MINUTES OF THE

SENATE Committee on Transportation

 

Seventy-second Session

May 1, 2003

 

 

The Senate Committee on Transportation was called to order by Chairman Raymond C. Shaffer, at 1:42 p.m., on Thursday, May 1, 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:

 

Assemblywoman Vonne Stout Chowning, Assembly District No. 28

Assemblyman David E. Goldwater, Assembly District No. 10

Assemblywoman Kathyrn (Kathy) A. McClain, Assembly District No. 15

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Marsheilah Lyons, Committee Policy Analyst

Sherry Rodriguez, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Abel Carlos, Intern for Assemblyman Perkins

Robert A. Ostrovsky, Lobbyist, 3M Corporation

Dana Mathiesen, Deputy Director, Department of Motor Vehicles

Richard Daly, Lobbyist, Laborers International Union of North America Local 169

Kevin Tice, Deputy Commander, Nevada Highway Patrol, Department of Public Safety

Gary H. Wolff, Lobbyist, Teamsters Local 14

Ronald S. Levine, Lobbyist, Nevada Motor Transport Association, Incorporated

Clay Thomas, Administrator, Field Services Division, Department of Motor Vehicles

Virginia (Ginny) Lewis, Director, Department of Motor Vehicles

Kathy Augustine, State Controller, Office of the State Controller

 

Chairman Shaffer:

We are going to open today’s hearing beginning with testimony on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 358.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 358 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions relating to certain special license plates. (BDR 43-1140)

 

Abel Carlos, Intern for Assemblyman Perkins:

I am here on behalf of Assemblyman Perkins to present A.B. 358. I have written testimony (Exhibit C) to be entered into the record. I also have an amendment to propose to the committee (Exhibit D).

 

Chairman Shaffer:

We will take additional testimony on the bill first and then we will take a look at the amendment after all testimony has been heard. This way we can see how many people here are in favor of this bill. Does the committee have any questions for Mr. Carlos?

 

Senator Nolan:

What part of the bill addresses when a special license plate is no longer popular and its numbers fall below the required minimum? What happens with that plate?

 

Mr. Carlos:

The amendment (Exhibit D) addresses that. The bill would be amended to require that every year on October 1, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) would submit a list of how many special license plates are registered for vehicles. For example, if a special license plate falls below the required 1000 applications minimum, we would send a letter to the originators informing them know they have until the end of that same year to come up with the required number of registered plates. If those numbers do not increase, that special license plate would be discontinued.

 

Senator Nolan:

Was that something you worked out with the DMV?

 

Mr. Carlos:

That is correct.

 

Chairman Shaffer:

Is there further testimony in favor of A.B. 358?

 

Robert A. Ostrovsky, Lobbyist, 3M Corporation:

I am here only to give you technical advice if it is needed. We are currently the contractor who supplies the DMV with the materials needed to make these specialty license plates. We have experience in other states with the one-third, two-thirds method referred to in Mr. Carlos’ testimony (Exhibit C). One-third of the plate is designated for the purposes of a logo or other design representing the specialty plate, whether it would be a rodeo plate or a plate to raise money for the cancer fund. The other two-thirds of the plate would be maintained to always look the same. This method is used in other states. It is the preference of law enforcement. Law enforcement likes the idea of being able to look at a plate and instantly know it is a Nevada plate without having to sort out so many specialty plates. There is an explosion of these specialty license plates all over the country.

 

Everything in this bill we are capable of doing and performing technologically with our current systems. If a digital method is preferred, the methodology for these plates will need to go through the bidding process. We are not the sole provider for that source of technology. It would go to bid through the purchasing department and we would place a bid like everyone else.

 

Chairman Shaffer:

Are there any questions from the committee?

Senator Carlton:

I was reading through the amendment (Exhibit D) in conjunction with the bill. I wanted to make sure I understood this. On page 4, lines 44 and 45, it states “… shall not, … issue more than 25 separate designs of special license plates.” Does this indicate that we are going to be repealing any current specialty plates?

 

Mr. Carlos:

No. I believe there are 13 specialty license plates currently in production; according to this bill the DMV could produce a maximum of 25 specialty plates. There are two different types of specialty plates; one is designated for members of veteran organizations, military personnel, and even for those who are organ donors. Those membership organizations would not be categorized under the 25 maximum limit; only those specialty plates that are open to the public would be limited to the maximum of 25 being issued from the DMV.

 

Senator Carlton:

If the number of a specialty license plate issued during a year drops below the required 1000 applications, are we going to discontinue those plates?

 

Mr. Carlos:

Yes. As stated in the amendment (Exhibit D), we would send the originator a letter telling them they have until the end of the year to get back up to the threshold of 1000 applications. If that does not occur, we would not collect the plates that have already been issued; the DMV would simply no longer issue that same plate.

 

Senator Carlton:

How many specialty license plates do we currently have that would be part of this limit of 25?

 

Dana Mathiesen, Deputy Director, Department of Motor Vehicles:

Currently we issue 19 plates considered to be special plates. The DMV considers a special plate as any plate associated with a sponsoring organization or fund. I believe Mr. Carlos discounted the special plates we issue which are affiliated with organizations such as professional firefighters, volunteer firefighters, and veterans. He only included special plates that are available to the entire public for purchase.

For the purposes of this bill there are currently 13 special license plates that would be part of the 25 designated in this bill. The University of Nevada, Reno and University of Nevada Las Vegas special plates, along with the Las Vegas Valley Water District plate would bring the total to 16 special license plates identified as part of the 25 maximum.

 

Senator Carlton:

So that would leave nine more possible special plates available to the public.

 

Ms. Mathiesen:

Correct.

 

Chairman Shaffer:

Are there any other questions from the committee?

 

Senator Nolan:

With new digital imaging that can be used for these license plates, is there any additional cost beyond the design work and materials to continuously reproduce that type of plate? That way seems much easier and simpler than it has been in the past. Is it really a problem to produce old plates that happen to fall under the 1000-applications limit?

 

Mr. Ostrovsky:

It has been difficult under the current system. Under the current system there is separate sheeting; it is the material separately packed for each specialty plate. Right now you have to take off the old roll, put on the new roll, and do a number of other things. It is very time-consuming to make a specialty license plate today.

 

With digital imaging, it would all be computerized. It can make any plate, any time, in any order. You type the plate desired into the computer and it produces it with digital imaging. There is actually a cost savings with this method. The aluminum is thinner; it does not need to be the same gauge. There are a number of cost savings involved. You do not need to have an inventory of sheeting; right now sheeting for specialty plates has to be bought in bulk. All that disappears. There would be no more paint shop, no more fumes to deal with in the prisons. All would become computerized. This system is currently used in 17 states. The United States government uses this process on all federal vehicles. The answer to your question is, “yes, you are correct.” With digital it becomes easier and cheaper to handle these plates than in the past.

 

Ms. Mathiesen:

According to the provisions of the bill, if a plate does not meet the required 1000-applications limit after the first 12 months of issuance, the DMV will stop producing that plate. The people who have that plate on their vehicles will be able to keep them. As long as they keep renewing their plates annually, or until they lose the plate or turn it in for another plate, the renewal fees will keep going to the entitled fund or organization.

 

Mr. Ostrovsky:

When a special plate fails to be popular and is no longer issued, it will open up a slot for another plate. It is not as if 25 will be all that you will see. When a plate drops below 1000 applications, then the commission can approve another plate. I suspect there will be more than 25 specialty license plates on the streets in the future. 

 

Ms. Mathiesen:

I believe the bill says the plates will be based on the original number of applications that were required to initiate the plate. Prior to this year plates only required 250 applications. Those will only be required to maintain that level for the DMV to keep producing the plates. Those special plates effective this year will require 1000 applications and will need to maintain that level. There are only a few plates that are under 250 required applications and they have just started being produced. Those are the volunteer firefighters, V & T Railroad, organ donors, and the Pyramid Lake plates. We just started making those available, so within 12 months they will meet the required level of applications.

 

Chairman Shaffer:

Are there any questions from the committee?

 

Senator Carlton:

Going back to the number of open slots for special license plates, I believe that would be nine. I know there are a few plates being considered this session. Have you taken into consideration how many of those are out there? I think there are five or six. That would only leave four open slots for the commission to check.

Mr. Carlos:

That would be correct. It also depends on how many applications we receive from the different organizations and the public. By the time the commission meets, if there are applications, the commission would need to approve those. At this point we do not know if we are getting four. We have a place for 25. We could reach 25 specialty license plates within 5 years or we could reach it next year. We want to keep it at a limit so the DMV does not have a wide variety of plates being issued.

 

Senator Carlton:

Currently, you have 21 requests for specialty license plates, and only 4 open slots. Will the commission be setting up criteria on which organizations get a plate and which ones do not?

 

Mr. Carlos:

According to discussions with the DMV, it would be first come, first served.

 

Senator Carlton:

If someone submits an application, will you have to accept it if they are next in line. Would you have an opportunity to decline that plate?

 

Mr. Ostrovsky:

In section 3, subsection 5, paragraph (b) it says, “… In determining whether to approve such an application or issuance, the Commission shall consider, without limitation, whether it would be appropriate and feasible for the Department to, as applicable, design, prepare or issue the particular special license plate.” They would have to determine whether it was appropriate and feasible. I have no definition for those words but that is how the bill drafter worded it.

 

Senator Carlton:

There is also a time frame; the plates will be evaluated in chronological order. They will be heard and evaluated in order and a determination will be made as to whatever or not the commission considers them to be appropriate, correct?

 

Mr. Carlos:

Correct.

Senator Care:

The bill says members of the commission serve without salary or compensation for travel or per diem expenses. That means the legislative members of the commission eat the cost, as I understand it. This will not cost the taxpayers anything. I wish the bill required 50,000 signatures, but I will let it go with the required 1000 signatures.

 

Mr. Ostrovsky:

This will save a lot of money for the State. The time and expense of the Legislative Counsel Bureau and committees hearing these special license plate bills and drafting of these bills, all of that expense can be avoided. There will be considerable cost savings to the taxpayers. Legislators will still have some say in these matters as the voting membership consists of members from this body.

 

Chairman Shaffer:

We appreciate the information.

 

Assemblywoman Vonne Stout Chowning, Assembly District No. 28:

I am here in support of this measure. As you know, many special license plate bills have passed through our committees. I am very proud of us for supporting those because of the good they have done for the State. The professional firefighter plate alone, in less than 2 years, has raised almost $90,000 that has gone directly to the University Medical Center Burn Center. Lake Tahoe has over $2 million that has been raised via the Lake Tahoe plate. Clarity of the lake issues or the rebuilding of Sand Harbor efforts would not be done if it were not for this special license plate. The Arts plate has raised over $100,000 for arts education of children. A program is going to be put into place to teach literacy with an arts emphasis. The school districts are not going to need to put forth any of the money for the program. Money is being provided to the school district.

 

Membership-only plates such as the firefighter plate, Masonic plate, and the veteran’s plate would not apply to this. You cannot tie them to the same standard because only people who are members of those professions or veterans’ organizations can apply for them. The veterans’ plate has provided over $250,000 for the veterans’ home, which is money for which we did not have to ask. We have not asked taxpayers to pay any of the money for these things I have referenced. It has been their choice to purchase these plates.

The Future Farmers of America are just getting off the ground. That agricultural plate has already raised almost $100,000. I support the license plate commission. As you said, the members of the commission are going to serve without compensation much like we are doing now in the Legislature. There will be five Legislators serving on this commission. There will be three other members from State agencies who will be nonvoting members. I believe this is a good thing to do for our State.

 

Senator Nolan:

Are there any questions from the committee? If there is no further testimony we will have Mr. Carlos go over the amendment (Exhibit D) to see if there are any questions on it from the committee members.

 

Mr. Carlos:

Section 2, subsection 2, paragraph (b), the current language states 250 signatures; we would like to change that to 1000 signatures. In section 2, line 36, we would like to delete the phrase, “… or motorcycle.” Currently the DMV does not create special license plates for motorcycles. Section 5, subsection 1, paragraph (b) to include on line 42, a reference for the United We Stand license plate. Since that has already passed it would need to be included in this bill. Line 42 would also include other special license plates that do not deal with a membership. The final part of the amendment is to create the stipulation that the DMV must notify an organization when its plate has gone below the required application threshold. The organization would have until the end of the year to increase the number to remain on the list.

 

Senator Nolan:

If there are no questions from the committee, let us take a motion on this measure.

 

SENATOR CARE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 358.

 

SENATOR AMODEI SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION PASSED. (SENATOR CARLTON VOTED NO.)

 

*****

 

Senator Nolan:

We will open the hearing on A.B. 239 and take testimony at this time.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 239 (1st Reprint): Authorizes Department of Motor Vehicles to produce and issue vintage license plates for certain motor vehicles. (BDR 43-126)

 

Assemblywoman Chowning:

This is a simple bill. When you see a restored vintage automobile you will recognize the love, money, and dedication people put into restoring them. They try to have these automobiles in as original condition as possible. They try to have original, every bumper, pedal, steering wheel, running board, and every single part. If it is not original, they try to have it as close as possible. Classic car owners would like to have vintage license plates for these vehicles. If there is a 1929 Ford Nevada license plate available, they want to be able to put that plate on their 1929 Ford. The DMV and law enforcement have problems with that because of the reflectivity of the plates. They were not comfortable with allowing a vintage license plate to be on the vehicles because they would not be able to be seen at night. The next best thing would be a replica of the vintage license plate. The DMV agreed. With new digital technology, the DMV will be able to produce, as close as possible, that original license plate. This bill would not be creating another specialty plate. There would not be a lot of people who would purchase this license plate. But for those few who would, you would make them very happy.

 

They would be able to register their vintage vehicles and would pay the $35, same as registering a license plate. That is the entire bill.

 

Senator Nolan:

Are there any questions or comments from the committee?

 

Senator Amodei:

Having a vintage vehicle of my own, I think this is an excellent piece of legislation.

 

Assemblywoman Chowning:

I want to point out this bill is only for pre-World War II vehicles, which are vehicles prior to 1942. There are those who would like to amend the bill and have it be effective to include vehicles up to 1957, but, currently, this is the way it is.

 

Senator Nolan:

That would probably help to assure that those vehicles receiving these plates are vehicles not typically on the roadways. Is there any other testimony?

 

Ms. Mathiesen:

We are in support of A.B. 239.

 

Senator Nolan:

Are there any comments to be made at this time? I think in light of Mr. Ostrovsky’s testimony about how much easier it is going to be with the new digital technology, this can happen pretty quickly.

 

Mr. Ostrovsky:

Understand the digital technology portion of this depends on the passage of the bill, A.B. 358, previously heard. There is this fund with money in it. Any portion of the unused money goes to the Highway Fund. There is plenty of money there. There is no direct financial impact to the General Fund budget unless the DMV gets the okay to use that money to buy the upgraded technology. If not, then the DMV will not be able to create these digitally.

 

With the digital technology we would be able to process these plates to appear as close to the original vintage plate as possible without having to buy dies and presses, which would be prohibitively expensive, to create plates to look exactly like the old ones. We could match the color and the design aspects of it digitally, and the size of the numbers can be duplicated exactly.

 

Senator Nolan:

Are there any questions from the committee?

 

Senator Amodei:

With this bill, A.B. 239 and the previous bill A.B. 358, we get to the tag plant, to the digital state‑of-the-art technology these people have talked about, these bill mechanisms to enable them to get to that level of technology as opposed to what we are doing now?

 

Mr. Ostrovsky:

It will allow the tag plant to purchase and install the digital system. That digital system will be used for all special license plates. It will not be used for general issue plates. The DMV wants to see it used in this format before they come to the Legislature to make a decision on whether or not to use it for the general issuance of plates. It will save a lot of time. They can be processed in any order, you can direct input from any DMV office to the computer and get a quick turnaround of these plates.

 

Senator Nolan:

If A.B. 358 is enacted, and we end up with a one-third, two-thirds plate, these plates will be an exception to that bill. I do not know if we have taken a look at how these bills will work together. I believe Assemblywoman Chowning’s intention was to make sure these license plates were going on vintage cars not designed to be on the roads. Are they supposed to be more of a novelty plate? There is nothing in this bill, as it is written, that says these vehicles cannot operate on the road with these particular plates.

 

Mr. Ostrovsky:

These vehicles are street legal. The police department has testified they want to make sure the plates had the reflectivity to be seen on the street. Many of these vehicles only appear in parades and on display in various places, but they are legal on the streets. These plates are not intended to raise funds; they are exempt. They are not part of the 25 discussed in A.B. 358. The DMV can further comment if they would like.

 

Ms. Mathiesen:

The intent of the bill was for the DMV to produce plates and decals so that these vehicles can operate on the roads with the antique plates.

 

Senator Nolan:

If there is no further testimony we will now take a motion.

 

SENATOR AMODEI MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 239.

 

SENATOR SCHNEIDER SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION PASSED. (SENATOR CARLTON ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE.)

 

*****

 

Senator Nolan:

While we are waiting for Assemblyman Goldwater to testify on A.B. 394, we will move onto the work session and open the hearing on A.B. 444.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 444 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes relating to traffic laws. (BDR 43-1098)

 

Senator Nolan:

I would like Ms. Lyons to give an introduction of A.B. 444.

 

Marsheilah Lyons, Committee Policy Analyst:

Assembly Bill 444 is an act relating to traffic laws authorizing vehicles used by the [Nevada] Department of Transportation (NDOT) in the construction, maintenance, or repair of highways to be equipped with tail lamps that emit non-flashing blue light under certain circumstances, providing an additional penalty for a violation of certain traffic laws in an area designated as a temporary traffic control zone for construction, maintenance, or repair of a highway requiring prosecution of a failure to comply with signals of flag persons under certain circumstances and providing penalties and providing other matters properly relating thereto.

 

This bill allows but does not require the NDOT to equip vehicles with tail lamps that emit a non-flashing blue light. Testimony indicated that blue lights are easier to see in stormy conditions, thereby making it safer for maintenance workers working in such conditions.

 

Testimony stated that motorists are most at risk in work zones. Each year more than 80 percent of all fatalities in work-zone crashes are motor vehicle occupants. In the year 2000, there were 193 people killed in motor vehicle crashes in work zones.

There are two amendments proposed. The mock-up (Exhibit E) contains an amendment on page 2. There was also an amendment proposed by the Las Vegas Monorail (Exhibit F).

 

Senator Nolan:

I see the proposed amendment by Senator Care (Exhibit E). Is that the only identified proposed amendment that is on A.B. 444?

 

Ms. Lyons:

There is another amendment (Exhibit F) from Las Vegas Monorail, which is separate from the mock-up.

 

Senator Nolan:

Was the amendment proposed here just to remove the language relative to the district attorney?

 

Senator Care:

I interpreted the language as being a district attorney shall prosecute all violations of subsection 1. That could be interpreted as meaning a trial would be mandatory. The possibility of a plea agreement would not exist. Generally speaking, it just does not happen that way. In discussions with Mr. Daly, I think what he wants is prosecution in those cases where death or physical injury to a worker has occurred. Prosecuting such cases might present a burden to prosecutors. If a defendant knows he is wrong and is willing to enter a plea, then something is worked out in the sentencing. Chairman Shaffer, it is your call whether you want to hear further testimony from Mr. Daly. I did not want to overburden the courts and prosecutors and tie their hands when in fact it often happens some sort of plea arrangement might better serve.

 

Senator Nolan:

Lets go ahead and take testimony from Mr. Daly on A.B. 444.

 

Richard Daly, Lobbyist, Laborers International Union of North America Local 169:

I did not intend for all cases concerning people disobeying a flag person to be prosecuted. We were looking for mandatory prosecution in all cases where workers are injured as a result of someone disobeying a flag person. The district attorney has been reluctant to prosecute such cases. What I am interested in is if there is a violation that results in an injury to a person in the work zone, the person responsible for the injury is prosecuted. I would be satisfied with that.

 

We do not need prosecution for property damage. We do not need to prosecute in all cases of a flag person being disobeyed, if there is no injury. We do believe a penalty should be in place if a violation results in property damage. You would get the penalty but not necessarily the mandatory prosecution. We are hoping for the mandatory prosecution for injury-related incidents.

 

Senator Nolan:

Thank you. This is a work session. We normally try not to have a lot of dialog but I appreciate the additional testimony. Senator Care, if we removed the word “all,” from section 1.5, subsection 2, line 5 (Exhibit E) and preclude them from prosecuting all cases, but if they are going to prosecute it gives them the direction to do those for the violations listed, does that still get what you wanted?

 

Senator Care:

That would be fine. I think the operative language might be along the lines of where there is a violation resulting in death or injury, a prosecutor must in fact prosecute, unless, and I think this is language used in domestic violence cases, he has a good-faith basis in believing that he cannot prevail in a trial or something like that. I know that language exists in statute.

 

Senator Nolan:

I think we will try to get an amendment and bring it to the Senate Floor if we can get this close enough to where we need to be. Senator Care, repeat your statement in legal terminology so Ms. Lyons can draft something and then we will run it by Legal.

 

Senator Care:

Basically, where you have a violation resulting in death or injury, the district attorney shall prosecute. We can add qualifying language that will parallel the domestic violence statutes, “except if they have a good-faith-basis belief based on witnesses and evidence that he cannot prevail in a trial or win the case.”

Senator Nolan:

Does the committee have any comments or discussion on what Senator Care has suggested? 

 

Hearing none and since there is some vagueness in the proposal, rather than taking this to the Senate Floor, we need to bring A.B. 444 back to this committee after we get the language back from Legal and take another look at it.

 

Senator Hardy:

I would move that we include the amendment (Exhibit F) from the Las Vegas Monorail in that mock-up (Exhibit E).

 

Senator Nolan:

Are there any other issues relevant to Senator Care’s proposed amendment (Exhibit E)? When we do take a motion it will include Senator Care’s proposed language. Are there any comments from the committee on the proposed amendment (Exhibit F) relative to including this language into the bill?

 

Senator Hardy:

This allows them to do advertisements on station walls instead of just benches and shelters. I think that is an oversight in the law and certainly ought to be part of the consideration taken on this bill.

 

Senator Schneider:

Do all of the advertising dollars go to the private business, or does some of it go to the public?

 

Senator Hardy:

The Las Vegas Monorail is a private sector. It is like a private partnership in a lot of ways.

 

Senator Schneider:

They are doing advertising on public rights-of-way that we have created for them. It is a public thing in that we back their bonds. I think we should split the revenue with them as part of a joint venture. We could split the advertising revenue and it could go to at-risk schools or something like that.

 

Senator Hardy:

I do not think it is much different than the Citizen Area Transit (CAT) bus situation.

 

Senator Nolan:

I disclose that I am a former employee of ATC Public Transportation, which is the primary contractor for CAT bus. I believe the revenues generated from advertisements on public transit buses all go to the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) of Southern Nevada.

 

Senator Hardy:

Per the contract with the RTC, I think that is where we need to leave it unless there is a public/private partnership and they contractually decide they want part of the revenues to go somewhere else. I would not support having this Legislature do this. This is the first time I have disagreed with my colleague.

 

Senator Care:

I understand the revenues generated from ads on the RTC buses all go to the RTC. Arguably that is then for public purpose; that is the distinction. The advertising that benefits the Las Vegas Monorail I am not sure if they get to keep all of the revenue.

 

Senator Nolan:

In reading the amendment, it is not clear exactly where the revenues go. Ms. Lyons, is there something in there that we are not seeing?

 

Senator Hardy:

Mr. Vice Chairman, my motion is based on the assumption that this bill is silent and the Legislature is silent on where those revenues go. If there is a public/private partnership of some kind, we should leave that up to them to contractually deal with where the revenues go. I do not believe that it is a position the Legislature should take. The bill does not depict where the revenue goes, and I do not believe it should.

 

Senator Nolan:

I think, through an act of omission, the bill may not specify where the revenue goes. As Senator Schneider said, as a policy issue, when authorizing the generation of revenues by a public transportation system whose byways have been dedicated through eminent domain on public land, we should specify where these revenues go. The State does not have many opportunities to generate revenue and this could be a good one.

 

Senator Hardy:

Mr. Vice Chairman I would respectfully say that is an entirely different policy discussion. What we are talking about here is extending the advertising under whatever set of contractual agreement is currently permitted on benches and shelters by allowing them to extend advertising to stations. That is all we are doing. The policy decision about whether or not the money ought to go here or go there is a different issue than this bill. This bill simply says, right now you can do advertisement on benches and shelters, and now, under the terms of this amendment, you can advertise on stations. We could do that here but I do not think that is the policy issue before us in this particular bill.

 

Senator Care:

Since you are only asking for a mock-up, maybe the solution to that is a mock‑up which includes language from the amendment given to us and perhaps an additional mock-up that provides language pertaining to some sort of a revenue split, depending upon what Senator Schneider has in mind.

 

Senator Nolan:

We need to have staff inquire with Legal about what happens if we remain silent on this issue, if that does not imply the private entity responsible for the advertising would not reap the benefits of the revenue. If we do not address this issue and that is the case, then since we are handling a process in this bill we would have to make that policy decision, whether or not we want to go there.

 

Senator Hardy:

If we do not do anything with that, the status quo exists. All we are doing is saying you can put advertisements on benches, shelters, and now stations. The public policy will not have changed, except to the degree that we are now allowing them to put advertisements on stations, which are different from shelters and benches and perhaps a new occurrence in the industry. I think we are making a mountain out of a molehill.

Senator Nolan:

When we get this bill back, we want to see it in its complete form. Prior to getting a complete mock-up, we will ask Legal for an opinion on this. I think we are fine with the amendment Senator Care has proposed. We will wait for that language to come back in mock-up form. The language with respect to the Las Vegas Monorail should probably be put off until the next work session, unless there is any objection.

 

Chairman Shaffer:

In the meantime we will get an answer from the private company that is going to operate it to see what is its intent.

 

Senator Nolan:

We will close the work session on A.B. 444 and go back to the hearing for A.B. 394.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 394 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions governing removal by police officer of vehicle or part of vehicle from highway to garage or other place of safekeeping. (BDR 43-1037)

 

Assemblyman David E. Goldwater, Assembly District No. 10:

We have a problem with unregulated towing in this State. It costs very little to store a car at a tow yard. Tow companies charge by the mile in order to make up for costs of towing a car from point A to point B. Therefore, their incentive is to tow cars the long way in order to make more money. That is not very good for the customers. Several constituents contacted me after introducing this bill. Some of them had cars towed a lot farther than what was needed. It was the allegation of some constituents that an unholy alliance existed between those directing the tow and the tow yards profiting from the tow. I asked our directors in State government. No evidence suggested that was the case, but it certainly could be the case. In order to prevent that from happening I introduced a bill that basically states a car must be towed to the closest garage. The incident brought to my attention concerned a vehicle in need of a tow from approximately 20 miles out of Las Vegas. This vehicle was towed to Amargosa Valley. The nearest tow yard was in North Las Vegas only 15 miles away. The vehicle was towed to Amargosa Valley, which was almost 90 miles away.

 

This bill created a lot of interest from tow companies who did not like the language of the original bill. The tow companies helped me create subsection 4, which has a very unusual assemblage of words, clauses, subordinate clauses, insubordinate clauses, and commas. I believe we still maintain the intent of this bill, which is to tow cars in the most efficient manner possible to the nearest tow yard possible in order to save constituents money.

 

Senator Nolan:

Are there any questions from the committee?

 

Senator Hardy:

I believe the concern was that some tow companies have an obligation, if there is an accident, to take the car to their tow yard. Several tow companies have tow yards in Henderson and North Las Vegas. I believe this bill says you will tow it to your closet yard. In other words, if a car breaks down in North Las Vegas and you have a yard in North Las Vegas you cannot tow it to Henderson. I think that is what this says. That was a concern for the tow industry; I had several of them call me. Before we act on A.B. 394 we should ask Legal to make sure that is what it says. I think it is as you described.

 

Assemblyman Goldwater:

That was the intent of the compromise. I learned more about the towing process than I ever wanted to know. Tow companies work on a rotation basis; it is an unregulated industry in this State. We have to make sure that our constituents and our agencies are not compromised.

 

Senator Care:

Does this put a burden on the police officer? It says the police officer shall cause the vehicle or part of the vehicle to be removed. It also says subject to the applicable protocol such as a rotational schedule. That is the way I read it. I do not know if that was the way it was intended. Does the police officer make that decision, on which tow operator? I do not know.

 

Assemblyman Goldwater:

There is a protocol for tow companies on who would respond to the call. There is a rotation process. We want to take the discretion out of the field. We do not want the police officer to decide where a vehicle is towed. I believe a lot of tow yards were giving incentives to officers on where to have cars towed. If there is discretion out there, it can compromise some of our officers. That is no good. We want them to have as little discretion as possible. Subsection 4 will hopefully take care of that.

 

Senator Nolan:

Did that answer your question Senator Care?

 

Senator Care:

Because of the way subsection 4 is written, it is certainly open to interpretation. That was the point I was trying to make.

 

Senator Hardy:

I thought about that also, Senator Care, when I first read this. To me, it says the police officer shall cause it to be removed from the highway in accordance with applicable protocol such as rotational schedules. Then halfway in subsection 4 it shifts the responsibility onto the tow company. As I read it the police officer has a responsibility to make sure towing is done in accordance with police department policy, which is using the rotational process. Then, it shifts responsibility in mid-paragraph to the tow car operator. The tow car operator is the one with the obligation to remove the vehicle to the nearest garage, as I read it.

 

Senator Nolan:

Do all law enforcement agencies and municipalities utilize the same rotational tow company schedule?

 

Assemblyman Goldwater:

I cannot say with any authority.

 

Senator Nolan:

Obviously this applies to the whole State, but how does it work in Washoe County and some of the rural areas?

 

Assemblyman Goldwater:

I really do not know much about towing. I only know about the business incentives that exist. It was clear to me that under the current system the incentive was to tow a vehicle as far as possible. If you have ever had your car towed, you know you do not pay with credit cards, or checks, you pay with cash. You pay by the day and by the mile. Those incentives are a recipe for illicit behavior. We need to do the best we can to protect our constituents from that kind of illicit behavior, short of regulating the entire industry, which is probably what needs to happen some day.

 

Chairman Shaffer:

I think we understand what you want to do. We will make sure the bill states the vehicle is towed to the nearest location. The statute will stipulate a vehicle must to be towed the shortest distance possible.

 

Assemblyman Goldwater:

Your wisdom is appreciated, as always.

 

Senator Nolan:

If the owner of the vehicle has a garage or other preference, and law enforcement is indifferent as to where it goes, can the owner of the vehicle have it towed to a location of their choosing?

 

Assemblyman Goldwater:

Absolutely.

 

Senator Nolan:

Is there any one else wishing to testify on A.B. 394?

 

Kevin Tice, Deputy Commander, Nevada Highway Patrol, Department of Public Safety:

Our department resents any implication of an unholy alliance between the highway patrol and tow companies. I would like to speak on the specific tow of whom Assemblyman Goldwater spoke. That tow took place from mile marker 107 on U.S. 95, which is closer to Indian Springs than to North Las Vegas or the metropolitan area. The sole tow company available for that area is Indian Springs Tow. This company has been in business since 1988 and has attempted to obtain a tow yard in the Indian Springs area with no luck. To stay in business, his only resort was to open a tow yard in Amargosa Valley. In the particular situation referred to by Assemblyman Goldwater, the vehicle was towed to Amargosa Valley. That vehicle was towed for a registration problem. In those instances it is not a consensual tow. In other words, we are going to take the car whether they want us to or not to ensure the vehicle gets properly registered. In nonconsensual tows such as this, we will take the vehicle to the duty tow location or have the duty tow remove it to the duty tow location for storage. In that unfortunate incident that was Amargosa Valley.

 

It was asked if all agencies have the same tow rotation. No, they do not. Most agree they are dependent upon the number of tow companies for their areas. For instance, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department has only two tow companies they use and they rotate them monthly. In the Las Vegas area, the Nevada Highway Patrol does that similarly but utilizes more tow companies in the urban area. Each rural area is dependent upon how many tow companies have applied for and become eligible to be a rotational tow company. To be more specific, each geographic area has a little different situation.

 

Our problem is with the interpretation of subsection 4. The sentence that begins on line 25, “The tow car operator shall, to the extent practicable and using the shortest and most direct route, remove the vehicle or part of a vehicle to his garage or other place of safekeeping that is nearest to the location of the vehicle or part of a vehicle.” We spoke with legal counsel. They concur the last portion could be problematic for us. If the interpretation is if they were required to tow it to their garage or any other place of safekeeping that is nearest to the point of location, in many situations that would not be their garage. If they were required to tow a vehicle to a storage facility that they were not in control of, it would create a logistical burden for all involved. Our opposition is to the last sentence of the amendment. Greater clarification may resolve the problem.

 

Senator Nolan:

Are there any questions from the committee?

 

Senator Hardy:

You bring up a valid point. I understood the intent of the language, “his garage or other place of safekeeping,” was designed to say that if the owner of the vehicle had a garage or specified location, it could be towed there. I could understand why that would be problematic and I think it needs to be clarified. The other point you brought up as needing clarification is only in regard to nonconsensual tows. Consensual tows should be worked out between the individual requesting the tow and the tow company in terms of where the vehicle is sent.

The way this is currently written, you could have an argument; the tow companies could insist they must take the vehicle next door to the Texaco gas station even though you want it taken to the Chevy dealer. We need to make it clear this only applies to nonconsensual tows and make it very clear that the tow company has the authority to tow it to their nearest tow yard.

 

Senator Care:

Subsection 4 begins by saying, “Unless a different course of action is necessary to preserve evidence of a criminal offense, … ” When you talk about preserve evidence of a criminal offense, I am not sure what conduct that necessarily contemplates. For example, if someone is stopped for possibly driving while intoxicated, there may be a reason law enforcement would want that vehicle towed to a specific location for an inventory search. I am wondering if there is ever a time where the highway patrol might want a vehicle towed to a specific location as opposed to a garage that may be closer?

 

Mr. Tice:

Senator Care, if you could restate the first part of your question I may be able to add clarification.

 

Senator Care:

When talking about preserving evidence of a criminal offense, to me, that could mean a lot. Maybe I am reading too much into this.

 

Mr. Tice:

There are many vehicular homicide cases we investigate for which we have the vehicle moved from the scene of a traffic accident and do not have the vehicle in question taken to the tow company’s yard. We have them tow the vehicle to the highway patrol storage facility for the purpose of doing inventories and collecting evidence from the vehicle. There are some instances in criminal investigations where we would not allow the tow company to move the vehicle to their storage facility; we would direct it to a different storage facility. In many cases, that would be our storage facility, a lot where we can ensure security.

 

Senator Nolan:

There are situations where the highway patrol has had vehicles towed to a crime lab or coroner’s office for processing. You indicated that each law enforcement agency does this differently. Does a tow company have the ability, if asked, to tow a vehicle to a closer yard? For example, a nonconsensual tow with no crime involved can be a tow of an abandoned vehicle someone has left off to the side of the freeway. If the tow company from Amargosa Valley comes and takes the vehicle to Amargosa Valley, the owner calls the highway patrol a day later to find out where their car is located. They have to go to Amargosa Valley and pay the tow fees. Do you see it tricky to find anywhere in here? I am sure there is a revenue enhancement for them or I should say an enticement, to be on the rotation schedule to be able to take the tows. Part of that revenue earned is not only the fee for towing the vehicle but also for the storage on the lot. If they tow it to someone else’s yard, they lose out on part of their revenue and might potentially lose out on a vendor who is on your schedule if they are not able to tow to their site. Is that accurate?

 

Mr. Tice:

I believe so. If you are asking how problematic it would be, certainly the revenue issue is there and that is not necessarily the department’s concern. The burden we foresee is, as you mentioned, if someone gets his or her vehicle towed from the side of the road, that person is going to come to us to find out to where the vehicle was towed. If we know the rotation service for that particular day was Ewing Brothers for instance, then with our current system we would know where the vehicle was located. If my interpretation of this bill is correct and they towed it to some nearer yard, not their own, then the burden for us would be to try to determine to which yard the vehicle was towed. An officer would not take care of that; it would be civilian personnel working the front office Monday through Friday who had no direct involvement in the tow itself. The additional burden would be to track down where the vehicle was towed in the event it was not towed to Ewing Brothers or whoever towed the vehicle in question.

 

Senator Nolan:

If we process something similar to what we have in front of us, is that going to create a problem in attracting towing companies into the rotation if they knew they might be required to take vehicles to the closet yard, not necessarily their own?

Mr. Tice:

I do not know that it would create a means of more companies wanting to apply to be on the tow rotation.

 

Senator Nolan:

I thought it might create fewer who would want to be on the rotation.

 

Mr. Tice:

I would certainly assume that, but I do not know for sure because I am not in that industry.

 

Senator Nolan:

Is there any more testimony on A.B. 394?

 

Gary H. Wolff, Lobbyist, Teamsters Local 14:

I have concerns with the entire bill. I have a great deal of knowledge about tow truck operations and how contracts are written with the Nevada Highway Patrol. It is a more complex issue than what subsection 4 says. As this is written, it puts the liability onto law enforcement. When an officer orders a vehicle towed, regardless of the reason, the officer assumes responsibility for that vehicle, even though the tow operator takes the vehicle. When something goes wrong, it comes right back to our agencies; it always does.

 

This is the first time I have heard of any possible wrongdoing. I can assure you if any complaint of that sort ever came up, there would be a full-blown investigation. Hopefully, it would prove not to be true.

 

To answer your question, the highway patrol does have contracts with tow companies. These tow companies must meet specific guidelines. We do not approve of a vehicle being towed in a roundabout way. It is like taking a taxicab, and instead of going one mile they take you five miles for the extra fare. Once that vehicle leaves, we do not know what direction the tow company is going. I can tell you that vehicle will go to the tow operator’s yard, unless otherwise directed by the officer or someone else. Under an arrest, that results in a forced tow authorized by the officer, the vehicle would not go for evidence, it would strictly go to the impound yard after the vehicle has been inventoried.

 

No, is the answer to the question about going to another yard. That would put them in a liability situation. They have a contract with us stating they must have so many storage spaces, security, and everything else. When I read this bill, I have a problem with subsection 4. I think the department would have a problem with how this is written regarding its liabilities with the contractual agreements they have with tow operators.

 

Senator Nolan:

Are there any questions from the committee?

 

Senator Hardy:

What I understood Assemblyman Goldwater to say is that there is an unholy alliance between tow companies and the repair facilities. I did not think he was referencing police officers. It does occur; when I was in the automotive business I got calls weekly from tow companies wanting to know what I would give them to deliver tows to our location.

 

You speak of liability; that is an important issue. As I read this, the liability or responsibility the officer has is if he wishes to have a vehicle towed, then he has an obligation to make sure that it is towed. He has an obligation to remove it from the street. Subsection 4 says, “… a police officer who wishes to have a vehicle or part of a vehicle removed from a highway pursuant to … shall in accordance with any applicable protocol such as a rotational schedule … .” The officer clearly has some obligation in making sure he applies the rotational schedule, which is appropriate. The officer is essentially charged with fulfilling the contractual obligations of the department with regard to a rotational schedule regarding the selection and use of towing services. The officer shall cause the vehicle or part of a vehicle to be removed by a tow car operator. That is where the officer’s liability and obligation ends, according to this statute. If an officer decides he wants to have a vehicle removed from the highway, and he removes the driver from the car, where should the responsibility, obligation, or liability to make sure that vehicle is appropriately removed from the highway reside?

 

The liability is with the tow car operator to make sure that the substantive part of this bill is adhered to. He is the one that now has the obligation. I do not see any liability on the part of the police officer if the vehicle is towed to the furthest location. Could you address that concern; does the police officer have some obligation to make sure that if you remove someone from their vehicle, takes possession of their vehicle, should the officer have some responsibility to make sure the vehicle is safely and appropriately removed from the road?

 

Mr. Wolff:

The officer certainly has that obligation to make sure that the vehicle is removed. Often what happens is the driver gets his vehicle back, and if there is a problem with the car, the driver comes back to the highway patrol. It is as if they expect the officer to follow the vehicle all the way to the tow yard, watch them unhook the vehicle and supervise the entire process. 

 

Senator Hardy:

Would it resolve this if it applied only to nonconsensual tows? A consensual tow, if a car is broken down, that is a different set of circumstances than a nonconsensual tow.

 

Mr. Wolff:

The only consensual tow in the highway patrol business is when you physically drive up behind a car and there are people in the car who need to have their car towed. We have all kinds of situations that result in nonconsensual tows. We have been called up to the Mount Rose Highway where people have abandoned their cars.

 

Senator Hardy:

As far as I am concerned you should have liability in that regard.

 

Mr. Wolff:

I would suggest the language release the liability. The issue is if skiers go up Mount Rose Highway and get caught in a snowdrift, they end up leaving their cars there. Here comes a highway patrolman who may realize a snowplow cannot get through because of the abandoned vehicle. The highway patrolman has the vehicle removed; the highway patrol gets a call the next Monday from the vehicle owner stating that the fender of his or her car is bashed in. All this seems to come back on the highway patrol. I would have no problem if this legislative body decides to remove the liability from the highway patrol. Once the highway patrol has signed off on it, they list any damage on the car before the car is towed. I am presenting this on behalf of our officers. The department has to answer its own questions as far as what its liabilities are with contracts.

Senator Hardy:

I agree. I just do not know if there is a problem in that regard. According to this, the officer’s obligation is to remove the vehicle from the highway. That is what it says. It does not mention condition. The bill ought to clarify if people abandon their vehicles and do not take care of them, they certainly should not have any recourse if their vehicles get dented up when the police have to haul these vehicles off the street. I do not think that is what this bill does. This says if it is a nonconsensual tow you have to remove the vehicle from the road. That is the only liability with regard to this, unless I am misreading it.

 

Mr. Wolff:

If it would say that, I would be out of here in a minute.

 

Senator Nolan:

With the contracted tow companies the highway patrol has, those tow companies must meet certain specifications and criteria. If one of those vendors was to tow a vehicle to another authorized yard, which might be closer than its own, I think there is a problem for the tow companies who are doing this. They are on the list for revenue purposes. If we remove the liability language, is that problematic for you?

 

Mr. Wolff:

That would have to come from the department. I can tell you if I ran a tow operation, I would not take it to another tow company’s yard because of the liability factor.

 

Mr. Tice:

I would mirror what I said earlier. Even if a tow company took the vehicle to another authorized tow yard, the logistics burden it creates is to what we are opposed. Our interest is in public service, creating the best public service we can when removing a vehicle.

 

Senator Nolan:

Thank you, I appreciate your comments. I anticipated that. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on A.B. 394?

Ronald S. Levine, Lobbyist, Nevada Motor Transport Association, Incorporated:

There are a lot of complications in this for the highway patrol and the towing companies. The highway patrol is responsible for having the vehicle taken from the tow location to a safe area, even if it goes to a contracted Nevada Highway Patrol yard. Right now the bill says the nearest garage. That garage may not be secure for the vehicle. I spoke to one tow company; they said they would have to think about whether or not they would stay on the tow list for a police agency if they have to worry about where to tow the vehicle after they get it. To break it down to the nearest garage would be a nightmare for dispatch. It just gets more and more complicated. What Assemblyman Goldwater wants to do is very noteworthy, and I agree that something needs to be done. By having the bill state the vehicle must be towed to the nearest garage is going to be a nightmare for the highway patrol and a nightmare for towing companies.

 

Senator Nolan:

We got the message loud and clear. I just want to reiterate Senator Hardy’s comments with respect to the highway patrol; we have a profound respect and admiration for the men and women who do that job. While Assemblyman Goldwater referenced the story about the highway patrol, I was reading his interpretation of the unholy alliances, something that existed so if there was an presumption made that this was specifically a highway patrol or other law enforcement issue, I am sure he did not intend it to be that way, we would apologize on behalf of this body for allowing that kind of comment to be made. Having said that, thank you very much for your testimony.

 

If there is no other testimony we will close the hearing on A.B. 394 and open the hearing on A.B. 30 for a work session and have Ms. Lyons refresh our memories.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 30 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions regarding registration of motor vehicles. (BDR 43-67)

 

Ms. Lyons:

This is an act relating to motor vehicles; making various changes to the provisions governing the registration of motor vehicles by new residents of this State and the issuance of drivers’ licenses to such persons; revising the provision which directs the issuance of certain pro rata refunds for registrations transferred or cancelled under certain circumstances; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.

 

Senator Nolan:

We have two sets of amendments to A.B. 30. Assemblywoman McClain has brought this bill to address vehicle registration. Originally there was testimony from the DMV which had some concerns with this bill. There is a bill in the Senate Committee on Finance addressing the enforcement side of this problem that would marry very well with A.B. 30. I would like to ask Assemblywoman McClain to give us a brief overview of her amendment (Exhibit G).

 

Assemblywoman Kathyrn (Kathy) A. McClain, Assembly District No. 15:

What we came up with is allowing an individual 30 days to pay for new registration. Individuals will turn in their plates, get temporary paper placards and then they can get their drivers’ licenses. This does two things. It serves as a notice that they definitely only have 30 days to pay for their registration to get their regular license plates. It also serves as an enforcement tool because with the paper plate on their windshield, law enforcement will be able to see when it expires. It would eliminate any kind of interim notifications within that 30-day period. We think this is a clean way to go.

 

Senator Nolan:

I agreed with Assemblywoman McClain and thought this was an innovative way to get to this problem. I have spoken with the DMV and they saw some issues as being problematic; so I asked them to come and address this. In relationship to that, I prepared a second amendment (Exhibit H), which would address their concerns. We will leave it up to the committee. If the committee elects to process Assemblywoman McClain’s proposed amendments, we will do that. If we find that is not going to work for us, we have a back-up amendment  (Exhibit H). I have spoken with Assemblywoman McClain regarding this. It is not her first choice to take the second amendment, but this is what the DMV believed would be more reasonable for them.

 

Ms. Lyons:

In Assemblywoman McClain’s proposed amendment (Exhibit G) on page 6, there is a provision for an assessment of a cumulative late fee, which should be removed.That will probably be an amendment to Senate Bill (S.B.) 214, the bill dealing with the enforcement side of this issue.

 

SENATE BILL 214: Revises provisions concerning enforcement of requirement of registration of motor vehicle by new resident of this State. (BDR 43‑1058)

 

Senator Nolan:

I am going to ask Mr. Thomas to address Assemblywoman McClain’s proposed amendment (Exhibit G), and then we will take a look at the other amendment (Exhibit H).

 

Clay Thomas, Administrator, Field Services Division, Department of Motor Vehicles:

The concept is sound. The concept of ensuring everyone registers their vehicles within the State is appropriate and we would wholeheartedly support finding ways to ensure that happens.

 

Under Assemblywoman McClain’s amendment (Exhibit G), dealing with paper placards, we believe these will cause the DMV delays and will increase wait times for customers. The bill requires each vehicle to obtain a 30-day temporary license plate. With this, the individual must bring that vehicle to the DMV. The issue with this is an individual comes to the DMV to get a driver’s license and is informed he or she must at least register his or her vehicle or get a temporary license plate. The individual is then going to have to leave the counter, go out to his vehicle and take it to our inspection station. The DMV cannot issue a temporary license placard without inspecting the vehicle identification number (VIN) and verifying the vehicle information. The customer is going to leave the window, go take his or her vehicle to the inspection station, get the documentation and return to the DMV. When individuals return to the DMV, our people will already be servicing other customers. The customer is going to have to wait again, perhaps even longer than the average 71 minutes that it takes right now to conduct a transaction. The DMV has some concerns with that.

 

The individual would have to take off his or her plates and bring them into us. We do not have tools; we do not lend tools to customers. They will need to be prepared to remove the plates with their own tools at that time.

 

The other issue is programming concerns. If we issue a temporary license plate, we are going to have to somehow capture that information within our system to let law enforcement know that it is a valid temporary plate and not an illegal one. We will need to find out what programming costs would occur.

 

In addition, people are going to come in for their drivers’ licenses and we are going to tell them they must register their vehicles; they can claim a hardship. What is the hardship? Under the document supplied (Exhibit G), on the face sheet, it talks about lack of funds. The individuals, probably every one of them, will claim lack of funds. The issue then becomes, how does the DMV verify that in fact is true. What the DMV would be doing is issuing placards to everyone and they would have 30 days to comply with the law. An issue to that is there is a cost incurred for us to produce those placards. We would have to put a fiscal note together to address not only programming issues, but also the cost of producing the placards.

 

We believe our proposal (Exhibit H) is a workable solution. We make sure the contact with the customer is done in a very pleasant manner. In fact we do notify them within 20 days after receiving their drivers’ licenses, reminding them they must comply with the law. Within that notification we can also tell them other ways they can renew their registrations after their first registrations have been completed. We believe our amendment (Exhibit H) will allow us, in a most unobtrusive manner, to help capture those individuals who need to be licensed and their vehicles registered within our State. A reasonable or minimal cost to this agency in both time and manpower will result from this procedure.

 

Senator Nolan:

Are there any questions or comments at this time?

 

Assemblywoman McClain:

The amendment (Exhibit H) from the DMV is what I wanted to pass last time and could not get it through because of the attached fiscal note. I did not realize the VIN needed to be verified before issuing a paper placard; that may present a problem. What is wrong with saying you must purchase your new plates? You can wait until tomorrow to bring them in and we will issue a temporary plate to you if you do not have the money now, you have 30 days in which to buy them. The amount of money that will be generated just by having a person buy their plates within 30 days after receiving their drivers’ licenses will more than cover any costs for producing the paper placards. The refund repeal also is going to save the State $5 million per year.

 

Senator Nolan:

The issue is the language in the DMV’s proposed amendment (Exhibit H) is something Assemblywoman McClain agreed with the last session. It died as result of a fiscal note, which is unfortunate. This bill will probably end up with some type of fiscal note as well. This is a significant issue and a major loss of revenue. Any efforts taken toward trying to abate this problem are going to probably be offset by the effort and revenues generated. The proposal the DMV had mirrors what Mr. Thomas shared. When a new resident comes to pick up a driver’s license he or she will be questioned about registering his or her vehicles at that point in time. The individual will ask what is the cost. If he or she is from out of state, he or she is probably not accustomed to our high vehicle registration costs, and may not have the money and may not be willing to register at that time. However, once the DMV captures them and are able to take the information provided for the new license, the proposal is that within 20 days, which is 10 days short of the 30-day requirement, a letter would be sent to those individuals reminding them they are required by law to register within 30 days.

 

The natural question would be what happens next. After 30 days, the system would generate a list of those people who have not registered their vehicles, and it would be provided to the Department of Public Safety who, along with local law enforcement, will do enforcement and follow up on those individuals. There will be a fine, which currently does not exist in statute, which will be processed with S.B. 214 and taken out of both of the proposed amendments before us here today.  That is the question. If we are going to process this bill today, which I think the committee would like to do, with reference to some of the issues that Mr. Thomas brought up about having to take the vehicle to have the VIN and registration verified, unless we come up with another amendment to deal with that. I think that it is a realistic problem facing people at the counter to go back outside and drive around to have the VIN confirmed.

 

Assemblywoman McClain:

Under the DMV’s proposal, is there a fiscal note?

Mr. Thomas:

On the second page there is an amount listed that we believe is for sending out first class letters to those individuals. The cost would be approximately $14,520 per year.

 

Assemblywoman McClain:

I will agree to their amendment if they have no fiscal note on it and they absorb it in the amount of money they are going to generate.

 

Senator Nolan:

I think with a $14,520 fiscal note, the revenues generated by vehicle registration would probably go to offset a certain amount of costs for the operation of the DMV. So, any additional revenues collected otherwise would not. Right now we are suspecting that it is in the millions of uncollected revenues, certainly that would go to offset the fiscal note, would it not?

 

Virginia (Ginny) Lewis, Director, Department of Motor Vehicles:

You need to understand that we must have an appropriation. Any additional revenues that we would collect for these out of state registrations go directly to the Highway Fund. We receive an appropriation from the Highway Fund and that is our budget. We would not have access to any of those excess revenues; that is why the appropriation would have to occur through a fiscal note.

 

Senator Nolan:

I understand Assemblywoman McClain’s concern that a $14,520 fiscal note would land this bill in the Senate Committee on Finance. I will tell you, Assemblywoman McClain, you have my word, this is an issue Senator Raggio has taken very seriously. He has addressed this issue with the DMV and advised them action has to be taken. The DMV anticipate the fiscal note for S.B. 214, which is much more than this, those bills are going to be passed because it is an issue that must be addressed. I would give you my personal guarantee, if we pass this with a fiscal note, I will work with you in the Senate Committee on Finance, and if the fiscal note is what potentially causes the demise of your bill, I will come back with you and remove my amendment on behalf of the DMV and we will try to process something different.

Assemblywoman McClain:

Thank you. I would also like to remind you about the refund repeal, the second half of this bill, that needs to get passed.

 

Senator Nolan:

Okay, we will talk about that as well. With respect to the two proposed amendments (Exhibit G and Exhibit H), Assemblywoman McClain, are we okay to try to process this with the DMV’s amendment (Exhibit G)? I think if we do not start moving on this, then we will find ourselves trying to write some other type of amendment.

 

Assemblywoman McClain:

I can live with this because this is what I wanted last session. I still have a problem with the $14,520 fiscal note. It is just delaying a bill that needs to get passed for schematics as far as I am concerned.

 

Senator Nolan:

We have one other issue this bill is addressing as well. I think if we are going to use the amendment (Exhibit H) that the DMV has brought forward, we will include that in the motion. The other issue with this bill is referring to repealing the refunds through the controller’s office. Right now all the different checks they are writing is costing them a lot of money.

 

Kathy Augustine, State Controller, Office of the State Controller:

We agree with the amendment (Exhibit H), except we want the extenuating circumstances dropped. Let the DMV determine what are the extenuating circumstances. Perhaps there are more extenuating circumstances than those actually listed here. I think the DMV should be given the latitude to decide what those extenuating circumstances are rather than list (a), (b), (c), and (d) again. The amendment is okay except for deleting, for the purposes of this subsection and then striking the rest of that amendment, (a), (b), (c), and (d).

 

Senator Nolan:

Ms. Lyons, would you share with the committee what you are pointing out to me.

Ms. Lyons:

For a point of clarification, this may be something the DMV may need to answer. Paragraph (d) says the department, by regulation, has defined, constitutes an extenuating circumstance for the purposes of this subsection. It appears to already give the DMV that ability. Is that correct?

 

Ms. Augustine:

Right. That is redundant language. If you look at page 9, subsection 9, lines 32 and 33 it says, “… evidence satisfactory to the Department is submitted that reasonably proves the existence of extenuating circumstances.” That is already in the language. Paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) that give the DMV the latitude to determine what the extenuating circumstance is do not need to be listed.

 

Senator Nolan:

This is a policy question for the committee. Do we want to spell out issues or do we feel that by doing this we limit, in some ways, the DMV from doing what they need to do? Ms. Augustine, is the amendment otherwise fine?

 

Ms. Augustine:

We still do not like the over $100 portion. We want to eliminate refunds altogether. There will still be a fiscal note on the bill. Our office has provided a fiscal note (Exhibit I) because of the current language. If we do not eliminate all refunds, we are still going to have a fiscal note because we are still going to be refunding money.

 

Senator Nolan:

Is it a fiscal note if it does not cause any additional new revenue or non‑budgeted. The way I look at this is, if we eliminate the majority of those refunds, which are $100 and under, we are actually realizing a savings.

 

Ms. Augustine:

Right. In the fiscal note that we gave you (Exhibit I), we gave you the 5 percent and the 10 percent. You could probably eliminate the 10 percent on the fiscal note and just say 5 percent. So, 5 percent of the refunds of $100 are still going to be issued. You can see it would be $11,856.89 for FY 2003, $129,042.61 in FY 2004, and $148,942.64 in FY 2005.

 

Assemblywoman McClain:

What they want is if you are a Nevada resident and have an extenuating circumstance, no one moving out of state will qualify. If the refund is over $100 you would possibly get your money back, leaving it up to the discretion of the DMV. There is no way it will be 5 percent. My guess is there might possibly be 100 people per year because it is so narrowly defined. The DMV can put in all the little nuances it wants to make it even more narrowly defined. But those were the things the committee wanted in there. I did not want it in there, but they put it in. I am afraid if we try and go back through the Assembly it is never going to make it.

 

Senator Nolan:

We have an interest in seeing this bill pass. Yes, if that was a real sticking point in the Assembly, we will know we will end up in a mess.

 

Ms. Augustine:

If you look at the numbers I gave you (Exhibit I), the number of refunds we are currently issuing over $100 is over 100,000 refunds per year. That is a huge amount of refunds. Our estimate for 2003 is that we will issue 116,000 refunds. As I said, if we are only looking at 5 percent, for checks over $100, it is still 913 refunds, not 100 refunds as Assemblywoman McClain stated. I do not think the committee realizes the magnitude and the number of refunds we are issuing. Take a look at the numbers for 2002. There were 101,019 refunds processed. The cost to the State was over $4.4 million. We are talking about a huge amount of money here.

 

Senator Nolan:

There are two perspectives on this. The DMV perspective is this is a cost to the State. The perspective of the Legislature, which enacted this 4 years ago was, this is money that was due back to the people who registered the vehicle.

 

Ms. Augustine:

This does not affect credits. People would be able to apply credits when they purchase vehicles and transfer their registrations to new vehicles.

 

Senator Nolan:

Are there any questions or comments from the committee?

 

Senator Carlton:

I am still a little confused. You will be distributing fewer refunds; therefore, it will cost your department less for distribution. How could you have a positive fiscal note when you are going to keep more money?

 

Ms. Augustine:

Because, if you will look at the attachment (Exhibit I), the number of the refunds processed have been going up from over 70,000 in FY 2001 to over 100,000 last year to 116,000 this year. Yes, the numbers do go down if you are only looking at 5 percent of the total. Instead of 100,000 checks being issued, we are looking at over 900 checks. We are still looking at a $111,000 hit. We are still going to be refunding, even if you are only looking at 5 percent of the total number of checks over $100.

 

Senator Carlton:

I guess it is just the semantics, Mr. Vice Chairman. It seems if we are going to be giving away less money, and it seemed to me the huge issue that I read about in the papers and the discussion points was the fact we are spending more on writing a check than the check is worth. Most of the checks were in that smaller range, if I remember the graph correctly. I see a significant savings at the $100 level. I think we need to take into account in the fiscal note how many checks will not be written, and deduct the cost of those checks so we can compare those two numbers. I think that would be a reasonable equation to resolve.

 

Ms. Augustine:

The difference would be $4.4 million versus $111,000. Instead of refunding $4.4 million in checks over $100, we are only going to be refunding approximately $111,000.  We are still going to be doing refunds so there is still a fiscal hit.

 

Senator Carlton:

So you have come down to $111,000 and you still have a fiscal note?

 

Ms. Augustine:

Of course there is we are still refunding checks. We need to account for the checks we are refunding.

 

Senator Nolan:

We will close the public testimony on this bill; my interest is in seeing the bill pass. It has two very important components. I think addressing the registration aspect of this is critical and I understand the concerns of the controller’s office with respect to that. We have an amendment that should work. I understand, Ms. Augustine, the bullet points in here, those are also sound, according to Assemblywoman McClain’s testimony, those were important issues for the Assembly Committee on Transportation to put in the bill. We will end up in a conference committee, but I do not want to lose the bill over those sticking points because the other aspects are critical and tie into another bill we have in the Senate Committee on Finance. I think if the committee is ready to process this bill, we will take a motion.

 

Senator Carlton:

I was out of the room during part of this testimony, but was the cost of insuring a vehicle before you get it registered discussed?

 

Senator nolan:

The discussion was on two proposed amendments. Assemblywoman McClain’s and one we drafted on behalf of the DMV. Assemblywoman McClain agreed to the amendment of the DMV because the other amendment proposed would cause the staff to go back and do more work on this bill. I committed to work with Assemblywoman McClain on this because of the small fiscal note.

 

Senator Carlton:

I understand that Mr. Vice Chairman, I was wondering whether, within that discussion of the 30 days, the point was brought up that in order to register a vehicle you must have insurance. A lot of times insurance companies will not allow a new resident to pay for insurance month by month; they ask you to pay for 6 months up-front. I wanted to know if that had been put on the record. If it has not, I would like it to be put on the record now that is not an intended burden, but it is one of the technical things that happen to people when they register their vehicles. That is another check a person has to write in order to complete this whole process.

Senator Nolan:

That is current law. Let us make sure we have Senator Carlton’s concerns of the additional cost associated with that 30-day window on the record. Include her concerns that new residents not only face the cost of their licenses and registrations but also the insurance, which must be brought along at the time the vehicle is registered.

 

Mr. Thomas:

A point of clarification on that issue is, if you come from another state and you have insurance from a nationally know carrier, you are not going to be paying more money. All you are required to do is have a Nevada underwriter. You already have your vehicle insured; all you are doing now is getting an underwriter in this State.

 

Senator Carlton:

With all due respect, when I moved here, there were not many companies writing insurance policies in this State. We are still competing and trying to get insurance companies to come into this State. If your insurance company is not licensed to do business here, when you drive across the border and become a resident you have to go out and find a new insurance company. I had 3 months’ worth of insurance left on my vehicles in another state but could no longer use it. I had to purchase new insurance here. There was no rebate. I did not realize the insurance company I carried was not licensed to do business in Nevada. We have had problems with insurance companies staying in this State. This is definitely something we need to discuss. It is a burden for the consumer having to deal with that particular issue. I want to get all those things on the record.

 

Senator Nolan:

Do we have a motion?

 

SENATOR HARDY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 30 WITH THE AMENDMENT FROM THE DMV (EXHIBIT H), MS. AUGUSTINE TO PREPARE A REVISED FISCAL NOTE USING THE 5 PERCENT NUMBERS.

 

SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR CARLTON VOTED NO., SENATORS AMODEI AND SCHNEIDER WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

 

*****

 

Senator Nolan:

If there is no further business to come before the committee, we will close the hearing at 4:02 p.m.

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                                                           

Sherry Rodriguez,

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                                                                                         

Senator Raymond C. Shaffer, Chairman

 

 

DATE: