Joe Haynes, Local Highway Administrator and Byron Keely, Deputy
Administrator were present to brief committee members on LHTAC (Local
Highway Technical Assistance Council).

Joe Haynes stated that LHTAC was created in 1994 by the Legislature
under Title 40, Chapter 24, and was established to assist Local Highway
Jurisdictions with utilizing the available resources for maintenance and
construction of Idaho’s local highway system in the most efficient and
effective manner possible. The membership consists of cities, counties,
and highway districts, and no more than one member can come from the
same county. Briefly the authority of the council is:

1) Represent its member jurisdictions in conference, meetings and
hearings.

2) Develop uniform standards and procedures.

3) Cooperate with and receive and expend aid and donations from the
federal or state governments.

4) Make recommendations to the Idaho transportation board.

5) Assist the legislature by providing research and data.

6) Maintain and disseminate information to local highway jurisdictions of
federal and state legislation and rules affecting local highway jurisdictions.

7) Maintain and disseminate information to local highway jurisdictions of
activities of ground transportation in other states.

8) Act for that local jurisdiction through a joint exercise of powers
agreement.

9) Buy, sell, receive and exchange property, both real and personal, as
necessary to perform its functions.

10) Be the sole and exclusive authority for the expenditure of the money
made available.

The tasks and activities of LHTAC are to report to the legislature and
produce publications. Publications include current, joint and upcoming
information.

LHTAC provides administration and project selection for the following Idaho
Transportation Department Programs: Local Federal-aid incentive
programs, local rural highway investment programs (effective October 1,
2003), and Federal-aid “Local Technical Assistance Program” (T2) which
primarily focuses on the administration and management.

Intergovernmental relations deal with State of Idaho agencies; federal
agencies; and Tribal governments.

Byron Keely gave an overview of the highway system and funding. He
stated that there are 288 local highway jurisdictions with 191 cities and
cities have jurisdiction in all but one county. There are 33 counties, 21
exclusively counties and 12 are county and highway district administration.
There are 64 highway districts which exist in 23 counties. Eleven are
exclusively highway district administration and 12 are county and highway
district administration. The local highway system is made up of roads,
bridges, and railroad crossings. Current mileage is figured using centerline
mileage of a 2-lane road.

Mr. Keely said a question they are often asked is why is federal-aid
restricted to major collectors and arterials, and the short answer is highway
funding is based on the notion that those who use it and benefit from it
should pay for it.

He stated that all roads have two functions, access to land and some level
of mobility or speed; and roads are classified as either rural or urban.
“Local” which are for land access and provide little mobility; “collector”
which provide a balance of access and mobility; or “arterial” which are
primarily for mobility and provide little access. He also discussed how
these roads should be funded, which should be based on use and benefits
provided. The local highway system should be funded with no more than
70% HUR and 30% nonuser funding. Tables were given which provided a
breakdown of the mileage classification and LHJ funding (attached).

Challenges for LHJ’s are being subjected to regulations; increased need to
retrofit and/or expand existing highway facilities; unbalanced distribution of
HUR funding; and increased need for trained personnel.

Representative Wood stated that the committee had been hard on LHTAC
asking them for reports so that they could keep track of where local
jurisdictions spend their money. She feels the better tracking can help
people in local areas.

A question was asked if LHTAC could help local highway districts in
applying for and writing grants. Mr. Haynes said yes.

11-1301-0201

35-0105-0201

Rule 100: This rule is being deleted because of 2002 legislative changes
to Section 63-2421, Idaho Code, as enacted by House Bill 732 which
makes this rule no longer necessary.

Rule 115: This rule is being amended to update code references enacted
by the 2002 Legislature. House Bill 732 moved the imposition of the tax
on gasoline from Section 63-2405 to Section 63-2402, Idaho Code.
Information that had been in paragraph form has been placed in a table to
make it easier to understand.

Rule 130: This rule is being amended to clarify in Section 130.01 how fuel
distributors are to report deductions for ethanol and biodiesel.

Rule 170: This rule is being amended to correct a reference to Sales and
Use Tax Rule 075 that was renumbered to Sales and Use Tax Rule 128.

Rule 200: This rule is being deleted as no longer necessary because of
House Bill 732, passed by the 2002 Legislature which amended Section
63-2421, Idaho Code.

Rule 230: This rule is being amended because of 2002 legislative
changes to Section 63-2421, Idaho Code, in House Bill 732 that
combined the fuel use tax reporting for gasoline and special fuels under
motor fuels.

Rule 250: This rule is being amended to add a subsection to make
consumers aware of the statute of limitations found in Section 63-2410(5)(c), Idaho Code, for filing fuel tax refund claims.

Rule 280: This rule is being amended to change the term “IFTA carriers”
to IFTA licensee” in Subsection 280.01 because not all IFTA licensees
are carriers. Subsections 280.02 and 280.03 are being deleted because
Sections 63-2410 and 63-2423, Idaho Code, are clear and need no
clarification in rule. A statement has been added to clarify that IFTA
licensees must claim IFTA nontaxable miles on their IFTA return.

Rule 510: This rule is being amended in Subsection 510.07 regarding
reporting requirements because of 2002 legislation that moved the
imposition of the tax on gasoline from Section 63-2405 to Section 63-2402, Idaho Code, and deleted Section 63-2416, Idaho Code.

Representative Wood asked if HB732 is still in force. Mr. Ted Spangler,
Deputy Attorney General, Idaho State Tax Commission, said there is a
law suit pending and the taxes are being paid into an escrow account until
it is resolved which could take 2 years.

39-0273-0201

Questions were asked from the committee regarding additional staffing for
this and online instruction. Mr. Premble stated that there is no additional
staffing required and that on-line instruction was the intent of the rule.

39-0346-0201

39-0360-0201

39-0381-0102

39-0341-0201

39-0363-0201

Rep. Shepherd made a motion to accept the minutes of January 16, 2003,
as written. Motion approved.

Chairman Wood stated that the first order of business would be to vote on
the Rules. She then turned the time over to Vice Chairman Ridinger.

Rep. Cuddy made a substitute motion to hold these Rules in Time Certain
for one week until Tuesday, January 28, 2003. Rep. Roberts spoke in
favor of the substitute motion.

There was some discussion about Federal funds being in jeopardy if this
was not passed. A voice vote was taken on the substitute motion to hold
Docket #11-1301-0201 in Time Certain for one week. Passed. Rep.
Smith voted nay.

Jim Ross, Interim Director, gave a financial overview of the department
including trend indicators, revenue/distribution, hold back strategies that
have been implemented and a summary of the FY03 and 04 budgets.

ITD has been tracking trend indicators since 1978. Fuel tax assessments
are taxed on gallons consumed and not on the price at the pump. So
when the price at the pump goes up this does not generate more revenue
for the state. The slowing economy and world events have a factor in
how much revenue comes into the department.

A question was asked regarding reverting prior-year encumbrances and
what those mean. Mr. Ross stated that they had a $2.3 million program
expansion on their campus and it had not been spent and so it has been
reverted back. It was then asked what the $12.6 million reductions were.
Mr. Ross explained that those were from personnel, equipment, capital
facilities, contract construction, and aeronautics divisions. There was also
a question regarding the difference in the trend 2003 and the 2004 total in
the HDA revenue. Mr. Ross said that the forecasts are taken a year in
advance of the budget being prepared so it may not reflect some of the
trends. Federal funds represents about 50% of the budget. Idaho
receives more federal funds that we collect.

The FY04 Governor’s revised recommendation budget is $432,583,200.

Susan Simmons, Management and Administrative Services, gave an
overview of her department. The core responsibilities are executive
management and legal services; internal services; information services;
financial services; employee services; and facilities management. The
Management and Administrative Services and Capital Facilities FY04
Budget request is $23,026,900.

Charles Rountree, Division of Planning, this division is coordinating the
development of an integrated statewide transportation vision with traffic
monitoring and analysis, GIS and mapping services, intermodal
transpiration planning and pavement management. The Division of
Planning FY04 budget request is $3,642,000. A question about the
department’s vision for the Indian Valley cutoff was asked. Mr. Rountree
said it had been a vision of his for 28 years. He said when they begin, it
will be an open and public process.

Morris Detmar, Division of Motor Vehicles, the core responsibilities of
the division are driver licensing and identification; vehicle registration, title
issuance, and dealer licensing; motor carrier/truck registration and
mileage audit; Port of Entry weigh stations; and revenue collection.
Proposed legislation for 2003 are proof of financial responsibility and first
class mail for DMV notifications. The Division of Motor Vehicles FY04
budget request is $17,944,800.

Mr. Detmar was asked to explain “no new enhancements” to the
committee. Mr. Detmar stated that they are not asking for any increases
in special programs as FTP’s or large expenditures of any kind. The
question of how many notifications were sent out for license suspension
was asked. Mr. Detmar said he did not have a breakdown but would get
it for the committee.

Steve Hutchinson, Highway Operations, discussed population growth,
program priorities, performance measures, partnering, and process
improvement. The division’s core responsibilities are planning, design,
construction, and maintenance. The Contract Construction and Highway
Operations FY04 budget request is $380,437,300. Mr. Hutchinson was
asked why District 6 had the largest chunk of lane miles. He stated that in
that 10-year span additional lanes were added on Interstate 15 between
Dubois and the Montana state line. That was the biggest share of the
lane miles and that was completion of the interstate system which were
mainly federal funds. Chairman Wood asked about the type of guardrails
that are now being constructed. Mr. Hutchinson stated that they now
have guardrails that meet the new safety standards required by the
federal highway administration, and are concentrating on the ends of
guardrails. Mr. Hutchinson said besides rounding the ends of guardrails
there are a number of ways to make them much safer. A question was
asked about the rural congestion solution. Mr. Hutchinson said that in the
next 5-year program they will add 79 miles of passing lanes and slow
vehicle turnouts.

Bob Martin, Division of Aeronautics, the core responsibilities of the
division are to encourage development of commercial and general
aviation, support improvement of airports and air navigation facilities, and
promote safety in aviation. Division of Aeronautics FY04 budget request
is $3,333,100. Mr. Martin was asked a question regarding back country
airports and the figure that was asked for last year. He said the figure
was $350,000 and was received from the state highway account. In fiscal
year 02, the governor had two holdbacks; in 03 the airports were Bear
Lake, Cottonwood, Mt. Home and Rigby. It was asked if the primary
entitlement program would continue. Mr. Martin said that they anticipate
that it will. It was also asked if there has been any discussion about the
state getting out of the airplane business. Mr. Martin stated at this time
there has been no discussions. Mr. Winder also replied to this question.

Larry Falkner, Division of Public Transportation, stated that the public
transportation services in Idaho are provided by local agencies. The state
does not directly operate transit services. The core responsibility is to
oversee federal transit administrations grant programs for the rural
program and the elderly and persons with disabilities. Idaho receives just
over 2.2 million dollars for these programs. The Division of Public
Transportation FY04 budget request is $4,199,100.

A question was asked how this division interacts with the Department of
Health and Welfare with programs for the disabled and elderly. Mr.
Falkner stated that they currently have the interagency group where all
the state agencies that are involved in public transportation work together
to coordinate services.

Mr. Winder, stated that he had heard a couple of questions that he didn’t
think got an answer. One was on Touch America which was part of
Montana Power and they have sold off all their power interest and are in
the process of declaring bankruptcy, so this could have some impact.
The other question had to do with the Blue Ribbon committee having any
recommendations or impact on the numbers and they did not.

It was asked if the department was flexible with the budget with everything
going on in the world. Mr. Winder said the staff is on top of things.
Chairman Wood thanked ITD for their presentation.

EXCUSED:

Mr. Quintana thanked the committee for allowing them to reintroduce the
ACHD and explain what they do. ACHD was created by a special election
of Ada County voters in May of 1971. They are governed by a five-member commission. ACHD manages1844 centerline miles of road,
some 330 traffic signals, nearly 100 miles of bike lanes, and are actively
involved in traffic safety issues. Their mission is to provide the best public
highway system for the safe and efficient movement of people and goods
in Ada County. More than half of their budget goes into capital
improvements. Some of the more visible projects ACHD has been
involved in include: The West Park Center bridge; Five Mile Road
extension; Hill Road; Fairview/Milwaukee intersection reconstruction; the
Federal Way project; and the Connector. A few of the projects ACHD is
working on are: Overland Road (Meridian to Eagle roads); Locust Grove
Road extension/overpass; and South Cole Road (Victory Road to
Spectrum Drive). Maintenance for these projects is a big investment
which includes chipsealing, street sweeping, monitoring traffic flows.
ACHD also promotes alternative transportation through car and
vanpooling, and oversees successful transit programs such as the
Treasure Valley Metro.

A question was asked regarding whether Boise City has it’s own road and
bridge crew or if ACHD was responsible for that. Mr. Quintana said yes
ACHD did all of Ada County. It was also asked if private contractors were
used in these projects and Mr. Quintana said yes that most construction is
contracted out, but ACHD’s inspectors oversee the projects.

Chairman Wood thanked ACHD for their presentation.

EXCUSED:

Gail Glasgow, mayor of Star, spoke in favor of H114.

Rep. Jaquet spoke against the H114.

A question was asked of Rep. Jaquet regarding the law effecting safety
issues and whether this couldn’t be addressed to the ITD board. She
stated that the cities couldn’t get satisfaction the way it was written before.

Rep. Moyle, said that when this legislation was discussed before that it
was felt that ITD should set the speed because local jurisdictions might
abuse their control.

A roll call vote was taken with 11 voting aye and 2 nay (see attached roll
call sheet).

11-1301-0201

MOTION:

Vice Chairman Ridinger asked that Duane Sammons, ISP, explain this
Rule. Lt. Sammons stated that before this rule, people operating without
a DOT number were in violation but couldn’t be put out of service but now
they can be. This will bring the state into compliance with the Federal
Motor Carrier Regulations. This is an interstate law not an intrastate law.

A voice vote was taken on the motion to pass this Rule. Motion approved.

EXCUSED:

Rep. Bedke made a motion to accept the minutes of January 28, 2003, as
written. Motion approved by a voice vote.

Rep. Wills made a motion to send RS12577 to print. Motion approved by
a voice vote.

Austyn Lewis, student from Middleton High School, spoke in favor of the
bill. She explained that she had 50 hours of driving with a licensed driver
and 10 of this was at night which she completed 6 months ago. When
she does turn 16 and is able to drive at night by herself, she will not have
experienced night driving for the past 6 months.

Bob Wells, Lobbyist for AAA, ISPA, & ICOPA, spoke in favor of the bill.

Alan Dingle, Attorney representing State Farm Insurance, spoke in favor
of the bill.

Rep. Smith made a motion to send HB103 to the floor with a do pass
recommendation. Motion approved by a voice vote.

Rep. Roberts reported on a Multistate Highway Transportation meeting
he attended in Park City, Utah.

Rep. Shepherd reported on a meeting she attended in Tucson, Arizona.

Paul Sudmeier, Idaho Trucking, spoke in favor of the bill. He stated that
this amendment to the code has been adopted in 8 of 10 states already.

Rep. Douglas had a question regarding the 80,000 pound weight
paragraph. Mr. Sudmeier stated that 80,000 pounds is the federal limit.

Rep. Wood said there was some dispute that this organizations only
purpose was to make size and weight higher, but there are 22 new items
on their program of work.

Rep. Douglas made a motion to hold HB104 Time Certain until the next
scheduled meeting.

Rep. Roberts made a substitute motion to send HB104 to the floor with a
do pass recommendation.

A vote on the substitute motion to send HB104 to the floor with a do pass
recommendation was voted on by voice vote. Motion approved. Rep.
Douglas voted nay.

Questions were asked about the Highway Districts knowing about or
going along with this bill. Rep. Trail said he hadn’t received any feedback
from them.

Rep. Kellogg made a motion to hold HB98 in committee. Motion
approved by a voice vote.

EXCUSED:

Sandra Mitchell, Idaho State Snowmobile Association, spoke in favor of
the bill with the amendment.

Many on the committee had a problem regarding language in the
amendment. It was felt that the language made ambiguous the entity that
would waive the fees. Mr. Sangrey stated that it never was the intent that it
be a council outside of Idaho.

There were questions regarding whether this would be a full refund or a
prorated refund, and giving a student full credit if they had only attended the
semester for a short period of time. There was also some concern that a
student could get credit for a whole semester but only attend one month.

A discussion ensued and Rep. Smith felt that this bill might be more suited
to be heard in the Education Committee. Chairman Wood said that it would
be appropriate to be heard in the Education Committee.

Rep. Cannon said he would vote no for the bill. He is in favor of it but has
problems with the way it is written and would like it to have a chance.

Rep. Cuddy revised his motion to send RS12815C1 to print and then refer it
to the Education Committee. A vote was taken by show of hands. The
motion was defeated by a vote of 7 aye – 7 nay (a tie going to nay).

Rep. Ridinger made a motion to send RS12815C1 to print as written. A roll
call vote was taken. 10 aye – 4 nay. Motion approved. (See attached roll
call vote).

Chairman Wood turned the gavel over to Vice Chairman Ridinger.

Rep. Bedke stated that his concerns are unchanged and that he is looking
out for the rights of the private property owner.

A voice vote was taken on the motion and the motion was approved.

EXCUSED:

Rep. Smith said he still had a problem with the word concur in the
amendment. He felt this would go against the State Statute and would
give the advisory committee veto power over the decision made by the
State agency. Rep. Skippen stated that she didn’t see a problem with the
language as the expenditures are approved by the county commissioners.
Rep. Smith said that just looking at the amendment it makes it dependent
upon concurrence by the Snowmobile Board.

Sandra Mitchell of the Idaho State Snowmobile Association, said that
they felt that local folks on the advisory councils know best about what is
going on in their area and felt more comfortable with the word concur.

Mr. Bill Jones, Director of the Idaho ATV Association, spoke in favor of
the legislation. He stated that they do have concerns about the vehicles
getting bigger. He said the best thing about ATV’s is that anyone can ride
them; the worst thing about ATV’s is that anyone can ride them.

Mr. Ron Stricklin, Programmer for the Idaho ATV Association also spoke
in favor of the legislation.

Rep. Roberts and Rep. Cannon had some concerns regarding the
damage to forest lands and to existing trails with the bigger machines.

Mr. Collignon said that some of the trails will need to be reworked
because of the turning capacity of the new machines, but with the larger
tires there won’t be more damage.

Rep. Bedke made a substitute motion to send RS12877C2 to print and
then directly to the second reading calendar. After some discussion, the
substitute motion was approved with a voice vote.

A lengthy discussion followed regarding what type of rock would need to
be covered and if it would include landscape and quarry rocks; if just
partial loads would need to be covered; and would this include trucks in
construction zones.

Rep. Roberts made a substitute motion to amend line 13 striking the word
covered and insert adequately secured. After some discussion Rep.
Roberts withdrew this substitute motion.

Rep. Roberts then made a second substitute motion, on line 12 after
highway insert open for public use and delete covered and insert
adequately secured.

Rep. Wills stated that there is already a statute on the books that says a
load will be secured.

Rep. Roberts made an amended substitute motion to return RS12523C3
to the sponsor. A roll call vote was called for: 5 Aye -7 Nay, motion failed
(see attached roll call vote sheet).

A roll call vote was then called for on the substitute motion to insert open
for public use on line 12 and delete covered and insert adequately
secured. 3 Aye-9 Nay motion failed.

Rep. Wills then amended his original motion to send RS12523C3 to the
floor for printing and insert on line 12 after highway open for public use. A
voice vote was taken, motion passed. Rep. Bedke and Rep. McKague
wished to be recorded as voting Nay.

Dr. Greg Nelson, Idaho Farm Bureau, spoke in favor of this bill.

Alan Frew, ITD, also spoke in favor of the bill.

EXCUSED:

Rep. Wills made a motion to accept the minutes of February 6, 2003, with
one correction. Motion approved.

There were a number of questions regarding the ‘secured by other
means’ and Rep. Bauer said that usually rocks that large are secured with
bands.

Rep. Roberts said he still has a problem with the word covered, and he
made a substitute motion to return RS12980 to the sponsor.

A voice vote was taken on the substitute motion to return RS12980 to the
sponsor. The motion failed.

A voice vote was then taken on the original motion to send RS12980 to
print. The motion was approved.

Rep. Smith said this legislation needs to be written in a clearer way.

Scott Goldstein, Enterprise Rent-a-car, spoke in favor of the bill. He
stated that this deals with business leasing and a true lease not a sale. It
deals with fleets of cars/trucks.

Rep. Smith asked if the lease agreements don’t cover this? Mr. Goldstein
said that state laws would supersede local contracts. He also said that
this legislation has been passed in 40 of the 50 states. Rep. Bedke felt
that the bill does not speak of leases.

EXCUSED:

Ed Hedges, Jim Trent, State Farm Insurance, and Rep. Fred Tilman
spoke in favor of the bill.

Those speaking against the bill were: Fred Darrington, farmer; Jerry
Deckard, Associated General Contractors; Jane Gorsuch, Intermountain
Forest Association; and Dennis Tanikuni, Idaho Farm Bureau.

In the discussion that followed, most of the concern was that the rocks
that chip windshields are often from chipping and sealing and the size of
material used and not from rocks falling from trucks.

A roll call vote was called for on the amended substitute motion to send
H230 to General Orders with committee amendments attached. 5 aye

9 nay, motion failed.

A roll call vote was called for on the substitute motion to hold H230 in
committee. 6 aye 8 nay, motion failed.

A roll call vote was called for on the original motion to send H230 to the
floor with a do pass. 8 aye 6 nay, motion approved. (See attached roll call
sheet)

Chairman Wood turned the Chair over to Vice Chairman Ridinger.

Those speaking in favor of H275 were: Dan Chadwick, Executive
Director of Idaho Association of Counties; Roger Christensen, Bonneville
County Commissioner; Mark Pollot, Attorney.

Larry Benton, Idaho Land Title, was not against the bill but would like
time to review it.

It was felt that this legislation would give the county commissioners a
process with which to proceed in determining the status of a federally-granted right-of-way. Dan Chadwick stated that at present the Board of
County Commissioners has the right to determine whether there exists a
2477 rights-of-way and H275 just gives the counties a way to clarify the
process and get better ground rules to make an assertion.

Those speaking against H275 were: Jane Gorsuch, IFA; and Ted
Hoffman, Idaho Cattlemen’s Association. They felt they would like more
time to study the bill and talk with their members.

Concerns of the committee were:

1. private property rights
2. difference between relinquishment and abandonment
3. maintaining roads
4. DEQ and clean water
5. determining local customs
6. substantial and competent evidence

A roll call vote was called for on the amended substitute motion to hold
H275 in Time Certain until Wednesday, 26, 2003. 6 aye 6 nay. Motion
failed.

A roll call vote was called for on the substitute motion to hold H275 in
committee. 5 aye 7 nay. Motion failed.

A roll call vote was called for on the original motion to send H275 to the
floor with a do pass recommendation. 10 aye 2 nay. Motion approved.
(See attached roll call sheet)

Rep. Wood made a motion to hold H152 in committee. Motion approved
by a voice vote.

EXCUSED:

Rep. Cuddy made a motion to accept the minutes of February 18, 2003,
as written. Motion approved by a voice vote.

Rep. Roberts asked who would do the accounting to get the money to the
four Councils. Sen. Bunderson said that is handled by the Idaho
Transportation Department.

Rep. Smith said he would give his annual speech and would vote against
the bill. Rep. Roberts also stated that he would not support the bill.

Rep. Ridinger spoke in support of the bill as did Rep. Cuddy.

A voice vote was taken on the motion to send S1052 to the floor with a do
pass recommendation. Motion approved. Representatives Smith,
Roberts and Wood voted nay. Rep. Wills will carry the bill on the floor.

EXCUSED:

Mr. Miles answered questions from the committee regarding aggregate
size saying that larger aggregate is not always better. In a response to a
question regarding which material was better to prevent rutting he stated
that all pavements rut. He also talked about seal coating in rural/urban
areas and said most seal coating is done in rural areas and that urban
areas are usually a slurry seal.

This legislation is to control the weights of studs in winter snow tires and
to control the installation of studs in winter snow tires by commercial tire
shops. He also stated that this legislation will amend Section 49-948,
Idaho Code, in an effort to reduce the amount of pavement wear caused
by studded winter snow tires. This proposal would eliminate the need for
Idaho Transportation Administrative Rule 39.03.46 that currently
addresses studded snow tire requirements. Findings are that lighter
weight studs would do as well as the heavier studs and would reduce
wear on the roadways by half. Commercial tire retailers would have until
July 1, 2005 to comply. The fiscal impact on ITD would be favorable due
to increased pavement life.

EXCUSED:

Rep. Cannon made a motion to accept the minutes of February 24, 2003,
as written. Motion approved by a voice vote.

There was a question regarding how fuel tax is handled in states where
ethanol is required. Mr. Hendricks said he did not know, but he would get
back to the committee with an answer. A question about the pump cost
was asked. Mr. Hendricks stated that ethanol blended fuels do not cost
anymore than regular gasoline. There was also concern from the
committee that ethanol could not be used in all cars. Mr. Hendricks said
he wasn’t aware of any that could not burn ethanol.

Brad Frazee, gave a power point presentation on ethanol. He stated that
because of the clean air act MTBE is banned in 14 states and ethanol
does not contain MTBEs. Our energy independence has gone down
since 1973 when we imported 30% of our oil; in 2002 we imported 60%.
Most of the ethanol facilities are in the Midwest. Idaho would be a good
place for ethanol plants because we have a good crop base, we are
closer to western markets, we have rail access, and a good dairy industry
for the cattle feed market. These plants would also increase employment.
The benefits of ethanol use are extra oxygen-cleaner combustion;
Minneapolis and Denver’s air is cleaner since using ethanol.

There was a question about the investment cost and Mr. Frazee stated it
would be about $55 million. He said that there are two plants now one in
Caldwell and one in Heyburn. A question was also asked about trucks
using ethanol. Mr. Frazee stated that there is a biodiesel mixture.

John Hamilton, stated that the Treasure Valley Renewable Resources,
LLC was established in 2002 to ascertain the viability of ethanol
production in the Treasure Valley. He said they are working on a 15
million gallon plant in Payette County, and it will be capable of utilizing
wheat, barley, corn, and milo as feedstock.

It was asked how the legislature could help. Mr. Hendricks said he would
work with the two groups and get a list to the committee.

Rep. Bedke, Rep. Skippen, Rep. Wills and Rep. Cuddy spoke in favor of
the motion. Rep. Cannon spoke against.

The motion to send S1054 to the floor with a do pass recommendation
passed with a voice vote. Rep. Cannon voted nay. Rep. Bauer will carry
the bill on the floor.

EXCUSED:

Rep. Bauer made a motion to accept the minutes of February 26, 2003,
as written. Motion approved by a voice vote.

EXCUSED:

A question regarding this legislation speaking only to used car dealers
was asked. Mr. Gaskill stated that new and franchised dealers already
have lots of schooling. Money for these classes would come from the
association and by charging dealers $75 for the education.

Kyle Durham, car dealer and ISIADA member, and Jodi Hoalst, car
dealer and ISIADA member spoke in favor of the bill.

The motion to send S1041 to the floor with a do pass recommendation
was approved by a voice vote. Rep. Douglas will carry the bill on the
floor.

Kyle Durham and Jodi Hoalst spoke in favor of this bill.

It was noted by the committee that on the Statement of Purpose
Paragraph 49-426 is written and on the bill 49-526 is written. It was also
noted that the SOP establishes a penalty but on Line 36 of the bill it
doesn’t tell what the penalty would be.

Questions were asked by the committee regarding emergency vehicle
occupants being exempt from this law. Rep. Wills said they have been
exempt in the past and this bill doesn’t change that. Some confusion
arose regarding paying court costs. Rep. Wills said that those under 18
would pay court cost, but over 18 would not.

Speaking in favor of the bill were: Kimberly Michelle Madsen, Miss
Magic Valley 2002; Bill Hanchey, Twin Falls Police; Phyllis J. Smith;
Dave Carlson, AAA of Idaho; Dr. Robert Coscia, St. Alphonsus; Roy
Eiguren, Attorney/St. Alphonsus; Grant Woodhead, and Allyn Dingel,
Attorney/State Farm Insurance

There was a long discussion on emergency vehicles using safety
restraints.

A roll call vote was called for on the substitute motion. 6 Aye 7 Nay.
Motion failed. (See attached roll call sheet)

A roll call vote was called for on the original motion to send H303 to the
floor with a do pass recommendation. 11 Aye 2 Nay. Motion approved.
(See attached roll call sheet) Rep. Wills will carry the bill on the floor.

EXCUSED:

Questions were asked about the fiscal impact to the general fund. The
Speaker said since the rates for heavier trucks has been raised that it
would be nurtural. Morris Detmar, ITD, agreed.

There were also questions regarding bridges. Speaker Newcomb stated
that the routes have been chose so that no bridges would be
compromised. Greg Laragan, ITD, said that there has been an analysis
done and that they would continue to do analysis, but they see no
problem now.

William Rode, driver/owner operator and member of the Owner Operator
Independent Drivers Association, spoke against the bill. He stated that the
association strongly apposes any change in the size and weight of
commercial trucks as the larger and heavier vehicles are harder to
operate, and makes them prone to being less safe. (Mr. Rode’s complete
written testimony is attached.)

Paul Sudmeier, President/Idaho Trucking Association, spoke in favor of
the bill. He stated that he represents 300 motor carriers. Mr. Sudmeier
spoke about the Transportation Research Board’s Executive Summary
(attached). Mr. Sudmeier also referenced a letter from Great West
Casualty Company which stated that no additional premium or rate is
assigned to LCV’s at any gross weight. The letter went on to say that the
data that they had received, relative to weight or combination length, had
not shown them that these units are any less safe, or, more prone to loss.

Brian Whipple, Transportation Manager/Amalgamated Sugar Co., spoke
in favor of the bill. He stated that they have four sugar beet refineries in
Idaho. They feel this would save money for the growers and would be a
softer footprint on the roads. The larger trucks would mean 15,000 less
loads a season. None of these are now moved by rail so this wouldn’t be
taking business from the railroads.

Steve Brumbaugh, Lobbyist/BLE, spoke against the bill. (See attached
written testimony.)

Mark Duffin, Executive Director/Idaho Sugar Beet Growers, spoke in
favor of the bill. (See attached written testimony.)

Dave Carlson, Public Affairs/AAA Idaho, spoke against the bill. (See
attached written testimony and handout.)

A study done by the U of I was brought up. Mr. Carlson said that the
study was difficult to read and there wasn’t enough data.

Steve Thomas, attorney/BNSF, spoke against the bill. He said that this is
an equal protection matter. He said the bill adopts two different standards
one for the north and one for the southern part of the state.

Skip Smyser, attorney/Idaho Trucking Association, spoke in favor of the
bill. He stated that in Section 1 of the bill the legislature is showing that
there is a difference in the terrain, weather and other conditions in north
Idaho when compared to the southern portion of the state. This would
meet the rational basis test of the Equal Protection Clause.

Charles Clark, Union Pacific Railroad, spoke against the bill. He stated
that this is a competitive issue with them.

Brad Hoaglnn, Lobbyist/Idaho Hay Association, spoke in favor of the bill.
He stated that hay is the number two commodity in Idaho and the cost of
transportation is an issue. He said that they do ship by railroad, but
shipping by truck is more convenient and time is money.

Brent Olmstead, Lobbyist/Milk Producers of Idaho, spoke in favor of the
bill. He stated that this is an economic issue.

Dar Olberding, Lobbyist/IGPA, spoke in favor of the bill.

Roy Eiguren, attorney/Amalgamated Sugar, spoke in favor of the bill. In
answer to a question from the committee he stated that Section 1 of the
printed bill is new language and shows legislative intent. Also answering
a question from the committee, Mr. Eiguren said that on Page 2, Line 43
of the bill , it states that the board or authorities may in their discretion
issue a special permit to the owner or operator of any vehicle allowing
vehicles or loads having a greater weight or size than permitted by law to
be moved or carried over and on the highways and bridges.

Speaker Newcomb said he sees no reason why we shouldn’t do this.
Fewer trucks with less damage to our roads. Railroads don’t like to see
competition. Chairman Wood stated that we would welcome more
railroad cars in Idaho. Speaker Newcomb said that there are less and
less railroad cars in Idaho and people feel isolated from the market place.

Rep. Smith had some observations, he is aware that the pilot project had
some problems. These trucks are going to be intertwining through
counties and highway districts and sees problems with bridge decks.
Lower loads are safer. Heavier weights longer stopping distance. Trucks
paying their fair share. He sees enforcement as a problem.

Rep. Roberts said there is a concern about where the south end of north
Idaho is. There is a gap between Council and Grangeville, and he asked
if the Speaker would be apposed to changing Grangeville to Council. The
Speaker said no.

Those speaking against the bill were: Dave Carlson, Steve Thomas, and
Charlie Clark.

Speaking in favor of the bill was: Mark Benson, Lobbyist/Potlatch Corp.

A voice vote was taken on the substitute motion. Motion approved.

Speaker Newcomb will carry the bill on the floor.

Pat Keim, Lobbyist/BNSFRR, Dave Carlson, and Charles Clark spoke
against the bill.

Paul Sudmeier, spoke in favor of the bill.

A voice vote was taken on the motion to send HJM5 to the floor with a do
pass recommendation. Motion approved. Representatives Cuddy,
Douglas and Shepherd voted Nay.

EXCUSED:

Rod Beck, Ada County resident, spoke against the bill. He said he felt
this legislation was a “solution in search of a problem.” Mr. Beck stated
that currently 25 people sign a request to the County Commissioners for a
hearing; this is not a dissolution election just a hearing. In regards to the
20% needed for a hearing that 20% is of what number?

There were a great number of questions regarding twenty-five persons or
20% and if this is for dissolution or a request for hearing. Rep. Douglas
stated that she felt the Statement of Purpose differs from the bill.

A discussion ensued regarding the difficulty in being able to prosecute
without proof of delivery of the notification letter.

Speaking in favor of the bill were: Senator Bailey, Rep. Eskridge,
Charles Chapin, Ted Coltrin, Ron Moran, Roger Howard, Clyde
Dailey, Kate Bell, Bobby Ball, Steve Rutherford. Steve Tobiason,
attorney/AARP, who is also in favor of the bill, answered questions from
the committee

EXCUSED:

Those speaking in favor of the bill were: Senator Bailey; Bob Wells,
Lobbyist/ISP, ICOP; Joanne Graff, Central District Health; Dr. Jerry
Hirschfeld, St. Lukes; Dr. Jim Scheel, IMA; John Sandy, Allyn Dingel,
attorney/State Farm.

Ms. Graff, stated that there are resources available to provide safety
seats for lower income families, and there are organizations that educate
families on the proper way to install the safety seats.

Dr. Hirschfeld, said that studies show that putting a law requiring safety
restraints on the books expands usage 15%.

John Sandy, had a handout showing photos of an accident where a child
not wearing a safety restraint was killed. (Handout attached to the library
and secretary copies.)

meeting on March 4. At that time there were questions regarding what

the penalty would be. Mr. Gaskell stated that the penalty would be a
misdemeanor as stated in Section 49-236, Idaho Code, Chapter 5-1813.

EXCUSED:

The department currently has no means to administer a comprehensive
vehicle/driver tracking and cross-referencing program. If this legislation is
enacted, the department will continue to record proof of financial
responsibility information on driver records, but will not be required to
prohibit registration of a vehicle or cancel a vehicle registration based on
the “proof of financial responsibility” filing requirements of one of the
owners listed on a vehicle registration.

There were many questions from the committee about proof of insurance
and complying with RS22. Mr. Pemble said that it was brought to their
attention that they haven’t been implementing the law as it is written, and
that the sunset clause gives the department time to enact the law. A
question was asked about the number of people in Idaho that fall under
SR22. Mr. Pemble stated about 29,000 a year. Morris Detmar, ITD, said
that this legislation gives the department time to implement the law and
again stated that if they do nothing they would be out of compliance.

Rep. Cuddy made a substitute motion to hold S1010a in Time Certain
until Tuesday, March 18. A vote on the substitute motion was taken. The
motion was approved by a voice vote, and S1010a will be held in Time
Certain until Tuesday, March 18.

EXCUSED:

Rep. Douglas stated that she had a bill similar to this one regarding
students and active duty and she stated that the Board of Education had
told her that they already had a policy in place that would take care of
this. Mr. Bevis said he didn’t know of any policy, but they would check
with the board. He stated that they would rather have a law in place than
a policy.

Rep. Smith stated that he is in support of the motion but requests that Mr.
Bevis pursue this matter with the Board of Education.

A voice vote was taken to send S1137 to the floor with a do pass
recommendation. Motion approved. Rep. Ridinger and Rep. Douglas will
carry the legislation on the floor.

Those speaking in favor of the bill: Jackie Nefzger, outfitter; Kristin Troy,
President Salmon Chamber of Commerce; Max Bechdel, Kayaker;
Monroe Pearce, Garden Valley Search and Rescue; Alan Hamilton,
businessman; Carl Wilgus, Director/Department of Commerce; Jo
Cassin; Idaho River Sports; Bill Latta, Lawyer/Idaho Whitewater.

EXCUSED:

Alan Frew, POE Manager/Idaho Transportation Dept., stated that S1053a
has the support of the department.

Rep. Roberts made a motion to reconsider S1081. Motion passed by a
voice vote.

Stuart Davis, Idaho Assoc. of Highway Districts, explained to the
committee that an amendment and a reprinted SOP had been completed
for the committee’s review. The reprinted SOP is more in line with the
amendments. It states that this legislation revises the number of electors
necessary for the submission of a petition to the county commissioners to
dissolve a highway district. The current requirement in Idaho Code
Section 18, Title 40 requires only 25 qualified electors to sign a petition to
initiate dissolution proceedings in which the highway district is situated.
This legislation increases the number of qualified electors to the greater of
25 or five percent of the total of all qualified electors of the county in which
the district is situated who were eligible to vote at the last general
election. The legislation also inserts language that preserves a citizen’s
ability to air a grievance or concern before the board of county
commissioners.

The committee asked a number of questions regarding smaller highway
districts and how this would effect them as apposed to a district such as
Ada County. Mr. Davis said that this bill delineates between Ada County
and the rest of the highway districts. This would not let just 25 people ask
for a dissolution in a county as large as Ada County.

Senator Bunderson, stated that this legislation doesn’t dissolve anything
just what it takes to cause the county commissioners to have a petition.

Rod Beck, spoke against the bill. He stated that with the new language
nothing has changed.

A voice vote was taken on the substitute motion to hold S1081 in
committee. Motion approved.

Rep. Roberts made a motion to hold HJM6 in committee at the request of
the sponsor. Motion approved by a voice vote.

EXCUSED:

Chairman Wood asked why the Senate put the amendments on the bill.
Lt. Col. Spurling said it was to clarify the intent.

Shannon Pearce and Katherine Frazier, spoke in favor of the bill.

Rep. Harwood, sponsor of the bill. He stated that since the gulf war
there have been 17 resolutions regarding Iraq and not one has been
fulfilled.

Nay were: Representatives Wills, Skippen, Bauer, Douglas, Kellogg, and
Smith.

David Moore, Blackfoot Chief of Police, spoke against the bill. He said
that the law states that there must be 360 degree visual and that safety
for drivers is paramount. A question was asked regarding whether you
could have a for sale sign or decal of some sort on your window and if this
would be against the code. Chief Moore said that this is a gray area. He
also stated that if there is one police officer causing the problem we need
to fix the problem not rewrite the law.

Major Tom Thompson, ISP, spoke against the bill. Rep. Wood asked
about camper toppers and how those are dealt with. Major Thompson
said that those are dealt with in Idaho Code. He also stated that opaque
windows are dealt with in Idaho Code. This bill would allow you to put
things like cardboard, aluminum foil, etc., in your windows and this would
be a danger for the driver as well as the police officer who would not be
able to see into the back seat of a car.

Bob Wells, Lobbyist/ISPA/ICOPA, spoke against the bill. He said this is
a common sense issue.

Rep. Wills said that he is in favor of holding the bill in committee also.
The law is not black and white; we need common sense and good
judgment.

The motion to hold S1039 in committee was approved by a voice vote

EXCUSED:

Dave Carlson, also spoke in opposition to the bill citing the open meeting law
and that the procedural moves which certainly appear to have limited public
debate or even a public viewing of House Bill 395. Mr. Carlson’s full
testimony is attached.

Speaker Newcomb stated that he didn’t realize that the bill had not been put
on the internet and since there had not been an opportunity for everyone to
see the bill he asked that the committee hold the bill until Wednesday, April 2,
giving everyone time to read the bill.

EXCUSED:

Steve Thomas, attorney/Burlington Northern, was scheduled to speak in
opposition to the bill but had to leave so left his written testimony which is
attached.

William Rode, owner operator/Independent Drivers Association, rose in
opposition to H395. He stated that the association is strongly opposed to any
change in the size and weight of commercial trucks as the larger and heavier
vehicles are more challenging to operate and the extra risks seem to
compromise safety.

George Millward, lobbyist/U.T.U., spoke in opposition to the bill. He said that
they feel that this would hurt the railroad by taking jobs.

Brent Olmstead, lobbyist/Milk Producers of Idaho, spoke in favor of the bill.
He said that the milk industry is suffering from layoffs and lower prices. His
group feels the higher weights will help them be more competitive and be able
to haul larger loads in less trips to the plant.

Bob Wells, lobbyist/Associated Logging Contractors, spoke against the bill.
He said that this legislation bifurcates the state of Idaho. He also said that
they feel this is a safety issue; 129,000 pound trucks don’t stop as fast as
105,500 pound trucks; roads are not built for this weight; and that there is a $9
billion backlog that currently exists to repair roads and bridges in Idaho. His
testimony charged that roads are deteriorating faster in Idaho.

Rep. Wood questioned whether he had attended the Department of
Transportation budget hearing and heard the testimony that Idaho is making
faster than expected progress in remediation deficit pavement in Idaho? Mr.
Wells replied that he had attended the Joint Finance and Appropriation budge
hearing for Transportation, but he didn’t recall the slide mentioned.

Dar Olberding, lobbyist/Idaho Grain Producers, spoke in favor of the bill. He
stated that anytime you can become more efficient in moving product it helps
the farmers.

Dave Carlson, AAA Idaho, spoke in opposition to the bill. He cited the
reasons they are against the legislation are safety, cost, and infrastructure.
He stated that the small permit fee that will be assessed will not help keep up
with repairs.

Woody Richards, attorney/ALE Ins. Co., spoke in opposition to H395. He
said this legislation would have a negative impact on insurance companies.

Larry Ghan, Bannock County Clerk, spoke against the bill. He said they feel
the heavier weight trucks would be destructive and expensive to the county
roads, and they also worry about the safety.

Roy Eiguren, attorney/Amalgamated Sugar, spoke in favor of the legislation.
This 10-year pilot project will demonstrate factually if this project will be harder
on the highways and less safe. Replying to a question regarding those trucks
that would have to travel on access roads to get from the beet dumps to the
designated pilot project roads, Mr. Eiguren stated that they would go to local
jurisdictions to get permits.

Steve Brumbaugh, Locomotive Engineer/BLE, spoke against the bill. He
stated that this is another nail in the coffin for branch line railroads.

Paul Sudmeier, Idaho Trucking Association, spoke in favor of the bill. He
stated that the length and weights of trucks haven’t grown in over 40 years
and there is no connection in loss of rail service. The surrounding states who
have the 129,000 pound weight limits have not experienced the things
charged by previous testimony.

Mark Duffin, Idaho Sugar Beet Growers, spoke in favor of the bill. He said
that Amalgamated Sugar is owned by growers and anything that can be done
to help these growers they support. Not every route that would be desired
could be incorporated into this pilot project at this time.

Dennis Tanikuni, lobbyist/Idaho Farm Bureau, spoke in favor of H395.

Brad Hoaglun, lobbyist/Idaho Hay Association, spoke in favor of the
legislation.

A question from the committee regarding those areas on the map that were left
off and would this force people outside the pilot area to compete with those in
the pilot area. Speaker Newcomb said that they asked for input from all the
commodity haulers in all the areas and the areas in blue (see attached map)
are the areas that responded. He also said that this is a pilot project and they
can come back next year and add roads if they hear from those areas not
covered.

In discussion on the motion, Rep. Skippen said, “Why would you vote no and
vote for less efficiency.” Rep. Wills stated that no law enforcement people had
come to oppose this bill in regards to the safety issue so he would support the
motion.

Rep. Cuddy asked a question about the damage on bridges. Greg Laragan,
ITD, stated that if they knew the answers they wouldn’t have to have a pilot
project.

A roll call vote was requested on the motion to send H395 to the floor with a
do pass recommendation. 10 Aye 4 Nay, motion approved. See attached roll
call vote form. Speaker Newcomb will carry the bill on the floor.

There were a number of questions from the committee regarding the way this
legislation would work in a county that had more than one highway district, and
who would enforce the law.

Rep. Ridinger said that he thinks that this type of legislation is needed, but that
it needs more work, and he said that he is willing to work with Mr. Davis this
summer to get a bill back here next year.

A vote on the motion to hold H398 in committee was taken. Motion approved
by voice vote. Chairman Wood and Rep. Skippen voted Nay.

EXCUSED: