MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION Sixty-eighth Session March 14, 1995 The Committee on Transportation was called to order at 1:15 p.m., on Tuesday, March 14, 1995, Chairman Batten presiding in Room 331 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Thomas Batten, Chairman Mrs. Vonne Chowning, Chairman Mr. Dennis L. Allard, Vice Chairman Mr. David Goldwater, Vice Chairman Mr. Bernie Anderson Mr. John C. Carpenter Mrs. Marcia de Braga Mr. Dennis Nolan Ms. Genie Ohrenschall Ms. Patricia A. Tripple STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Jackie Valley, Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Jim Utterbach, Nevada Motorcycle Safety Program Pat Simmonsen, DCFS Laurel Stadler, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD) Cathy Wilson, Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention Task Force Kim Conaghan, Child Assault Prevention Marilyn Ires, Alliance for Child Care Sheila Leslie, Action for Nevada's Children Jane Williams, Alliance for Child Care Madonna Long Sonia Martin Jerry Allen, BHR Bruce Glour, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety Lou Ann Russell, Alliance for Child Care Bobbie Gang, Nevada Women's Lobby Nancy Wall, Nevada League of Women Voters Chairman Batten called the meeting to order and the Secretary took roll. The Chair introduced Senator William O'Donnell, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Transportation, who would testify on S.B. 65. SENATE BILL 65 - Revises provisions governing examination of applicant for driver's license. Senator O'Donnell addressed the Committee on behalf of S.B. 65. He explained it was an administration bill and had been heard extensively in the Senate Committee. He passed out a driver's test to the Committee members and requested them to take out their driver's licenses. He wanted them to experience what the average person who came to Nevada felt when they went to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). The average person who moves to Nevada possessing a valid driver's license from another state has to surrender that license and take a test. He asked the Committee to take the driver's license test indicating the questions which have to be answered by every person applying for a Nevada driver's license. After a reasonable amount of time he went through the test, question-by-question, with abysmal results among the Committee members. Mr. O'Donnell explained the purpose of the bill was to allow individuals from other parts of the country who move to Nevada, are good drivers with no Driving Under the Influence (DUI) or felony violations on their record, to go to the DMV, surrender their license and, as long as they pass an investigation of their driving record, could obtain a valid Nevada driver's license. At the present time there are people exempt from getting a driver's test in Nevada. The bill would allow the DMV to waive 86,000 individuals a year who are required to pass the rigorous testing procedure which does not necessarily reflect a good driving record. He proved it by submitting the Committee to the test. He assumed they were all good drivers but not one of them passed the test. This proved that taking the test did not necessarily mean an individual was proficient in driving a car. He explained the bill would free staff members from administering tests to drivers who already had driver's licenses and good records. The staff would be able to move into other areas which would ease the applicant lines to register cars, take eye examinations, and all the necessary procedures done by the DMV to register and license individuals. Assemblyman Anderson expressed an irritant relative to out-of-state drivers who were unwilling to make a right hand turn after stopping at a red light. It was a small, insignificant factor, but it drove him crazy. In Nevada, after stopping at a red light and checking for on-coming traffic, a right turn may be legally made. However, that was not common in other states and there appeared to be ambiguity. He asked if there was any provision to address ambiguities. Mr. O'Donnell stated those little nuances were called rules of the road. There were differences from state-to-state but most people quickly became aware of those differences. Mr. Anderson suggested a small booklet might be submitted to people moving into Nevada explaining the rules of the road. Mr. O'Donnell thought that was an excellent idea indicating Senate testimony suggested a driver's handbook be distributed to inform people of the idiosyncrasies in Nevada law. He also asserted if a person did not make a right turn, and the individual behind him thought he should, he would learn very quickly to make the right hand turn. Horns would be honking! Mr. Anderson declared he must have been exposed to some very slow learners. Mr. Bruce Glover, from the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), answered Mr. Anderson's question by informing the Committee of a pamphlet redesigned specifically to touch upon laws peculiar to Nevada, particularly DUI and insurance laws. The pamphlet was to be printed on folded legal size paper opening into a four-part fold out. The pamphlet was on the drawing board. He stated more and more states were going to the right turn on red light law. He called attention to the fact that he, personally, had been driving for over 30 years and had not taken a test since obtaining his license. If everyone renewing a license was given a written test there would not be enough staff to administer it. On any given day in the state of Nevada there are from 26,000 to 46,000 drivers who are not familiar with Nevada laws, but know how to drive safely. Assemblyman Nolan queried how many people with impaired vision had been screened out who possessed valid driver's licenses from other states. Mr. Glover said it happened from time to time. In his interpretation of the bill a vision test would still be required. The vision test took less than a minute to administer and would be accompanied by the driving record check. He assured the Committee 16 year old drivers would not be included and an age limit would be established. Inexperienced persons would also not fall privy to this and their knowledge and skills would be tested. Mr. O'Donnell declared a national computer system was coming on-line April 30, 1995 and would hold the entire nation's driving records. The state of Nevada would be able to query any other state to obtain the record of any individual attempting to get a driver's license. This would not be a situation where the DMV would be issuing driver's licenses to anyone without a valid license. They would be issuing them to individuals with good driving records. Those who did not would be required to take both a written and driving test. At the present time, to obtain a first time driver's license, an appointment must be made six to seven weeks in advance. The backlog is that long! Passage of the bill would alleviate that waiting time. Assemblyman Allard agreed it was the way to shorten lines and give customers better service without costing the state more money, in fact, it would save money. He expressed full support of the bill. That being said, he asked if he could put his driver's license back in his pocket. Mr. Glover answered once the license was surrendered the test is required. If the test was not passed the license would not be returned. Assemblyman Chowning recalled Senator O'Donnell's statement that approximately 86,000 persons per year would not be required to take the test. She asked Mr. Glover if that statement was correct; and would it result in loss of anticipated revenue for the state. Mr. Glover said 86,000 was correct, to the best of their estimates in checking around the state. He stated they gave in excess of 70,000 tests in Clark County alone. Applicants would still be required to pay $20.50 for administration. Mr. Nolan said the code entered by the DMV for surrendered licenses was the same as for suspended licenses. In his business they had to do background checks on employees and if their driver's license had been suspended it would cause that person not to be hired. He knew it was not germane to the subject at hand but he wondered if a separate code could be developed. Mr. Glover agreed to look into it. The Chair requested any more testimony, pro or con. Ms. Laurel Stadler, Legislative Liaison with Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), expressed opposition to S.B. 65. When the bill was heard in the Senate Committee on Transportation she asked for statistics supporting the fact traffic safety had so improved which would give good reason for waiving the test for drivers new to the state of Nevada. The question was never answered so she did research on her own. She passed out Exhibit C, published by the Department of Transportation entitled, "1993 Statewide Traffic Accidents". She suggested the Committee would find the statistics interesting when considering waiving tests that could make safer drivers in Nevada. Exhibit D charted years 1984 to 1993 in several different areas and the low and high for the ten year period was circled. At the right hand side were the percentage increases in particular areas. Total accidents had gone up 50 percent, property damage accidents were up 47 percent, injury accidents were up 70 percent, and total injuries were up 75 percent. It may be said these figures were because of the population increase. She noted the population in 1984 was 932,130, and estimated population for 1993 (from the state demographer) was 1,398,400, which was a 50 percent increase in population. Therefore, the statistics had not gone down in any of the areas of traffic safety. There were no statistics found represented by anyone else to warrant having less regulations on drivers in the state of Nevada. Additionally, as Assemblyman Anderson pointed out, there are several laws specific to Nevada, such as the right turn on red light, school bus laws including the swing arm safety measure, and DUI laws which are unique to Nevada. In reference to the computer system mentioned by Senator O'Donnell, the system was expected to come on-line April 30, 1995 and is supposed to have two years, by federal mandate, driving information input by the states. Several individuals had said Nevada would have three years. If the system did not come up, and if there were only two years, that did not track a driving record for very long, particularly in the area of DUI. Senator O'Donnell also mentioned the bill would alleviate the driving test problem. Ms. Stadler's understanding was the six to seven week wait at the DMV was for the physical driving test, not the written test, and she hoped Mr. Glover would clarify that situation. She asserted giving a person a handbook was by no means a guarantee it would be opened and/or read. Knowing the handbook had to be read to pass the test to get the driver's license would give incentive to study it and become familiar with Nevada's laws and act responsibly in that area. She emphasized MADD was present as a public safety group and viewed the bill as a fast track to, maybe, cutting the lines at the DMV. However, waiving the test would not help because while the test was being taken people would not be taking up time in line. MADD did not feel this bill would be beneficial to the people of Nevada. In looking at the chart one could see there had not been much improvement in traffic safety in the state of Nevada. They believed what counted was the total number of injuries and fatalities on Nevada highways. She apologized their presentation was not as comical as the first one but to state that differences in the laws were nuances was wrong, there were differences in laws! Judy Jacaboni, Lyon County Chapter of MADD, reiterated opposition to the bill. The language of the bill did not state specifically that people from other states would not be required to take a written test. The bill expanded the director's discretionary powers and allowed the director to decide who would or would not take the written test. During testimony in the Senate, Mr. Glover stated he might consider not having individuals with court suspended licenses be required to take the written test when reobtaining their license. She stressed people with court suspended driver's licenses should start at square one because they obviously had not obeyed traffic laws in the past. She urged the Committee to consider all aspects of the bill, not just the convenience of the DMV. Bills that expanded director's discretion, especially political appointees, made her very nervous. She pointed out driving was not a right, it was a privilege! People coming from other states, particularly California, also had to wait in lines to get a driver's license in their state. It was not an extraordinary requirement. She asked the Committee to consider all those aspects when considering the bill. Assemblyman Nolan asked how many states did have a written test and how many did not. Mr. Glover said there were statistics kept on how many states used written tests and indicated he would research it and report back to the Committee. Mr. Nolan felt that information would be useful. Assemblyman Chowning stated the Committee did, indeed, need to know those statistics. She also inquired how many states had waived the written test for the same type of position. Mr. Glover indicated he would obtain that information as well. Assemblyman Anderson indicated he was not particularly interested if others in the United States were waiving written tests. He thought it was a good idea for Nevada. He was concerned regarding the ability to broaden the waiving of written tests to other kinds of statute areas. If the Committee were to proceed with the bill, he would like to see an amendment precluding the waiving of written tests in cases where an individual's license was suspended as a result of a DUI related conviction, either at the first, second or third level. That was part of the penalty burden of standing convicted. He presumed it could be done in Section 1 where it stated ". . . may require every applicant for driver's license to submit to examination." They could exempt the section of the statute referring specifically to the DUI statutes. Mr. Glover asserted there were DUI laws unique to Nevada. In 1983 the entire United States turned to more unique and stringent DUI laws. All states within the United States suspended licenses for a DUI. The blood alcohol content might be .08 or .10, but at some time the license would be lost. A person coming to Nevada knew if they got drunk and drove they would lose their driver's license. He asserted people chose to break the law. It was not as if they did not know the law . . they chose to disobey it. He made the point because laws were laws everywhere and needed to be followed. He stressed it was the driver's test that was backed up six, seven and eights weeks in southern Nevada. By waiving the written test it would allow utilization of staff to administer driving tests and spend time with novice, older or handicapped drivers needing attention. It was their intent that a person who had a license suspended for failure to appear in court not be required to test. That law was developed to collect revenues for the courts because fines were not being paid. The DMV acted as a revenue agent. When the ticket came in they took appropriate action on the license as pertained to the driving record. The statute pertained to the failure to appear type suspension when a ticket was not paid. A one point speeding ticket or a parking ticket would result in a suspended license. They were spending an hour with each person giving written and driving tests. The original intent of the failure to appear law was to make people pay their fines. When an individual lost his license he went to court and paid the fines which generated millions of revenue dollars for the state because the license was suspended. In some respects it did have to do with their driving because, in fact, they were driving or parking when they received the ticket. If the ticket was paid they did not necessarily lose their license. Chairman Batten asked Mr. Glover, in response to Mr. Anderson's question referencing DUI, would the statute be covered without adding DUI into it. Mr. Glover answered anyone having a driving related suspension revocation would be required to take the test, be it DUI, a point system, a felony hit-and-run, or manslaughter. An amendment could make it satisfactory for everybody. Assemblyman Carpenter asked if those situations would be taken care of in the regulations. When was the computer going to be on-line? Mr. Glover reported his computer person was running the test on April 27, 1995. As of 9 a.m. this date there was a meeting on Problem Drivers Pointer System (PDPS) which was scheduled to come up March 30, 1995. He did not want to see the law come into effect without the DMV having the ability to use that particular program. When the bill was presented they put it in and Senator O'Donnell and the Senate Transportation Committee amended it to be effective upon passage or April 30, 1995. They would not have capability without that system to check drivers and would not want to run the program without that system. Therefore, unless the system came up they would not do it. In response to Mr. Carpenter's first question, they would use regulations to cover those issues. However, if an amendment in the law was more amenable to everyone he had no problem with it, as long as the needs of the drivers of Nevada were met. Mr. Carpenter queried how far back would the computer pull up driving records. It was Mr. Glover's understanding the computer had a two-year driving record, including any DUI's going back at least seven years. Therefore, DUI's would not escape the two year scope. Mr. Carpenter asked for clarification that Nevada was contributing information to the system and Nevada's data would be transmitted to other states. Mr. Glover said currently it was done to the National Driver Register in batch mode at the end of each day. All records would be transformed back to National Driver Register. The information will be loaded into the problem driver pointer system and a key stroke would bring the record up immediately. He reasserted the DMV's attempt to survive and lessen the lines. He pleaded for a reduction in lines in order to have more time to work on other items, including development of tests to evaluate problem drivers, DUI problems, young and novice drivers. They would like to draft a novice driver bill in the next legislature where they could create a graduated license and work some education into it. In the present environment they were unable to do those things. It is on a survival basis for the drivers license division insofar as testing is concerned. Assemblyman Nolan played devil's advocate expressing concern about younger people. He indicated high school students obtaining their first driver's license may not have had an opportunity for formal driver's education. It was his understanding there was no mandated driver's education program in the state of Nevada. Mr. Glover agreed there was not. Therefore, these young people did not have any formal education, such as: What is a yield sign? What is a three-way stop? Any number of traffic directions are taken for granted by those who had the opportunity for formal driver's education. He felt the need to get this type of information to those young drivers because they are unable to get it through osmosis. Mr. Glover said the proposal was for first time drivers to take the test. A person entering the state without a valid license would be required to take the test. He wished to put a minimum age limit of 24 years on the bill which would give them two full cycles of driving. He did not believe 16 year olds should be permitted to enter the state and get a license without proving their driving skills and experience. The Chair asked for more questions or anyone wishing to give testimony, pro or con. There being none the hearing on S.B. 65 was closed. The Chair entertained Assemblyman Tripple's motion. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ASSEMBLYMAN TRIPPLE TO DO PASS ON S.B. 65. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER. Assemblyman Nolan brought up a point of parliamentary procedure requesting the vote be rescinded and opportunity for discussion afforded the Committee. The Chair honored the request and suggested Mr. Nolan begin the discussion. Mr. Nolan indicated there were some pertinent points made relevant to the bill and requests for further information. One of those was to ascertain how many other states were making the decision a written driving test did nothing to improve the safety on their highways and city streets. He wished to take a look at that information before voting. He agreed the written test for people already possessing driver's licenses did not indicate their driving ability, however, he expressed concern the law still did not specifically address first time testers. He recalled Mr. Glover's explanation that first time applicants, young people or those not licensed, would be required to take a test. He said it was not stated specifically in the bill and he would prefer to see it in an amendment to the bill before taking a vote. Mr. Carpenter understood what Mr. Nolan was saying but he believed it could best be handled through regulation. Times were going to change and he did not think they could put everything into the bill that might become a problem. He felt they needed to have faith in those in the field to write the regulations correctly. If it was discovered they were not so doing, then take action. There were so many different situations to be addressed. The testimony had assured the Committee that drunk driving and the age situation would be taken care of, therefore, he felt there was enough direction to administer the bill properly. Assemblyman Ohrenschall echoed Mr. Nolan's concerns, both about the information and inclusion of the amendment in the statute. The proposed bill specifically exempted first time drivers and drivers with licenses revoked due to a DUI out of the section stating the department may require it. In other words, it would have to be required in the bill. Mr. Carpenter's point about administrative regulations was well taken, in most respects. However, in regard to Nevada's particular DUI statutes and new young drivers it would be well to have more specificity, particularly when the state does not have mandated driver's education in every school. It was totally ambiguous in the bill. Mr. Anderson agreed with Ms. Ohrenschall regarding an amendment. Unfortunately regulations tended to come and go but statutes stayed forever. In some ways people liked having their concerns reflected in the statutes rather than administrative regulations, particularly in the area of DUI. He felt an amendment could be crafted providing anyone who had lost a license in a jurisdiction under certain circumstances would be required to take a test. He indicated that would make him feel more comfortable. Although the statistics presented over the ten year time period by MADD appeared to be impressive, they were, in fact, a result of the population increase and the taking of a test did not seem to make a difference. All of the people in the statistics had taken tests but it did not cut down on their accident rate. Mr. Carpenter said, in view of the arguments, he would like to amend the motion to make certain an individual who had a DUI within seven years would be required to take the test. The Chair interrupted by suggesting Ms. Tripple withdraw her motion and Mr. Carpenter withdraw his second, the Committee could have the amendment and the motion would be allowed at that stage. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ASSEMBLYMAN TRIPPLE TO WITHDRAW HER MOTION TO DO PASS S.B. 65. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER. The Chair entertained a new motion by Mr. Carpenter. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 65 WITH THE AMENDMENT TO STATE ANY PERSON HAVING A DUI WITHIN SEVEN YEARS AND ALL NEW DRIVERS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO TAKE THE DRIVING TEST. Having been presented with new information from Mr. Glover, the Chair called for a brief recess to study and discuss a new amendment (Exhibit D). Mr. Allard indicated under section (b) of the amendment: "A person whose license or privilege to drive has been suspended, revoked or cancelled, or who has been disqualified from driving during the past four years . . ." He asked if that meant to include those individuals whose licenses had been suspended, revoked or cancelled during the past four years, or did they mean forever. Mr. Glover clarified it meant during the past four years. It was felt within the four year period they would have shown necessary rehabilitation to drive properly. They would not go back forever. Mr. Anderson asked about (f): "A person whose driving record indicates three or more convictions for moving traffic violations during the past four years." Were those individuals currently holding licenses in the state of Nevada who had three or more moving violations required to take a test? Mr. Glover answered upon renewal, if a person had three or more moving violations within the last four years a written test was required. Mr. Carpenter clarified everything on the list was being currently tested. Mr. Glover replied affirmatively. Ms. Ohrenschall asked Mr. Glover if he would be amenable to inserting the word "otherwise" where it said ". . . a person's license or privilege to drive has been suspended, revoked or cancelled, or who has been otherwise disqualified . . ." in Section B, since the earlier ones would also be disqualifications. Mr. Glover was amenable to that suggestion. Ms. Ohrenschall went on to sub-section (a), why had they chosen to put it as the person under a certain age rather than referring to a first time driver? Mr. Glover indicated insurance breaks began at age 24. Their concern was inexperienced and/or 16-18 year old drivers would have been able to obtain driver's licenses. They felt they could cover everyone with driving experience ensuring their record had some history. Ms. Ohrenschall queried if there were any first time drivers over the age of 25 who came to Nevada from cities with mass transportation who never had the need to drive. She assumed a young person growing up in New York City might very well reach the age of 25 without ever obtaining a driver's license. Mr. Glover stated that person, because they would not have a driver's license, would be required to take the tests. Ms. Ohrenschall asked if he would be amenable to some addition to sub-section (a) ". . . a person under the age of 25 or who has not previously held a valid driver's license . . ." to clarify. Mr. Glover was amenable adding he had drafted the sections, Senator O'Donnell had not seen them, and they had not been discussed. The Chair asked for further discussion. Mr. Nolan assumed the reason the bill had come to life was an effort to reduce staff concentrating on this particular aspect and be able to reorganize the DMV for more consumer efficient operation. He asked had that opportunity been taken away by the amendments, or was there still a reason to do it? Mr. Glover did not believe the restrictions handicapped them. He stated it would allow them to evaluate those individuals who needed evaluation and spend less time on good drivers. Ms. Ohrenschall recalled Mr. Glover's earlier testimony that he would not want the bill to go into effect until the computer system was in operation. She asked if he would like to have an additional amendment making the effective date when the system became operational. Mr. Glover expressed he would like to make the bill upon passage or April 30, 1995. He would like his credibility to reflect that if the system was not up, it would not go into effect. He did not think it necessary to further amend the bill. Ms. Ohrenschall expressed concern it would become a mandate to him if the bill passed and the computer was not up. He assured her there was no problem and she was satisfied. Assemblyman Chowning suggested a redundancy in number (a) which should remain, "A person under the age of 25 ", because at the beginning portion of the amendment it stated, "All persons applying for Nevada driver's licenses who possess a valid driver's license of the same type or class issued by another jurisdiction . . .", therefore, it was not necessary to put the words ". . . or who has not previously held a license . . ." Ms. Ohrenschall declared the point well taken. The Chair asked for any further comments or questions from the Committee. Being none he entertained a motion from Assemblyman Carpenter. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 65 WITH THE AMENDMENTS SUPPLIED BY MR. GLOVER AND, IN ADDITION, THE WORD CHANGES SUGGESTED BY ASSEMBLYMAN OHRENSCHALL. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Nolan expressed the Committee's intent on S.B. 65 was first time drivers in the state of Nevada would also be tested. ASSEMBLY BILL 311 - Requires Department of Motor Vehicles and public safety to issue license plates for support child care services. Assemblyman Vivian Freeman, Assembly District 24, indicated child care had been an issue of hers for several years. In 1990 she chaired an interim study on the needs of child care in the state of Nevada. At that time it was determined in order to provide the kind of child care needed in Nevada, including things like latch key and other areas, it would cost $13 Million. A series of bills were brought to the Legislature and that year there was a big budget short fall, therefore, no state money was provided that session. In the 1993 session she asked for an exemption from the business tax passed in 1991. She asked for an exemption in 1993 from the business tax for child care providers, a labor intensive business required by the state to provide a certain number of employees per child. It died in the Taxation Committee. They had looked for every type of state revenue to be found for child care and A.B. 311 was the latest solution (Exhibit E). She was aware of the fact there were a number of other bills coming to the Committee asking for a surcharge on license plates for other concerns. She hoped the Committee would give the bill the kind of consideration it deserved. There were other people present to speak on the specifics of the bill but she wished to say, for the record, that Bonnie Parnell from the Nevada State P.T.A., strongly supported the bill. She introduced Exhibit F and explained the situation regarding the issue of child care in Nevada. In 1992 she chaired a study committee on the welfare system and found the major reasons parents went on welfare was lack of health and child care. The lack of child care in Nevada was enormously expensive. She had worked with private industry, casinos and everybody she could think of, to encourage them to provide child care for their employees. She had not been very successful. Some businesses had done very well with it. For instance, in Washoe County, I.G.T. and Washoe Medical Center provided child care for their employees and found over a period time they saved money. Somehow the employers in the state had difficulty understanding this. She heard in Las Vegas, M.G.M. was planning to provide child care for their employees and she applauded them for their decision. However, for the nonprofit child care providers, testifying this date, offering child care at a sliding scale for their clients, there was a critical need for public money. They found private and grant money had run out and they were struggling to fund the services being provided for the community. She was unsure whether or not there would be a fiscal note. She had been notified one could be requested and invited Ray Sparks to address the question. Pat Simonson from Youth and Family Services would address the question of how money would be administered at state level. She introduced Marilyn Ives from Alliance for Child Care. Marilyn Ives, Co-Chair for Alliance for Child Care, introduced Diane Williams, Co- Chair for the Alliance for Child Care. Ms. Ives indicated support for legislative efforts to address the issue of child care for families in Nevada. The Alliance was comprised of agencies, businesses and individuals who wanted safe, quality child care available and affordable for all families. A. B. 311 was a start in that direction. However, there was an amendment (Exhibit F) they wished to propose and she indicated Ms. Williams would be explaining it in detail. She stated the wording for the amendment came from her expertise and she "did not know what she was doing". Instead of requesting a specialized license plate they would rather ask a $5 increase on fees for the prestige personalized plate, with the $5 allocated to an already existing account for child care to assist families in Nevada. Transportation and child care were two issues impacting parent's ability to work and stay off welfare. Basic child care for Nevada's children was a problem with which the state had been struggling for a long time. Providing a safe and healthy place for children to stay while their parents worked or attended a job training program was not only the right thing to do, it was the economical thing to do. Every dollar invested in high quality pre-school education and child care resulted in savings of $7 in the cost of special education, welfare and other social service programs. A study was done in Ypsilanti, Michigan, on a high scope pre-school program that tracked children from similar backgrounds, for a 29 year period, who had attended a high quality pre-school program in the early 1960's. Over that 29 year period, comparing them to a set of children who had not attended that pre- school, they found lower pregnancy rates, lower criminal history records, a higher increase of individuals who obtained and maintained employment, more car owners, more home owners, and more second car owners. It had a definite economic and self-sufficiency impact on families. Finding diverse ways to fund the issue had been difficult for the child care community. A poor family trying to pay for child care used 35 percent of their income. When a family earned $6 per hour, with one child, the average cost of care was about $4,400 per year. In a state with wages lower than the national average, and cost-of-living higher than the national average, it did not leave much expendable income which resulted in higher welfare and recidivism rates. It also impacted social services in other ways, 25 percent of the children who had been reported and substantiated reports of child abuse neglect had indicated a lack of supervision as a contributing factor. It was also an issue effecting the community economically in stores and services. The cost of child care related turnover to businesses was great and consumers incurred that cost when they went to the store. The Women in Cable Foundation did a study in which they found companies with 500 employees incurred about $650,000 of child care related expenses for turn-over rates. Even companies with as few as 100 employees could spend up to $135,000 in child care turn-over. She encouraged the Committee to amend the bill and support the legislation. Assemblyman Goldwater concurred with Ms. Freeman on the importance of child care and how the state had not made these issues a priority. He indicated every morning the Judiciary Committee discussed locking people up, building prisons, crime and the horrible things people do to one another. If he were czar of Nevada his priorities would definitely be different. However, there was a big policy issue on A.B. 311, which was earmarking fees for specific interest, even though it was an issue dear to the hearts of he and Ms. Freeman. Every member of the Legislature had a soft heart for some cause that he or she felt was a priority issue. To set policy of empowerment for the state to collect fees and extract certain things set a dangerous or precarious policy point. He wanted to make clear, even though they had to differentiate personal beliefs from the policy point of view on issues, he was unable to support this bill because he did not believe it was good policy. He asked Ms. Ives if she understood what he was saying and if she had any rebuttal that might perhaps convince him it was good policy. Ms. Ives indicated the Legislature had set precedent already in that there was a fee attached to birth and death certificates in the state allocated to a children's trust fund for child abuse prevention programs. There was also a fee established for marriage licenses which went toward support of domestic violence programs within the state. It had not, to her knowledge, been detrimental to the state or to the programs and had been supported by those who purchased those items. It was important when looking at revenues to put children in the forefront and set the example that children took priority when looking at funding opportunities. There was a direct link between child care and transportation. The families utilizing child care subsidies were either low income working families or families in job training. Those families were not working or receiving job training and escalating up to the higher wage jobs without dependable transportation. They were not typically using public service transportation. The families who had been successful were the ones able to stay in their jobs and work their way up to afford their own vehicle. Those were the families who moved off the child care subsidies. Ms. Chowning expressed a dilemma. She had served with Ms. Freeman on the 1989 interim sub-committee on child care. They had worked very hard and it was disappointing to see all the work come to no fruition, although America West had adopted a wonderful model child care program which indicated employees remained with the company because of the child care provision. She was very much in favor of the bill as written but had a problem with the amendment. She needed to know the amount of vanity plates issued because that would be the fee charged. It would give a better idea of how much income would be gained. Ms. Ives indicated the amount was approximately $300,000 per year generated from the vanity plate. Mr. Sparks, Deputy Director of Transportation, said there were approximately 70,000 vanity plates in the state. It depended upon whether the fee was put on the initial issuance or the renewal, or both, as to how much revenue would be derived from the proposal. Ms. Chowning stated the amendment as written would do both, therefore, approximately $350,000 per year would be generated. Mr. Anderson remarked he had the same dilemma as Mr. Goldwater. Although he heard the statement regarding the other fees, he stated those were usually set in the Committee dealing with domestic violence. Therefore, there was a direct link, one to the other. It was not an uncontentious issue even there. In 1993 the fees were raised for marriage licenses. He was concerned the DMV was being used as a generator for dollars and he felt it bad public policy not to tell the people in the state of Nevada we were not doing the right thing in funding the child care system. It was being hidden from them by finding a convenient way to get token dollars -- $350,000 was not nearly enough to do what needed to be done. The public was not being made to take responsibility by doing it that way. He thought the cause was right, everything about it was correct, but it was not good public policy. He was unable to support it because of that. He felt the state needed to own up to its responsibility and encourage the public to say, "We need to do something about this issue", not hide it away in a licensing fee. He went on, it was too bad there was no easy way to make everybody feel good about it but he had to be realistic. He felt the public needed to recognize responsibility and the general fund was where it should be accomplished. Ms. Ives expressed a wish there could be a bill to address this issue. She indicated when they considered the specialized license plates they knew the amount of fees generated would be even more of a token amount than looking at an over-all $5 increase. Even $350,000 would serve 50 to 100 children within the state of Nevada. That did not seem like a lot but it equated to savings above and beyond $350,000 for the state. She agreed it needed to be a general fund allocation and they would appreciate any kind of assistance in seeing that to fruition. Ms. Tripple stated the dollars generated would not all go into their fund because it would take some money to administer it. She did not want to get side-tracked on the dollars because the real concern was how to get the child care issue paid for. Mr. Carpenter asked how much money it would take to get the child care issue off the ground. He also queried if there were any state monies going into child care programs at the present time. Ms. Ives indicated the interim study done in 1991 showed a need of $10 million to address the needs of child care based on the population at that time. This amount had increased but she did not have an updated figure. The only monies contributed by the state to child care were for mandated programs through welfare which had matching federal monies. The monies being used at the present time to address the issue came from the federal government, local municipalities and private industry. The Chair asked for questions from the Committee for the two witnesses. There being none he asked if there was more testimony on behalf of A.B. 311. Ms. Freeman responded to the comments regarding monies coming out of the general fund. She indicated she would welcome participation of the members of the Committee in any way to get money out of the general fund for child care. She asserted children were not a priority in Nevada and child care was one of the most critical needs in the state. Title 20 money provided states with federal funds for programs for the poor which helped them to achieve self sufficiency, prevented adult neglect and abuse, provided home-based care and other forms of less intensive care and services to individuals in institutions. In Nevada only 4.8 percent of those monies go to local community programs as compared to other states, such as Idaho where 31 percent of those funds went to local communities; Utah where ten percent went to non-state agencies; Montana where 90 percent went directly to local services; and Arizona gave 32 percent. She reiterated in Nevada it was 4.8 percent! She emphasized there was money available someplace in the budget that could be used at the local level for services such as child care. She pointed out when it came to establishing precedent, at the University of Nevada they sold Wolf Pack license plates for $65 and the money was used for scholarships. She had no argument with that whatsoever, in fact her daughter had one of the plates. She stressed this was not a new idea, just a little different focus for money as it related to transportation. She, again, repeated her request for support from the Committee to approach the Ways and Means Committee and the Governor to see if money could be obtained for this critical need. Mr. Carpenter felt it should be funded out of the general fund and priorities needed to get set. A great deal of money was being spent on class size reduction and there was no proof it helped the situation. He indicated if class sizes were reduced to 20-22 and increased somewhat to the sixth grade, and omit third grade, $50 million could be saved. With that saving of $50 million he expressed willingness to fund some of the programs that would do much more than decreasing class sizes did at the present time. Ms. Freeman asked for the Committee's indulgence in responding to Mr. Carpenter's comments. When she was running for office she was asked the question if she had an option whether to spend "X" number of dollars for class size reduction in the third grade or put it into pre-school, her answer was pre-school. It was all well and good to talk about class size reduction but it must be considered how the children were entering the school system when they were coming from homes where they were not fed or clothed properly! She agreed with Mr. Carpenter and asserted there was a long way to go in the session, maybe they could work together on it and she appreciated his comments. The Chair asked if there was anyone else to speak on behalf of A.B. 311. Sheila Leslie, representing The Children's Cabinet and Action for Nevada's Children, a citizen based advocacy group, stated she had worked with Ms. Freeman on the issue for a long time and they support the bill. They worked with businesses and all they heard were excuses. There was no excuse for doing nothing about child care. She agreed with Mr. Carpenter about the third grade and would rather see the money spent on pre-school. She said it was sad that children were regarded as a special interest in Nevada. Children were not a special interest! These were our children, they belonged to all of us and it was time we did something about it! She said they would be glad to work with the Committee on it. In summary, she stated the precedent had already been set. It was not a matter of setting bad public policy, the precedent was there, this was not something new. She felt that was a weak argument for not passing the bill. Assemblyman de Braga assumed they were seeking that type of funding because it was a last hope and they were not getting support through the budget. She was interested if the money would be divided equally between prevention and intervention. Ms. Leslie responded the bill was for child care which was prevention for child abuse and neglect. She regarded it as a primary prevention tool. It was not a counseling or intervention program. Ms. de Braga asked if there was long term vision where money would be saved. Ms. Leslie answered absolutely, it had been well documented and the information was on the handout (Exhibit E). Mr. Goldwater indicated his problem was with the amendment, not the bill. The fact that one could elect to have child care plates and the fee would not be extracted from people who did not elect to do it was a policy differentiation. He wanted to make clear, especially for freshmen legislators, not every single precedent in Nevada, or by statutes, was something all representatives felt was best public policy. He supported the bill in the present form without the amendment. Ms. Leslie's response was they would take anything -- they needed to get moving! She agreed $350,000 was nothing compared to the need, but it would give them a forum whereby they could talk about the need for child care. She reiterated their need for the legislators to come forward, as the leaders they were, to do something! Mr. Nolan echoed the comments of other Committee members that these issues should be funded through the general fund. Ms. Bobbie Gang, representing the Nevada Women's Lobby, indicated their full support for funding for child care and had been doing it for many sessions. She wished to offer some food for thought. She understood their problems with the policy, but if they truly believed children and child care was an important issue for the state of Nevada it would be nice if that sentiment could be put on license plates -- "Children are Nevada's Priority", or something along those lines. This would provide justification for charging a fee for those license plates. She emphasized funds should be put where the priorities were! Ms. Chowning supported the bill in its present form. The design of the plate would have to be made and she presumed it would be an overlay, similar to the purple heart bill, because it would be a colorful design. She believed when that concept was put into place originally, no plates were issued until there were 250 orders so there was no impact on the general fund to begin. Ms. Jane Williams, Alliance for Child Care, said that concept had not been discussed. Her concern was it would cost an additional $35 to create a specialized plate before any proceeds would go to a child care fund. In addition, she did not think there would be enough people putting child care as a top priority, who would have money to purchase the plates. Ms. Chowning asked if Ms. Williams had any idea how much the design portion would cost indicating it would have to be seed money. Ms. Williams responded that question had not been investigated because it was not part of the bill. They had not seen the bill as involving specialized license plates. Mr. Anderson suggested another alternative. He indicated the state could be in a position to move toward a new plate in its entirety, without doing away with the "baby blues". Taking Ms. Gang's suggestion relative to "Nevada's number one priority is children", at the time a new plate was designed that statement could be put on all license plates in the state, not just personalized ones, for a $2 additional fee. This would generate a larger sum of money and make a clear public policy statement the dollars were going to child care. He realized the difficulty of coming up with $35 in the first place. The reason the fee was set so high was to eliminate those who would view it as a frivolous way to support the millions of good programs they would like to see funded. He stated he did not wish to kill the bill in its entirety but was not comfortable moving forward at that time. The Chair stated the hearings on A.B. 311 and S.B. 66 would be rescheduled because of time limitations. The Chair informed the Committee of three bill draft requests to be introduced. Bill Draft Request 32-1300 - Requires vehicle privilege task to be based on market value of vehicle. ASSEMBLYMAN BATTEN MADE A MOTION TO INTRODUCE BILL DRAFT REQUEST 32-1300. ASSEMBLYMAN CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Bill Draft Request 42-529 - Expands and clarifies authority of municipality to acquire property for municipal airport. ASSEMBLYMAN BATTEN MADE A MOTION TO INTRODUCE BILL DRAFT REQUEST 42-529. ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Bill Draft Request 58-896 - Repeals the authority of public service commission of Nevada to regulate for licensing purposes private motor carriers of property when used for private commercial enterprises. ASSEMBLYMAN BATTEN MADE A MOTION TO INTRODUCE BILL DRAFT REQUEST 58-896. ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. MR. ANDERSON OPPOSED. Bill Draft Request 58-893 - Clarifies authority of public service commission of Nevada to revoke or suspend certificate of public convenience and necessity upon common motor vehicle or for failure to comply with certain laws or regulations. ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON MADE A MOTION TO INTRODUCE BILL DRAFT REQUEST 58-893. ASSEMBLYMAN BATTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Barbara Moss, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Thomas Batten, Chairman Assemblyman Vonne Chowning, Chairman Assembly Committee on Transportation March 14, 1995 Page