, perhaps for an indiscretion that occurred five years ago.  It should be a factor for consideration.

 

[Kimberly Maxson-Rushton continues.]  With respect to the second proposed amendment dealing with whether or not we can take criminal action against someone who permits advertising, we have asked our counsel, through the Attorney General’s Office, to look into that; he can offer his legal opinion. 

 

Michael Mersch, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, State of Nevada:

I’m representing the Transportation Services Authority (TSA).  I would like to add that I know there have been some concerns during prior legislatures about the advertising and the content of advertising done through various companies.  My concerns are simple: the scope of the authority of the TSA is limited by the Legislature for the coverage of the motor carrier industry.  My first concern is having—unless, in your wisdom, you chose to do that—this chapter specifically limited to only the regulation of motor carriers within the state of Nevada.  The issue of expanding that to cover the publishers of advertisement books would increase that.  I’m not disagreeing with the advice from your Legal Division, but I do think that is a legal issue that has many concerns related to it.

 

I would also like to reiterate, Commissioner Maxson-Rushton pointed out the current plan, and our representations to you at that time were that we would continue to work with the industry with the good certificated carriers to provide advertisements.  I think we’re even providing documentation that indicates the necessity of a certificate and the need to utilize certificated companies.  We’re working through public service announcements and with the local and state level news agencies.  We intend to continue to do that.  Even within my office, the Office of the Attorney General, it would be our intent to continue to work with the Bureau of Consumer Protection and the Consumer Advocate, Mr. Tim Hay.  I’m sure Attorney General Sandoval would feel strongly about that as well, since it’s a consumer protection issue. I think the current procedures we’re using, and trying to go further with what we can normally do, may obviate the need to have that kind of an amendment.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

I do agree that this is possibly too broad a scope for the Transportation Services Authority.  As such, it would probably add to the fiscal note, and then we would have more problems.  I think what you need to address—this is a copy of a page from the Yellow Pages [indicating a sheet in her possession]—are that the ads are much larger than this little notice from the Transportation Services Authority.  If you didn’t have really good glasses, you would not notice it at all.  Perhaps we can ask that it be magnified, in larger print, and in a bigger ad, so people see it right away.  I wouldn’t even notice this [indicating the text on the page from the Yellow Pages; she then passed it around for the Committee to peruse]. 

 

Sandra Avants:

We’ll address that as you suggested.

 

Assemblyman Oceguera:

Could you make it perfectly clear for us, I don’t think it is, on Mr. Keele’s amendments (Exhibit E), which ones you like or dislike?

Kimberly Maxson-Rushton:

With respect to the proposed amendment to NRS 706.391, Section 2(e) (Exhibit E) [Chairwoman Chowning clarified that they had been discussing Exhibit G and were now back to Exhibit E.], I believe the period of five years and an absolute restriction is too onerous to the industry and would strip the Authority of its discretion.

 

Assemblyman Oceguera:

What about the first page of his letter (Exhibit E) and the four points he made?  It says there are draft changes, and I was wondering if that’s what they are?

 

Kimberly Maxson-Rushton:

I believe they are just some of his thoughts in terms of what specific ideas he wanted enumerated in the bill.  I was under the impression those were listed on later pages of his letter.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

So the amendments he’s presenting are the two that are stated: the five‑year wait and the accurate advertising.

 

Kimberly Maxson-Rushton:

Yes, to my knowledge.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Mr. Jones, is that your understanding as well?  We only have one more amendment after this.

 

Barry Jones, Carson Valley Movers:

[Introduced himself.]  I am speaking on behalf of Mr. Keele’s letter [Exhibit E].  It was my understanding that we were only asking for the two amendments at this time and for us to work on a public awareness campaign in the future.  I think it’s very important that we be very severe when looking at someone who is convicted of a crime and keep to this five-year position. 

 

I want to say that, in 1994, I was assaulted by two guys on Carson City Street and Hot Springs Road.  Before the TSA (Transportation Services Authority), there was a public services commission that, when I called for backing to say that I had been assaulted, they said they were sorry and patted me on the back.  There was never anyone who came to testify on my behalf after I had been assaulted when all three of these guys were convicted.  I was just going to give an estimate on Hot Springs Road.  That’s why I think it’s so severe that we have these punishments. These people might not think that way, but I’m not in the industry to go out and get beaten up on the streets. I was assaulted on the streets.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Were you assaulted by—this is addressing drivers?

 

Barry Jones:

This is addressing a five-year conviction.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Correct, but the language here is pertinent to drivers. 

 

Barry Jones:

I was assaulted by the owner of a moving company here in Carson City.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

The owner assaulted you?  [Mr. Jones said that was correct.]

 

Barry Jones:

I still wouldn’t want him to have a certificate after five or ten years because I still have sleepless nights over this.  I’m a provider with them.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

So what types of crimes would this refer to?

 

Barry Jones:

They were charged with a misdemeanor because they didn’t do any vital harm to any organs; that’s why a misdemeanor was probably put down there.  You can go out and be assaulted several times with mace without being charged with a felony and be a nuisance to the general public.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Committee, that’s something that we certainly need to keep in mind during our deliberations. 

 

Assemblyman Collins:

I know there is already state law that will kick someone out, like a contractor, for two years and repeatedly for even longer.  I know of private contracts that are one year, two years, and life, and we’ve got the black book on gaming, and that’s permanent.  This is an industry that obviously needs to be seriously considered.  I don’t see anything wrong with the five-year prohibition.  If we do anything less than two or three years, I think we’re hurting our own state.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

I’d like to ask the Transportation Services Authority (TSA) if a complaint like that were made today to the TSA about the owner of another company, what is in the law or in this bill that would deal with that?

 

Michael Mersch:

We have to keep in mind the scope of authority you have given to the TSA.  An issue such as what Mr. Jones has indicated is clearly a matter for the District Attorney’s Office on a criminal assault complaint and, possibly, a civil matter on a personal injury claim.  The TSA’s jurisdiction, as given by the Legislature, is strictly related to the motor carrier activities.  If you look closely at NRS 706.756 (Nevada Revised Statutes) provided as part of Exhibit E and Exhibit F, there are criminal penalties, but they are strictly limited to misdemeanors.  What NRS 706.756 does is to give a snapshot summary of all the possible violations listed throughout all of NRS and NAC (Nevada Administrative Code) 706 and says that the Authority has the option of either prosecuting it on an administrative basis before the Authority or utilizing the court system in writing a uniform citation so it can be processed through the justice court mechanism.

 

The list of violations in NRS Chapter 706.756 is merely a repetition of the other violations, that are listed throughout Chapter 706.  We’re sympathetic to Mr. Jones’ plight, but the reality is you need to keep in mind the scope of what the Authority’s authority is.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

I need to ask if drivers of these vehicles are required to go through a background check and review of their criminal background; and if not a background check, shouldn’t some sort of protection for the public be granted through the owners as well?

 

Michael Mersch:

To answer as best I can, at least right now, in starting the driver testing and licensing, we’re starting with passenger transportation.  We are not asking to license these drivers and movers, which is Mr. Jones’ industry at this point, or to do those kinds of criminal checks, because we are starting with the most relevant, and that’s safety to the public and those actually carrying passengers.  At this point, they’re simply transporting goods.  It’s certainly of concern.  I’m sure Commissioner Maxson‑Rushton has some additional comments.

 

Assemblyman Collins:

The whole point is the issue of enforcement.  If this bill passes, and right now my vote would be “No,” the idea is to enforce and to protect the public in hauling people and goods and that they’re doing it safely on the road with the character of a company.  Once it meets its business license requirements and the other applications, the character behind the companies is important to our Nevada reputation.  I can go on about enforcement, but you haven’t proven to me yet that you want to enforce anything; you just want more money.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

These are heavy issues, but I think we had better go through these amendments and not take action on this bill today, because there’s too much here that we still have to review.

 

Sandra Avants:

NRS 706.391, to which this is an amendment, states the criteria an applicant must meet, which would apply to a potential owner or group of owners.  It is a background check taken over a period of weeks; there’s a financial background check done by investigators, a criminal background check, a historical business background check, and zoning issues.  This person, who would make an application under NRS 706.391, will be thoroughly checked.  In the financial area, their financial records include providing income tax records and banking records; it’s completely checked.

 

This consideration is regularly looked at by the Commission.  Have there been any violations, whatsoever, of any law, whether it be a misdemeanor, a gross misdemeanor, or a felony?  In addition, were there administrative issues, citations before any state, city, or other governments or municipalities?  No one is granted a company license who hasn’t gone through an extremely involved background check.  This is merely an additional one, and that is, if there were a violation of NRS 706.756, five years would have to transpire before licensing could be granted.  If that’s something you believe in, fine.  We were thinking it might be too onerous and that you might feel it would not be appropriate.  It’s not our amendment.  If this is something you want, then put it in there, and we’ll do it.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

We understand that.  Is there anyone else from any other segment of the industry that comes under the definition of “fully regulated carrier” who would like to address this provision?  Let’s go back to the Whittlesea/Bell amendment.

 

Marji Paslov Thomas:

The amendment (Exhibit G) would require that the Transportation Services Authority use additional economic factors when considering an application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to operate as a motor carrier, other than the operator of a tow car.  The specific factors are detailed within the amendment.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

These are other stipulations stating that the applicant is financially and operationally fit, that the operations and the provision of such services will foster sound economic conditions within the industry, and other such items, so that these would be factors the TSA would have to take into consideration.  Are there any comments about this from the TSA?  [Ms. Maxson-Rushton stated there were no objections to those amendments.]

 

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall:

I have no objection to the amendments of Exhibit G, but I think that Section 2, subsection (f), needs to be grammatically corrected: “The applicant must identify the market they intend to serve and show that such market will support the proposed operations.”  I would ask the staff to correct the grammar, or that, when we adopt the amendment, that we adopt it with grammar corrections.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

So noted.  It isn’t clear; it almost seems as though it should have the same wording as those above when talking about sound economic conditions.  Are there other comments about this amendment?

 

Assemblyman Gustavson:

It was my understanding that the TSA was already making checks on the applicant to determine if that applicant was financially and operationally fit.  I thought this was already a part of the process.  Is that not in the statute?  Do you want to enter it into the statute?

 

Bruce Breslow, Commissioner, Sparks, Transportation Services Authority, Nevada Department of Business and Industry:

Right now it just says “fit.”  We look at “operationally and financially,” but they are asking us, the industry, to spell it out so it becomes specifically clear.  That’s why the industry has asked for this portion of their amendment.

 

Marji Paslov Thomas:

Merritt Wiley, of Valley North American, proposed the amendment, located in Exhibit H, which was to amend the bill to replace the definition of “vehicle” as defined in NRS 482.135 with the definition of “motor vehicle” found in NRS 482.075.  I recall that Mr. Wiley testified that this language would be clarifying language.

Chairwoman Chowning:

I presume that the Authority (Transportation Services Authority) has no opposition to that.

 

Kimberly Maxson-Rushton:

There was one other proposed amendment made on April 29, when we first appeared, by Mr. Clark Whitney.  It is not included in here; I believe he was going to put it into writing, and I’m uncertain as to whether or not he did, but it does still appear in the original amendment and in the discussion.  I feel it’s important to consider that because he did want to withdraw it.  He stated that on the record on April 29.  If you like, I can draw your attention to the paragraph I’m referring to. 

 

If you look at S.B. 192, as contained in your work session documents (Exhibit I, provided by Ms. Paslov Thomas), the first page begins with the heading of “Discussion.”  It’s on page 2, the third paragraph down, beginning with “The measure revises the fees." Specifically, it is the language “In addition, the measure provides for the recovery of attorney’s fees and court costs by persons aggrieved by the actions of the Authority. . .“ and then continues to the end of that specific paragraph.

 

Mr. Whitney had proposed this in the Senate; we had discussed it with him in the interim before it came here to the Assembly and demonstrated to him that it was already adequately covered.  As you’ll recall, on April 29, he testified that he was going to move to withdraw that amendment.  Chairwoman Chowning, you directed him to put it into writing and submit it to the LCB (Legislative Counsel Bureau).

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

What was it he was going to withdraw, because he doesn’t have to put something in writing that he is going to withdraw?

 

Kimberly Maxson-Rushton:

He was going to withdraw the entire text of his proposed amendment that was added in, in the Senate, and that specific language is as I previously noted.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Someone needs to contact Mr. Whitney and ask him to put it in writing, otherwise, we don’t have it for the record, and we won’t act on it.  Are there any other comments, conditions, or questions regarding S.B. 192?  We will take action on Tuesday.

Assemblyman Claborn:

We started out on cabs, then went to limousines, went to furniture movers, and now we’re going to take on North American Van Lines.  Are we going to take on Mayflower next?  This is getting complex; I don’t know how we’re going to do this in a couple of hours.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

The company that you referenced is a household moving company so is not a new industry.

 

Bruce Breslow:

I was hoping to wrap this up and tie it into a bow.  This is the third time the TSA has come to the Legislature.  This bill is about 50 percent of what this company approved two years ago.  This Committee, and the Senate Committee, approved a much larger bill with larger fees, as requested by the TSA and supported by the industry last session.  It didn’t get voted on by midnight of the last day.  In working with the industry, understanding the ramifications of September 11, 2001, the current financial status, and the tax ramifications of what the Legislature is looking at this year, the TSA tried to strip the bill down to two essential things.

 

It is not as big a bill as Assemblyman Claborn asked for.  This bill allows us to do background checks and the permitting of drivers of regulated carriers, taxis, and limousines, and certain busses.  Other than that, all it does is allow us to impound household good movers; that’s our bill.  The fees are because we cannot ask for the personnel from you all, from the Legislature, we can’t go to the Governor, we have a zero base budget.  We were told that the only way you can do these things is if the industry supported this, and you could pay for this through the fees.  That’s why we’ve worked with the industry, and that’s why we have this bill here.  It’s specific to do those two things; the fees generated from this allow us to do those two things. 

 

We have broad industry support from the limousine industry, the taxi industry, the bus industry, and the household goods mover industry.  We’ve accepted all the conditions that they’ve asked for.  We’ve accepted every amendment, and, frankly, we are trying as best we can to do something that will better protect the public.  That’s why we’re here.  If you would like us to come back on Tuesday, we’ll be glad to, and we’ll continue to do anything we can to do this.  If it doesn’t work, or we run out of time, it doesn’t work.

Chairwoman Chowning:

We do understand.  We are presented with several amendments; not each and every component of those amendments have you stated that you are in agreement with.

 

Bruce Breslow:

We’ve offered to agree if this esteemed body felt it’s important.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Perhaps some of you are speaking differently than others.  That is why there are several components here.  This is not an easy bill as presented to us.  To be fair to the Authority and to all the members of the industry, I feel this needs further deliberation.  That’s the way it is.  On Tuesday, the meeting will be videoconferenced in Las Vegas to prevent people from having to come all the way to Carson City.  The Committee hearing on Tuesday does not have as many bills to be heard.  We are doing our very best; I’ve heard over and over that this is the same bill as it was two years ago.  I state to you, it is not.

 

All the good work we did two years ago was excellent groundwork, and the members of this Committee worked very, very hard.  You were here, you know. But this is not the same bill.  It would be disingenuous and unfair to the public for us to state this is the same bill as two years ago and pass it out.  We are going to do our work conscientiously and deliberately.  We will not act on this today, but we will on Tuesday, or at least we’ll try. 

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

Because we are carrying this over to Tuesday, how many vehicles or permits are we talking about?  I was under the impression we were talking about around 1,000 vehicles.

 

Bruce Breslow:

The budget is based on approximately 1,000 vehicles total.  There are approximately 835 limousines that are part of the 1,000.  There are a couple other vehicles from other industries that are under fully regulated carriers that may be involved.  However, in the pipeline, though they may or may not get certificated, there are many more limousines.  We are asking for the right to go up to $200.  If it is not necessary to go up to $200 to still achieve this budget, we will not go to $200.  We are trying to accomplish what we’re asking for.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

I appreciate that, but you also have the cabs outside of Clark County.

Bruce Breslow:

They are going to $75.  There has not been an adjustment of fees, as far as we can go back, for more than 20 years.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

How many of those are there, 500 to 600, across northern Nevada?

 

Bruce Breslow:

No.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Please, don’t talk over each other.  If you could ask for further clarification after we adjourn, Assemblyman Goicoechea, I’d appreciate it. 

 

Barry Jones:

In regards to the bill, I worked with a workshop in Las Vegas and made my announcements with Paul Christensen, who was the Chairman of the TSA at the time.  I’d like to be a party with George Keele, my attorney, to this bill, and I was trying to use my input as best I could to get the public’s best interests.  I would like to say to each of you that it is important that you pass this bill.  If I stepped out of line with my words or my request to be a party to this bill, then I apologize.  I’m very much in support of this bill.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

We appreciate that and your apology.  It’s perfectly all right, and we appreciate the work you did.  Seeing no further business, we are adjourned [at 4:27 p.m.].

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

Erin Channell

Transcribing Secretary

 

APPROVED BY:

 

                       

Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman

 

DATE: