MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Transportation
Seventy-second Session
March 6, 2003
The Senate Committee on Transportation was called to order by Chairman Raymond C. Shaffer, at 1:37 p.m., on Thursday, March 6, 2003, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer, Chairman
Senator Dennis Nolan, Vice Chairman
Senator Mark Amodei
Senator Warren B. Hardy II
Senator Michael Schneider
Senator Terry Care
Senator Maggie Carlton
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Mike McGinness, Central Nevada Senatorial District
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Marsheilah Lyons, Committee Policy Analyst
Sherry Rodriguez, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
John Glenn, Business Owner, Performance Yamaha of Elko, Nevada
Neal Grasteit, Representing Preferred Motors and Marine
Tom R. Skancke, Lobbyist, Motorcycle Racing Association of Nevada, Best in the Desert Racing Association, Trailblazers Motorcycle Club, Nevada Suzuki, Sportsman Cycle Sales, KTM/Arctic Cat Las Vegas, Team Loomis Off Highway Training and Racing
Mike Martsolf, President, Nevada United 4 Wheel Drive Association
Daryl E. Folks, KTM/Arctic Cat Las Vegas and Sportsman Cycle Sales
J. C. Martinez, President, Motorcycle Racing Association of Nevada
Gary Clinard, President, Dunes and Trails ATV Club
Russ Law, Chief Operations Analysis Engineer, Nevada Department of Transportation
Josh Wilson, Motorcycle Racing Association of Nevada
Martha Barnes, Administrator, Central Services and Records Division, Nevada Department of Transportation
Tom Lammel, Member, Nevada Wildlife Record Book Committee
Chairman Shaffer:
Our first order of business will be Senate Bill (S.B.) 117.
SENATE BILL 117: Provides for registration and titling of off-road vehicles. (BDR 43-187)
Senator Mike McGinness, Central Nevada Senatorial District:
I am introducing this bill following concerns from dealers in Nevada who are losing sales to out-of-state dealers of off-highway vehicles (OHVs). This is due to sales tax advantages other state dealers enjoy. We do not have a titling or registration fee. Individuals in Nevada are not required to register their OHVs; therefore, the sales tax cannot be captured.
This bill is probably not good as written although the bill drafters did exactly what I asked them to do. I wanted a plan to capture sales tax for OHVs. The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) may be the most likely to handle this since registration and titling is what they do, but the DMV may disagree. The Division of State Parks may be the agency to do this because they have access to grants from the federal government. The details can be worked out, whether they can be worked out this session is not known. If not, dealers, riders, and trail groups need to get together because this issue will keep coming back until a solution is reached.
Last session we removed sales tax from farm implements because out-of-state dealers were taking business away from local dealers due to a sales tax advantage. If we cannot reach a conclusion, which would be beneficial for everyone, maybe we need to take sales tax off OHVs in order for dealers in this state not to lose business.
There are several gentlemen here to talk about loss in retail sales that translate into the loss of sales tax for the State. The loss in retail sales is magnified since the numbers these gentlemen are going to talk about mean they do not hire another mechanic or salesman. People have told me in-state dealers are not competitive enough. Once we establish a fair and level playing field, we can deal with pricing issues. Currently they give away a 6 to 7 percent advantage immediately. There will be testimony about how much business out-of-state dealers, and especially dealers close to Las Vegas, are taking away from this state.
Homeowners want a way to identify irresponsible riders who ride through their property or between neighborhood houses. Nevada is a good place to either steal an OHV, or fence one. Since we have no titling scheme, there is no way to track a stolen vehicle.
John Glenn, Business Owner, Performance Yamaha of Elko, Nevada:
I own a Yamaha dealership that sells motorcycles, four-wheelers, snowmobiles, and other recreational vehicles. I am representing three other dealers in Elko. I am here in support of a bill that would title and register OHVs. I will give information gathered from other businesses and the motorcycle industry council, which is an independent market share reporting company used by major manufactures of OHVs, motorcycles, and snowmobiles. The information is just a snapshot of a bigger problem in our state.
Imagine how frustrating it would be to lose a $6000 sale on an average of every 3 days. That is $18,000 in sales in our area for three dealers every 3 days. That loss is because we are required to collect state sales tax. You can tell when it is going to happen. A person comes into your dealership and asks about an OHV. They ask what the price is and you tell them $6000. They ask about the out-the-door price. We say the $6000 does not include the state sales tax. The customer tells you they can buy the same unit for the same price out‑the-door with no sales tax in another state.
We advise them it is against the law. When they purchase a unit out-of-state, they are required to pay state sales tax or a used tax on that purchase. They say they have friends who did the same thing and have never paid sales tax, because they have never been caught. You just lost another sale.
Based on information from dealers and the motorcycle industry council, we lose gross sales revenue on new units in excess of $2 million each year. That equates to a loss of sales tax to state and local governments in excess of $130,000 a year. This is just in our area on new units. It does not account for loss of revenue on accessory sales purchased with the new unit, which averages about 15 percent of the unit cost. It equates to about $300,000 in gross revenue per year and $20,000 in taxes. This does not account for private party sales on used OHVs where one person sells the used OHV to another party. In Nevada when you sell a used car to someone, they must pay sales tax on that purchase when it is registered.
The loss of gross revenue statewide is estimated to be more than $23 million, which equates to more than $1.5 million in sales tax on new unit sales alone. If we take into account loss in accessory sales at 15 percent of the new units, it is a loss of more than $3,400,000 in gross sales, and more than $225,000 in sales tax.
Considering private party sales statewide, approximately $750,000 in sales tax is lost to the State each year. There are two agencies in this State capable of doing the job of titling and registering OHVs. One is the Division of Wildlife, and the other is the Department of Motor Vehicles. Our community could definitely use an extra $200,000-plus in sales tax revenue every year. This would help with our budget deficits in Elko. New jobs could be created by keeping $25 million plus tax revenue in our State every year. Nevada is one of the only states not requiring OHVs to be titled and registered. Other states do this so they do not have a problem with sales tax. This is not a new tax; this is enforcing the tax laws already in existence.
Businesses in the State lose more than an estimated $26.4 million in gross sales on new units per year. The State and local governments lose more than $2.5 million in sales tax per year, which is probably on the low side. This problem needs to be fixed.
Senator Hardy:
In the day-to-day operations for this kind of business, what problem does it create if I owned an OHV and wanted to sell it out-of-state and do not have a title, yet all I have is a certificate of ownership?
Mr. Glen:
It is a big problem. It is a problem when we finance units to out-of-state banks. They need a title and we do not have them to give to those banks.
Senator Hardy:
How much revenue is generated from sales tax on the sale of these types of vehicles? This is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. It may be the elimination of sales tax on these vehicles in this State, I do not know. It is something that needs to be addressed.
Neal Grasteit, Representing Preferred Motors and Marine:
I have been in business for a long time, and it can be a challenge. We had a group that went to Oregon and purchased nine OHVs, after they came into our store, priced them, test road them, found out what they wanted and went to Oregon to buy them to avoid paying the sales tax.
When you are selling a vehicle invoiced at $6000, everyone pays the same price. If the consumer can go to another state to save $400 or $500 per unit on sales tax, they are going to make that drive. People want something for nothing. They want the benefits of what the sales tax pays for in this State, and might even want to have a say in what the State does with it. We have a large amount of money leaving this State every year. It is not a tax increase; it is simply keeping what we should have.
Chairman Shaffer:
Senator McGinness indicated there is room for improvement with a different bill. We should come back with a different proposal encompassing many of these concerns. If we put a package together that would be a winning situation for everyone, it might be a better approach than what we are doing now. Normally I would not ask a senator to withdraw a bill until we had a proper hearing, testimony, and opinions from other people. How many people here today feel this bill could be improved to meet the concerns you have? (Approximately 98 percent of the audience raised their hands.)
Mr. Grasteit:
The challenge is this committee only meets every 2 years. This needs to be taken care of since it has been put off far too long. A bill will not please everyone. We need to stop the sales tax flow and strive to work together. In the next session perhaps we could designate where that money might go.
Mr. Glenn:
One method would be to require all OHVs be titled and registered in Nevada. Then, consider a yearly sticker program for trail fund designations. The purchase of units out-of-state is totally unfair and needs to be addressed.
Senator Hardy:
Mr. Grasteit, did you have an opportunity to meet with anyone in opposition? Unless we can designate this money goes for these kinds of trail funds, I am going to have a difficult time supporting this bill. I do not oppose the bill if the objective to raising the funds is to create a trail system or that type of thing, which is appropriate.
Mr. Grasteit:
I have had about 150 e-mails and letters opposing this bill. Only three or four people were amenable to talking. Most of them were nasty, basically saying they did not care if it was going to a trail fund or not. They were going to oppose this bill and do not want any new taxes, period. Why would they want to pay $400 or $500 more per unit? You are correct, there is no reason we could not add something simple that states, for example, 50 percent of the registration fee goes toward enforcement and the other 50 percent goes toward setting up a trail fund.
Senator Hardy:
You have not had an opportunity to work out compromise language with these people?
Mr. Grasteit:
No.
Mr. Glenn:
I have spoken with some of the user groups and have worked closely with the president of the Nevada 4 Wheel Drive Association. The biggest problem he sees is where the money will go.
If we could reword this bill to say, “All OHVs must to be titled and registered in the State of Nevada.” Every time one is sold, it needs to be retitled and reregistered in the new owner’s name. This would ensure State sales taxes were paid. We could then determine a yearly or biennial plan with a certain amount of dollars for a sticker program that would go into an OHV fund. The primary issue is to stop sales tax losses as soon as possible. Next we could work on a plan to sticker vehicles and set up a trail fund program.
Senator Hardy:
I express support for the concept you are trying to do. We need to find a creative way to deal with this. I am not sure titling is the way to do it. I want to find a solution to this problem without singling out any particular industry. This is an across-the-board problem. If we can get some general consensus this is something we want in Nevada, then I am with you. When I rode, I went to Utah and rode the Paiute Trail. I would love to see those amenities here in Nevada. For that reason I am fully supportive to looking down the road at this type of proposal for this area.
I want us, as a responsible Legislature, to look at the problem you have brought to light and find a way to address it. I do not want to focus on this particular segment of the economy; it is a problem across the board.
Chairman Shaffer:
We are going to put this in a subcommittee. Senator Hardy will chair the subcommittee; Senator Care and Senator Nolan will join him. Within a week or two we will set up a meeting structured for people to bring their suggestions, and see if we can make this work.
Tom R. Skancke, Lobbyist, Motorcycle Racing Association of Nevada, Best in the Desert Racing Association, Trailblazers Motorcycle Club, Nevada Suzuki, Sportsman Cycle Sales, KTM/Arctic Cat Las Vegas, Team Loomis Off Highway Training and Racing:
There are several people here who have flown in from different parts of the State to give testimony. I know you want to go into a subcommittee with this, but some of them may not be able to get back here or rearrange their schedule. Would you be willing to take some additional testimony?
Chairman Shaffer:
We will take additional testimony at this time.
Mike Martsolf, President, Nevada United 4 Wheel Drive Association:
I bring an alternative to this committee (Exhibit C). As we ponder the position of S.B. 117, we totally concur. We do concur there is a loophole in the sales tax that needs to be covered. I bring to you a winning situation for OHV legislation. Once we require titling and collection of sales tax for OHVs, we need to instigate an annual registration fee. We have proposed the fee of $25. Senate Bill 117 has routed everything through the DMV so we are using that as our basis.
We have gone one step further. We have assessed every licensed 4‑wheel, all‑wheel drive vehicle in the State an additional $3 on their annual renewal. Of these funds collected, we offer $5 to the State General Fund. We give DMV by S.B. 117’s fiscal takings $363,000 for administering this program. As S.B. 117 is currently written, it would put the DMV budget $363,000 short. This program would collect enough funds to pay the $363,000 to DMV to administer this program.
If we title every OHV and 4-wheel drive vehicle in the State, we estimate total collection revenues of $8.6 million. We estimate $5 dollars per OHV unit and $1 per licensed vehicle will go to the State General Fund; that is $2.2 million. The balance of the money would be split with the $363,000 to the DMV for overhead, an additional impact on their services. The Division of State Parks would be required to establish an OHV division. We would allow up to 10 percent of the remaining funds for administrative purposes, or $603,000. The balance of the funds held by DMV of fees collected is $5,433,300 after we have met all criteria for the State for administration and monies to the General Fund.
We propose to split this into two State grant funds; one for State OHV use, and the other for a county OHV use. Of the $5 million-plus that are left, $2.716 million would go to the State grant fund for dispersal. The remaining $2.716 million would be divided between 17 counties, proportional to their vehicle registrations. These funds would be handled under a normal grant process and directly relate to OHV enhancement, maintenance, and environmental repair due to OHV use. It could be used to construct trails, purchase right-of-ways, easements, and anything related to motorized use on public lands.
We believe this is a winning solution. It will stop the sales tax gap, reinforce the State General Fund, and enhance recreation by allowing us to develop trails and areas on public lands. Currently there is no money to do that development.
Chairman Shaffer:
We have a copy of your proposal and will make sure the subcommittee has it in their possession when they meet.
Senator Nolan:
I was hoping to get a copy of this to the DMV so they can check the numbers against their projections. The same would apply to the gentleman who spoke previously. There were a number of figures mentioned. I think that kind of information and sources of your information would be helpful to the DMV so they can validate and see if there are any differences.
Mr. Martsolf:
The DMV has given me a figure of 1.2 million registered vehicles that meet the criteria and are licensed, titled, and insured in the State. We can only estimate the number of OHV owners because of our situation in Nevada. It is strictly based on information I have received from dealers. Since motorized vehicles are the primary users of public lands, we felt all motorized vehicles should be involved in its care and maintenance.
Senator Nolan:
The key to making proposals work is enforcement. Local law enforcement is not going to be primary in enforcement. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) does not necessarily enforce the State laws with respect to vehicle registration or those types of things. So how will it be enforced?
Mr. Martsolf:
I discussed this program with the BLM and that was their first response. How are we going to enforce this? I do not wish to support law enforcement in the backcountry. We are going to have to dedicate a portion of funds so these law enforcement officials have help. The BLM rangers, federal forest rangers, and Division of Wildlife are all certified peace officers in this State. They can enforce this law, if their agency policy will allow it. As long as they are a certified peace officer in this State, they can enforce any Nevada Revised Statutes. I believe 98 percent of the residents of Nevada will conform, maybe not happily, but they will conform. We will have 2 percent that will rebel.
Senator Nolan:
The people who conform are good, law-abiding citizens. If there is no enforcement on this, those people who want to avoid it will. We will be in the situation we are today with people purchasing vehicles over the border.
Daryl E. Folks, Business Owner, KTM/Arctic Cat Las Vegas and Sportsman Cycle Sales:
I am opposed to this bill. I do not believe it will benefit off-road enthusiasts by pushing money into the General Fund. On the same token, sales tax is an issue. I do support what Senator Hardy said about possible tax exemption that could be an answer to this situation. If taxes were removed from these vehicles it would take care of this problem. On behalf of the dealers, I will volunteer myself to head a dealer coalition. I believe we need to discuss this concern.
J.C. Martinez, President, Motorcycle Racing Association of Nevada:
With nearly 800 members in the Motorcycle Racing Association of Nevada, we represent one of the largest OHV groups. We strongly oppose S.B. 117. Additional fees on top of sales tax for vehicles that go to the General Fund would not benefit the off-road community. It would increase bureaucracy in the State by putting money into the General Fund and out of reach to those who generated the funds.
Those of us who own off-road vehicles think Nevada is a great place to enjoy this recreation. We ride primarily on federal land controlled by the BLM, not the State of Nevada, the Division of Wildlife, or State Parks. We are prohibited from riding in those areas. We do not support legislation to fund agencies that do not provide support to our recreation.
We recognize consumers may go to one of our neighboring states for a better deal and avoid paying Nevada sales tax. However, we feel the number is considerably smaller than what has been reported here. Legislation that would punish the honest masses for the capture of the dishonest few would be wasteful. Enforcement of such legislation would come at a much higher price than the sale of a $25 motorcycle tag.
Under proposed legislation, we who pay Nevada sales tax would be required to pay an additional $25 for the right to own an OHV in the State. We would be required to register with the State so we may ride in areas where the State has no jurisdiction or regulation.
Consider this, within our association we conduct 14 desert races a year, mostly on BLM land. For racers to enter such events they must purchase fuel, oil, tires, and other replacement parts, all of which are taxed. Fuel, for example, is consumed by our participants in competition, practice, and in general recreation. The fuel consumed by off-road riders is taxed for road and highway use. Those of us who paid sales tax on OHVs, and those who did not, continually contribute to the State tax system at the gas pump. I am sure the fuel taxes we pay in 1 year alone more than offset the lost tax revenue on vehicles bootlegged into Nevada. This legislation is really about keeping the sale of these vehicles in Nevada. We support keeping business in Nevada.
If dealerships play a more active roll in off-road activities, in some cases acknowledging its very existence, perhaps they would be rewarded for their efforts with the sales they seek without stacking another layer of bureaucracy and waste of State government. We are willing to work with dealers to preserve our sport, preserve their businesses, and continue to invest in Nevada. We look forward to addressing their issues and making recommendations in a combined effort of enthusiasts and dealers to come to the 2005 Legislative Session with better ideas than S.B. 117. Again, we oppose S.B. 117. We do not feel it benefits the State, off-road riders, or our retailers.
Gary Clinard, President, Dunes and Trails ATV Club:
I am here to testify against S.B. 117 in its current form. I also have a written document prepared for your review (Exhibit D). We have all said we need a registration program that would fund the development of trails. One of the things not yet brought up is there is currently a method of enforcement. When you take your OHVs or motorcycles to another state, you are being forced to buy their nonresident registration. I have six OHVs and we pay $20 per year for each to California. I would rather see that money stay in Nevada.
If you want to ride an OHV in California, the rangers force you to buy the nonresident registration. If Nevada had a registration program, it would not be a problem. Other states requiring registration of OHVs put those monies into OHV programs within that state. California started it with snowmobile users. That money would groom trails and provide snowmobile activities. People from Nevada, who had no program, could ride in those at no cost, so they instituted the nonresident program. If you ride in California, you need to buy the California sticker. I do not want to see my money go to another state. I would like to see it stay in Nevada.
The State of Nevada is an incredible place for OHV activity. For the last 2 years I have been doing research on this. I have looked at laws and experiences of every state that has an OHV program. I have talked to people in these states about the pros and cons. I have drafted a potential plan for Nevada. My plan involves how to register and title vehicles. I have talked with the DMV and they had serious reservations about the methods proposed to title. There are many untitled OHVs and motorcycles that have been recycled through private sales thus making proof of ownership almost impossible. They objected to the last bill, S.B. No. 220 of the 71st Session, because of the workload imposed. I will address the issue of how to title OHVs to minimize the workload; it is based on the Idaho statutes that have been successful.
Chairman Shaffer:
Is there anyone else wishing to testify?
Mr. Skancke:
There are some issues the subcommittee should consider. Taxation, as presented by Senator McGinness, maybe this industry needs to be tax exempt. Who will be the enforcement agency? Will it be the local police, sheriff, Division of Forestry, or Division of Wildlife? I do not think the BLM has the budget or authority to enforce a State law. Developing a trail system is something that interests everyone. If there is taxation or licensure of these vehicles, that money should not go to the General Fund, but to some type of trail system throughout the State. Who would collect the taxes? The Department of Taxation, Division of Wildlife, or the DMV?
Off-highway vehicles do not use public rights-of-way like highways or streets. Should they be tax-exempt from registration since they are paying fuel taxes? There needs to be some consideration for compensation. When you come to Nevada from another state for a day or weekend ride, do you have to register your OHV, and where would you do that?
How much will it cost the State to collect registration fees? This is a taxation problem, as pointed out by Senators McGinness and Hardy. When you purchase anything out-of-state, whether it be furniture, an OHV, or even clothing, the law requires you go to the Department of Taxation and pay tax. Again, how would this tax be collected?
I am not sure in a 120-day session we can get all of these things put into a bill. I think we need to come back as a group in the 2005 Legislative Session and make recommendations to this committee and the taxation committee on what should be done.
Chairman Shaffer:
My intent is to try to settle this issue as soon as possible and get it out of the way so it does not continue for 2 more years. If you want to be notified when the subcommittee is going to convene, sign in again before you leave and you will be notified of the hearing date.
Senator Hardy:
We have two issues here; one is to create a quality trail system in this State, the next is a tax issue. I think it is critical we address it. Are we able to address this as the Senate Committee on Transportation because this came forward in one of our bills? If so, I would like to have staff inform the Department of Taxation we would like them involved with the subcommittee. I would like to get answers to both those questions. I am not optimistic that we will be able to do this in this session.
Chairman Shaffer:
I am sure Senator McGinness is anxious to clarify this issue. The bill he brought forth in good faith is not going to work. I am sure he would be happy to work with us. Is there anyone wishing to testify in opposition to this bill?
Russ Law, Chief Operations Analysis Engineer, Nevada Department of Transportation:
We would like to ensure the highway fund recovers whatever costs are incurred. The amount of money for the highway fund to collect via the DMV is only $2.50 per registration. The actual cost, due to registration, appears to be more than $7 per vehicle. If that is true, we are looking at subsidizing this bill for about $600,000 per year from the highway fund.
Utah has a program to register these vehicles. They have 160,000 such vehicles and we have good records from them. We are predicting Nevada would have about 140,000. That is about 10 percent of the total number of vehicles the DMV registers each year. Their budget is up in the $67 million range for all the varying services they provide, registration being one of the big ones.
Josh Wilson, Lobbyist, Motorcycle Racing Association of Nevada:
We are a nonprofit racing organization with a membership of 1200. Our focus is on desert racing as well as trail enhancement and maintenance. We are in opposition to this bill. There are grants available. We have obtained grants for approximately $50,000 to $60,000 for trail maintenance and signage. There may be other mechanisms for enhancing Nevada’s trail system without having a formal green sticker program in place.
Chairman Shaffer:
For those who did not have an opportunity to testify, please submit documentation for the record. (Support for S.B. 117 from Tina Nappe (Exhibit E); written testimony from Team Loomis (Exhibit F); written testimony from Ken Raynar (Exhibit G); and written testimony from Brett L. Marshall (Exhibit H).
We will close the hearing on S.B. 117 and go to the work session. Ms. Lyons is going to discuss S.B. 15 and its proposed amendment.
SENATE BILL 15: Provides for issuance of special license plates for support of wildlife in Nevada. (BDR 43-332)
Marsheilah Lyons, Committee Policy Analyst:
The first bill the committee will consider is S.B. 15. Representatives of the Nevada Wildlife Record Book Committee proposed amendments which would provide their committee, not the State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, with the responsibility of administering fees collected pursuant to this plate. Additionally, their committee would have authority to grant part of those funds to other organizations and public agencies to carry out the provisions of this measure.
The Nevada Wildlife Record Book Committee proposed their amendment to add language that would allow funds to be used for education and habitat improvement in addition to allowable items already listed within the measure. Testimony from the State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources indicated the department’s agreement with these proposed changes.
Lastly, a representative of the committee requested the Senate Committee on Transportation consider adding supplementary language, which would allow the department to issue this plate for trailers in addition to passenger cars and light commercial vehicles.
Martha Barnes from the DMV is here at the request of Chairman Shaffer. She has been asked to explain some issues relating to the issuance of these plates for trailers.
Martha Barnes, Administrator, Central Services and Records Division, Department of Motor Vehicles:
I have distributed a copy of a proposed amendment to S.B. 15 in order to address the issue of placing specialty plates on trailers not currently included in this bill. The current numbering sequence used to identify trailers consists of five numbers and an alphabet character. The standard sunset design is identified with the numbers 12345L, as a comparison. This numbering system on a rodeo plate looks like 345L because the 1 and 2 are merged into the design. This is the problem we currently have with our numbering system. Law enforcement would also have a problem distinguishing this plate with the same numbering sequence we are using for trailers. The proposed amendment would allow the department to determine if a plate can be produced for trailers based on a final design.
Chairman Shaffer:
Thank you.
Tom Lammel, Member, Nevada Wildlife Record Book Committee:
This is a nonissue to us; it is something we would like to have if it is possible. We will do whatever is possible as far as the numbering system to make it equitable with the DMV.
Chairman Shaffer:
Thank you very much. I will accept a motion on S.B. 15.
SENATOR CARE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AS AMENDED S.B. 15.
SENATOR NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman Shaffer:
The next bill for work session will be S.B. 25.
SENATE BILL 25: Requires certain trailers sold in Nevada to be equipped with brakes that comply with traffic laws of this state. (BDR 43-93)
Ms. Lyons:
Senate Bill 25 is an act relating to vehicles requiring certain trailers sold by persons in Nevada to be equipped with brakes that comply with traffic laws of this State. It provides a penalty and other matters properly related. The proponent of the measure indicated current law does not provide adequate consumer protection because it allows for the sale of certain trailers that are not equipped with brakes that comply with traffic laws of Nevada.
Testimony from a representative of the vehicle dealership industry, proposed the bill be amended to prohibit private citizens, in addition to a broker, dealer, distributor, leaser, manufacturer or salesman, from selling certain trailers that are not equipped with brakes required by our State traffic laws.
The committee requested additional information regarding the number of citations issued for operating certain trailers on highways in this State without brakes that conform to State law requirements. A representative from the DMV, in consultation with the Department of Public Safety, indicated those statistics were unavailable. As a follow-up, staff requested information regarding any major or serious incidents related to this issue. Representatives of the DMV indicated, after surveying DMV regional offices and the Office of Traffic Safety, they were not aware of any major incidents related to trailers without proper brakes.
Chairman Shaffer:
At this time I am going to hold this piece of legislation. We need to study this further because there seems to be questions still unanswered. We need more time on this bill; we will not take action on it today.
The next bill for work session is S.B. 69.
SENATE BILL 69: Revises requirements concerning consignment of vehicles. (BDR 43-86)
Ms. Lyons:
Senate Bill 69 relates to motor vehicles requiring the consignee of a vehicle to assist the consigner in completing a financing statement to create a purchase money security interest of the consigner in the vehicle, requiring the consignee to file a financing statement with the secretary of state. This provides a penalty and other matters properly related. The proponent of the measure indicated current law requires an individual selling their car on consignment to file a statement with the secretary of state marking the vehicle as his or her own. This process keeps the vehicle out of the car lot’s inventory officially indicating its consignment status.
According to the proponent of the bill, the need for this change became evident when a private citizen, who placed their vehicle on a lot for consignment, lost the vehicle to a financing company. It was indicated the vehicle dealership listed the vehicle as a part of the car lot’s inventory instead of a vehicle on consignment when they entered a financing agreement, thus it became collateral for the loan and was subject to seizure.
Additionally, testimony indicated current law allows finance companies to rely on the assertion of the automotive dealership as it relates to their inventory even if the assertion is false.
A representative of the salvage pull industry indicated salvage pull yards should be exempt from the provisions of this measure as all of their transactions are with insurers or licensed vehicle dealers, rebuilders, leasers, or wreckers. It was further indicated that salvage pull yards to not receive vehicles for consignment from the public, therefore, the additional protection offered to the public in this measure is not necessary. According to Legal Division at Legislative Counsel Bureau, such an exemption would be necessary to exclude salvage pulls from the requirements listed in this measure.
Senator Hardy:
This is an extremely important issue. The issue Senator O’Connell has identified is something we should take measures to address. I agree we should draft an exemption for salvage pull yards. There is no advantage or protection to the public by including them in this. I would move to amend and do pass with the amendment being the exemption for the salvage pull yards.
SENATOR HARDY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AS AMENDED S.B. 69.
SENATOR NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman Shaffer:
Our last bill for this work session is S.B. 116.
SENATE BILL 116: Revises provisions relating to use of equipment to secure children traveling in certain motor vehicles. (BDR 43-87)
Ms. Lyons:
Senate Bill 116 relates to motor vehicles requiring a child less than 9 years of age and who weighs 80 pounds or less be secured in a child restraint system when traveling in certain motor vehicles. This requires such a system be properly installed within and attached to the motor vehicle. It revises provisions relating to the imposition of a fine for failing to secure a child in a child restraint system. It revises provisions relating to wearing a safety belt. If a child is not required to be secure in a child restraint system, they must be secured with a safety belt and other matters properly related.
Proponents to the measure, including representatives of law enforcement, traffic safety, emergency response, and health professionals indicated children ages 5 to 8 weighing up to 80 pounds are not adequately protected when restrained in safety belts alone. Testimony from certain emergency health care professionals indicated adult seat belts frequently cause additional injury to children because they do not properly fit a child’s shorter torso.
Proponents argue that use of a booster seat for children 5- to 8-years-old places them in the correct position for a seat belt to adequately protect them. The sponsor of the legislation proposed several amendments at the request of various interested parties. It was requested the bill be amended to indicate National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as the authority in establishing the standard for proper child safety installation as opposed to the U.S. Department of Transportation and others listed.
Additionally, it was requested the fine for a violation of the measure be amended to a minimum of $50 and a maximum of $500. It was further requested those persons sighted for a violation be required to be trained in the installation of appropriate child restraints and have a properly installed appropriate child restraint system in their vehicle.
The measure requested an amendment to allow any portion of the fine above the minimum $50 to be waived at the court’s discretion upon presentation of a letter to the court from a qualified person providing training and installation of the child’s safety seat.
Finally, it was indicated many larger vehicles are now in excess of the traditional 6000-pound vehicle weight. Thus, an additional amendment was requested to include vehicles weighing up to 10,000 pounds.
Senator Nolan:
With the recent onset of information coming out of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on the number of injuries occurring, many states are rushing to address this right now as a public safety issue. That information was contained in the “National Conference of State Legislatures Legisbrief” handout (Exhibit I).
Senator Care approached me with an additional proposed amendment that if the bill does pass, we extend the date it is to be active to provide adequate time for public safety agencies to fully educate the public. I am not opposed to extending the date of effectiveness for a reasonable time to accommodate his request. I think the amendment Senator Care proposed was to make this effective at a December date.
Senator Care:
Effective date would be in the summer 2004.
Senator Nolan:
Perhaps we should make it June 1, 2004, before summer vacation starts and we have a lot of kids in vehicles on the highways.
Chairman Shaffer:
I will take a motion now for S.B. 116.
SENATOR CARE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AS AMENDED S.B. 116.
SENATOR HARDY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator Hardy:
I need to disclose I am a silent partner in a consulting business my father owns. One of his clients has a used car and wrecking yard license. I do not think they are salvage pull yards. I want that on the record. It does not impact them any more than it does anyone else.
Chairman Shaffer:
Let the record show Senator Hardy has an interest elsewhere, but it will not affect them any differently than anyone else.
There being no further business, this hearing is adjourned at 3:02 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Sherry Rodriguez,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer, Chairman
DATE: