The Committee on Transportation was called to order at 1:40 p.m., on Tuesday, March 2, 1999. Chairwoman Vonne Chowning presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All Exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mrs. Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall, Vice Chairwoman

Mr. Douglas Bache

Mr. John Carpenter

Mrs. Barbara Cegavske

Mr. Jerry Claborn

Mr. Tom Collins

Mr. Don Gustavson

Ms. Kathy McClain

Mr. David Parks

Ms. Bonnie Parnell

Mr. Kelly Thomas

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mr. Dennis Nolan (Excused)

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Bruce Arkell, Special Projects Coordinator,

Clark County Department of Public Works

Robert Thompson, Chief Engineer, Community Development Division,

Clark County Department of Public Works

Bob Nunes, Director of Community Development, Douglas County

Tom Stephens, Director, Nevada Department of Transportation

Kent Sears, Chief Traffic Engineer, District One Office, Las Vegas,

Nevada Department of Transportation

Chad Dornsife, Representing, National Motorists Association

Colonel Micheal Hood, Chief, Nevada Highway Patrol

Carole Vilardo, Representing, Nevada Taxpayers Association

Mrs. Chowning opened the hearing on A.B. 76.

Bob Ostrovsky, 3M Products and Nevada Commission on Cultural Affairs, began with section 1 of A.B. 76, explaining it would aid in the redesign of the new general issue license plate which was designated to be released in 2001. The Department of Motor Vehicles & Public Safety (DMV & PS) had established a design committee (Exhibit C), on which he sat because of his association with 3M and the Nevada Commission on Cultural Affairs. Through 3M’s contract with the state, they provided services for materials and design assistance of license plates. He offered Exhibit D to the committee to show all current general issue plates in the 50 states. The purpose of section 1 was to allow for colors, other than blue and silver, to be used on general issue plates. He requested the change in the current language because of the success of the Lake Tahoe plate. The change he was proposing was to strike the words "no other color than" and add the words "colors that are predominately blue and silver." The new language would allow for the entry of other colors to enhance the appearance of a new plate dominated by blue and silver. Many other states allowed for a variety of colors on their license plates in an attempt to make a statement to those who saw the plate. Section 1 did not say what the plate would look like, only allow the design committee greater freedom in their decision.

Mr. Ostrovsky, on behalf of Hertz Rental Car Corporation, explained section 2 of A.B. 76 came about because of a problem with certificates of origin (Exhibit E). The certificate of origin was the document which transferred the title from the manufacturer to the dealer or fleet operator. The document would never be seen by any retail customers. The reason Hertz requested the legislation was a little over a year ago DMV & PS determined the method of signature used by Hertz was improper. The law as currently written required all title transfers be signed in pen and ink. The Attorney General’s Office advised the department pen and ink meant the certificates had to be signed by hand. That became a problem for Hertz, who handled around 600,000 cars per year. The DMV & PS suggested Hertz ask the legislature for enabling legislation which allowed DMV & PS to adopt regulations for other forms of signature. The language did not specify the type of signature, but would require the department to determine what was satisfactory.

Mr. Ostrovsky continued the legislation would also assist other large corporations such as Ford Motor Company, since their president could not sign every certificate of origin for every car produced. Included in Exhibit E was a letter from Ford stating they used a laser printer on the certificates which, by law DMV & PS could not accept. Also included in the exhibit was a letter from the United States Department of Transportation which stated,

"…the agency concludes the process of digital scanning and laser printing of the signature of vehicle titles…fulfills the requirements of the Federal odometer disclosure law."

Mr. Ostrovsky wanted to clarify an issue raised in a previous meeting, that of the cost of specialty license plates. Exhibit F showed the cost from 3M, the state contractor, of different license plates. Long runs which were a minimum of 40,000 pairs of plates cost $1.14 per linear foot, 1 linear foot made two plates. On short runs, between 300 to 40,000 pair of plates, the price varied based on the number of colors used in the plate. A one-color plate cost $2.25 per linear foot, while a four-color plate cost $3.46 per linear foot. The Lake Tahoe plate was an example of a four color, short-run plate. There would be no design cost associated with the specialty plate if 3M provided the design, which was part of their contract. What generally occurred with a specialty plate was the group promoting the plate had a design in mind and would work with 3M. Frequently, 3M had to make some color changes because the initial purpose of the plate was to make sure law enforcement could read the numbers, and some of the colors and designs faded the numbers. The man power need and the production at the tag plant added costs to the specialty plates.

Mrs. Chowning asked if the fiscal note presented to the committee, which gave the cost of a new specialty plate at $23,000, would actually be $3,000. Mr. Ostrovsky explained the $23,000 would be the actual cost if the design of the plate had to be paid for, but since 3M was contractually obligated to assist with the design, the cost would be $3,000. He had been in contact with DMV & PS after the fiscal note was presented to clear up any confusion.

Assemblywoman Cegavske expressed concern over the proposed changes in section 2 of the bill. She felt pen and ink meant exactly that, unless specific language could be brought forth on other accepted forms of signature. She could not support the bill as written, because it allowed greater opportunity for fraud. Mr. Ostrovsky explained he had considered adding specific language about acceptable signatures; however, after discussions with DMV & PS he decided not to limit the department to a particular technology. The department would have the authority to adopt whatever appropriate technology applied. He understood the assemblywoman’s concerns and would be willing to work with her on the language.

Mrs. Chowning mentioned the committee would hear from DMV & PS later as to what other types of signature would be acceptable to them.

Assemblyman Carpenter expressed identical concerns as Assemblywoman Cegavske. He also asked if the new plates were predominately blue and silver would a third color be added to make them more attractive. Mr. Ostrovsky indicated that would be the idea. Sample designs had been submitted to DMV & PS, which were blue and silver but also added a sunset across the mountains. The law would have to be changed to allow for other colors. The design on the current plate was hidden; the hope was to create something more outstanding.

Mr. Carpenter wondered if language which addressed the specific problem in section 2 could be developed. Mr. Ostrovsky indicated the language could be changed. He would like to work with committee members, DMV & PS, and the Attorney General’s Office to assure everyone was satisfied.

Mrs. Chowning announced her gratitude for Mr. Ostrovsky’s willingness to work with everyone to fix the problem.

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall asked if a third color was added would the visibility of the plate improve and would the new design act as an advertisement when Nevada drivers were out-of-state. Mr. Ostrovsky declared he hoped the plates would become advertisements. The visibility question was actually one of reflectivity. The law required the plate must be visible from a certain number of feet, which was for law enforcement purposes not aesthetic value. For that reason Colonel Michael Hood was included on the design committee.

Mrs. Chowning requested Mr. Ritchie from DMV & PS come forward to answer the questions raised on section 2, which dealt with accepted forms of signatures. Owen Ritchie, Assistant Chief of Registration, DMV&PS, declared he was not prepared to discuss acceptable methods of signature until he had an opportunity to talk with others in the department.

Mrs. Chowning requested Mr. Ostrovsky remind the committee when the new plates would take effect and asked if the necessary dollars were in Governor Guinn’s recommended budget.

Mr. Ostrovsky explained the new plate was scheduled to be on the road January 1, 2001. The budget contained the appropriate funding for the development and production of the plates. There would be a one-time appropriation from the highway fund, represented in S.B. 342, for $4,928,000. Historically new plates had generated $3 to $4 million in new revenue which went back into the highway fund, thus appropriation would be a temporary loan. One benefit of creating a new general issue plate were vehicles which had avoided registration because of smog pollution laws or insurance requirements would be forced to rectify those problems before receiving a new plate. The DMV & PS felt those vehicles represented around 6 percent of the registered vehicles in Nevada and could generate an additional $3 to $4 million.

Assemblyman Gustavson wondered if a new numbering system was going to be instituted along with the new license plates or if the existing system would be continued. Mr. Ostrovsky remarked there were still plenty of letter and number combinations available and felt the department would continue with the current system. He explained whenever a digit was added it became harder for a law enforcement officer or a citizen to identify the plate, especially if there was a hit-and-run accident.

Mrs. Chowning closed the hearing on A.B. 76 and opened the hearing on

A.B. 182.

James Spinello, Franchise Service Manager, Clark County, explained the legislation was slightly broader than the county had intended, and they had some proposed amendments in the packet (Exhibit G) which would be presented to the committee.

Bruce Arkell, Special Projects Coordinator, Clark County Department of Public Works, read from prepared testimony (Exhibit G). He explained the intent behind A.B. 182 was to establish policies on how the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) would interact with local entities on road improvements and permit issuance. There were two problems with the current arrangement:

1. The counties and NDOT had different design standards on improvements, such as sidewalks and streetlights. However, NDOT did not require the construction of the improvements. An example of the problem created was the lack of a sidewalk on the Flamingo Bridge over Interstate 15, which was the only pedestrian access to the Rio Hotel. If NDOT had been required to conform to local standards a sidewalk would have been constructed and a pedestrian safety issue would have been avoided.

2. Both NDOT and the counties were involved in permit issuance when construction was required on roadways which were under the jurisdiction of both entities. That became problematic because of the different design standards. Robert Thompson would give examples of that.

Mrs. Chowning remarked she had observed pedestrians stranded on the Flamingo Bridge because they had started on one side of a bridge with heavy traffic thinking the sidewalk would continue. She questioned if the Rio was going to correct the problem. Mr. Arkell thought there was a proposal, but NDOT would be able to speak further on the topic. The problem was one of user expectation; signs had been posted stating the sidewalk did not go across the bridge; however, user expectation was the sidewalks would continue, so people ignored the signs.

Mrs. Chowning wondered where the sign was posted. Mr. Arkell did not remember.

Mrs. Chowning voiced a sign did no good once the pedestrians were on the bridge. She asked what the cost to private business was to rectify the problem. Mr. Arkell stated if NDOT did not know he would find the information for the Chair.

Robert Thompson, Chief Engineer, Community Development Division, Clark County Department of Public Works, testified county codes required curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and streetlights be built on developer’s projects and be paid by the developer. Photographs of some of the problems were provided to be used as examples (Exhibit G).

Mr. Thompson continued with the first series of photographs which were of Las Vegas Boulevard North and Puebla and dealt with substandard construction of streetlights. The conflict was the lights were within the state right-of-way; however, the county was required to maintain the lights. The foundations for the lights while meeting state requirements, did not meet county requirements. The developer was required to remove five sets of streetlight bases and replace them to the county codes. There was a constant conflict since the county generally maintained the streetlights and sidewalks, while the state generally maintained the curbs, gutters, and pavement. Every project required two permits; one from the county for what they maintained, and one from the state for what they maintained. Mr. Thompson then moved on to the next series of photographs which were of projects along Las Vegas Boulevard and Rainbow Boulevard. The county required full improvements along the county’s right-of-way; however, the state waived the improvements along their right-of-way. The final photograph was of the intersection of Rainbow Boulevard and Blue Diamond Road. The state required the developer to add the curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and streetlights; however, they waived the pavement adjacent to the curb. At the time there were two lanes of pavement, a 15-foot stretch of gravel, then the gutter and curb.

Mr. Thompson explained the problem was not only occurring in Clark County but throughout the state. Other areas with which the county had been in contact about the problem were Overton and Logandale. Both the county and the state had met with the Chamber of Commerce in the areas because they had an interest in receiving the full improvements the state typically did not offer. Some of the improvements on which the Chamber of Commerce focused were storm drain issues. The county typically handled flows in the streets, while the state did not allow the design. Clark County designed streets for a 10 and 100-year flood criteria, while NDOT required a 25-year flood criteria design. Developers were presented with a minimum of two different criteria which had to be met.

Mr. Arkell continued reading from prepared testimony (Exhibit G). He explained there were problems with the bill as it was written. Clark County felt the bill did not represent the intent of the original bill draft. The county included an amendment in the packet distributed to members which included limiting the request of conformity to counties with populations over 400,000, restricting the roadways covered under the agreement, and addressing the dual permit process. The amendments were drafted after discussions with Tom Stephens, Director, NDOT.

Mr. Arkell mentioned the packet also contained a copy of a 1983 agreement signed between NDOT and Clark County. The agreement consisted of turning over county roads to the state for their maintenance and operation; however, only the paved section of the road was turned over, so everything from the curb line over was left to the local governments to maintain. The situation created was two entities were in charge of the same roadway. NDOT, under Tom Stephens, had worked with the local entities when specific situations arose. The county requested A.B. 182 so the administrative practices set by Mr. Stephens would continue in the future when he would no longer be director.

Mr. Spinello reiterated Mr. Stephens had been extraordinarily helpful during his tenure as director of NDOT. Mr. Stephens had worked with the communities throughout the state to solve the issues. The legislation before the committee would set those practices into policy, so no matter who the future director of NDOT the individual would be required to work with the local governments.

Mrs. Chowning was pleased the two had been working together since Nevada needed a close working relationship between all forms of government in the state. She observed the fiscal note for the legislation was set at $12.5 million. She felt the number would decrease with the proposed amendments and asked Mr. Arkell if he knew what the new figure would be. Mr. Arkell stated he had only seen the fiscal note just before the meeting and was surprised by the large amount. He explained most of the improvements which needed to be repaired would be done at developer expense, but the county would be happy to work with the state to resolve some of the cost.

Mrs. Chowning explained the breakdown of the note was design $1.2 million, right-of-way $600,000, construction $9 million, construction testing $600,000, and maintenance $1.2 million. She stated she would question NDOT on the numbers.

Mr. Collins stated he had observed similar situations as shown in the photographs of Las Vegas Boulevard North on Rancho Road and Cheyenne. The developer tore out five streetlights because they were not installed correctly. He asked if the developer purchased dual permits or did the county issue the permits for the streetlights. Mr. Thompson explained the county issued permits for streetlights and side streets in the county’s right-of-way on typical development projects.

Mr. Collins asked in the case of Puebla and Las Vegas Boulevard if Clark County issued a permit for the streetlights. Mr. Thompson explained the county had.

Mr. Collins remarked the developer should have known to install the lights to the county’s standards. Mr. Thompson informed the committee the county required the developer to remove and replace the lights at their expense.

Mrs. Cegavske called attention to the fact the cities were not included in the language of the bill. She wondered if they needed to be since they were also affected by the problems. Mr. Arkell felt the cities were included in the bill. The intent was the bill would apply to all entities in a county.

Mrs. Cegavske indicated since the bill only referred to county officials the bill should be amended with language that included the city officials. The other concern she had with A.B. 182 was by what authority NDOT was waiving the improvements and if those waivers required the taxpayers to pay twice for the same improvements. Mr. Arkell did not think the taxpayers were paying twice.

Mrs. Chowning expressed the city officials were included in the language of the bill since it said "county officials, including members of regional transportation commissions."

Mrs. Cegavske stated if the improvements were made, then had to be torn out because they did not meet the required standards, the taxpayers were paying twice. Mr. Arkell felt the problem could happen in some cases. But what normally occurred was NDOT would waive the improvement and the county would require the developer to return and install the improvement at a later date.

Bob Nunes, Director of Community Development, Douglas County, suggested A.B. 182 be applied to all counties in Nevada not just those with populations over 400,000. The smaller counties had similar problems to those stated by Clark County. Additionally smaller counties had greater problems with traffic signals. To the best of his knowledge all traffic signals on state highways were maintained by local jurisdictions not by NDOT. The rural areas did not have many signals to maintain, but they still had to hire someone to maintain them. The smaller counties would benefit from the bill since the signals would have to meet local standards, to which the technicians were accustomed.

Tom Stephens, Director, NDOT, testified NDOT was strongly against A.B. 182. The bill would establish the policy of the counties setting the state’s standards. According to the language of the bill the counties would be able to dictate to the state how to construct the roads and how to maintain them. The bill allowed for counties to set policy on all types of NDOT construction. The counties would be able to set standards for United States Highways, major arterials, or newly constructed roads. For example, a county could decide all United States Highways would be four lanes wide. If NDOT wanted to put a highway in the county they then would have to build it to the county standard of four lanes. Almost all major roads in rural counties were NDOT roads and the bill would allow the counties to tell NDOT how to maintain them.

Mr. Stephens continued addressing Clark County’s concerns. He explained most improvements along streets were built by developers. The developers were required to build them as a condition of their development and zoning. NDOT had nothing to do with the zoning areas of Clark County and could not require improvements unless the county had zoned the area for them. On the issue of Rainbow Boulevard, the state could have required a sidewalk to be placed along the road; however, the road was scheduled to be reconstructed with a different elevation in a few years so the requirement was waived. The Flamingo Bridge, which had been held up as a poster child for the county today was built in 1966. At that time there were no sidewalks on either side of the road. The Rio came in much later. NDOT had been working with the Rio to construct a sidewalk and would work with others on similar problems.

Mr. Stephens wondered if there was some expectation on state roads that was not being met. NDOT had over 100 miles of road in Clark County and there were bound to be some problem areas, but the state was willing to work with the county on those problem areas. To establish a policy of the county dictating to the state was not the correct method of solving the problems. The construction standards were also different. The two laboratories had different tests and different structures were used to construct the roads. For example, the county might use a base core 12 inches thick with 3 inches of plant mix on top, while the state might use a 4 inch plant mix over a 6 inch base core. The county mentioned a 100-year flood standard. The state used a 25-year standard. If the state were required to use the 100-year standard they would have to build bridges on the road to Pahrump instead of allowing the water to top over with a 25-year standard. Clark County also used a 10-year flood standard, which allowed for standing water on the roadways. The state did not allow standing water on the roads. Neither standard was more correct, just different. He commented developers were required to obtain two permits throughout the state. He was willing to work on streamlining the process; however, he knew the Transportation Board had not been inundated with complaints about the process.

Mr. Stephens reiterated NDOT was adamantly opposed to the legislation. He stated they were willing to work with the local entities to resolve some of the issues raised but did not want to be mandated into a set policy of having to conform to local standards of roads.

Mrs. Chowning questioned Mr. Stephens on the traffic signal problem brought forward by Douglas County.

Mr. Stephens disclosed the traffic signal policy NDOT used was one driven by development. The local governments controlled the development and charged fees for improvements, such as traffic signals. The smaller counties had not always been able to raise the needed amount for the signals and the state had designed and built traffic signals when those situations arose. He informed the committee there were very few traffic signals outside of the two urban areas of the state, which were Clark County and along the eastern slope of the Sierra Nevada Mountains from Gardnerville through Reno. Specifically, in Douglas County a light was installed in front of a small shopping center, which was not fully developed yet. The county wanted the light functioning; however, the current traffic did not warrant turning it on. The legal advisors for NDOT explained if unwarranted traffic signals were functioning, the state would be open to liability suits for any accidents which might occur. NDOT had studied the issue a few times to determine if the signal should be operating. Once the traffic merited having the light, it would be made operational.

Mr. Collins wondered if the state were to waive improvements like sidewalks, could the county supercede those waivers. As with the issue on Rainbow Boulevard, could Clark County have required the developer to put in a sidewalk after the state waived the improvement for what would be the county’s right-of-way. He was also concerned with the lack of coordination between the state and counties, especially if a county was planning to develop an area where the state had proposed changing the roadway.

Mr. Stephens explained part of the issue with Rainbow Boulevard, like many roads in Clark County, when the road was first designed it followed the curve of the land. He moved to Las Vegas in 1965 and remembered driving through the valley on roads which went down gullies and over the crests. The project to reconstruct Rainbow Boulevard was to be a joint venture with the county rebuilding a section and NDOT rebuilding another section. The design for the road had not been completed so the elevation would not be known until that aspect was completed.

Kent Sears, Chief Traffic Engineer, District One, Las Vegas, NDOT, remarked NDOT only had authority to waive improvements within the state’s right-of-way. There were some areas where improvements were waived because of future design considerations. NDOT had begun working more closely with Clark County in the 3 years he had been with the department and there had been a consensus on which improvements would be waived. There was obviously still some disagreement, but NDOT was willing to work with the county on those areas.

Mr. Collins asserted the cities and counties coordinated their building codes. He felt it would not be too difficult to coordinate the standards on streetlights or traffic signals. Clark County might not have the same testing facility for aggregate, but concrete density for sidewalks would be easy to coordinate. Common issue improvements should be coordinated verses getting involved in roadbed material.

Mr. Stephens relayed there were a variety of different parts to a roadway and different standards on each of those parts. Such as testing; NDOT used the beam test while Clark County used the martial test. The state would like to think their standards were the best and he was sure the counties felt the same way. He revealed there was a book of geometric standards on various cities in northern Nevada which showed the different standards for Reno and Sparks. A.B. 182 would have the state complying with all of those standards. He commented NDOT was required to meet federal standards first and foremost, which could also be different from the local standards, but the state had to meet those first to receive any federal money for roadways.

Mr. Collins hypothesized if there were a joint project, such as the one on Rainbow Boulevard, would NDOT be willing to allow the county a say in the waiver process. Mr. Stephens exclaimed NDOT was willing to work with the counties, and had since the issue arose. What happened on Rainbow Boulevard was the engineers felt it was not practical to add the improvements on a road which was going to be changed in a few years. NDOT had issued over 1,400 permits in the past year and a half. Of those a very small portion involved waivers, but apparently the waivers the state did issue irritated the counties. NDOT would like to solve that irritation, but not through a policy dictated by the county to the state.

Mrs. Cegavske wondered if NDOT was responsible for putting in any of the improvements which had to be removed, thus causing the taxpayers to pay for the improvements twice. Mr. Stephens explained NDOT had not installed any improvement which was being removed. The developer could have received two permits which said the lights could be put in two different ways. The developer was either confused or chose the less expensive method.

Mrs. Cegavske asked Mr. Stephens if he could explain what was waived in Clark County’s exhibit and where NDOT received the authority to waive the improvements.

Mrs. Chowning stated Mr. Stephens had not had an opportunity to review the material presented by Clark County and would allow him to do so before the bill was heard in a work session.

Mr. Stephens mentioned he would go over the materials with any committee member who requested it. He stated even with an amendment NDOT would still be opposed to the bill. Allowing the counties to set state policy was not an option to them in any form.

Mr. Sears mentioned that after speaking with the NDOT attorneys he was told the state could not waive the county’s requirements. Those requirements were set by the county governing body as a condition of development. The only authority NDOT had was in the permitting process of the state’s right-of-way.

Mrs. Chowning asked how the $12.5 million fiscal note attached to A.B. 182 was derived. Mr. Stephens explained the figure was an estimate. The counties could require any standard by the terms of the bill, so the state had to guess on the fiscal note.

Chad Dornsife, National Motorists Association, informed the committee he was a Douglas County resident who had not planned on speaking on A.B. 182, but felt he should after the testimony heard. He stated he was against the legislation since the state was required to follow the Uniform Manual on Traffic Control Devices, while the counties were able to require any standard they chose. Douglas County habitually violated the manual by putting in stop signs and double yellow lines where they were not required. Rather than build a road adjacent to the highway for the business district, or find other traffic control methods, the county would like to turn United States Highway 395 into a parking lot. He declared turning over state standards to the counties with no oversight was a frightening thought.

Mr. Nunes explained he was not referring to turning on a traffic light which was unwarranted, he was referring to the design criteria for the signal; whether an extension could be added to a pole which was too short and tack welded together. The county did not want to violate any warrants for installing signals. The Board of County Commissioners, being elected officials could vote to put in stop signs or traffic signals despite what the staff recommended.

Mrs. Cegavske expressed great concern over the fact NDOT and the counties could not work through the disagreements and that the matter was brought before the legislature. She wanted to see all parties work together to resolve the issues then report back to the body.

Mr. Bache remarked during past sessions, a remedy would have been to recommend a bill draft urging the state and local governments to enter into intergovernmental agreements to resolve the problems; however, with the 120-day rule that would no longer be possible. He thought another solution to the problem might be a letter from the committee urging the parties to enter into agreements to solve the problems since it appeared it could not be dealt with legislatively.

Ms. McClain remarked the committee had not discussed the proposed amendment brought forth by Clark County, which stated Clark County was requesting the director of NDOT consult with political subdivisions before any major facilities were constructed. It appeared the amendment was asking the two entities to work together which was what the committee was discussing.

Mrs. Chowning mentioned the committee would not take any action on the bill. She asked all parties to try to work out a solution before the committee held a work session on the bill to see if any issues could be resolved. She then closed the hearing on A.B. 182 and opened the hearing on A.B. 187.

Colonel Michael Hood, Chief, Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP) explained after conversations with NDOT he would request the committee indefinitely postpone A.B. 187. He felt the NHP and NDOT could work during the interim to alleviate concerns in both departments, then return with more complete legislation next session.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 187 DUE TO THE TESTIMONY FROM THE NEVADA HIGHWAY PATROL.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

Mrs. Chowning thanked Colonel Hood and closed the hearing on A.B. 187. She then entered into work session on A.B. 29.

Elana Marton, Committee Policy Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau explained A.B. 29 came out of the S.C.R 53 interim committee, chaired by Assemblyman Roy Neighbors. The committee first heard testimony on the bill February 9, 1999. Carole Vilardo from the Nevada Taxpayers Association offered an amendment to the bill, which would lower the population threshold to 35,000. Russ Law from NDOT testified the Nevada Technology Transfer Center (T2) at the University of Nevada, Reno offered pavement management system training and was committed to providing local governments with the training upon request. Attachment A in the work session document (Exhibit H) included letters from Jeff Fontaine, Deputy Director, NDOT, and Maria Ardila-Coulson, Director, T2 Center, who expressed their commitment to continue the training. Attachment B of the work session document was the fiscal note for the bill, if implemented.

Mrs. Chowning asked Ms. Vilardo if the bill was still necessary with the commitment expressed by both NDOT and the T2 Center to assist the smaller counties. Ms. Vilardo indicated A.B. 29 was no longer necessary. She had been in contact with members of the interim committee since the bill was introduced and received a commitment the computer program would be delivered to all entities, cities and counties. She submitted a letter dated February 12, 1999, to the committee requesting the bill be withdrawn.

Mrs. Chowning asked Mr. Law if he felt the pavement management system training was adequately provided through the T2 Center. Russ Law, NDOT reaffirmed the services were currently provided. He explained during the S.C.R. 53 interim committee meetings it was not known the service was available until the morning the committee heard the bill. He felt the bill was overlooked because it appeared to be a good program to the interim committee. The training was something NDOT did offer, only through a different venue called the T2 Center.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 29, BECAUSE, WHILE SHE AGREED WITH THE CONCEPT OF THE BILL, THE SERVICES WERE ALREADY AVAILABLE.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

Mrs. Chowning closed the work session on A.B. 29 and opened the work session on A.B. 33.

Ms. Marton explained A.B. 33 was first heard by the committee on February 22, 1999. NDOT provided information on the various permit fees in states surrounding Nevada (Attachment C, Exhibit H), pavement damage costs (Attachment D, Exhibit H), and non-divisible load permit requests per year (Attachment E, Exhibit H). A similar bill came before the 1995 legislature, to which NDOT offered a proposed amendment which contained a sliding fee schedule based on weight (page 16, Exhibit H). There were no proposed amendments for the current bill.

Mrs. Chowning presented Exhibit I, a letter from the Nevada Mining Association, to the committee. The Mining Association was fully against A.B. 33 because of the open-ended policy the bill would allow. They expressed their support in working with NDOT to assure those who violated the permit policy paid their fair share but did not feel the bill was the correct way to handle that.

Mr. Stephens observed other organizations had expressed similar concerns. He mentioned NDOT had not gone on record as supporting the bill; however, they had provided information which left many thinking NDOT did support the legislation. The various organizations had relayed to NDOT they would not object to a fee increase if done through the administrative process currently allowed under the law. NDOT could raise the single trip fee from $15 to $20 and the annual fee from $50 to $75. An additional $200,000 could potentially be raised through the increase, and while the amount would not cover the cost of road damage, it would aide in the recovering of the cost of issuing the permits.

Mrs. Chowning observed the fee increase mentioned could be enacted administratively. Mr. Stephens affirmed the observation.

Mrs. Chowning asked how the issue of road damage should be addressed. Mr. Stephens indicated that the problem with A.B. 33 was many companies felt they would be required to pay for the damaged caused by others and the fee began to look like a tax to them. The issue of road damaged caused by overweight vehicles would be addressed during the next legislative session.

Mr. Collins observed some companies had come before the committee stating they did not have a problem with an increase in the current fees. However, he did not want those companies returning to the legislature expressing their discontent that the increase was not implemented legally. Mr. Stephens reiterated the increase could be handled administratively, but would not cover the cost of road damage associated with overweight vehicles.

Mrs. Chowning , as Chair of the Transportation Committee, announced if NDOT felt the magnitude of road damage was so great, they should come forth with a proposal during the next legislative session. Mr. Stephens agreed with the Chair.

Mr. Carpenter felt the number of overweight vehicles on the road was relatively small compared to the total number of vehicles on the road. He thought other methods, such as adding axles, should be examined before any increase in the fees, and a study should be completed to determine the relationship between speed and road damage.

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE

A.B. 33 SINCE NDOT HAD AGREED TO ATTEMPT TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM DURING THE INTERIM.

ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

Mrs. Chowning closed the work session on A.B. 33 and opened the work session on A.B. 34.

Ms. Marton noted a history of the legislation, which was requested during the February 9, 1999, meeting, was included as Attachment G in Exhibit H. A.B. 34 was similar to bills introduced in both 1995 and 1997, which would redirect revenue from short-term leases from the general fund to the highway fund. Both bills passed out of the Assembly Committee on Transportation, but no action was taken on the bills when they were rereferred to the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means, thus the pieces of legislation died. The original legislation of fees on short-term leases was passed in 1993 with the intent that all funds be directed to the highway fund; however, last minute changes in the original bill directed the money to the general fund. During 1993 the revenue generated was around $4 million per year, currently the fee generated above $8 million per year. All who testified on February 9, 1999, agreed there was a natural nexus between the fee on short-term rentals and the highway fund. An amendment was proposed to delay the effective date of the transfer of funds by either 1-year or phase in the transfer over the course of a decade.

Ms. Vilardo corrected Ms. Marton on the proposed amendment explaining the idea was to create an effective date of July 1, 2001 for the transfer. The proposed date would be for the new biennium, thus placing everyone on notice. The 1-year delay amendment was for the sales tax issue discussed on the same date but for A.B. 32.

Mrs. Chowning clarified the proposed amendment to delay the effective date of the legislation to July 1, 2001, which would place it past the current biennium period completely.

Mrs. Cegavske asserted she was opposed to the legislation because it was in the wrong committee. She felt the bill should be heard in the Committee on Ways and Means since it dealt with the general fund.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 34 WITH THE CORRECTION OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE TO JULY 1, 2001. HE ALSO ADDED TO REREFER THE BILL TO THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYMEN CARPENTER, CEGAVSKE, AND GUSTAVSON OPPOSING THE MOTION.

Mrs. Chowning closed the hearing on A.B. 34 and adjourned the meeting at 3:30 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Jennifer Batchelder,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman

DATE: