MINUTES OF THE
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Sixty-seventh Session
May 17, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Transportation was called to order by Chairman Larry L. Spitler, at 1:15 p.m., on Monday, May 17, 1993, in Room 331 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Larry L. Spitler, Chairman
Mr. Val Z. Garner, Vice Chairman
Mr. Bernie Anderson
Mrs. Vonne Chowning
Mr. Tom Collins, Jr
Mr. William D. Gregory
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Mr. James W. McGaughey
Mr. Louis A. Toomin
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman Scott Scherer, District 2
Senator Hal R. Smith, District 1
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Kerry Carroll-Davis, Senior Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ed Stillion, First Step Traffic Program
Sandra Mueller, Las Vegas Municipal Court
Roxane Clark-Murphy, Las Vegas Municipal Court
Sandy Heverly, MADD, Clark County
Judge Kelly O. Slade, Las Vegas Justice Court
Judge Jack Lehman, Nevada District Judges Association
Orland Outland
Randy Day, Commissioner, Commission on Veterans Affairs
Caren Jenkins, Senior Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau
Chairman opened the meeting with a request for approval of minutes for meetings held April 7, 1993 through May 3, 1993.
MR. TOOMIN MOVED TO APPROVE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES FROM APRIL 7, 1993 THROUGH MAY 3, 1993.
MR. GARNER SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
(MR. MCGAUGHEY AND MR. COLLINS WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF VOTE.)
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 497: Limits in certain counties, period for which vehicle may be used as taxicab.
MR. GARNER MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 497.
MR. TOOMIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED BY A MAJORITY VOTE. (MR. COLLINS VOTED NAY.)
Chairman Spitler informed the committee it was his intent to not have bills referred to committee after Monday, May 24, 1993, unless it was an emergency measure; however, the intent would not apply to resolutions. He offered assistance in getting bills out of bill drafting, but stated he would limit what bills would be heard with the wind down of session.
Chairman requested a committee introduction for BDR 9-1998, an act relating to statutory liens providing for a lien on trailers. A introduction was also requested for BDR 20-1939, an act requested by Clark County extending the authority of counties to establish parking facilities and spaces. A third introduction was requested for BDR 43-672, an act making various changes in regulations with dealers and other enterprises related to motor vehicles. A final introduction was requested for BDR R-2067, an Assembly Concurrent Resolution urging the public service commission to lead participation in the pilot program for the alliance of uniform hazardous material transportation procedures.
MR. ANDERSON MOVED FOR A COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION FOR BDR'S 9- 1998, 20-1939, 43-672 AND R-2067.
MR. GARNER SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 457: Allows person who is required to attend educational course for driving under influence of alcohol to attend any school approved by department of motor vehicles and public safety.
Assemblyman Scott Scherer, District 2, testified in support of the bill. He stated A.B. 456 arose from a recent decision by Clark County to open its own DUI and traffic safety school and refer everyone convicted to attend the county school. Prior to the decision, Mr. Scherer stated a number of private schools licensed by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) existed in Clark County. He stated license fees for the private schools were increased in order to give DMV sufficient revenue to regulate the private schools. By opening their own school and referring most clients to that school, Mr. Scherer stated that decision left only the Henderson, North Las Vegas, and Boulder City schools and put a number of private schools out of business. In addition to paying the increased fees (fees which sometimes reached $500/year depending on the type of school), Mr. Scherer stated some of the schools had to forfeit leases on their facilities and the fees were simply a loss. Mr. Scherer summarized the bill basically said someone sentenced to attend an educational program for DUI school would have a choice to attend any licensed school. A number of reasons existed to allow private schools to operate, including allowing a person convicted of DUI whose driver's license had been suspended, to attend the licensed school most convenient to them as they might be unable to obtain transportation to the county's or city's program. Mr. Scherer stated DMV did have authority to revoke the license if schools were not complying with its standards.
Mr. Scherer stated in drafting the bill, an oversight had omitted the traffic safety school from being included in the bill and urged an amendment to correct the omission. Mr. Scherer was given two reasons for action taken by the county. The first reason were allegations some of the schools were not run correctly or did not provide adequate programs. Mr. Scherer informed the committee steps were taken to correct the allegations last session as fees were increased and DMV was given a stronger mandate to enforce the standards against the schools. Mr. Scherer felt if a problem did exist, the solution was through stricter regulation and not putting schools out of business. Mr. Scherer stated the second reason given for the county's action was money was needed to fund the drug court program. Mr. Scherer stated although he supported the drug court program and he was willing to work to find other sources in funding the drug court program, he did not feel putting businesses out of business during a time of recession was the appropriate manner to go about funding a county program. Mr. Scherer stated schools he had worked with were willing to pay assessments and willing to be taxed to support the drug court; however, those suggestions fell onto deaf ears. He stated at a time when a governmental movement toward privatization and less centralization was taking place, the county action was a step in the wrong direction. Mr. Scherer felt the State Industrial Insurance System (SIIS) exemplified what happened when government had a monopoly. He felt it was important competition be provided. He stated private schools were not opposed to the county being licensed as they were, but they were opposed to a virtual monopoly by the fact all clients were referred only to the county school. He stated private schools were placed in a situation where they were not even allowed to compete. He urged support for A.B. 457.
Chairman Spitler asked what portion of the bill Mr. Scherer's proposed amendment would fall under. Mr. Scherer stated his bill dealt with a particular section of the statute on courses of abuse of alcohol and controlled substances. He recommended a similar amendment be made to another section of the statute which dealt with traffic safety schools. He briefly explained the demerit system in relation to attending traffic safety schools.
Mr. Collins asked proposed funding alternatives to maintain the drug court, yet keeping the private schools in business. Mr. Scherer mentioned a few possibilities might be 1) have the offenders who attend the schools pay an assessment which would be remitted to the county or city, depending on the jurisdiction, 2) have the schools themselves pay a portion of that assessment, or 3) have the drug offenders, those using the drug court, pay an assessment. He also suggested a number of assessments were in place and perhaps those already established might be earmarked to fund the drug court.
Mr. McGaughey asked for further clarification on assessments. Mr. Scherer explained for each offense committed, an administrative assessment was already imposed for each conviction that went to support the court system and related programs. He suggested part of the assessment could be earmarked or the assessments could be increased on particular types of cases, in particularly drug cases for support of the drug court. Mr. McGaughey asked if schools were willing to pay into the program. Mr. Scherer stated schools were willing to make a reasonable contribution. Mr. McGaughey asked if the private schools might increase the fees if they were to pay into the program. Mr. Scherer stated they might want to increase their fees but if it was structured with a cap placed on the fees, the fee would not be too harsh on clients. Mr. McGaughey felt the structure would make it harsh on clients who probably had the inability to pay in the first place. Mr. Scherer stated if competition was eliminated by giving the county a monopoly, and as the drug court became more expensive with increased operating expenses, the county fee would go up regardless. He stated by allowing competition, schools would be on a more reasonable, competitive basis.
Mr. Anderson asked if it would be necessary for DMV to set up new criteria to make the private schools more qualified. Mr. Scherer stated licensing requirements were already in effect in statute for both schools and instructors. Mr. Scherer stated it was his understanding DMV, with the increased funding, had been able to regulate schools.
Ed Stillian, Owner, First Step Traffic Safety Program, stated his program was licensed by DMV's DUI Program and Traffic Safety Division. Elaborating on his extensive 20 year experience in the area of alcohol and drug abuse, Mr. Stillian stated he created his own program for traffic safety in the past four years. Mr. Stillian stated he was put out of business basically on the decision by judges to open their own school. He stated the reason he entered the business was he was told of the terrible conditions of the traffic schools. He felt a good product would obtain good results. Having been in the business for a number of years, he had seen the DUI program evolve to the point of almost "being a joke." He elaborated on how judges referred clients to licensed schools. Some courts were picked by offenders to attend, other courts had only one program, other courts had two or three schools in which they had confidence in. He stated he was currently not allowed to practice at all even though he was licensed by the state of Nevada to provide the service to the state. He felt the county court decision was unfair and felt those offenders arrested should have the opportunity to come forward. Mr. Stillian stated they had discussed how the private schools and county might work the programs together. He did wish to make clear the DUI or traffic safety schools did not oppose the drug court; however, alternative sources did exist to help the court assist people utilizing the court.
Mr. Stillian addressed costs for attending programs. Attending an eight hour DUI program cost from $100 to $150. It was suggested to charge $150 with $25 going toward an administrative school. Mr. Stillian stated by implementing a ratio, courts would be reimbursed for services. Mr. Stillian explained costs in attending traffic safety schools. He commended the court and judges for wanting to support the drug court as the support did not exist in the community a number of years ago. However, Mr. Stillian stated there was a point where the whole community needed to support the program. As an example, he stated his company would be willing to cut profits for the opportunity to make a living. With mediation and open doors, he felt the problem could be addressed. Mr. Stillian said private traffic/DUI schools were not allowed, as a trade, the courtesy of being invited to meetings to discuss the county action. He stated they were willing to run good quality education programs and felt DMV had the mechanism in place to monitor the schools. As a real estate agent, he felt the same standards and ethics practiced as a real estate agent needed to be applied to traffic schools in obtaining licenses. He concluded his testimony by encouraging DMV to evaluate and if schools were not up to par, confront them. He stated there were good schools that existed, but the issue came down to how the programs were being regulated.
Mr. Spitler asked licensing procedures. Mr. Stillian replied the license was issued upon a successful application evaluation.
Mr. Anderson asked school staff composition. Mr. Stillian answered his school consisted of four instructors all qualified by the state. Mr. Anderson interpreted the bill as reading once DMV concurred with the school's standards, the schools was then licensed and established, without necessarily being revisited for an evaluation. Mr. Stillian stated DMV representatives had visited and observed his classrooms.
Answering a question from Mr. Toomin, Mr. Stillian informed the committee First Step Traffic Schools had been in business for four years, including drug abuse counseling. Mr. Toomin asked the time periods allotted for each classroom subject. Mr. Stillian informed the committee of the various provisions in each program such as films, hours of classroom instruction, etc. He did inform the committee watching an hour long movie did not count as an hour toward someone sentenced to 8 hours of DUI school. The average length and attendance per traffic safety class consisted of approximately twenty participants with classes being held approximately thirty times a month at two locations. Dependent upon schedules, DUI class consisted of an eight hour course with an average of thirteen referrals a month even with the current, limited, market access.
Mr. Gregory asked Mr. Stillian his familiarity with the current county's course of instruction and if the course differed significantly from the course Mr. Stillian's school implemented. Mr. Stillian responded he was not familiar with the contents of the county course but assumed there would be no difference.
Sandra J. Mueller, Management Analyst, City of Las Vegas Municipal Court, expressed apologies for the Chief Judge, Seymore Brown, as well as Sandra Scott, Division Chief of Court Counseling, who were unable to attend. From prepared testimony, Mrs. Mueller testified in opposition to the bill (Exhibit C).
Roxane Clark-Murphy, Coordinator, DUI Assessment Center, City of Las Vegas Municipal Court, stated she had seen in the past two years by operating the assessment center that 98 percent of DUI defendants were recidivist and 78 percent of the multiple offenders attended schools other than Las Vegas' Municipal Court school. Mrs. Murphy expounded on responses she received when she questioned clients about other schools they had attended. Examples of responses included: "If you eat properly, you will not get drunk,.." "If you were truly a real drunk, you probably will not be picked up for drinking and driving because real drunks can drive okay while they're drinking..." "I don't know why I got caught, I was told by the DUI school if I drank no more than five drinks I'd be okay.." Mrs. Murphy stated quality control was important. Mrs. Murphy presented other statistics on the 78 percent of the multiple DUI offenders, including 14 percent who had indicated they did not even attend the DUI school but only paid the fees, 85 percent stated they only viewed a movie then discussed it afterwards, while 80 percent reported not receiving any information on traffic laws at all. She stated 44 percent reported not attending the entire mandated eight hour course. Mrs. Murphy relayed her own personal experiences in witnessing other DUI schools in operation. She felt allowing private enterprise to take over DUI schools would result in business being taken away from Las Vegas Muncipal Court. Addressing control on schools, Mrs. Murphy stated DMV had only evalutated the Las Vegas Municipal Court two times in thirteen years and voiced concern that DMV was in a freeze without the necessary manpower needed to evaluate and control DUI schools appropriately. Mrs. Murphy addressed concern for the people who paid assessments and did not receive the quality of education needed. Mrs. Murphy stated there were still over 12,000 DUIs in the state.
Answering a question from Mr. McGaughey, Mrs. Murphy stated .40 was the medically accepted threshold for coma; however, people who were alcoholics had severe liver dysfunctions that allowed them to ingest much more alcohol than the average person.
Mr. Gregory asked if individuals who had attended Las Vegas' Municipal Court schools received the same questioning as those who had attended other schools. Mrs. Murphy replied she asked all clients where they had attended schools before. Mrs. Mueller interjected by stating first time DUI offenders assessed by the DUI assessment center were not referred to the Muncipal Court school but instead referred out to the community for treatment. Mr. Gregory understood there were no private enterprise schools. Mrs. Mueller stated there were still private treatment centers. Mrs. Murphy indicated she received no negative feedback from clients who had attended the Las Vegas Municipal Court DUI school.
Mr. Gregory asked how the Las Vegas Municipal Court School differed in instruction from the private schools. Mrs. Mueller stated the county school gained strength by being accountable to municipal court. Mr. Gregory asked how the instruction differed. Mrs. Mueller stated the municipal courts instruction did not differ from the established guidelines set forth by DMV. Mrs. Murphy interjected by stating the muncipal court was more "beefed-up" by providing counselors to monitor clients through the period in which they attended the school. She explained the clients did not just attend class for eight hours, they had to see a counselor who required clients to attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings and Mothers Against Drunk Driving's victim impact presentations. Ms. Murphy indicated the client's criminal activity was also monitored which provided the judge with a history of the client which assisted him in sentencing.
Mr. Gregory clarified from the testimony given instruction did not differ, but accountability for clients did. Mrs. Mueller agreed. She explained other accountability efforts provided by the municipal court school.
Mr. Collins asked the various classes provided by the municipal court. In conjunction, Mrs. Mueller and Mrs. Murphy replied other classes offered were impulse control, battery, domestic violence and case management. They explained the various locations and class time availability.
Mr. Spitler, asked, for clarification, if specific complaints were lodged by private schools when Las Vegas went to the specific provider arrangement. Mrs. Mueller replied laws were beginning to change when the school was founded. She stated the court did recognize and allowed legitimate requests for clients to attend private schools. Chairman Spitler requested a copy of private schools recognized by the Las Vegas Municipal Court.
Answering a question from Chairman Spitler, Mrs. Mueller stated the DMV's licensing division had conducted only two site visits within the past twelve years. Regarding fly-by-night schools which earlier testimony indicated might exist, Chairman Spitler asked if any complaints were filed with DMV against the schools. Mrs. Murphy stated she did report the school to DMV that she had witnessed as being incompetent, and DMV indicated they would monitor the school to put an end to the unacceptable teaching.
Chairman Spitler asked the amount funded to the drug court generated from fees assessed to the county school, and the cost involved in operating the school. Mrs. Mueller explained the fiscal impact on court operations was approximately $300,000 as other misdemeanor programs existed and most counselors were multi-faceted. She stated to isolate a program to find the cost for that particular program would require some research. Chairman Spitler asked how much it had cost to operate the entire school. Mrs. Muller responded since facilities for the school had already existed, cost was not an issue. Chairman Spitler requested fiscal information regarding costs for operating the school.
Mr. Garner asked what criteria was required by the Las Vegas Municipal Court before private schools received recognition from the court. Mrs. Mueller stated schools which were responsible and provided quality service in a timely manner received recognition. She stated a large number of requests by clients to attend a private school dealt with locations of schools.
Mr. Garner asked the number of clients referred to private schools within the past year. Mrs. Mueller explained she was unable to estimate the number of clients referred and indicated the specific information might not be available.
Chairman reviewed with Mrs. Mueller, information requested by the committee to review. This included: costs involved in operation of the school, fiscal impact of the bill, a list of private schools recognized by Las Vegas Municipal Court, and how much money was generated by people referred by the Las Vegas Municipal Court to the county school. Chairman Spitler stated the last section was needed to compare with the costs in operating the school.
Mr. Garner asked the fees involved in attending the Las Vegas Municipal Court School. Mrs. Mueller explained the assessment for the DUI school was $230 for ten hours, including orientation and traffic school which started at $25 for demerit reduction.
Mrs. Murphy, responding to a question from Mr. Collins, indicated there was no delay in clients attending school.
Mr. Anderson stated earlier testimony indicated the municipal court's school had the ability to have a scope and history on clients that appeared. He asked if private schools had the same information available to them. Mr. Anderson expressed his interest in the funding of the school and learning how the breakdown of other referral programs impacted the total operation of the school. Mrs. Mueller indicated the bill would strongly fiscally impact the court in terms of losing revenue, especially when referrals were at a high rate. Mr. Anderson explained his concern was the purpose of the program was to take care of people with DUI problems who had a need for classes, and not as a funding formula.
Sandy Heverly, Executive Director, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), Clark County Chapter, testified in opposition to the bill. She felt DUI education for offenders was important in helping to reduce recidivism; however, clients not receiving appropriate education left the public to pay the ultimate price with more death and injuries caused by DUI's. She stated a major problem seen with DUI schools was DMV did not appear to have the manpower to effectively monitor all schools on a frequent and regular basis. Mrs. Heverly stated MADD received countless calls from DUI offenders who expressed disappointment and dissatisfaction with DUI schools they had attended. Mrs. Heverly stated one client informed her the school he had attended watched ball games rather than receive instruction. Another situation involved a DUI "crash course." She stated upon investigating the course, she portrayed a DUI client who needed to go to the court the next day. When she called the "crash course" school, they assured her if she went to the school that day, for $150, she would take the crash course in forty five minutes. Mrs. Heverly stated corrective action on the school took several months. When finally resolved, the school was closed down, but she could only speculate the number of clients who attended the school. Mrs. Heverly reiterated the price of ineffective DUI education was paid by the public. Mrs. Heverly stated MADD supported the current city and county DUI education programs as they were believed to be the most effective. She urged the committee to vote no on the bill.
Kelly O. Slade, Las Vegas Justice Court, representing all judges within the township, testified in opposition to the bill. Providing historical insight, Judge Slade indicated how he came about using one school entitled Southern Nevada Drug Abuse Council (SNDAC) which eventually split into two parts, one entitled the Nevada Treatment Center, a non-profit group. He stated he utilized one school to maintain control over what had happened in his courtroom with the confidence his clients would be taken care of. Judge Slade explained various problems experienced by justice courts in letting clients choose schools or not knowing the schools. As a result of continuing problems with the schools, Judge Slade stated a meeting was held two years ago with the judges and Bruce Glover of DMV. Because of the inability to appropriately supervise the schools, Judge Slade stated Mr. Glover urged the judges to initiate their own school. Judge Slade stated this led the judges to approach Clark County to see if they were interested in operating a DUI education program. Judge Slade did state the judges were not interested in where the profits, if any, went as they were only concerned with the quality of education/service that clients received. He stated had the private courts been practicing quality education, justice courts would not have proposed changes. Judge Slade explained various legal opinions were received before starting a DUI school and simultaneously, a funding source was needed for the drug court. Judge Slade expressed his support for the drug court.
Chairman Spitler clarified DMV did recommend the judges initiate their own county school fully aware the county would be an exclusive provider putting private schools out of business. Judge Slade agreed and stated they were aware all along the schools would be put out of business. Although he personally did not have problems with the school he utilized, Judge Slade stated he concurred with the decision based on anecdotal experience and for the benefit of justice court and the public.
Answering a question from Mr. McGaughey, Judge Slade explained the various fees involved with attending the DUI school.
Mr. Anderson asked what alternatives judges would take if confidence did not exist in any of the programs in the community. Judge Slade stated they would look for someone to do the job competently. Mr. Anderson asked what the choice would be if the proposed legislation passed and the judge had no confidence in any of the schools. Judge Slade responded he would have no choice but to send them to the school in which he had no confidence as the bill required the judge to publish a list and hand that list to the client. Judge Slade stated there was no other remedy; although there were schools that would do a good job, he was confident the clients would not choose to attend those schools as they would not be the cheapest.
Judge Jack Lehman, District Court Judge, Eight Judicial District, representing the Nevada District Judge's Association, testified in opposition to the bill. Responding to earlier testimony given by Assemblyman Scherer, Judge Lehman stated Mr. Scherer's request was acknowledged. Judge Lehman stated he contacted Mr. Scherer immediately following an open meeting of the county commission when they voted to open their own school. Judge Lehman stated Mr. Scherer told him private schools would be put out of business. Judge Lehman stated he informed Mr. Scherer he needed about $400,000 to put 400-500 people through the drug court program and was open to any solutions offered. Judge Lehman stated a signed contract guaranteeing the county would fund the drug court program for $400,000 existed. Referencing a proposal to increase the administrative fee, Judge Lehman stated the administrative fee had increased from $10 to $25 in the past five years; however, the district courts received nothing from the fee increase. As far as recommending schools pay a portion, Judge Lehman did not feel the money could be collected.
Judge Lehman agreed with an earlier comment by Mr. Stillion stating the community should support the drug court; however, Judge Lehman stated the program existed now and the support did not exist. Judge Lehman expounded, from prepared testimony (Exhibit D) on the history, evolution, and procedures of the drug court. From the same prepared testimony (Exhibit D), Judge Lehman explained the evolution of the county DUI school.
Mr. Garner stated Judge Lehman indicated $400,000 was needed to run the drug court, and the court serviced approximately 400-500 people which concluded an average cost for each client was less than $100 apiece. He asked the amount people paid to enter the program. Judge Lehman stated the clinic charged $800 for the one year program and the rest of the expense was subsidized by the county DUI school fees.
Mr. Gregory commended the drug court program and indicated he would rather see programs such as Judge Lehman's which helped people; however he was concerned with private schools being put out of business.
Judge Lehman presented a five minute film produced by Channel 13 in Las Vegas on the drug court program.
Judge Nancy Becker, Eighth Judicial District Court, Las Vegas, submitted a letter stating her opposition to the bill and in
light of time, she did not wish to add anything further (Exhibit E).
Assemblyman Scott Scherer, District 2, due to the lateness of the meeting, asked to clarify two points. Pertaining to the position by DMV, Mr. Scherer recommended the committee contact DMV as what DMV had told him and what was represented in earlier testimony today were two different things. Secondly, Mr. Scherer, with all due respect, stated he and Judge Lehman obviously had two very different recollections of their conversations. Mr. Scherer stated he had specifically offered to seek funding; however Mr. Lehman indicated they had nothing to talk about and felt assessments did not have any chance of covering the drug court's shortfall. Mr. Scherer did state he was prepared to submit numbers, which amounted to $300,000 based on the 12,000 DUI's earlier testimony indicated existed. Mr. Scherer felt there were avenues to address the problem and would continue trying to work with Judge Lehman in seeking solutions.
SENATE BILL NO. 95: Authorizes certain persons to waive their exemptions from motor vehicle privilege tax and designate additional amount paid to be credited to fund for veteran's homes.
Randy Day, Commissioner, Commission for Veteran's Affairs, informed the committee the proposed bill had already passed out of the Senate Taxation and Assembly Government Affairs committees. Mr. Day stated the only real issue was the fiscal impact the bill would have. He understood the impact to be very negligible as 95 percent of the homes were kept at the county level with only 5 percent waived or exempted from the state.
Senator Hal R. Smith, District 1, from prepared testimony, voiced support for the bill (Exhibit F).
Chairman Spitler asked what conditions were exempt from the privilege tax fee. Caren Jenkins, Senior Research Analyst, stated Chapter 371 of NRS read wartime veterans were eligible for exemption for motor vehicle privilege tax. She stated the privilege tax amount in most counties was $40, sometimes up to $50 as outlined in Section 2 of the proposed bill. Ms. Jenkins, concurring with a clarification by Chairman Spitler, stated a veteran who was eligible for the exemption could designate all or part of his exemption be applied to the fund.
Chairman Spitler asked what war conflicts were included in this measure. Senator Smith stated the exemption included veterans from all wars except for veterans of Desert Storm.
Mr. Toomin asked if any polls were taken as to the number of veterans who would participate. Ms. Jenkins stated it was an estimate to the extent they were not certain of how many veterans lived in the state. She explained they did know how many veterans took the exemption but did not know how many more might be encouraged to take the exemption. Ms. Jenkins noted the measure, if passed, would provide public information to veterans who were not taking their exemption. She indicated a vast resource was present as 28,110 veterans did use the exemption.
Orland T. Outland, Reno, Nevada testified in support of the bill. He stated a misconception existed among veteran groups that the bill would be mandatory; however, he informed the committee the bill was optional. He informed the committee the exemption could be applied to either a personal property tax or provided to the vehicle tax; however the greater benefit accrued by applying to the automobile registration privilege tax. He stated census figures conflicted as to the number of veterans in the state. One was at 147,000 and another was at 185,000. Mr. Outland presented and discussed informational sheets (Exhibits G,H,I). He urged the committee to approve the bill and to urge the Senate to pass S.B. 236, a bill which also evolved from the interim study currently held up in Senate Finance.
With no further business, Chairman Spitler adjourned the hearing at 3:17 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Carolyn J. Harry
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Transportation
May 17, 1993
Page 1