MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Transportation
Seventy-second Session
May 8, 2003
The Senate Committee on Transportation was called to order by Chairman Raymond C. Shaffer, at 2:11 p.m., on Thursday, May 8, 2003, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was videoconferenced to the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Room 4412, 555 East Washington Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer, Chairman
Senator Dennis Nolan, Vice Chairman
Senator Mark Amodei
Senator Warren B. Hardy II
Senator Terry Care
Senator Maggie Carlton
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Michael Schneider (Excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblywoman Vonne Stout Chowning, Assembly District No. 28
Assemblyman Roderick (Rod) R. Sherer, Assembly District No. 36
Assemblyman Kelvin D. Atkinson, Assembly District No. 17
Assemblyman Ronald (Ron) L. Knecht, Assembly District No. 40
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Marsheilah Lyons, Committee Policy Analyst
Sherry Rodriguez, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
John Sande III, Lobbyist, Nevada Franchised Auto Dealers Association
Russ Benzler, Administrator, Compliance Enforcement Division, Department of Motor Vehicles
Patricia Jarman-Manning, Commissioner, Consumer Affairs Division, Department of Business and Industry
Silvio Rodriguez, Compliance Audit Investigator II, Consumer Affairs Division, Department of Business and Industry
Andres Ramirez
Tony F. Sanchez, Lobbyist, President, Latin Chamber of Commerce/Southern Nevada
Richard Daly, Lobbyist, Laborers International Union of North America Local 169
Robert Wideman, Major, Nevada Highway Patrol, Department of Public Safety
Chairman Shaffer:
We will open the hearing with testimony on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 221.
ASSEMBLY BILL 221 (1st Reprint): Revises requirements concerning consignment of vehicles. (BDR 43-215)
Assemblywoman Vonne Stout Chowning, Assembly District No. 28:
Assembly Bill 221 is a measure similar to one Senator O’Connell had. She was kind enough to disregard her bill and go with the lengthier bill we are presenting today. I would like her name amended onto the bill as a cosponsor.
This bill is brought to fix a problem that is not very common, but when it occurs to a consumer, it is a very costly problem. When someone takes his or her vehicle to a dealer to be sold on consignment everything goes great if that dealer is not in financial trouble. If there is financial trouble, the lenders come in to repossess the property of that dealership; the person’s vehicle is snatched up along with that property. There is a story Assemblyman Sherer will tell you about concerning a woman who lost her vehicle.
We have encountered no opposition to this bill. This bill is to rectify from this point forward that a person’s vehicle could not be taken in the process of repossessing a consignment lot. On page 2 of the bill you see language regarding the secretary of state. A person can file the Uniform Commercial Code form with the secretary of state. This sets aside and says to the whole world, this property is privately owned; this property may not be taken by anyone else if there is financial trouble.
It also requires the dealer assist the consignee in filling out the proper paperwork. They must file it with the secretary of state and therefore the consumer is totally protected because the dealer is helping in filing the form. It also very clearly says to the consumer that if you do not file this form, you may lose your vehicle through no fault of your own. It has a place for a signature and date so the person cannot say in the future, “I do not remember doing that,” or “I do not remember filing that.”
It is a very thoroughly thought-out solution to the problem. On behalf of the consumers of Nevada and vehicle dealers who are in support of this, I would strongly urge your support.
Chairman Shaffer:
Are there any questions from the committee?
Senator Nolan:
I want to be clear. I thought we passed Senator O’Connell’s bill. Did she withdraw her bill and is now allowing us to carry this bill? Is that what happened?
Assemblywoman Chowning:
Yes. Senator O’Connell said she would agree to withdraw her bill and allow this bill to be the vehicle for the solution.
Chairman Shaffer:
We will amend this bill to add Senator O’Connell’s name as a cosponsor.
Assemblyman Roderick (Rod) R. Sherer, Assembly District No. 36:
I would like to thank Assemblywoman Chowning for introducing this bill on behalf of my constituent, Mrs. Huckleberry. Mrs. Huckleberry’s husband died and she decided to sell his car. She put it on consignment with a dealer who then went into bankruptcy. When she testified in Las Vegas, she had the title and car keys, but did not have a car. That is a pretty hard thing to deal with. I would appreciate a quick passage so no one else has to go through that.
Chairman Shaffer:
Is there anyone else wishing to testify in favor of this bill?
John Sande III, Lobbyist, Nevada Franchised Auto Dealers Association:
We support this legislation.
Russ Benzler, Administrator, Compliance Enforcement Division, Department of Motor Vehicles:
The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) strongly supports this legislation. We believe it is another tool to protect consumers against unscrupulous or irresponsible businesses. We would urge you to pass this bill.
Chairman Shaffer:
If there is no other testimony we will close the hearing on A.B. 221 and open the hearing on A.B. 223.
ASSEMBLY BILL 223 (1st Reprint): Requires certain vehicle dealers to provide copies of certain documents translated into Spanish for viewing by purchaser or prospective purchaser of motor vehicle under certain circumstances. (BDR 43-941)
Assemblyman Kelvin D. Atkinson, Assembly District No. 17:
Assembly Bill 223 requires car dealerships to have contracts available in the Spanish language if the transaction is being conducted in Spanish. Currently, dealerships are advertising in the Spanish language and conducting vehicle sales transactions in Spanish using translators. The contract documents those Spanish-speaking customers sign are all in the English language. Individuals are being exploited every day because they do not understand what they are signing. If an individual purchases a car, that person should have the opportunity to review his or her contract in a language they understand without having to have someone translate it. This is a good piece of legislation.
I have a case of a Spanish-speaking person who purchased a vehicle and did not understand what he was signing. We know that dealerships do not make money off the base price of cars; the money is made from the upgrades and extras that are attached. This individual was charged an additional $6500 in upgrades without his knowledge because he did not understand the contract. The individual took that dealership to court and he prevailed.
Currently Nevada is fifth in the nation when it comes to Hispanics living in our State. That means 20 percent of the people in our State are of Latino origin, and that number is growing. When 20 percent of our population speaks a different language, we need to take a serious look at the consequences of depriving customers of their right to valuable information in a language they understand.
The practice of advertising in Spanish to lure Spanish-speaking individuals in, and then subsequently not offering the customer a contract in his or her language, in my opinion, is a bad business practice. This bill not only protects the buyer, it also protects the seller. This bill removes any doubt that an individual is not clear on what he or she is signing. This is a good consumer bill and it is important to the Spanish-speaking constituency in my district. I believe we, as Legislators, have the responsibility to protect the consumer. This bill is another tool in an effort to accomplish this. I urge your support.
Chairman Shaffer:
Are there any questions from the committee?
Senator Care:
In the event we have subsequent witnesses, I would like to note that this bill passed out of the Assembly 42 to 0; I take it there was no opposition.
Assemblyman Atkinson:
There was no opposition. It passed unanimously out of the Assembly Committee on Transportation.
I want to make that clear because there seems to be a misunderstanding in what we were trying to accomplish. The only document we are trying to have available in the Spanish language is the actual sales contract. This is the document showing what the individual is paying for and what are the terms. That is the contract we are talking about. To me it is pretty clear; if an individual in the auto dealership business is conducting business in Spanish so that the customer can understand, then that business transaction should also be written in the Spanish language. If an individual requests a contract written in Spanish, because they do not understand the written English language, then a good business practice, in my opinion, is to be able to offer that to them. A vehicle is typically your second major purchase; you should be able to understand your contract.
Chairman Shaffer:
Is there a fiscal note?
Assemblyman Atkinson:
We do not have a fiscal note. I know there is going to be costs associated with translating the contract. I have received a commitment from Professor White at the community college to assist us with that. I have heard from a few people who are going to offer to take care of this expense. I am open to that.
Chairman Shaffer:
Is there any one else wishing to testify on A.B. 223?
Assemblywoman Chowning:
I am in support of A.B. 223. If you were at a dealership and someone said “Aqui tenemos un carro tan bonito y solamente cuesta veinte‑tres mil dolares.” (When translated it means: “Here we have such a pretty car and it only costs $23,000.”) Imagine how you would feel if you did not have a clue of what they were saying. That is the situation this bill addresses.
Look at the words on page 1. The words only apply to vehicle dealers who advertise Spanish is spoken at his place of business or who conducts business by communicating in Spanish. If the dealer or sales person only communicates in English, this would not apply. Any of you who have watched Saturday morning television and tuned into a channel in Spanish, you will see that the only means of communication to get people to come to certain dealerships is done in Spanish. There are no words spoken in English in those advertisements.
This is not a bill that is heavy-handed by saying everyone has to translate his or her contracts into Spanish. It is not a bill that is trying to change our national language from English to Spanish. This bill is only saying that if you choose to conduct your business in another language, which the majority of the minority language in our State is Spanish, then you must provide a copy of the legal document to be signed in that language. It does not take the place of the legal document in court; that is still the English document. As stated by Assemblyman Atkinson, a vehicle is the second most expensive item, usually, that a consumer will purchase. I think this is a good, reasonable, well‑thought‑out, consumer-protection piece of legislation. I urge your support. “Por favor vote si. Gracias.” (When translated it means: “ Please vote yes. Thank you.”)
Chairman Shaffer:
Is there anyone else wishing to testify on A.B. 223?
Patricia Jarman-Manning, Commissioner, Consumer Affairs Division, Department of Business and Industry:
We fully support this legislation. It is long overdue. We have had many consumers with similar complaints and issues as was presented today. I purchased a car in the last few months, I went to eight different dealers. I purposely asked them if they had a bilingual person on staff. All of them had someone there. Whether they advertised it or not, they had someone that spoke Spanish. Mr. Rodriguez would like to give you a summary of some of the cases we have had, so you can get an idea of the impact of ramifications that happen when you do not have the language explained into Spanish.
Silvio Rodriguez, Compliance Audit Investigator II, Consumer Affairs Division, Department of Business and Industry:
I am the only bilingual investigator with the Consumer Affairs Division. This means I get to see firsthand the reasons why A.B. 223 is so important. I would like to share with you a couple of examples where it would make a difference for those contracts to be translated into Spanish.
I have had consumers file complaints of being misled because they ended up purchasing an extended warranty contract without realizing it. I had one Hispanic consumer tell me she was specifically told that a car she had bought had a warranty on it, but in fact, when I read the contract, it specifically said she had no warranty at all.
It makes sense if a sales pitch is made in Spanish that subsequent contracts and other documents should be written in Spanish so the buyer knows exactly what he or she is agreeing to buy, and has an understandable record of the purchase. I firmly believe A.B. 223 is not only good for the consumer but good for car dealerships as well. The buyer would have a contract the person could understand; a better understanding of the contract would translate into fewer complaints against car dealerships. On behalf of all the consumers who have not yet been fortunate enough to learn English, I want to thank you for considering A.B. 223.
Andres Ramirez:
I am here in support of A.B. 223. I have written testimony to be entered in the record (Exhibit C).
Mr. Sande:
We agree with the concept of A.B. 223. We have absolutely no problem with it. There is one amendment we think needs to be made. We are concerned with Retail Installment Contracts. If someone buys a car and is going to pay it off over a period of time, that is regulated by Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 97.297 through NRS 97.301. Under Nevada law there is one form used for a Retail Installment Contract on a vehicle that is prepared by the commissioner of financial institutions. The bill, as it reads now, basically says each dealer would go and translate the document. You could have different translations based upon who did it. We are proposing that you amend the bill to include a provision in NRS 97.297 through NRS 97.301, requiring the commissioner of financial institutions to obtain a translation into Spanish the form that has been prepared by regulation and that all vehicle dealers in the State currently use. The form would be consistent for all dealerships and all vehicle sales.
The way I understand this would be when a dealership advertised that Spanish is spoken or negotiations are conducted in Spanish, the dealer would fill out an English contract but would give a translation of the contract form to the buyer before he or she signs the translated document would enable the buyer to understand exactly what the English contract is saying. We think that makes sense.
I would like to point out two things. One, we do not think it makes sense to have another sign in our businesses. For example, we already send out a buyers’ guide in Spanish. We get cluttered up with signs. There are a lot of other important things out there from a purchaser’s standpoint. We would like to have that deleted. There is going to be a fiscal note on this bill. Tony Sanchez, who is in my law firm and also head of the Latin Chamber of Commerce in southern Nevada, has given me an estimate. I want to let the committee know that my clients are agreeable to paying the costs for the translation into Spanish. We will reimburse the Division of Financial Institutions for the translation costs if this bill is passed.
Chairman Shaffer:
Are there any questions from the committee?
Senator Carlton:
Mr. Sande, did you discuss this with the sponsor of the bill on the Assembly side?
Mr. Sande:
Yes. When the bill originally came out it was confusing as to whether or not the original contract had to be in Spanish. We had major problems with that because it would mean you would have a Spanish contract being used by dealerships that would have no idea of what it said. We are okay with the bill with the exception that we want a uniform Spanish contract that could be provided to a prospective purchaser. I think Mr. Sanchez is okay with that. In reference to the part about us paying for it, we decided to do that so you would not have a fiscal note to worry about.
Chairman Shaffer:
That is very generous.
Mr. Sande:
We believe this is good for the customer and good for the dealer.
Chairman Shaffer:
Is there anyone else wishing to testify?
Tony F. Sanchez, Lobbyist, President, Latin Chamber of Commerce Southern Nevada:
We are the largest Hispanic organization in Nevada with close to 1200 members. We are in support of this bill. It is true there is a lot of Spanish language advertising that does go on. As a business chamber it is something we want to help facilitate and that is why we feel the concept here is a good one. I think we are starting to see an involvement of sales practices, which are beneficial to our State businesses as well as our residents. We would be happy to do any thing we can do to help facilitate that.
Chairman Shaffer:
If there are no questions from the committee we will close the hearing on A.B. 223.
I would like to go back to A.B. 221 and see if we can move this bill. Does the committee want to make a motion?
SENATOR CARLTON MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 221.
SENATOR NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED. (SENATORS CARE AND SCHNEIDER WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Shaffer:
We will now go into the work session beginning with A.B. 444.
ASSEMBLY BILL 444 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes relating to traffic laws. (BDR 43-1098)
Marsheilah Lyons, Committee Policy analyst:
Assembly Bill 444 is an act relating to traffic laws; authorizing vehicles used by the Department of Transportation 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 flagmen under certain circumstances; providing penalties; and other matters properly relating thereto.
Further explanation has been provided for the committee’s review (Exhibit D) and a mock-up (Exhibit E) has also been provided.
Chairman Shaffer:
Are there any questions from the committee?
Senator Carlton:
I need to make sure I understand amendments 1 and 2 (Exhibit D). Do they work together or do they contradict each other?
Ms. Lyons:
They work together.
Chairman Shaffer:
Do we have the votes to move this bill?
Senator Carlton:
Are we going to discuss the new amendment under amendment number 6, since we have not discussed that issue before?
Chairman Shaffer:
Assemblyman Knecht is here to talk about that amendment.
Assemblyman Ronald (Ron) L. Knecht, Assembly District No. 40:
Amendment 6 is a simple provision that would allow people to do what 78 percent of us currently do. When turning left onto a street with a center lane, people use that center lane to turn into and wait there until they are able to merge into the traffic in the direction they want to go. This was something that Sean Carter of Carson High School brought to my attention and was proposed as part of his project for his government class. I said I would be happy to carry such a bill. I think it makes good sense. Mr. Carter did the research; he sat at three different intersections, counted cars and observed the behavior. What he found was that 78 percent of us are already doing this when we need to do so. That is not necessarily a good reason to make it law. It is, however, a law in other states such as California. They have center lanes you may turn into and move no more than 200 feet. That is what we are proposing. We proposed this because it is already a standard practice and a good one. It is the current practice of people and I believe it to be safer, although it is a matter of judgment, people be allowed to do this.
Senator Carlton asked if I had concurrence from Assemblywoman Chowning. I do not have her concurrence, yet. I had asked her a moment ago if we could get together and talk about this, and she said we would discuss it after the meeting. Obviously she was not aware this bill was going to be in the work session this afternoon. It was presented to the Assembly Committee on Transportation. There were various concerns, which we tried to address, but essentially we ran out of time and it did not pass. I believe we have a good bill. We had numerous representatives of law enforcement unions, the Washoe County School District, and others who testified that they need this and support it.
The only opposition came from the Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP). The NHP had some concerns about the 200-foot limit within the center lane, which is the standard language for implementing this procedure. Major Wideman is here and is able to express the NHP’s current position. I think it is a good measure for the reasons I have described. Thank you for your consideration.
Chairman Shaffer:
Are there any comments or questions from the committee?
Senator Carlton:
I want to go on record that when Assemblyman Knecht approached me and explained this I realized I had taught my daughters how to do this, to drive safely in southern Nevada. The Assembly did vote on this bill. I want to make it clear that a vote was held and the bill was lost in the Assembly. I am not sure if I am going to be able to support this amendment, even though I believe it is good. I will have to consider the fact that the Assembly Committee on Transportation made that decision. The ultimate sponsor of the bill to which this amendment would be added, and the person who has the most at stake, is Mr. Daly. I would like him to come up and let me know what he thinks.
Richard Daly, Lobbyist, Laborers International Union of North America Local 169:
The first I heard about this was today. The bill has had several amendments and attachments. I obviously have a concern with this bill having been addressed and actually being voted on in the Assembly. At this point I do not want to jeopardize the bill. I am not here to tell the committee anything other than we do not want to jeopardize the bill. The Assembly did make their wishes known.
Chairman Shaffer:
I believe you were going to talk with Assemblywoman Chowning; did you have that opportunity?
Mr. Daly:
Yes, I spoke with Assemblywoman Chowning in the hallway; she said she was not notified that this was going to be in today’s work session. She said it did get a vote in her committee.
Chairman Shaffer:
We are going to hold this bill until we get this straightened out. We do not want to jeopardize your bill. You have put a lot of work into the bill and you have been here several times trying to get it right. I am sure Assemblyman Knecht does not want to jeopardize it either. If you have anyone else with objections, and after you speak with Assemblywoman Chowning, let us know.
Mr. Daly:
I have reviewed the rest of the amendments proposed and I have no objections to those.
Assemblyman Knecht:
Had I known it was Mr. Daly’s bill, I would have already been in touch with him. I will discuss it with him as well.
Chairman Shaffer:
I would like to take testimony from the police officer who is here with us today and anyone else who would like to testify in opposition to A.B. 444. We are talking about the bill without amendment 6.
Robert Wideman, Major, Nevada Highway Patrol, Department of Public Safety:
At an earlier hearing on April 24, 2003, Captain Davenport of our office testified and distributed research information related to section 1 of the bill. Section 1 concerns the blue lights. We continue to oppose that particular amendment although we support the other sections of the bill originally introduced relating to the safety of highway workers. We believe blue lights do not necessarily provide better visibility under stormy conditions. They do provide better visibility than red lights at night. Red lights provide better visibility in the day than the blue lights; neither of them provides as good a visibility as amber lights or yellow‑green lights. That is the premise of the research material provided.
I sense there is a feeling that blue lights make people slow down because they think it is an emergency vehicle. However, having had a great deal of experience in operating emergency vehicles on the side of roadways, I can tell you that does not work. The number of police vehicles hit on the side of roadways, which are displaying red and blue lights, is substantial. If those red and blue lights were not required to be on the vehicles by law, we probably would not have them. In fact, we instruct our personnel when they are on the side of the road and not attempting to stop vehicles, to turn off the red and blue lights and only use the amber lights on the back of the vehicles that direct traffic. Amber lights are more visible and are safer. We think the Nevada Department of Transportation vehicles would benefit from this as well.
Chairman Shaffer:
If there is no other testimony we will close the work session on A.B. 444 and go to 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)
Ms. Lyons:
Assembly Bill 394 is an act relating to traffic laws; revising the provisions governing the removal by a police officer of a vehicle or part of a vehicle from a highway to a garage or other place of safekeeping; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Further explanation has been provided for the committee’s review (Exhibit F) and a mock-up (Exhibit G) has also been provided.
The mock-up contains one proposed amendment, which removes liability from the police officer for vehicles and items in vehicles after the vehicle has been released to the tow company. The amendment on page 2 of the mock-up (Exhibit G) was proposed by Gary Wolff.
Chairman Shaffer:
Are there any questions from the committee?
Senator Carlton:
I received a letter from a constituent about an incident regarding when she needed to have her car towed. She was quoted a price at the scene. She did not have cash or a credit card at the time, and they would not take a check. When she went to get the vehicle later, the price had almost tripled between the time they removed it from the highway and when she went to pick it up. That has nothing to do with the police; it is strictly with the tow company. I was wondering if there are any restrictions, pricing guides, or requirements the tow companies chosen for this rotating service list are supposed to follow. The consumer needs to get the information. The consumer is sort of held hostage with his or her car broken down by the side of the road. The vehicle has to be moved or a ticket is issued. The vehicle ends up in a tow yard with a price tag on it different than what was quoted when it was sitting on the side of the road. Was that issue discussed at all?
Chairman Shaffer:
There was no detailed discussion regarding prices. The price would depend upon whether they are in the metropolitan area or outside the area. I am sure there is a price list. You must establish a price before you remove the car. We will find out.
Chairman Shaffer:
We will hang onto this until we get more information.
Senator Carlton:
I have no objection to moving the bill. If I have any other concerns, I would be glad to discuss it with the committee beforehand and then address it on the Senate Floor. I do not want to hold up Assemblyman Goldwater’s bill. I was just curious whether that had been discussed or whether it was part of this issue. I have no concerns with the bill at all. I am in support of the bill; so, if you would like to move the bill, I would be happy to make the motion.
Chairman Shaffer:
I think we will hang onto it until we get some more information. I am also curious about this. There will be no action on A.B. 394 today. The hearing is now adjourned at 3:12 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Sherry Rodriguez,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer, Chairman
DATE: