MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION Sixty-eighth Session April 13, 1995 The Committee on Transportation was called to order at 1:45 p.m., on Thursday, April 13, 1995, Chairman Vonne Chowning 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 Allard, Vice Chairman Mr. David Goldwater, Vice Chairman Mr. Bernie Anderson Mrs. Marcia de Braga Mr. Dennis Nolan Ms. Genie Ohrenschall Ms. Patricia A. Tripple COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED: Mr. John C. Carpenter STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Mouritsen, Senior Research Analyst Jackie L. Valley, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Carole Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayers Association Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens Greg Harwell, Nevada Division American Automobile Assn. Ambassador Merlin, II, The Capitol Embassy Harvey Whittemore, Alamo Car Rental Companies Ted Zuend, Fiscal Division Bill Gosnell, Department of Motor Vehicles & Public Safety Nancy Howard, Nevada League of Cities Daryl Capurro, Nevada Motor Transport Association Wayne Teglia, Department of Transportation ASSEMBLY BILL 413 - Authorizes local governments and department of transportation to establish toll roads and toll bridges. Carole Vilardo from the Nevada Taxpayers Association (NTA) opened testimony on A.B. 413 and mentioned a measure initiating toll roads had been introduced in the 1991 Legislative session. The NTA felt local governments and the state needed additional options for funding road construction and maintenance and A.B. 413 would authorize state and/or local governments to build toll roads. She testified Maryland and one other state have private toll roads currently under construction and in those states the toll recoups construction costs. Ms. Vilardo commented no Nevada road, except possibly the one over Boulder Dam, has enough traffic to make a toll viable, however A.B. 413 would allow the state or a local government to take advantage of that tool if such an opportunity arose. Ms. Vilardo noted the ad hoc group that put the bill together was made up of highway users plus the Nevada Taxpayers Association, Nevada Motor Transport Association, Western Petroleum Marketers Association, Associated General Contractors of Las Vegas and the Associated General Contractors Nevada Chapter from Reno. Lucille Lusk, representing Nevada Concerned Citizens, stated that group was very much opposed to A.B. 413 because they perceived the measure as an increase in taxes. Ms. Lusk referred to a copy of an article she gave each Committee member from the National Taxpayers Union, (Exhibit C,) which pointed out that workers now pay more than half of their income to government in the form of taxes of one type or another. She added people feel they are already paying for roads and creation of indirect taxes does nothing but create further mistrust. Ms. Lusk emphasized problems should be dealt with in an open manner through the mechanisms that now exist. Ms. Lusk commented she understood A.B. 413 was a tool for future use, but she stated if the Committee intended to place the bill in statute, then the Committee was stating it approved of that future use. Ms. Lusk felt there should be more emphasis on government learning to live within its means rather than finding every opportunity to increase the tax taken from the peoples' pockets. Assemblyman Anderson observed if money for roads could not be provided out of the general fund of a county, then Ms. Lusk felt it should not be provided at all. Ms. Lusk agreed that interpretation was reasonably correct although not a precise one. She added she would far rather see an issue be openly dealt with as part of the regular tax process than through one of the numerous efforts to find other ways to bring forth revenues. Mr. Anderson asked whether Ms. Lusk objected to toll roads as a concept or did she object to the construction of specific public facilities that may have limited use or only serve a particular area. He added such construction may leave a misimpression of the responsibility of the general taxed public, or the public as a whole, to fund all programs equitably rather than the specific need of a particular area not addressed in the general fund. Ms. Lusk agreed that would be true, however she believed in the concept of going directly to the people in a tax area and asking them if they approve a particular additional expenditure. Mr. Anderson questioned whether Ms. Lusk was proposing an amendment that would make establishment of a toll road open and subject to the voters of the particular area. Ms. Lusk agreed if a measure were taken to the people who would be responsible for paying for it and they support it, she believed in the peoples' right to make that decision. Ambassador Merlin stated he signed in opposition to A.B. 413. He added he was not entirely opposed to the concept of a government having toll roads or toll bridges but his position was money for transportation related expenses should come from gasoline taxes. He noted the gasoline tax is for the convenience of the traveler who does not have to stop and pay a toll. He also stated a toll would create unnecessary jobs in the form of toll takers and reiterated a more efficient and convenient way to handle the problem was to increase gasoline taxes. Wayne Teglia, Assistant Director of the Department of Transportation (DOT), spoke in favor of A.B. 413, but asserted DOT's support was quite narrow and he wanted to qualify it. He testified DOT was supporting similar simultaneous Arizona legislation because of the need for an improved crossing of the Colorado River in the Boulder City area. By simultaneously supporting toll road construction between Nevada and Arizona the hope was that eventually funding would be put together to develop an improved crossing between the two states and Mr. Teglia emphasized that was DOT's only area of concern and support at the current time. A copy of the Arizona Bill Draft he had obtained gave no indication how closely that bill resembled A.B. 413 but he stressed DOT's support would be for that particular aspect of the bill and for that purpose only. In addition, DOT was not advocating providing authority to municipalities or other governmental entities to establish or build toll roads. Daryl Capurro, Managing Director of Nevada Motor Transport Association, stated the Association supported the concept of A.B. 413 as a tool for financing projects that might not be financed otherwise. He noted various studies that had been done looking at Nevada highway funds and the projects in their three to ten year plan indicate a shortfall of approximately two billion dollars. He noted there is not enough money from revenues to support the necessary projects envisioned over the next ten years. Mr. Capurro mentioned the projects did not have to be governmental because page 2, Section 7 of A.B. 413 encompassing the private part of the bill enables private ventures to build facilities. Nancy Howard representing the Nevada League of Cities wanted to go on record as supporting A.B. 413. She stated the bill would give local governments another option from which to choose. Chairman Chowning asked whether she was in support of the measure as written or if she thought there should be any changes. Ms. Howard commented she had not talked to her members about the way A.B. 413 was specifically written, but the cities do support the concept and she could check further with them and then come back to the Committee with the results. Mrs. Chowning announced she would not be taking action on A.B. 413 today and was closing the hearing. She added if anyone else wished to bring further ideas or thoughts to the Committee they had time during the next couple of weeks to do so. ASSEMBLY BILL 419 - Revises provisions governing disposition of money collected from fee imposed on short-term leases of passenger cars. Ted Zuend with the Fiscal Analysis Division opened testimony on A.B. 419 by presenting information developed by the Legislative Counsel Bureau on A.B. 413, A.B. 419 and A.B. 422 all of which had been recommended by the Interim Study on Highways, (Exhibit D.) A.B. 419 puts money from car rental fees into the highway fund rather than the general fund. Mr. Zuend noted at this time the annual fees raise approximately five million dollars. Mrs. Chowning asked whether the recommendation was for the entire amount collected to be placed in the highway fund. Mr. Zuend agreed that was correct and added the bill introduced last Session and passed by the Assembly had the fees earmarked for the highway fund but the Senate changed those fees to the general fund. He noted the minutes contained no discussion and the hearing on the bill was on the subject matter of the bill, the fee and whether or not this type of fee was appropriate. Mr. Zuend commented the amendments moving the fees to the general fund were produced late in the session in a floor meeting of the Transportation Committee. Bill Gosnell from the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV & PS) testified when he spoke to the joint subcommittee about their proposed Five Point Plan, car rental fees were one scenario suggested as a possible funding source. Other potential funding sources included a six percent privilege tax, which is the source preferred by the DMV. He added the short term lessor fees had already been absorbed and budgeted for within the general fund. His only concern is if the Committee and the Legislature deem it appropriate to keep those fees in the general fund, that the program DMV & PS administers to collect the fees be transferred to the Department of Taxation so the collection of those fees would be put in the right department. Assemblyman Allard inquired how much money short term lessor fees generate. Mr. Gosnell replied $5.2 million are what full year revenues were estimated to be. Mrs. Chowning commented no matter what action the Committee took, A.B. 419 should be re-referred to Ways and Means. Mr. Anderson asked whether DOT had a more direct link to the car rental industry than the Taxation Department. Mr. Gosnell replied the bill as originally introduced in 1993 was to have provided revenue to the highway fund. The Legislature decided those fees belonged in the general fund and made that transfer last session. Mr. Anderson emphasized the question of who will collect the funds was of considerable importance and wanted to see DMV collect and keep the funds. Harvey Whittemore, appearing on behalf of Alamo Rental Car Company, stated they were prime sponsors of the legislation two years ago and were in support of A.B. 419. He noted in light of the fact the money collected by imposition of the fee is presently budgeted for use by the general fund, it may be appropriate for the Committee to change the effective date of A.B. 419 to 1997. That way the allocations from the general fund would not be changed this year but would appropriately reflect the Committee's desire to put those fees in the highway fund where it originally started two years ago. Carole Vilardo stated the Nevada Taxpayers Association supported moving short term lessor fees into the highway fund. They agree if there is no other way to get the money into the highway fund this year, the effective date could be moved to 1997. However, she added the Committee should look into a way of getting that money into the highway fund now. Ms. Vilardo reiterated the Committee should process A.B. 419 with either effective date but stressed that money rightfully belonged in the highway fund if the tax remains. Mrs. Chowning pointed out the function of the Committee was to make policy decisions. Greg Harwell representing the Nevada Division of the American Automobile Association (AAA) stated his group supported A.B. 419 in its present form, which redirects a portion of the short term lease fee from the general fund to the highway fund. The AAA agreed that is a more appropriate use for the money because vehicle fees paid by motorists should be directed to the highway fund and benefit those motorists. However, Mr. Harwell added the bill did not go far enough and he wanted the six percent short term lease fee repealed in the consumer's interests or, as an alternative to transfer 100 percent of the fee to the highway fund. He noted the fee does allow rental car companies to advertise one price and shift the blame to the state of Nevada. Allowing rental car companies to hide their vehicle registration and license fees, which are in fact operating expenses and should be included in their daily rate, from consumers gives rental car companies legislative license to mislead consumers. This surprise fee also misleads business travelers and tourists about the true costs of renting cars in Nevada. Mr. Harwell added it was not wise to offend either group. He commented extra fees also effect Nevada residents should they ever need to rent a vehicle. Daryl Capurro testified the Nevada Motor Transport Association supported the concept of A.B. 419 and he noted DOT collects the tax but receives nothing for performing that service. He added the intent from last session was for the money, and it is a significant amount, to go to the highway fund. Since there is a significant shortfall in funds to build and maintain highways, he stressed his support for the concept of putting those moneys into the highway fund. He also stated support for the effective date being postponed as long as everyone agreed the car rental fees eventually went to the highway fund. Pam Miller representing the Associated General Contractors (AGC) stated they were in support of A.B. 419 because two years ago they felt it was a user fee and should be going to the highway fund. They would like to go on record saying they agree A.B. 419 should be effective July 1, 1997. Mrs. Chowning noted no further comments were forthcoming and closed the hearing on A.B. 419. ASSEMBLY BILL 422 - Revises provisions relating to state highway fund and funding for department of motor vehicles and public safety and administration of state highways. Ted Zuend testified A.B. 422 combined three recommendations from the interim study on highways. One would repeal the 22 percent cap on the amount of fees collected that DMV could use for administrative purposes. It would also repeal the special six dollar per vehicle allocation to the special account for supplementary Highway Patrol troopers. Third, it would remove the limit on overweight vehicle permits that DOT establishes which are now limited just to the cost of the permitting. Assemblyman Nolan pointed out the six dollar charge allocated to the highway patrol special account was to promote the hiring of additional troopers as needed. He questioned what the interim committee's reasoning was for eliminating that provision. Mr. Zuend stated the interim committee decided it was just an accounting gimmick. The troopers generally were funded to the needed number and the interim committee felt that should be handled through the regular authorization process from the highway funds rather than having an earmarking mechanism for the supplementary troopers. Originally there had been a separate fee for the fund but now there is simply an allocation of six dollars from every registration put into the special account. Mr. Nolan asked whether the money in the special account had been used for its intended purpose. Mr. Zuend believed it had been used to hire troopers but deferred to Mr. Gosnell who he felt had more information. Mr. Zuend added there used to be extra moneys available, in fact there was a $2.75 million one-time extra windfall surplus in the fund. The estimate by Mr. Gosnell stated the allocation of the six dollars would no longer provide funding for the same number of troopers. Mr. Nolan commented his concern was trooper numbers currently are fewer than needed in Nevada. Bill Gosnell from DMV stated a 1989 lawsuit against Nevada dealt with commercial vehicles. At that time there was a five dollar charge on top of all the regular registration fees for both regular cars and commercial vehicles. The lawsuit concerned the mileage tax in addition to some taxes instituted prior to 1989. The courts held against Nevada and placed Nevada in a pro-rate mode. As a result, the five dollar add-on to the registration fees was eliminated but the language stating for each registration six dollars shall be given to the highway patrol special account was kept in the law. As a result, every time a vehicle is registered in Nevada, six dollars is sent to the Nevada Highway Patrol Special Account for the purposes dictated in the law. Mr. Gosnell noted two things have happened with the situation. When a pro-rate registration is done for a commercial vehicle coming in from another state they get a portion of the miles they will be driving in Nevada as a ratio of the total miles driven across country. In many instances, Nevada may only receive 23 cents per truck yet under the law DMV is giving the highway patrol six dollars per truck. In essence the highway fund is being robbed of $5.77 for every truck registered under the motor carrier legislation. The larger amount of money contributed to the highway patrol fund comes from normal everyday, individual car and truck registrations paid by individuals. Mr. Gosnell, presenting some history, stated the money was initially contributed so the highway patrol could acquire new troopers as the population and number of vehicles traveling in Nevada increased. The concept was good but for some reason, over the last four years the number of trooper positions requested from that account has not been approved. As a result, the last two legislative sessions have seen the patrol's two budgets, the regular core budget funded from the highway fund and the other special budget funded by the six dollar registration fee, handled and reviewed essentially the same. So the special fund balance has risen to almost six million dollars at the end of 1995. All those funds would revert to the regular highway fund if A.B. 422 is passed. The number of officers requested to be funded from the special account has been dramatically reduced by the budget office. In effect the highway patrol is being budgeted like all other state agencies so the fund has not been able to be used for its intended purpose. If the pro-rate problem were corrected and the patrol budget continued to be funded by actual dollars, at the end of two years with pay raises and other employee costs the reserve would have been spent and highway patrol would need an increase in funding. Mr. Gosnell reiterated the reserve is a very useful tool for the patrol in terms of being able to fund troopers but a large chunk of the money the reserve fund receives is really inequitable in the sense that we are only getting 23 cents and giving away six dollars. That is DOT's concern and it is a legitimate one. Mr. Nolan mentioned "funding troopers" obviously does not mean hiring or paying their salary from the special fund so he asked if the special fund was a one-time recruiting and hiring fund? Mr. Gosnell replied 4726 is the budget number of the special fund in the budget bill and added that budget funds a significant portion of the highway patrol troopers on an on-going basis. They have a different regular budget for operating and car expenses but it is funded differently. A.B. 422 would eliminate the six dollar per registration transfer and the two budgets would be blended together and all the patrol would be funded from the highway fund. Mr. Anderson asked if the hiring freeze had effected the reserve fund in any substantial way as compared to the other fund. Mr. Gosnell replied law enforcement had been excluded from the hiring freeze. Mr. Anderson mentioned allocation of the dollars and inquired if it was in writing. Mr. Gosnell replied it could be provided and Mr. Anderson and Mrs. Chowning agreed they would like to obtain it. Mr. Allard expressed concern with the level of service DMV was providing its customers. He asked if A.B. 419 were enacted would there be enough money to implement a plan to increase service, and questioned if passage of A.B. 422 was also needed to enact the plan. Ms. Gosnell pointed out three options had been presented to the Legislature and one was repeal of the 22 percent cap. If that were done then whatever the Legislature wanted to appropriate would be available out of the highway fund. He emphasized if A.B. 419 took effect July 1, 1995 instead of 1997 it would almost be exactly the amount of money needed to implement the five point plan. Mr. Gosnell noted S.B. 250, currently in the Senate Finance Committee also repeals the six dollar checkoff. The budget presented to the Legislature through the Governor's office assumed the six dollar checkoff would go into the revenue flow of the highway fund. He warned if the six dollar checkoff does not occur, DMV budgets as presented to this Legislature would be over extended. Mr. Allard commented from Mr. Gosnell's point of view, passage of S.B. 250 would be needed if A.B. 422 did not pass. He added he favored passage of A.B. 419 rather than lifting the administrative cap of 22 percent noting many businesses within the private sector operate within those parameters. Mr. Gosnell agreed there are other very viable alternatives to lifting the cap. Assemblywoman Tripple inquired about a surplus in one fund when there are supposedly financial problems. Mr. Gosnell referred to the "myth of highway finance" and pointed out the six dollar checkoff goes into a special fund specifically reserved for use of the Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP). He pointed out the NHP had not been given full use of those funds over the last four to five years and as a result a large amount of reserve had built up that NHP had not been allowed legal access to because appropriations had limited their spending. He noted money is sitting there and will, by the end of 1995, have grown to almost six million dollars, but added it is unusable reserve because the Legislature has not released the money to be used for the purposes the law originally intended, which was to hire Highway Patrol Troopers. The money is in a special account and A.B. 422 would eliminate that special account and put that money into the highway fund which would mean the patrol loses, however they were unable to use the money in the first place. Mr. Gosnell reiterated in 1969 the idea was to establish a funding method that would allow trooper ranks to grow according to the number of vehicles being registered in the state but since 1989 that has not worked. Ms. Tripple inquired whether action by the Legislature led to the problem. Mr. Gosnell replied the 1989 legislation which eliminated the mileage tax and created pro-rated, International Registration Plan and commercial vehicle laws, created an impact on the six dollar checkoff as it relates to commercial vehicles which caused a problem for DOT, DMV and the highway patrol. Secondly, the way the budgets have been reviewed the last two sessions has created the current situation where the patrol has not been getting access to what money is in the special account. Ms. Tripple said she found it hard to believe money would be left just sitting. Mr. Nolan commented a statement had been made that the special account was an unusable reserve however he disagreed stating it is usable but had not been allowed to be used. The original purpose was to increase the number of highway patrolmen incrementally with the number of vehicles being registered and driving on the streets of Nevada. Mr. Gosnell agreed with Mr. Nolan's assessment. Mr. Nolan emphasized the Highway Patrol is the one division that is undermanned, underfunded and underpaid and stated he was opposed to simply throwing the special fund away and allowing the patrol to remain in that state. Mr. Gosnell replied about half the patrol, budget 4713, was funded from the highway fund. The other half, the 4726 budget, is funded from the special funds and Mr. Gosnell stressed one cannot be corrected without correcting the other. The recommendation from the interim committee entails repeal of the six dollar checkoff and would put that money in the highway fund and fund the patrol totally from the highway fund. Right now, if one wanted to use those reserve funds to augment trooper numbers, which was the intent of the money in the first place, you would only be able to effect that increase for one half the patrol. Money would still need to be appropriated from the highway fund to fix the other half of the patrol. Mr. Nolan stated he was afraid the checkoff money to augment trooper strength would be lost if all the moneys wind up in the same budget. Mr. Gosnell agreed the money would have to go into the highway fund. Mrs. Chowning remarked Mr. Nolan had brought up a very good point. She believed whatever means were implemented, a report should be brought to the next session of the Legislature so taxpayers could see how the changes were working, how much money was going into the fund and how much was being spent. Also, she added when the Transportation Committee was finished with A.B. 422 it should be re-referred to Ways and Means. She also questioned who had brought the three bills to this session. Mr. Gosnell replied the Interim Committee on Highway Financing proposed the bills. He added DMV & PS had testified on the bills the preceding summer, had been in support then and had not changed its position. Mrs. Chowning, to clarify the issue, repeated two bills, A.B. 422 and A.B. 419, were not part of the five point plan. Mr. Gosnell agreed they are separate from the plan. Carole Vilardo testified political palatability and public perception were the reasons behind the creation of the five dollar supplemental fund. She pointed out the six dollars, as had been testified, had cost the highway fund money and as a result, DOT was constantly looking for revenue for the highway infrastructure. She noted Nevada is about 40th in population but has one of the largest road networks to care for. Her recommendation was to remove the six dollar checkoff and eliminate the supplemental fund. In lieu of budget constraints and concern of some of the Committee members, Ms. Vilardo suggested a compromise could be a two year transition period where the money that would go into the supplemental highway patrol fund would only be the amount collected. She emphasized there was no reason to subsidize the highway patrol out of the highway fund. In addition, Ms. Vilardo recommended removal of the 22 percent cap because her opinion is state agencies should get the money they need, whatever the percent, rather than starting with a set amount that, instead of being the ceiling, becomes the floor. Noting suggested legislation from the interim committee would impact the budget for the biennium, she proposed incremental initiation of changes. Gary Wolff, representing the Nevada Highway Patrol Association, stated he is a sergeant with the Highway Patrol and had been in law enforcement for 28 years. He testified A.B. 422 is good, in part, because he agreed the 22 percent cap should be removed. He also had a solution for the highway department on the pro- rated vehicles which would be to amend the bill to exempt pro-rated carriers. Relating history of the reserve fund, Mr. Wolff testified in 1969 the special fund was created as a guarantee to the people of Nevada that they would have sufficient highway patrol troopers on the highway. It also was to assure highway patrol troopers that they would have a backup officer out there to cover them and assist another officer with accidents. Mr. Wolff emphasized right now Nevada Highway Patrol troopers are down in manpower and cannot even increase numbers to their allotted strength (349 troopers). Currently troopers are down 23 in numbers with 13 in the academy. Mr. Wolff stressed that money was put in the special account to guarantee positions in the patrol could at least be filled. He believed once that six million dollars is lost, it will never be seen again and he requested support from the Committee for his troopers and that the money not be given away but kept where it belongs. Mrs. Chowning asked Mr. Gosnell who was making the decision, with a six million dollar fund sitting there, not to fund the highway patrol as they should be. Mr. Gosnell replied basically the decision was being made through the budget process. His department submitted budgets last summer that had a large number of patrolmen in both budgets. Those budgets were weeded out through the budget process in the Governor's office and then in the Legislative Counsel Bureau. The budget that was presented as part of the Governor's recommendation was substantially smaller than what was requested. He added money is clearly available to fund the highway patrol at a much higher level than has happened over the last four years. Mrs. Chowning pointed out his department had asked for a significant number of patrolmen in their request and Mr. Gosnell agreed. Mrs. de Braga asked if the reserve fund could only be used for new hires. Mr. Wolff disagreed, stating the fund was to guarantee a certain number of troopers. He noted the highway patrol has two funds but a lot of red tape in government had prevented maintenance of trooper levels. During the cutbacks of state employees, the highway patrol was not supposed to be effected. Public safety was not to be effected. Somehow, NHP is currently only alloted 349 people but they are 36 people down from that number yet there is sufficient money to fund that number. Mr. Wolff added this had nothing to do with new positions requested. Twenty-six new positions had been requested in the budget and those were currently being negotiated because of salary problems. Mrs. de Braga reiterated what was the purpose of the special fund. Mr. Wolff explained it had been to make certain there were 349 highway patrolmen on the highways. Mrs. de Braga wondered if salary increases would come from the special fund. Mr. Wolff replied they very well could if the Legislature would appropriate the money and that fund might boost NHP employees up to parity. Mrs. de Braga questioned if the money to hire additional troopers was not being authorized. Mr. Gosnell replied between the two patrol budgets they had requested 140 new positions. He believed 30 or 40 positions survived the budget process. He added another reason for vacant positions in both budgets are vacancy savings. The budget process provides the use of vacancy savings and other restrictions NHP must meet the same as every other state agency. Mrs. de Braga reiterated they are saving money by not hiring and yet there is not another use for the reserve fund money. Mr. Gosnell emphasized total agreement with her interpretation. Mrs. Chowning asked if the funds had been part of the across-the-board freezes. Mr. Gosnell stated law enforcement officers had been exempt from the 1993 freeze. They were only restricted by the amount of money available within their budgets. He added the shorter in numbers the patrol is, the more overtime is used which eats further into available money and the cycle does not end. Mr. Nolan asked about the six dollar per vehicle fee. Mr. Wolff replied the fee is per registration, which is why the Nevada Motor Transport Association was unhappy. DMV may only collect a few cents for each of the pro-rated registrations yet must turn over six dollars for each registration to the highway patrol reserve fund. The troopers are very willing to exempt all the pro-rated carriers which they calculated would only effect the budget in the amount of one to one and a half million dollars a year. Mr. Nolan pointed out the public's perception was those fees have been going into a public safety fund since 1969 which is where that money should go. He stressed the Legislature had an obligation to live up to its promise and not combine those funds into a fund that could also be used for building roads. Mr. Nolan disagreed the transfer of the six dollars was eroding money from the road building budget, stating it was money that had been earmarked for public safety and should go there. Mrs. Chowning announced her intention to place A.B. 422 into a subcommittee after the balance of the testimony had been heard. Pam Miller representing the Associated General Contractors (AGC), spoke briefly about page 2, lines 37 through 39 of A.B. 422 which she stated was identical to language in S.B. 48 which had been indefinitely postponed by the Senate Transportation Committee the preceding day. Ms. Miller testified the AGC wished to go on record as being opposed to not linking the costs of administrative fees to overweight, over length permits. The AGC would like to be certain when that topic is discussed in subcommittee it not be tampered with. Mrs. Chowning appreciated hearing from Ms. Miller but added the Assembly considers itself totally separate from the Senate. Mr. Anderson, for clarity, stated Ms. Miller meant she and the AGC would prefer the current language be retained because that reflects the real costs of administering the permit system versus the unknown of what might happen if the bracketed language were removed. Daryl Capurro, representing the Nevada Motor Transport Association, stated they support the interim Committee's recommendation to remove the 22 percent cap for reasons previously stated by Ms. Vilardo. They also support the correction to the law and he provided a brief history behind the highway patrol fee assessment. He testified the original fee was one dollar and was collected beginning in 1969. The fee was increased over the years until it became five dollars. In 1989 in response to the lawsuit mentioned earlier by Mr. Gosnell in which flat fees had to be apportioned in accordance with federal law and court decisions, the five dollars was rolled into registration both for Nevada based and non-Nevada based carriers. At that point, all vestige of the five dollar special registration fee was erased. However, even though DMV does not collect the full six dollars in some cases, internally because of the statute at 481.145, six dollars is transferred from the highway fund and goes into the supplemental highway patrol account. Mr. Capurro testified his group would have no problem either eliminating the supplementary highway patrol account or alternatively saying only what is actually collected should be transferred. He added he had no idea why the six million dollars had not been spent but acknowledged it does present quite a target and should be resolved. In addition, Mr. Capurro noted the Nevada Motor Transport Association does not like removing the language previously spoken of by Ms. Vilardo. Currently the law reads that the necessary fees to administer the permit system will be collected, but with deletion of those lines the statute would become a revenue measure. Last summer the department raised the permit fee from $7.50 to $15.00. Mr. Capurro commented by removal of that language the fee could be raised to whatever they wanted and there was concern about how high that level would be raised. Chuck Bosch, Operations Analysis Division, Department of Transportation, testified DOT was not trying to take any money from the highway patrol when they supported repeal of the six dollar transfer. He mentioned what really occurred was a one-time windfall for the NHP which happened when Nevada joined the International Registration Plan. This allowed interstate truckers to register their entire fleet as opposed to just those units that would be running in Nevada. Mr. Bosch testified this was a much simpler way of registering and allowed the motor carriers across the country to go to their own state's motor carrier bureau and register their entire fleet to run in all states. Registration fees are then apportioned based on the mileage traveled in their base state as compared to all the states. This amounted to a windfall that built up the six million dollar balance that is now in that special fund. That money should, Mr. Bosch believed, never have been transferred into that fund. The six dollars being transferred frequently covers vehicles that never even travel in Nevada. Mr. Bosch noted a look at the current budget showed the special account is spending just about what is taken in if that initial windfall amount were removed. He stressed the windfall should rightfully have been DOT's and would pave another 50 to 100 lane miles of Nevada highway. Mrs. Chowning appointed Assemblywoman de Braga and Assemblymen Nolan, Batten and Anderson to the subcommittee hearing A.B. 422. Mrs. de Braga was appointed to chair the subcommittee. She mentioned her hope that the subcommittee would be able to meet quite soon to enable this very important policy decision to be made. ASSEMBLY BILL 187 - Revises provisions relating to disclosure of certain information contained in records of department of motor vehicles and public safety. Mrs. Chowning explained the amendments had been received on A.B. 187 and that Mr. Mouritsen would quickly discuss those. She added it was both chairs' position that action be taken today as it was their contention it would not be fair to the public to hold another hearing on A.B. 187 in its present form without the amendments. Paul Mouritsen presented the amendments to A.B. 187, (Exhibit E,) and explained several changes had been suggested at the last Committee meeting. He pointed out the changes began on page 4 and were penciled in on the Committee members' copies. Mr. Mouritsen stated "licensees" under NRS 648.060 would include: private investigator; private patrolman; process server; repossessor; dog handler; security consultant and polygraph examiner or intern. On the next line of page 4, it was suggested the word "shall" replace the word "may" so the department would be required to set up a procedure for allowing them access to those records after an account had been established. Mr. Batten maintained procedures to establish accounts had already been set up by DMV and the wording in (g) on page 4 should be changed to reflect that. Mrs. Chowning disagreed stating if one read further in the amendment this was a procedure whereby a person who appeared before a DMV employee may establish an account with the department. Mr. Batten rebutted emphasizing the account a private investigator or repossessor would use was the same type of account. Mrs. Chowning reminded the Committee A.B. 187 would be discussed further on April 25. Mr. Mouritsen mentioned there were several changes to subsection 6, which could be seen on page 5 of the amended bill. Mrs. Chowning explained the Committee needed to make a recommendation about the proposed amendment on page 4 and which licensees under NRS 648.060 would be included. Mr. Anderson suggested including all licensees listed under NRS 648.060 and then later possibly eliminate one or more when there was more time to examine the intent and purpose of each particular job. ASSEMBLYMAN THOMAS BATTEN MOVED AMEND AND RE-REFER ASSEMBLY BILL 187. ASSEMBLYMAN DENNIS NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:15 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Terry Horgan, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Thomas Batten, Chairman Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairman Assembly Committee on Transportation April 13, 1995 Page