[Mohuska]

Here is the continued analysis....first part too long

SB 708 (FLOREZ)
Page 3



1.Allow a low-income owner of a vehicle who received a
notice to correct heavy smoke emissions to participate in
the state's repair assistance program operated in
conjunction with the smog check program.

2.Authorize a county board of supervisors to establish a
combined vehicle inspection and sobriety checkpoint to
screen for violations of smoking vehicle prohibitions and
opacity standards and authorize a board to establish a
sobriety checkpoint program to identify drivers who drive
under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

3.In counties where a combined vehicle inspection and
sobriety checkpoint program is established, require that
$150 of the fine revenue for second and subsequent
violations of vehicle smoke or opacity standards must be
placed in a special account and be used only for the
combined checkpoint program.

4.Raise the fines by $150 for second or subsequent
violations for an excessively smoking vehicle, or a
second or subsequent violation for a vehicle violating
opacity/smoke standards, and the vehicles weigh less than
6,001 pounds, from the current minimum fine of $100 to
$250, and raise the maximum fine from $250 to $400.

COMMENTS:

1.According to the author, the bill is intended to increase
enforcement efforts directed at heavily smoking and
gross-polluting vehicles in order to reduce the excessive
emissions produced by such vehicles. The large increases
in fines for second offenses is meant to deter vehicle
owners from continuing to operate "smokers," while the
use of combined sobriety and smoking vehicle checkpoints
is intended to be an efficient and cost-effective way to
identify intoxicated drivers and/or smoking vehicles.
The availability of the smog check repair assistance
program to low-income owners of smoking vehicles is
intended to provide a means to repair such vehicles to
avoid subsequently stiff fines and also clean the air.

2.Questions for the Committee .

a)Are the proposed fine increases, in combination with
existing penalty assessments (an additional 190% of the




SB 708 (FLOREZ)
Page 4



base fine) too large? The bill would increase fines by
$150, but currently-required penalty assessments would
add another $285, for a combined increase of $435 for
second and subsequent violations.

b)Would the combined smoking vehicle and sobriety
checkpoints be effective, given that a smoking vehicle
can be cited by any officer at any time?

c)The bill would authorize counties to establish sobriety
checkpoint programs, other than the combined vehicle
inspection and sobriety checkpoint programs, to identify
drivers in violation of the prohibition on driving under
the influence of drugs or alcohol. What is the
relationship of these single-purpose sobriety checkpoints
to air quality improvements?

3.The Senate Judiciary Committee has requested that the
bill be re-referred to that committee to consider the
bill's fine increases and distribution of fine revenue
between the state and counties, subjects that are covered
by the Trial Court Funding Act. The Senate Rules
Committee has advised this committee that the bill should
be referred to the Rules Committee for consideration of
additional referral if approved by Transportation.

POSITIONS: (Communicated to the Committee before noon on
Wednesday, April 23, 2003)

SUPPORT:

OPPOSED:
Note : the Committee has received many
letters and calls
from individuals opposing the bill's
previous provisions on smog checks for older
vehicles. That opposition does not appear
related to the current version of the bill.