The Committee on Transportation was called to order at 1:10 p.m., on Tuesday, March 30, 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

Mrs. Kathy McClain

Mr. Dennis Nolan

Mr. David Parks

Ms. Bonnie Parnell

Mr. Kelly Thomas

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblywoman Dawn Gibbons, District 25

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Mrs. Chowning welcomed Logan Thomas, son of Assemblyman Kelly Thomas, as a guest of the committee. She informed the committee the meeting was being teleconferenced to Las Vegas. She then opened the hearing on A.B. 487.

Assemblywoman Dawn Gibbons, District 25, felt all legislators were activists for causes about which they cared, which was why they became involved in state government. She mentioned she was a member of the Committee to Aid Abused Women (CAAW) and they had a saying that they would remain active until there was never another abused woman. Drunk driving was an issue with much the same emotion for her.

Mrs. Gibbons explained she had been involved in an accident with a drunk driver and fortunately was not seriously injured; however, she had many friends and family members who were not so fortunate. She recalled an incident which occurred 15 years ago on her 30th birthday. There had been an accident on Hunter Lake Drive and Mayberry Drive in Reno. The victim of the drunk driver turned out to be a neighbor who left a loving husband and her children behind. She also had friends who had lost various family members to drunk drivers, so the issue had touched her in a variety of ways.

Mrs. Gibbons testified A.B. 487 was brought forth in an effort to save those on the road from the people who continued to drink and drive no matter how many laws were passed against it. Those convicted of drinking and driving continued to remain on the road. The legislation before the committee would warn others on the road the person behind the wheel of a car was a problem drinker. The bill would require distinctive license plates for persons convicted of driving under the influence (DUI) of intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance. Other states which had implemented similar programs had proved effective in alerting police officers of potential problems and had served as probable cause for stopping the vehicles included Georgia, Minnesota, Ohio, Oregon, and Washington. Oregon and Washington enacted pilot programs permitting officers to affix zebra stickers over the annual renewal sticker on the plates. Oregon reported those with zebra tags had fewer drunk driving violations than offenders who had not received the tag. The other states issued special license plates with unique numbers or characters which were only identifiable to law enforcement and not the general public. Unlike other DUI sanctions which affected offender vehicles, such as impounding or booting a car, the special plate program allowed family members to continue to operate the car.

Mrs. Gibbons continued the bill required the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV & PS) to design and prepare a distinctive black and white plate (Exhibit C), which were often referred to as zebra plates. A person convicted of a DUI pursuant to Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 484.379 would be required to surrender their current license plates for the vehicle registered in their name and apply to DMV & PS for a set of the zebra plates, the bill had a provision which would not allow the offender to transfer registration of the car to another individual. After the suspension period expired the person could exchange the zebra plates for their originals. The suspension period for the first offense would be at least 1 year. Subsequent offenses would be from 3 to 7 years. A.B. 487 did not replace existing penalties for DUI offenses, only created an additional penalty.

Mrs. Gibbons concluded drunk driving was a complex issue which defied quick, easy solutions. The cruel consequences ravaged our communities, neighborhoods, and families far too often. Impaired driving continued to be the most frequently committed violent crime in America, claiming more than 16,000 deaths, 1 million injuries, and a cost of $45 billion in damages. In 1996, Nevada had 174 alcohol related fatalities. Lives could be saved with the passage of the legislation.

Jim Holmes, vice chair, Northern Nevada DUI Task Force, articulated one of the responsibilities of the DUI Task Force was to process DUI offenders through Victim Impact Panels (VIP) as part of their sentence. The task force had been processing approximately 250 persons a month. He indicated law enforcement estimated they apprehended approximately 10 percent of DUI drivers on the roads, which would equate to around 30,000 people in Washoe County who drove under the influence during the past year. One of the major problems the DUI Task Force was witnessing was a recidivism rate of 50 percent. The other main problem with which the task force had to contend was those driving on suspended licenses. There had been 3 police sting operations in 1998 at VIP sessions at which 30 people had been arrested for driving on suspended licenses. A.B. 487 would assist in raising the awareness of those problems and help to reduce the number of DUI fatalities.

Laurel Stadler, chapter director, Mother’s Against Drunk Driving (MADD), Lyon County Chapter, thanked the committee for the opportunity to speak in support of A.B. 487. She presented the committee with information on the five objectives of the bill (Exhibit D). The first concept of the bill was deterrence. Those involved in public safety would rather have a crime not occur than prosecute a crime. The deterrent value of A.B. 487 was in the fact most would not want to be publicly labeled a convicted DUI offender. MADD had spent almost 20 years educating the public on the tragedies and devastation caused by drunk drivers and many would believe those educated, reasonable members of society would know the consequences of that action; however, that had proven inaccurate as evidenced by the number of high profile DUI offenders. The legislation before the committee would create an additional penalty and hopefully deter all potential offenders from getting behind the wheel. If the act could be deterred, future victims could be saved which was the primary goal of the bill.

Ms. Stadler continued the second concept behind the legislation was child safety. One mission of MADD was to instruct children to never get into a car with a drinking or drunk driver. The idea was easier said than done since the driver might be a coach, babysitter, aunt or uncle, or even a parent. She explained her daughter, Sarah, would speak in depth on the issue later.

Ms. Stadler mentioned the third and fourth issues of choices and honors were closely related, and she would speak on the two at the same time. When someone moved to Nevada they were required to register their vehicles in Nevada and receive a Nevada license plate. There were many choices in the state for the type of license plate the resident chose to purchase, such as supporting Lake Tahoe or the university system, identifying oneself as a veteran, or honoring one’s accomplishments such as the Assembly license plates. Within each style of plate there was also the option of receiving a vanity plate. The zebra plates would offer one more option of license plates for Nevadans. Those who drove under the influence made the choice to drink and then the choice to drive. With the passage of A.B. 487 they would also be making the choice to display the zebra plates on their vehicles, just as the spouse of an offender chose to remain in the situation.

Ms. Stadler stated the final concept behind A.B. 487 was sanctions. Ira Glasser, of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), stated on the "Today Show" on February 22, 1999, he had no problem increasing the sanctions on drunk drivers when asked about a New York City decision to require the forfeiture of cars of convicted drunk drivers, indicating the ACLU would not oppose post conviction sanctions for DUI offenders. One concern raised was anyone driving the car would be labeled as an offender; however, the law would allow the vehicle to remain on the road unlike forfeiture laws. The zebra plates would be much like personalized license plates in the respect that the person driving was not always the person who owned the plate. For example, she had the phrase "MADDMOM" on her license plates, which remained on the car even if her husband was driving. People were currently identified with the license plate on a car whether the assumption was correct or not. The same concept held true for the Assembly plates. Alcoholism was still a hidden condition in many families. The legislation might be a way to finally expose an alcoholic’s problem and get them to seek help. If the family member who received the DUI happened to be a teenager the bill might be the final straw which would lead the parents to finally focus on their child’s behavior.

Ms. Stadler concluded the legislature had implemented many types of legislation over the years regarding DUI offenses; however, in 1998 there were over 12,000 DUI arrests in Nevada with over 9,300 convictions (Exhibit D). The estimate for alcohol related fatalities for 1998 was 150, which was 3 per week killed in DUI crashes on Nevada highways. The zebra plate would be a new option to assist in combating the crime. The bottom line was, would the committee rather see zebra plates on the roads or their daughters on a display of princesses like the one recently shown in the legislative building with a banner reading, "We’ve seen too many princesses die in alcohol related crashes."

Sarah Stadler, 11 years old, thanked the committee for allowing her to speak in support of A.B. 487. She testified her mom had always taught her never to get into a car with a drunk driver. Though she always wanted to obey her parents it was sometimes difficult for someone her age to determine if an adult was drunk, unless they were falling down or had a drink in their hand. She explained she had a younger brother who was 5 years old and did not want anything to happen to him. She was willing to teach him about the zebra plates and the dangers of drunk drivers since anyone could potentially be a drunk driver including older siblings, babysitters, or parents. She thought the zebra plate was beneficial since children would have a visual marker of a drunk driver and children were not always able to determine if an adult had been drinking. A.B. 487 would keep kids safe.

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall wondered if there was a provision in the bill to prevent a convicted DUI offender from going to a rental car agency and renting a car thus not fulfilling the required sentence. If there was not then the legislation discriminated between those wealthy enough to afford a rental car and those who were financially forced to carry out the sentence which would be a violation of equal protection of the law. Mrs. Gibbons remarked there was no provision in the bill to prevent such an occurrence from happening, but she would be willing to work with Assemblywoman Ohrenschall to amend the bill to include such language.

Assemblywoman Cegavske questioned why there was a need for the zebra plates since the offender’s license should have been revoked. Ms. Stadler remarked the license would be revoked for a period of time during the required sentence for the zebra plate; however, the chart which showed the 9,300 DUI convictions (Exhibit D) also showed 1,205 persons caught driving on revoked licenses. Even though the license was revoked the offender remained in the community with a car in their driveway and could potentially drive the vehicle. The deterrent factor was not substantial enough if people continued to drive on revoked licenses.

Mrs. Cegavske mentioned if the offender’s license was revoked Assemblywoman Ohrenschall’s concerns regarding them renting a car would be alleviated. She observed if the court had revoked their license and they were not supposed to drive the car, MADD was suggesting the zebra plate be placed on the car in case the offender decided to drive. Ms. Stadler commented Assemblywoman Cegavske was correct.

Assemblyman Carpenter noted the language in the bill applied the legislation to any family member who received a DUI in the car. Mrs. Gibbons stated he was correct and mentioned if he put the Assembly plates on his car and his wife decided to drive the car she could be mistaken as a member of the Assembly.

Mrs. Chowning declared there was a vast difference between the two instances which dealt with public perception. Also some families did not have more than one vehicle, and while the offender should not be driving, the rest of the family might require use of the car for work or school. Those family members would then be labeled as the offender, the problem then would be the family would be serving the sentence and not only the convicted DUI offender. Ms. Stadler indicated the intention of the legislation was not to punish the entire family but to serve as a deterrent for all members of the family. She reiterated if the person chose to drink and drive, then they chose to have the zebra plates on their car. A drunk driver made decisions which impacted families, whether their own or someone else’s, when they got behind the wheel of a car. The spouse of the drunk driver had the choice to remain with that individual or remove themselves from the family situation. She felt the committee must weigh whose choices were greater when 150 to 170 people were being killed on Nevada highways year after year. She exclaimed A.B. 487 was an innovative approach against the carnage on the highways.

Mrs. Gibbons interjected explaining the measure may appear to be extreme but any family member who chose to drink and drive made a decision for the entire family which could potentially ruin the entire family. She disclosed her father had been an alcoholic and felt if more people knew of the problem someone might have stepped forward to help the family. He had totaled three cars in less than 3 years while raising two girls on his own. The zebra plate would bring attention to a problem which tended to be ignored. It was also a positive message for the youth of society. The legislation would show them there were visible consequences to their actions.

Mrs. Ohrenschall announced the statement made earlier about the plate acting as probable cause for law enforcement to stop the vehicle disturbed her. She felt Nevada would be faced with the problem being protested elsewhere. For example a 25 year old African-American male driving a Cadillac could be pulled over because an officer assumed he was a drug pusher when there was no other evidence. Ms. Stadler expressed probable cause was used in the Oregon test case but was intentionally left out of A.B. 487. The zebra license plate would not constitute probable cause in Nevada.

Mr. Carpenter called attention to the recidivism rate of 50 percent and questioned if the figure was accurate. He remembered hearing a figure much lower than 50 percent a few years ago and felt the committee required accurate facts to form an intelligent decision. Mrs. Gibbons stated if someone did not come forward to offer current figures she would produce them by the end of the day for him.

Captain Jim Nadeau, representing Washoe County Sheriff Department, testified the department was in support of the legislation and would be available to answer any law enforcement questions the committee might have.

Mrs. Chowning asked Captain Nadeau to address some of the concerns expressed by committee members. Captain Nadeau began with the question of probable cause. He explained there would have to be some type of obvious driving violation to constitute probable cause for a traffic stop. The plate itself would not constitute probable cause. On the issue of other family members driving a vehicle with zebra plates, he felt the plate would act as an incentive to deal with the issue or the problem drinker no matter their age since there was an embarrassment factor for the family. He felt the issue of drinking and driving was serious enough to constitute more extreme measures to combat the problem.

Mrs. Chowning questioned if the sticker or other means only known to law enforcement used in other states was a more effective method in combating the problem than the creation of a publicly visible license plate. Captain Nadeau responded he had not researched other methods used and did not have the information.

Owen Ritchie, assistant chief of registration, DMV & PS, relayed there would be a fiscal note attached to the legislation based on the 9,900 convictions in 1998. If the number of annual convictions remained constant 19,800 plates would have to be created at a cost of $3.34 per plate or $24,840 the first year of production.

Mrs. Chowning noted the fiscal note was an up front cost since the offender was required to purchase the plates, so DMV & PS would be reimbursed for the cost. She hypothesized if the offender did not pay or the judge waived the fee then the department would not be paid for the plates. Mr. Ritchie explained she was correct.

Ann Holmes, Reno resident, testified her son, D.J. Bernardis, was killed 3 years ago April 2 by an impaired driver. She knew the choice the committee had to make would be a difficult one but explained it was not more difficult than choosing a casket for a child.

Mrs. Chowning thanked Ms. Holmes for her testimony and expressed the committee’s sympathy for the loss of her son.

David O’Mara, University of Nevada, Reno senior, expressed his support for A.B. 487. As a college student he had seen friends killed and go to jail over drinking and driving. People would continue to drive after their license was revoked and there must be a means to identify those people on the road. The laws must be stronger to ensure people did not commit the same crime again and again. He felt the bill should have been amended to include something the offender must carry on them at all times that way if they got into anyone’s car there would be some way to identify them as a convicted DUI offender. That would also address Assemblywoman Ohrenschall’s concern about the offender renting a vehicle. He hoped the committee would support the legislation and commended Assemblywoman Gibbons for bringing the issue forward.

Joseph Gilbert, University of Nevada, Reno senior and member of the boxing team, declared his support for the legislation was extremely strong because his friend, D. J. Bernardis, was killed by a drunk driver. So strong were his feelings that he dedicated his 4 years as a national collegiate boxer to D. J.’s memory. Speaking from a youth perspective he felt the bill in front of the committee echoed in the halls of education since many young people did not understand the repercussions affiliated with drinking and driving and A.B. 487 would act as an educational tool. Zebra plates would be tangible evidence of the consequences of getting behind the wheel after even one drink. By publicly labeling those who drink and drive young people would be more inclined to act responsibly thus preserving a life. He did not feel the embarrassment to family outweighed the fact his best friend would never be able to share in the joys of life because of someone who got behind the wheel of a car after drinking. If those convicted of drinking and driving could be seen then they could also be avoided, whether it was 1:00 a.m. or 1:00 p.m. others on the road would have the ability to back away from the car or move to an alternate route to avoid the zebra plate. He thanked the committee for the opportunity to express his views.

Mrs. Chowning thanked the gentlemen for having the courage to come before the committee to disclose their feelings on the legislation and the dedication to lead their lives in such an honorable way. She felt they were wonderful examples for both their families and the youth of Nevada.

Mrs. Cegavske returned to the question of the fiscal note on the bill and thought there would be none since the bill required the offenders to purchase the plates for their vehicle.

Mrs. Chowning indicated there would be the up front cost of creating the initial plates which should be reimbursed by the offender who would be charged with the costs, presuming they actually paid the fee.

Mrs. Cegavske thanked the Chair for the clarification.

Joanne Keller, highway safety coordinator, Office of Traffic Safety, DMV & PS, communicated she had received data from the Driver’s License Bureau of DMV & PS on the recidivism rate from 1998. In 1998 there had been 6,500 first offense DUI convictions, 1,300 second offense convictions, and less than 300 third offenses. For those numbers the recidivism rate would be below the 50 percent mentioned earlier.

Ms. Keller called attention to the Oregon pilot program. She stated the sticker test program began in 1989 and ended in 1993. The state chose not to continue the program for reasons unknown but were looking to institute other penalties for driving under the influence. One option before the Oregon Legislature was to place a red stripe on the actual driver’s license. There was opposition to the bill since the offender would always be labeled as a drunk driver when they were not in situations which warranted that knowledge, such as cashing a check.

Brian McCurdy, Nevada resident, testified in opposition to A.B. 487. He explained he did not believe someone should ever get behind the wheel of a car after they had been drinking, but the legislation went too far. He felt the arrest, trial, and conviction was humiliation enough for the individual as well as the family. The bill did not create another penalty for having been convicted of a DUI but was a way of continuing to publicly label and humiliate the individual convicted. Neither the offender or society would be served by the creation of a zebra plate. In fact the plate could potentially act as a target for family and friends of DUI accident victims. He would hate to have someone so overwrought with grief they decided to alleviate some of the pain by running someone off the road or following the person home to commit another crime. He felt if the legislation passed, the committee would be setting a dangerous precedent.

George Clap, Nevada resident, felt the bill was an invasion of privacy and should not be passed. Anyone who viewed the plate would create a snap judgement about the person behind the wheel, which may not be the person convicted of the crime. Those making the judgements would not know nor care about what the facts were, only what the plate represented. He knew losing a loved one to a drunk driver was difficult, but a line had to be drawn somewhere or special plates would be created for any crime committed.

Mrs. Chowning closed the hearing on A.B. 487 and opened the hearing on A.B. 550.

Assemblyman Carpenter, District 33, read from prepared testimony (Exhibit E). He explained A.B. 550 was intended to correct the inequity which existed between intrastate and interstate motor carrier fees. Interstate carriers were those who traveled through more than one state, while intrastate carriers remained in only one state. Nevada truckers who drove only in Nevada paid almost twice the registration fees of interstate truckers (Exhibit F). The difference was due to the fact interstate truckers could prorate registration fees in Nevada based upon total miles driven in the state. For example an interstate vehicle weighing 80,000 pounds which was driven 100,000 total miles but only 10,000 miles in Nevada was required to pay 10 percent of the registration fee or $136; however, an intrastate vehicle weighing 80,000 pounds and driven 10,000 miles was required to pay the entire registration fee or $1,360. Intrastate vehicles logged 77,864,529 miles in Nevada in 1998 and paid $7,177,204 in registration fees whereas interstate vehicles logged 870,740,307 miles and only paid $12,419,947 in registration fees. The legislation would reduce the registration fee to $50, which could be prorated, and increase the special fuel tax by 8.7 cents per gallon. The increase in the special fuel tax could potentially harm an operator of vehicles which required a lot of stop and go driving, but the inequity between interstate and intrastate vehicles should be rectified.

Russ Law, Chief Operations Analysis Engineer, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), disclosed NDOT was not present to support the legislation only to offer information on alternative heavy fuel taxation systems. He commented registration fees were designed to compensate for heavy vehicle damage while fuel taxes compensated for distance traveled; however, vehicles which traveled lower miles paid the same in registration as those who traveled high miles which created an inequity in the fee per mile traveled. There had been research compiled by the Transportation Research Board (Exhibit G) which illustrated three basic taxation systems. The concept introduced in the bill was considered a flat rate surcharge on fuel taxes and appeared to be a viable option if the committee chose to implement it. The current system used in Nevada was illustrated by the basic system in the document. The situation in Nevada was intrastate vehicles traveled around 10,000 miles on average while interstate vehicles traveled 75,000 miles on average creating a disparity in the amount per mile paid by the different carriers. The solutions offered by the Transportation Research Board appeared viable ones for the committee to consider. He also presented the committee with information on other states with a diesel tax surcharge (Exhibit H).

Mrs. Chowning noted there was no fiscal note attached to the bill; however, she understood there was a possible decrease in revenue to the highway fund. She wondered if Mr. Law could address the issue. Mr. Law remarked for the bill to actually be revenue neutral the proposed tax would have to be 1.7 cents per gallon higher than the bill proposed since motor carriers had a tendency to under-report their miles by around 20 percent.

Mrs. Chowning observed for the bill to be revenue neutral page 2 would have to be amended from 8.7 to 10.4. Mr. Law responded she was correct.

Mrs. Chowning felt with the implementation of the $50 registration fee more revenue would be generated. Mr. Law explained the $50 was a reduction in the registration fee. The current registration fee was $17 per 1,000 pounds. An 80,000 pound vehicle currently paid $1,360 in registration fee which would be reduced to $50.

Mrs. Chowning mentioned the $50 registration fee and the increase in the special fuel tax made the bill revenue neutral.

Mr. Collins disclosed he owned a small company with several vehicles and the bill would probably increase his taxes. He wanted assurance the intent of the bill was to create fairness between the interstate and the intrastate carriers. Mr. Carpenter suggested unless Assemblyman Collins’ vehicles weighed over 26,000 pounds he should save money under the proposed legislation.

Daryl Capurro, representing Nevada Motor Transport Association, expressed opposition to A.B. 550 for a variety of reasons. He began with a brief history of the current law, which began during the 1983 session when special fuel tax was moved from a form for reporting fuel to the pump to ease evasion. A subsequent review discovered there was a 25 percent increase in fuel tax revenue; however, the mileage tax revenue, which was still reported, did not correspond. The problem was resolved in 1989 when the legislature eliminated the mileage tax and created the current two-tier taxation structure of registration fees and fuel tax. In 1995 collection of the fuel tax was changed from the pump to the terminal rack, which federal studies had indicated another 25 percent of revenue could be gained from evasion. The net result was an additional $12 million, about normal growth consistent with other states who implemented the terminal rack point of taxation. All the legislation did was something the industry had requested since 1983 which was to make sure the state was collecting all funds to which they were entitled before they raised taxes.

Mr. Capurro suggested A.B. 550 would return the state to evasion rates around 50 percent or equal to what it was prior to 1983. The audit division within DMV & PS would have to increase their staffing levels to combat the decrease in funds since evasion was in direct proportion to the number of audits given. Intrastate carriers were given other options not available to interstate carriers such as quarterly registration and farm exemptions. The bill was highly unequitable since the registration fee for a 26,000 pound vehicle would be $312 while a 80,000 pound vehicle would be $50. The current laws were based upon weight categories paying their fair share of registration since it correlated to damage, the bill would change that. In 1998 the fuel tax produced $64 million and registration produced $20 million for the highway fund. Interstate carriers paid 80 percent and 40 percent of those fees respectively which meant they paid the bulk of the fees collected.

Mr. Capurro concluded showing the committee Nevada was around in middle of all states when speaking about motor carrier registration fees (Exhibit I). The national average were around $1,300 for a 80,000 pound vehicle with Nevada at $1,384. Fuel taxes in Nevada were ranked fourth but were fairly consistent. If the legislation were passed Nevada would rank first with regard to fuel tax and fiftieth in regard to registration. He felt the current system was equitable and did not want to see changes which would create vast differences and cause the state to lose revenue.

Pete Fundis, owner, Fundis Trucking Company, announced every time the legislature enacted "fair" legislation he wound up paying more in taxes. He noted the evasion factor of A.B. 550 would be immense if passed. Interstate truckers would no longer purchase fuel in Nevada so they would not have to report their mileage, which would be more lost revenue for the state. He stated to justify owning a motor carrier someone would have to put 60,000 to 70,000 miles minimum on the vehicle per year. The bill appeared to be a justification attempt for those who only placed 10,000 miles on their vehicle a year. The industry pushed the legislature to place the tax at the pump and there were many members who were not pleased with them since they now had to pay the taxes on the fuel instead of allowing the money to float for 45 to 90 days. A.B. 550 would revert back to that practice, which was not fair.

Cheryl Bloomstrom, representing Nevada Chapter of Associated General Contractors (AGC), informed the committee there were both interstate and intrastate operators within her organization who would be hurt by the legislation. Interstate vehicles were able to prorate their registration in Nevada and in the other states in which they operated; however, they did pay the entire registration fee since the fee was prorated between states. Intrastate operators only paid Nevada registration fees.

Mr. Collins mentioned in the past AGC had supported similar legislation and wondered what the reason was for the new position. Ms. Bloomstrom explained the legislation they had supported was based on the weight-distance relationship. A.B. 550 did not specifically address that relationship and the increased diesel tax was too great for their members.

Mr. Collins understood the response given; however, he indicated one of the reasons AGC had supported the other bills was because revenue generated went to the highway fund which created more jobs for their members. He quizzed why they did not feel the same regarding A.B. 550. Ms. Bloomstrom replied according to previous testimony the current bill was revenue neutral but was not revenue neutral to the members of AGC.

Jens Larsen, Representing, Nevada Taxpayers Association, testified they were opposed to A.B. 550.

Clay Thomas, assistant chief, Motor Carrier Bureau, DMV & PS, apprised the committee of the effects to the department of the legislation. He noted the evasion of the fuel tax would become a problem if the point of taxation were changed from the terminal rack. Another problem was carriers would have the opportunity to report their mileage as they deemed appropriate not what was accurate. That would create a greater need for audit staff since current staffing levels would not be able to effectively handle the thousand plus interstate carriers which operated in Nevada. Currently intrastate motor carriers were not required to report their traveled miles. The bill would require them to begin reporting the mileage putting greater responsibility on them to assure accuracy.

Mr. Carpenter thought intrastate carriers were required to report their mileage yearly instead of quarterly, as interstate carriers did. He felt the previous speaker’s statement was extremely inaccurate.

Terry Baltisburger, tax administrator II, Motor Carrier Bureau, DMV & PS, explained intrastate motor carriers did not have to record their mileage as closely as the bill would require. Under the current legislation all taxes were paid at the pump and the carriers were required to file a tax return which showed miles and gallons. A.B. 550 would require the carriers to retain accurate records for the department so auditors could ensure they were paying the 8.7 cents per gallon on taxable gallons. The current system would have to be improved if the legislation passed.

Mr. Collins noted the one issue not mentioned thus far, which had been mentioned in previous sessions when dealing with similar issues, was the idea of creating a port of entry system through Nevada to monitor the traffic. Mr. Law stated he had completed a couple of studies a few years ago on the creation of a port of entry system. The conclusion reached was the benefits equaled the costs so the system would not generate any new revenue and was not advocated.

Mrs. Chowning closed the hearing on A.B. 550 and opened the hearing on A.B. 457.

Assemblyman David Parks, District 41, testified A.B. 457 was referred to as the aggressive driving bill and was not a road rage bill. Road rage was considered a criminal offense since it was an assault with a motor vehicle or other weapon which occurred on a roadway. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) considered aggressive driving a traffic offense and defined it as "the operation of a motor vehicle in a manner which endangers or is likely to endanger persons or property." Aggressive driving was a sequence of traffic violations which endangered others, including speeding, tailgating, weaving through traffic, running red signals, gesturing, yelling, persistent honking, and flashing high beams or any combination of those activities.

Mr. Parks continued in a recent nationwide survey conducted by the NHTSA concluded aggressive driving was on the rise. Some results of the survey were

• 62 percent of respondents felt the behavior of another driver had been a threat to them in the past year,

• 36 percent considered being cut off by another driver was a threatening action,

• 75 percent felt it was important to do something about unsafe drivers,
• 33 percent reported driving was more dangerous today than it was a year ago, and
• 61 percent felt there was too little enforcement of tailgating.

Other studies concluded incidents of aggressive driving had increased approximately 7 percent each year since 1990 and 44 percent of drivers felt aggressive driving was a greater danger than drunk drivers. Currently only two states had statutes addressing aggressive driving: Arizona and Virginia.

Mr. Parks explained the legislation before the committee was modeled after the Arizona law which created an offense for aggressive driving. The bill sought to amend existing statute with the addition of a new misdemeanor offense for aggressive driving. The act was defined as an event in which a driver sped and committed two or more of the aforementioned traffic violations. Drivers must create an immediate hazard to other vehicles or persons. The bill also provided for the prosecution of the offenders. For a first offense the court would order the driver to attend a course in traffic safety and could have their license suspended for no more than 30 days. For a second offense, which was required to occur within 2 years, the court would revoke the drivers license for a period of 1 year. Mr. Parks presented articles from the Las Vegas Sun and the Las Vegas Review Journal showing the Las Vegas metropolitan area as one of the worst in the country when discussing traffic offenses and aggressive driving behavior (Exhibit J).

Colonel Michael Hood, Chief, Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP), testified in support of A.B. 457 claiming any legislation which would assist the NHP in the fight against aggressive driving would be supported. It was important to control aggressive drive since it often led to road rage. The NHP was currently involved in programs in both northern and southern Nevada to combat the problem but could use the assistance of stronger legislation as an effective tool.

Mrs. Chowning questioned if there was anything mentioned in the bill which was not currently addressed in existing statutes or if the bill was an enhancement of the current laws. Colonel Hood stated the provisions in the bill were located in current statute and its direction ran closely to the reckless driving statute in effect. A.B. 457 consolidated the violations and required a mandatory suspension whereas the reckless driving law only increased the number of points on the offender’s license.

Mrs. Chowning clarified the mandatory suspension was not currently in statute for traffic violations. Colonel Hood indicated she was correct.

Mr. Collins wondered how many reckless driving tickets were issued on Interstate 15 in Las Vegas and felt the NHP would require more patrol officers to help with the bill. Colonel Hood did not have exact numbers but explained the theory between the two violations was the same. An officer would have to witness multiple traffic violations for both violations. The difference was reckless driving penalized with points on the license while aggressive driving would suspend the license.

Erin Breen, director, Safe Community Partnership, testified from Las Vegas. She explained Safe Community Partnership was a community based organization which represented over 40 agencies in Clark County who were working to reduce the overall burden of traffic crashes in the area. They felt A.B. 457 could have been used as an educational tool to deter aggressive driving since studies had shown the Las Vegas area as in the top 10 cities in the nation for incidents of aggressive driving. Between 1990 and 1995 vehicle miles traveled increase 82 percent in Clark County, higher than any other community in the nation. That contributed to more congested streets, longer signal times, and greater irritation. As part of their educational efforts they recently joined with the American Society of Safety Engineers to institute a drive friendly program. There were over 10,000 decals and 400 signs located throughout Clark County urging people to drive friendly. The legislation before the committee would allow the groups to add the tag line, "It’s the law" to the signs.

Vann Lloyd, member, Drive Friendly Committee, American Society of Safety Engineers, testified from Las Vegas in support of A.B. 457 echoing the comments made by Ms. Breen.

Mrs. Chowning clarified what the two organizations were saying was it would be easier to combat aggressive driving if they were able to inform people there was a law against it through billboards and other signs. They would be able to gain peoples’ attention to drive more carefully with the legislation before the committee. Ms. Breen explained the sign program was only one component to their overall campaign. The bill would allow the groups to tag the current efforts with the byline "It’s the law" but the groups offered other educational programs on safe driving. They had concerns regarding the police departments’ ability to enforce such a law but saw it as an overall step in the right direction for not only Clark County but the State of Nevada.

Richard Shrader, representing AAA Nevada, testified in support of A.B. 457 and mentioned the reasons for their support had previously been stated.

John Morrow, chief deputy, Washoe County Public Defenders Office, indicated the bill appeared to address a specific Clark County problem that did not need to be legislated throughout the entire state. There were also problems with some of the wording being too vague which would create difficulty in prosecuting such a case if it were to go to trial. He felt the current traffic laws addressed the necessary methods for controlling traffic and the point system addressed chronic bad drivers.

Mrs. Chowning asked if he wanted to propose an amendment to the bill. Mr. Morrow expressed interest in working with Assemblyman Parks if the sponsor of the bill was so inclined.

Mr. Nolan mentioned he had served on the Assembly Committee on Judiciary during the past few sessions and did not recall any traffic issue which dealt with the statute on page 3 of, "Driving between the vehicles, persons or animals comprising a funeral or other authorized procession…" He was unclear if the section was covered under current traffic laws but felt it should be. Mr. Morrow indicated it would constitute a reckless driving offense in most cases.

Mrs. Chowning closed the hearing on A.B. 457 and opened the hearing on A.B. 627.

Tom Stephens, director, NDOT, explained A.B. 627 was a logo sign bill which referred to the gas, food, and lodging signs located along the sides of interstate highways. The bill would create a new category of signs for attractions along the resort corridor in Las Vegas and some selected areas of Reno located near the exit to the attraction. For example a pyramid could represent the Luxor or a lion for the MGM. Included in the legislation was the ability to set fees for the signs and direct any revenue to improvements on existing signs. There were two proposed amendments to the bill which would be addressed in detail later. The first amendment would allow Walgreens Drug Store to develop the platform crossing Interstate 80 in downtown Reno and permit them to place a sign in the state highway’s right of way. The second amendment would allow for signs over Frank Sinatra Boulevard in Las Vegas.

Ed Wilson, representing NDOT, presented the committee with information which explained A.B. 627 (Exhibit K). Current regulations permitted the department to only recover administrative costs for gas, food, lodging, and camping logo signs on rural or suburban interstate highways which amounted to no more than $2,520 per year. The proposed legislation would create a fifth category for commercial attraction logo signs in urban areas. The fees for the signs had not been determined for the 12 interchanges in the Las Vegas area. There was no proposed fee raise for the existing logo sign program so small businesses would not be effected.

Mrs. Chowning wondered if an estimate of the fees could be given, such as the difference between what the Walgreens would be charged verses the MGM. Mr. Stephens explained the Walgreens was not part of the logo sign program. It was included because it was in the same NRS statute as the logo signs. NDOT was working with the Nevada Resort Association to determine a fair price for the proposed logo signs. The Nevada Resort Association expressed interest in the creation of the program since it would assist with traffic congestion because people would know which exits to take and then which way to turn once they exited the highway. There appeared to be more interest for attractions than there were proposed sign locations so NDOT would work to establish a fee which would allow them to recover costs while allowing the casinos to compete for the locations.

Mrs. Chowning noted the estimate presented to the committee was $5,000 (Exhibit K). Mr. Stephens explained the department used $5,000 as an example. Mr. Wilson indicated an existing logo sign for gas, food, lodging, or camping would cost around $2,500. The department estimated the new logo signs at $5,000 to use as an example for the committee. At the $5,000 estimate, with 60 possible spaces, NDOT would generate $300,000 per year. Since there was generally a 30 percent vacancy rate the actual revenue generated would be around $200,000. Mr. Stephens declared to the committee there would be more than one sign associated with the attraction. There would be the sign on the highway and another sign on the exit ramp showing which way to go. The attraction would receive a series of signs for their $5,000 directing their patrons where to go once they exited the highway.

Mr. Gustavson remarked the proposed language in the bill appeared to allow the department to increase the fees for the current gas, food, lodging, and camping logo signs. Mr. Stephens indicated he knew the language read as such and there was a proposed amendment which would assure the bill would only apply to urban areas where the small business signs were prohibited.

Mr. Gustavson requested there be a clarification between the two programs so there would be no confusion. Mr. Stephens stated the amendment would be introduced, but the current law did not allow for any gas, food, lodging, or camping logo signs in urban areas. The attraction logo signs would be a new program for the department.

Brian Hutchins, chief deputy attorney general to the Department of Transportation and Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, Office of the Attorney General, explained there were two sections of the NRS which required amending for logo signs (Exhibit L). The same amendment was proposed for each section in NRS, which were NRS 405.110 and NRS 484.287. Both statutes prohibited signs over state highways, within highway right-of-ways, and bridges or other structures on highways. The amendments would provide some very limited exceptions to those statutes. The amendments contained two subsections. The first would allow for the leasing of airspace above a freeway for a commercial establishment to build a structure. The amendment would also allow for signs to be placed in the highway right-of-way to inform consumers the business was open. The second subsection would allow easements, to be dedicated by the casinos along Frank Sinatra Boulevard, to have signs placed on them which was prohibited since the road was adjacent to Interstate 15.

Mrs. Chowning clarified the two proposed amendments were identical simply in separate NRS statutes. Mr. Hutchins announced she was correct. There was wording on the second page which required changing since it was added by mistake.

Mrs. Chowning requested the amended language dealing with the committee’s concern regarding the current fees for logo signs be brought forth soon. Mr. Stephens articulated there were three parts to the bill. The addition of the new attraction logo signs was the main intent of the bill. The second issue was allowing a commercial business to build on a platform over Interstate 80 in Reno and letting them place a sign. The final issue was allowing the casinos to keep their signs in place on Frank Sinatra Boulevard and dedicate the right-of-way to the state so the road could be extended to Interstate 15 as it was meant to be. Mr. Hutchins explained NDOT had worked with the Nevada Resort Association on the proposed amendments and were currently in negotiations with Clark County to assure their concerns were met.

Alfredo Alonso, representing A & B Development, mentioned he was representing the interests of the proposed Walgreens Drug Store and was in support of the proposed amendments. There was one concern he had with regard to section 5. They questioned why the sign would have to be located on the building itself and were working with NDOT to resolve the issue.

James Spinello, representing Clark County, indicated Clark County was not opposed to the legislation. However, there was an issue since the Public Works Department had not received the amended language until earlier in the day and those who needed to review the amendments would not be able to look at the document until the following day. They were willing to work with NDOT and the casinos to attempt to solve some potential problems with language concerning the dedication of right-of-ways during the next few days.

Lawrence Semenza, representing Circus Circus Enterprises Incorporated, testified in support of the bill and stated he would work with Clark County in the next few days to alleviate their problems.

Mrs. Chowning thanked all those involved with the bill for taking existing legislation and creating a bill addressing other concerns which would have otherwise required three bills and was not possible during the 120-day session. She closed the hearing on A.B. 627 and opened the hearing on A.B. 628.

Lee Gibson, representing Clark County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC), testifying from Las Vegas mentioned she would like to have Mr. Perreault speak on the bill since Opportunity Village requested the legislation.

Steve Perreault, member, Board of Directors, Opportunity Village, testified from Las Vegas that Opportunity Village had a 45 year history of advocating services for people with mental retardation and related disabilities. The intent behind A.B. 628 was for public transportation providers, such as RTC, to provide nonemergency medical transportation for people with severe disabilities. Many people with mental retardation who received vocational training and employment services from Opportunity Village used the paratransit system for transportation to the center or job in the community. Those rides were currently not reimbursed by Medicaid even though the services provided through Opportunity Village were reimbursable through the Medicaid home community based service waiver. The legislation would allow RTC and other providers to explore the possibility of providing transportation to Opportunity Village and other nonemergency medical services through Medicaid. The reimbursement of funds would allow RTC to expand resources available for other types of transit services for the elderly and disabled. It would also allow them to negotiate separate contracts with operators who could address the unique services required for adults with disabilities.

Mr. Gibson testified in favor of A.B. 628 from Las Vegas. The RTC had not come out in support of the legislation since they were due to discuss it at their next meeting; however, staff was planning on recommending they endorse the legislation. The bill would allow RTC to better serve the needs of the disabled community in the county by stretching existing revenue for paratransit services. The RTC transported 2,200 paratransit passengers per day of which 540 or 20 percent would qualify as nonemergency related passengers. The legislation could reduce passenger expenditures from the current rate of $30 to $20, saving $5,400 per day or $1.4 million per year. The funds could be reallocated within the paratransit budget to improve existing services to more effectively meet the community’s needs.

Mr. Gibson mentioned there were some technical amendments he would like to offer (Exhibit M). The first was in section 1, subsection 2, they wanted to add a paragraph c which would read, "Transportation of elderly or functionally disabled without regard to regular route or fixed schedules." The change would clarify the relationship between the State of Nevada Transportation Services Authority and RTC paratransit operators. The second amendment would be in section 2, subsection 1, the addition of paragraph c which would read, "Irregular routes to serve the public." The new language would permit deviation routes.

Mr. Nolan disclosed he worked for American Transit Corporation, which was the primary contractor for the paratransit services in Clark and Washoe Counties. While the bill would not have had any effect on him personally it would have an impact on the business relationship between ATC and the regional transportation commissions. He would therefore abstain from voting on the bill.

Gary Milliken, representing Opportunity Village, introduced Steve Hutchins and Mark Reynolds who would speak on the legislation as it pertained to other areas of the state.

Steve Hutchins, chief operating officer and executive vice president, Paratransit Services, Incorporated, read from prepared testimony (Exhibit N). He remarked there were many portions of A.B. 628 his company supported; however, there were some areas of the legislation which required amending to allow areas other than Clark County to benefit from the bill. Paratransit Services was a private non-profit company which specialized in providing rural transportation similar to the current program in Las Vegas. They had contracted with Carson City for a year and discovered problems with the Transportation Services Authority’s regulations and the company’s ability to provide adequate services with current funding sources. The proposed amendments would conform the regulations and allow one company to contract with a city to provide specific services, which was currently not allowed (Exhibit O).

Mrs. Chowning noted with the proposed amendments the bill became twofold. The original intent of the legislation was to allow a regional transportation commission to establish fixed routes for disabled persons in the community using Medicaid funding. The amendments appeared to provide fixed route services in smaller areas. The legal staff would have to review the amendments before the committee would be able to vote on the bill.

Mark Reynolds, representing Carson City Community Transportation, declared their intent was not to take away from the main goal of the legislation but to add services to those whose transportation needs were not currently being met due to transportation service authority regulations.

Mrs. Chowning mentioned she understood the reasoning behind the amendments because the Transportation Services Authority had stated if smaller areas did not offer mass public transportation, they were not allowed to offer small fixed route systems and that was what the amendments were attempting to correct. Mr. Reynolds suggested she was correct and the conflicts needed to be resolved.

Mrs. Chowning closed the hearing on A.B. 628 and opened the work session A.B. 35.

Elana Marton, committee policy analyst, announced the committee had two proposed amendments to A.B. 35 for consideration (Exhibit P). The first amendment, located in attachment A of the work session document was proposed by the Nevada State Energy Office. It would eliminate the liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) conversion and implement an annual sticker program option. Vehicles which ran on alternative fuels could either pay the tax as currently written or pay an annual fee. The current taxes per gallon were $0.19 for water phased hydrocarbon fuel, $0.22 for LPG, and $0.21 for natural gas. The annual sticker fees would be $25 for non commercial vehicles, $100 for commercial vehicles other than those governed by the Taxicab Authority in Clark County or the Transportation Services Authority, or $800 for commercial vehicles governed by the Taxicab Authority or the Transportation Services Authority.

Ms. Marton continued with the second proposed amendment located in attachment B of the work session document which was based upon previous committee discussions. The amendment would repeal the LPG conversion and institute a flat $0.12 per gallon fee which was lower than other fuel tax charges based upon the fact alternative fuel was cleaner and which was higher than the existing per gallon fee which was extremely low. Current revenue generated from LPG was $314,533. That figure would increase to approximately $468,000 with the increase to $0.12 per gallon.

Mrs. Chowning communicated to the committee there were two proposals the committee could choose from. The first had been brought to the committee by the energy department. There were a variety of states which had an annual sticker program in place (Exhibit Q) in lieu of volume taxes. There would be a decrease in the highway fund if the sticker were used; however, they did not know what the amount would be. The program would be an increase to the LPG user of approximately $150,000 per year based on the current tax of 6.7 cents per gallon. She presented a letter from Southwest Gas Corporation in support of the first proposed amendment (Exhibit R). The second proposal would increase the per gallon tax from 6.7 cents to $0.12 which would cost companies an additional $153,500 per year. The increase would still be less than the tax for compressed natural gas, which was at $0.21 per gallon, but it was a step in the right direction.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED NOT TO CONSIDER ANY AMENDMENTS, BUT TO DO PASS A.B. 35.

ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mrs. Chowning explained by adopting the bill in its present form there would be no LPG conversion and the tax would be $0.22 per gallon.

Mr. Nolan recalled the argument against passage of the bill in its current form was it would eliminate all benefits for those who currently used LPG as an alternative fuel source. He felt the committee would be placing businesses, which had invested considerable amounts of money to attempt to burn cleaner fuels, in a precarious position of no longer having an incentive to assist in the clean up of the environment.

Ms. Ohrenschall indicated to pass A.B. 35 in the current form would be draconian. She represented an area which had the highest air pollution in southern Nevada and was interested in promoting clean fuel as much as possible. She would not support the current motion since the incentives for businesses would be gone.

Mr. Thomas explained he would also be voting against the motion because he did not want to remove any incentives for businesses who used cleaner alternative fuels. He felt, if passed, the bill would compromise the air quality standards in the Las Vegas Valley and jeopardize certain federal funds.

Mr. Collins announced the city of Las Vegas, the city of Henderson, Nevada Power Company, Southwest Gas Company, and many other public and private entities presently used alternative energy without any incentive. The issue with which the bill dealt was the correction of a tax inequity. The bill should be voted as a do pass without any amendments out of fairness.

Mrs. Chowning noted governmental entities did not have to pay the fuel taxes, while private companies did.

THE MOTION TO DO PASS A.B. 35 FAILED WITH ASSEMBLYMEN COLLINS AND CLABORN VOTING IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.

Mr. Nolan asked for a clarification on the second proposed amendment.

Mrs. Chowning explained the LPG per gallon tax, with the conversion formula in place was 6.4 cents per gallon. If the conversion formula were eliminated the tax per gallon would be $0.22. The proposed amendment would create a flat per gallon tax of $0.12 with no conversion formula.

Mr. Nolan observed in the future more cleaner burning fuels would be developed and the legislature would have to determine equitable taxes for the fuels. He felt the second amendment was the best option for the committee but did not desire to immediately double a tax on an industry who had established themselves on a good faith effort for the environment by using alternative fuels. He would like to hear from some of the people who currently used alternative fuels to determine what their response would be to the legislation.

Mrs. Chowning stated there had been plenty of opportunities for anyone concerned with the issue to come forward and present information since the first hearing on February 25, 1999.

ASSEMBLYMAN THOMAS MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B.35.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYMEN CHOWNING, CLABORN, COLLINS AND PARKS VOTING AGAINST IT.

Mr. Collins thanked Chairwoman Chowning and staff for the time spent on the legislation.

Mrs. Chowning indicated the issue would probably return. With no further business before the committee the meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Jennifer Batchelder,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman

DATE: