The Committee on Transportation was called to order at 1:30 p.m. on Thursday, March 4, 1999. Chairman 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 Chairman

Mr. Douglas Bache

Mr. John Carpenter

Mrs. Barbara Cegavske

Mr. Jerry Claborn

Mr. Tom Collins

Mr. Don Gustavson

Mrs. Kathy McClain

Mr. Dennis Nolan

Mr. David Parks

Ms. Bonnie Parnell

Mr. Kelly Thomas

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Marvin Leavitt, director, Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs, City of Las Vegas, stated that the bill had been introduced from the City of Las Vegas and the origination of the bill had been in agreement with Sheriff Keller of Clark County. He stated that they had discussed the bill and determined there were some differences of opinion regarding the bill and requested the bill be indefinitely postponed.

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 184.

SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON.

MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY WITH ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE, ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS, ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL NOT PRESENT.

Mrs. Chowning opened the work session on A.B. 28.

Elana Marton, committee policy analyst, provided the committee with a work session document (Exhibit C). She explained the bill had been heard on February 9, 1999, and assigned to a subcommittee with Assemblyman Parks as Chairman. Testimony was reviewed by the following representatives: Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV & PS); Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP); Nevada Motor Transport Association; and Nevada Petroleum Marketers. The subcommittee concluded with a recommendation that the full committee consider a motion of do pass. She referred to attachment A of (Exhibit C) which was an overview of the testimony. She stated the groups were committed to ensuring the dyed fuel program was enforced. She then stated that DMV & PS was in the process of completing the program and would bring another bill to the committee which would have an impact on dyed fuel.

Mrs. Chowning asked Assemblyman Parks to explain some of the discussion of the subcommittee.

Assemblyman Parks offered a brief overview of the subcommittee meeting. He explained the important factor which caused the introduction of the bill was there was a significant amount of revenue that could be generated due to the extensive use of dyed fuels on the highways but currently was not being generated. He stated it would be simple to remedy the situation but would require a significant amount of funding. Senator Jacobsen introduced Senate Bill 349 which would strengthen the statute by granting enforcement powers to NHP. He had informed Senator Jacobsen he would be willing to work with him on the bill. He remarked tracking the dyed fuels would be necessary for enforcement and would require a higher allocation for a tracking system. He mentioned a number of states currently used a tracking system and recommend their system be considered since the tracking system would pay for itself in a short period of time. The subcommittee recommended the full committee consider a motion of do pass for the legislation.

Assemblyman Gustavson inquired about the enforcement of the dyed fuel program, and if vehicles would have to be randomly stopped. Mr. Parks replied enforcement would be a small portion of the dyed fuel program. They had not wanted the NHP to test every diesel vehicle on the highway. The primary objective would be to inform truckers of the program by providing better education and reminding them of the enforcement process. He mentioned there would need to be a tracking system put to place for the program to have the full effect. Diesel fuel users would be more cautious of using the dyed fuel in their tanks if they knew there was a program which was going to be enforced.

Mr. Gustavson suggested a better way to inform users of dyed fuel would be to stop the truckers and fine them since that would be the quickest way to inform all truckers of the program.

Assemblywoman Cegavske asked what the funding was for and if it would affect the study. She asked if the $100,000 for the study included the cost of the audit and equipment or if additional funding would be required. Mr. Parks responded the bill would not address monetary issues involved since the funding could be requested as part of the general fund for DMV & PS.

Mrs. Chowning indicated DMV & PS had included the program in their budget request for the next fiscal year, but the system was contingent upon receiving a federal grant available for the program.

Assemblyman Bache asked Assemblyman Parks if the subcommittee considered sunsetting the report proposed to the legislature after 6 or 8 years. Mr. Parks replied the issue had not been discussed in the subcommittee.

Mrs. Chowning mentioned there were a variety of programs being considered to deal with the issue of enforcement of dyed fuels. She indicated the study should be limited to one or two sessions since any more than that would be an unwise use of taxpayer dollars unless the legislature found a need to continue the study.

Assemblywoman Parnell remarked DMV & PS had testified certain parts of the study were currently being done. She wondered if a full study was necessary.

Peter Krueger, representing Nevada Petroleum Marketers, responded currently there were no specific reports in Nevada regarding dyed fuel. The bill introduced by Senator Jacobsen contained a provision for funding the necessary equipment for the study. The bill would allow the NHP to conduct the tests during regular vehicle stops. He agreed the study should be limited to one or two sessions. If there was a problem with the reporting of the use of dyed fuels they would return and request the study be continued.

Mrs. Chowning inquired if it would be appropriate to limit the language of the bill to dyed fuels since that was where the problem existed. Mr. Krueger relayed that would be appropriate.

Mrs. Chowning noted the bill expanded the scope of the study to all fuels. Mr. Krueger stated information was currently available for other fuel products so the legislation should be specific to dyed fuels.

Assemblyman Carpenter commented the current reporting procedure should be sufficient to determine if dyed fuel evasion was a situation which warranted study. If the bill were passed, the study would cost more money since enforcement would also have to be done at the racks.

Mrs. Chowning stated the report would show the use of dyed fuel and place NHP and DMV & PS on notice that the legislature was interested in information concerning the administration and enforcement of dyed fuels.

Assemblyman Collins stated the testing could be conducted at portable scales instead of during random stops. Since there was a national dyed fuel program in place there was a satellite was currently being used to track the tanks. If the figures did not match enforcement could be done at the scales. There was a problem with evasion so the program was necessary and the bill should be passed.

Mrs. Chowning noted that DMV & PS stated there is no fiscal note. There would be a one-time report to supply information to the legislature. Mr. Parks explained the fiscal impact would be part of the operating budget. DMV & PS would be fully prepared to proceed with the program with existing staff and would need the $37,000 for equipment to allow the verification of the testing.

ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 28 TO REQUIRE THE FUEL BE RESTRICTED TO DYED DIESEL FUEL AND ONE REPORT BE PROVIDED TO THE 2001 LEGISLATURE.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

Mrs. Chowning opened the hearing on A.B. 183.

Gemma Greene, deputy district attorney, Washoe County District Attorney’s Office, and representing Nevada District Attorneys’ Association, stated A.B. 183 was drafted at the request of the association to clarify the law regarding hit-and-run accidents occurring on a highway. During a recent case the judicial system had ruled the statute was not clear as to the level of knowledge an individual needed to have to be held accountable under the current statute. The legislation would require aid either be rendered or brought to a victim and information be left if someone were to hit an unoccupied vehicle.

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall asked how the statute would be clarified. Ms. Greene indicated the bill clarified the statute with the wording "a person who knows or has reason to know" which would require the individual involved to stop and investigate the accident therefore strengthening the statute.

Ms. Ohrenschall mentioned current language intended someone to stop if they even thought they were involved in an accident. She felt the statute would be weakened with the new wording. Ms. Greene commented the Supreme Court determined knowledge was an important aspect of hit-and-run statute and should be clarified since it was a key element to a crime.

Mr. Carpenter referred to lines 7 and 8 of the bill which stated a person "shall" return to the scene of the accident to make reasonable inquires concerning the extent and circumstance of the accident. He asked what if the responsibility placed on the individual would be too great for them to comply with the law since they would not be trained to make inquiries. Ms. Greene remarked the intent of the bill was to track the responsibilities of an individual under common law. If someone was involved in an accident they should have the responsibility to discover the extent of the accident, if there were any victims, and if those victims required assistance.

Mr. Carpenter expressed concern regarding "extent and circumstance of the accident" since it was not proper to place that responsibility on the individual. Ms. Greene responded the language was included so a list of responsibilities would not have to listed for each circumstance which could be involved in an accident, such as bodily injury or damage to an unoccupied vehicle. The language concerning "extent and circumstance" allowed the individual to do what was reasonable for the different situations.

Mrs. Cegavske inquired how the citizens of the state would be informed of the new statute. She was also concerned certain criminals might take advantage of the new law by getting people to stop, thus placing them in jeopardy. She felt current law was adequate. Ms. Greene commented since the legislation dealt with drivers’ issues the information should be put out through DMV & PS. The intent was not to allow any criminal element the opportunity to "lay in wait" for victims. The legislation was drafted because an individual hit someone at night and did not investigate what they had hit. That person could not be prosecuted because they were able to state they did not know they had hit someone and the law was not clear.

Assemblyman Thomas wondered if the definition of "involved in an accident" included witnessing an accident. Ms. Greene remarked the provisions in the bill did not offer a definition. The driver of the vehicle involved in an accident would be the party required to stop.

Mrs. Chowning observed the district attorneys’ association was attempting to clarify the statute in light of a Supreme Court ruling. She wondered what was the ruling. Ms. Greene revealed the case had been appealed to the Supreme Court which handed it to a visiting judge who overturned the jury verdict.

Mrs. Chowning inquired about the reason the case was overturned and if had it been a result of the perceived law in the statute. Ms. Greene stated the decision had been made by the visiting judge.

Mrs. Chowning asked if the judge had indicated if the statute were strengthened the verdict would have been different. Ms. Greene disclosed the issue had been whether the law imposed knowledge on the person to require them to stop.

Ms. Ohrenschall considered the committee should be supplied with a copy of the decision to be able to make a final determination on the bill. Ms. Greene claimed she would request a copy of the decision; however, it was not a published opinion so there might be some difficulty.

Mr. Gustavson requested clarification on how the judgement was made. Ms. Greene communicated there was an appeal filed with the Supreme Court after the jury trial who handed the case over to the visiting judge who overturned the verdict of the jury.

Mrs. Chowning mentioned the committee would require more details on the case before they would be able to decide to change the statute.

Richard Shrader, legislative representative, Governmental Affairs, AAA Nevada, Motor Club Division, testified in support of the legislation. AAA felt the bill clarified the duties of a motorist in an accident situation. It offered reasonableness which should be followed by all drivers.

Mrs. Chowning noted AAA was in support of the clause which required reasonable inquiry. Mr. Shrader indicated the standard would appropriate.

Mrs. Chowning asked if the additional language of having reason to know there was an accident was necessary. Mr. Shrader remarked the language was a reasonable standard and encouraged people to comply with the current law.

Assemblyman Nolan observed the comments indicated the legislation would require the individual to comply with current law. He felt the standard would be weakened with the new language because it would require proof of knowledge an accident had occurred and not that they hit a bump in the road. Mr. Shrader suggested people should stop if they had been involved in an accident. The bill would clarify the statute to require someone to stop if they had any reason to believe they were involved in an accident.

Ms. Parnell mentioned part of the concern was knowledge of an accident. The new language could allow someone to state they did not have any knowledge of being involved in an accident. Ms. Greene commented the new language imposed the standard of reasonable knowledge an accident occurred and would not allow an individual to claim they did not know they had been involved in an accident.

Mr. Collins relayed there had been a similar incident in Clark County approximately 20 years ago and the law should have been changed then.

Mrs. Chowning closed the hearing on A.B. 183 and opened the work session on A.C.R. 3.

Ms. Marton explained the resolution would direct the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) to work with local entities to analyze roads to be swapped from one entity to the next. There was no known cost to anyone involved in the study. The study would be limited and not require the analysis of all 53,000 miles of local roads in the state. Robert Hadfield, with the Nevada Association of Counties, and Thomas Grady, with the Nevada League of Cities, offered a proposed amendment to the bill which was in the work session document (Exhibit C). The amendment would ensure the affected local governments would be involved in the decision making process.

Mr. Collins revealed there was a map which showed all state highways in the Las Vegas valley included with the amendments (Exhibit C). The state was involved in local projects with the various regional transportation commissions because they were responsible for maintaining state roads. There were roads in the state which were maintained by the state which no longer required the state to maintain, and the counties should take over. The intent was to allow NDOT to transfer those smaller roads back to the local entities for maintenance.

Mrs. Chowning inquired what the cost of the study would be.

John Whitaker, research manager, NDOT, explained the intent of the resolution was to the benefit of the state as well as the local entities. The department favored the limited study referred to in the amendments. Currently NDOT studied certain local roads every 2 years to determine which could be transferred and then negotiated with the counties on the transfer of those roads.

Mr. Carpenter remarked the resolution could be the start of a dangerous situation since the localities did not always have the funds to maintain the roads. He felt the state would use the resolution to get out of their responsibilities rather than create an equal trade situation.

Mrs. Chowning indicated the resolution included a provision requiring a report would have to be presented in 2001. They would be able to see how the transfers would affect the local governments which they had not been able to do prior to the legislation.

Mr. Carpenter expressed the report to the legislature might help the local entities, but was concerned NDOT would use the resolution to require the entities to take on roads which should not be local responsibility. Mr. Collins responded the amendment was proposed by the local entities. The intent of the legislation was not to affect the rural counties, but primarily to get NDOT and the larger counties, who had state maintained roads in city limits which should be locally maintained, begin transferring roads. Currently projects on the affected roads required permits from both the counties and the state. The goal was to remove one of those entities from the process.

Assemblywoman McClain inquired where the money came from for NDOT to maintain the roads and if that money would also be transferred with the road. Mr. Whitaker responded the majority of the funds were generated from the gas tax with some money coming from the federal government. The money would not be transferred since the state would be picking up certain roads which the local entities wanted to swap.

Mrs. McClain mentioned she would only be able to support the resolution with the proposed amendments since it involved local governments in the process.

Mrs. Chowning inquired what would be the cost to NDOT. Mr. Collins commented the resolution would not require any entity to do anything outside of their normal budget process. Mr. Whitaker relayed $12,000 to $15,000 was spent by the state every 2 years on the current process.

Heidi Mireles, chief right-of-way agent, NDOT, testified an additional $10,000 would be required for title searches and additional research on roadways. Documentation was required to fully transfer roadways between entities. The process was time-consuming and cumbersome and would have to take second seat to the normal workload of the department.

Mrs. Chowning inquired if the language regarding budgetary limits should be included in the beginning of the resolution as well. Ms. Mireles indicated she would support the change.

Mr. Collins stated the reason for the resolution was to require NDOT to begin the process and not place the study behind other projects. The research was required for the transfer of roads and should have been started since the state was currently picking up roads. He would agree to the language if it got the state started.

Mrs. Cegavske inquired if there was a need for the legislation since NDOT currently did the studies every 2 years. Ms. Mireles mentioned the process was currently in place to conduct the studies and the counties were able to inform the department when they wanted to swap certain roads. Mr. Whitaker indicated the intent of the resolution was currently done and the department would be willing to submit a report to the legislature on the process.

Mr. Collins expressed the intent of the resolution was to require NDOT to work on the study instead of placing it behind other projects. Ms. Mireles stated the priority for the Right-of-Way Division was to acquire the right-of-ways which would be necessary to approve the potential transfers. The staffing levels in the division were not large enough to complete the proposed study while there were other projects which required their attention.

ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOTIONED TO MOVE AND ADOPT A.C.R. 3 WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FROM CHAIRWOMAN CHOWNING AND THE WORK SESSION DOCUMENT.

SECOND BY ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL.

Mr. Carpenter indicated he would be voting against the resolution since the process currently existed and had a potential to adversely affect local governments.

MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYMEN CARPENTER, CEGAVSKE, GUSTAVSON, AND NOLAN VOTING AGAINST THE MOTION. ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL WAS NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

Mrs. Chowning adjourned the meeting at 3:15 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Christine Cole,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman

DATE: