MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
Sixty-seventh Session
February 12, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Val Z. Garner at 8:10 a.m. Friday, February 12, 1993, in Room 101/102 of the Cashman Field Center, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Val Z. Garner, Chairman
Mr. Rick C. Bennett, Vice Chairman
Mrs. Kathy M. Augustine
Mr. Douglas A. Bache
Mrs. Marcia de Braga
Mr. Pete Ernaut
Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Mrs. Erin Kenny
Mrs. Joan A. Lambert
Mr. James W. McGaughey
Mr. Roy Neighbors
Mrs. Gene W. Segerblom
Mr. Wendell P. Williams
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ms. Dana Bennett
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mrs. Sallie Bache; Mr. Dean Allen, Principal of Walter Bracken Elementary School; Mr. Vernon H. Burk, Assistant Superintendent Clark County School District; Ms. Carolyne Edwards, Clark County School District; Ms. Barbara McKenzie, City of Reno; Ms. Lisa Foster, City of Sparks; Mr. Marvin Leavitt, City of Las Vegas; Mr. Kurt Fritsch, City of Henderson; Mr. Rich Romer, Clark County; Mr. Andy Urban, City of Henderson; Ms. Lindsey Jydstrup, Nevada State Education Association; Ms. Bonnie James, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce; P.D. Kiser, Nevada Department of Transportation; Ms. Anita Laruy, City of North Las Vegas; Ms. Charity Fechter, City of North Las Vegas; Mr. Glenn Grayson, Traffic Engineer, City of Las Vegas.
ASSEMBLY BILL 138 - Requires certain signs designating school zones to be equipped with flashing yellow lights.
Assemblyman Bache gave a brief summary of the bill, indicating it originated from a number of concerns regarding a specific school zone where vehicles traveled in excess of the posted 25 mph school zone speed limit. He stated the sign posted at the school zone was insufficient to slow traffic as it was lost among the numerous other signs in that area. Mr. Bache said while this bill would have a significant fiscal impact for a number of communities, it was an important issue for child safety.
Mrs. Sallie Bache gave testimony to urge passage of AB 138 (Exhibit C).
Ms. Carolyne Edwards, Lobbyist for Clark County School District, introduced two witnesses in support of AB 138. She stated while they were in support of AB 138, there were questions which needed to be raised and answered.
Mr. Vern Burk, Assistant Superintendent in charge of facilities and transportation for Clark County School District, indicated there were some major concerns with the wording of the bill. He stated some entities considered school zones any place children would cross a street to get to school, while other entities considered school zones to be only those streets which bordered the school and school crossings as those areas where children would cross a street on their way to school. Mr. Burk said as it was written AB 138 would necessitate placement of flashing crossing signals at dozens of streets in the Clark County school district at a cost of $30,000 to $70,000 each. He felt the terminology of "crossing" and "zone" should be more clearly defined and indicated he would be willing to work with the committee to that end.
Mrs. Lambert asked if the school district or county was responsible for putting up signs.
Mr. Burk stated the school district was not responsible for putting up signs but was frequently assessed for the cost of the signs.
Mr. Dean Allen, Principal of Walter Bracken Elementary School, testified he had two major concerns with AB 138. He stated his obvious concern was for the safety of students at the school and one of the major problems seemed to be signs were camouflaged and few people were able to see them. Another major concern Mr. Dean had was the fear the bill, as written, might be fiscally prohibitive to the school district or other entities within the state. Mr. Dean indicated his support of Mr. Burk in his assistance to the committee to put parameters on the bill so flashers would be placed only at those areas absolutely necessary for the safety of the children.
Chairman Garner questioned Mr. Dean regarding crossing guards at Eastern Blvd. asking if he felt flashing lights were still necessary at that location.
Mr. Dean agreed indicating Metro had been very cooperative in trying to slow traffic going in excess of 40 mph. He said it was very difficult to see the signs.
Chairman Garner and Mr. Dean continued discussion regarding other problem areas.
Mr. McGaughey stated he felt since there had been no real progress made to change signs to conform to law, there would be no assurance this bill, if passed in some form, would be conformed to.
Mr. Burk stated Mr. McGaughey's concern could not be addressed by the schools as they did not place the signs.
Mr. McGaughey asked if the District had any input into the size of the signs. Mr. Burk replied they did not.
Mr. Ernaut questioned Ms. Edwards about the fiscal impact on districts if the flashing lights could be kept down to about four per school.
Ms. Edwards indicated the fiscal impact would be quite large, particularly for the rural counties.
Chairman Garner agreed there was a significant fiscal impact and the question would be dealing with unfunded mandates.
Mrs. Segerblom questioned Mr. Burk regarding the school with three streets, two of which because of less traffic should not need lighting, but the bill as written would require flashing lights for all three streets.
Mr. Burk stated speed limits in school zones posted 30 mph or more would receive the flashing lights, regardless of whether they were necessary.
Mr. McGaughey suggested the fines levied for speeding in a posted school zone be dedicated to a fund to pay for the crossing lights.
Further discussion was held between Ms. Edwards, Mr. Burk and committee members.
Ms. Lindsey Jydstrup, representing Nevada State Education Association, testified in favor of AB 138, stating child and school safety was a very critical issue and urged the committee to continue the study of this issue.
Mrs. Segerblom asked if an amendment could be added which addressed county populations.
Ms. Jydstrup replied she felt the bill could be looked at in regard to adding amendments.
Mrs. Augustine inquired how this would affect private school zones. Ms. Jydstrup indicated she did not know.
Ms. Lisa Foster, City of Sparks, testifying against AB 138, stated Sparks currently had no flashing lights for school zones as Sparks had a lot of smaller streets. She indicated a recent study to evaluate the cost of installing flashing lights in the school zones on the main streets showed the total cost for installing all lights would be approximately $364,000. Ms. Foster said Sparks was currently budgeted for two school zones to have flashing lights, as requested by some citizens. She commented the study showed the other school zones would not be as dangerous. Ms. Foster stated the cost of the bill to the City of Sparks would only be $60,000, as the three school zones affected in Sparks were all in one area. Her concern was the immediate cost of $60,000 rather than phasing it in over a period of time.
Discussion was held regarding cost of signs and lighting and who would absorb the expenditure.
Mr. Marvin Leavitt, City of Las Vegas, stated his main concern about AB 138 was the cost as discussed earlier. He indicated the Regional Transportation Committee had undergone extensive work to develop standards for the various types of school zones and to decide when flashing lights would be appropriate. Mr. Leavitt indicated representatives were available to give testimony regarding these standards.
Discussion was held between committee members and Mr. Leavitt.
Mrs. Kenny asked questions regarding tickets issued and accidents in areas with flashing lights as opposed to areas without. Chairman Garner indicated the LCB research division could obtain the requested information.
Mr. Glen Grayson, Traffic Engineer for City of Las Vegas, testifying against AB 138 stated there were several issues he felt should be raised. Mr. Grayson said the issue of where to put flashers was defined in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and was considered as a discretionary device. Mr. Grayson indicated the issue of how and where to apply traffic control devices should best be left at the local level rather than with state mandate. He indicated the Clark County regional transportation commission had just completed an 18-month process which covered this subject in depth for the Clark County area; and as Clark County contained multiple jurisdictions, uniform policies had been adopted which would make traffic laws the same for all jurisdictions.
Mr. McGaughey asked if Mr. Grayson was referring to signs which were consistent regardless of jurisdiction. Mr. Grayson agreed.
Mr. McGaughey then questioned what the city was doing to comply with the sign ordinance which regulated size and color. Mr. Grayson replied the new policies would allow the city to address that issue.
Mr. Kurt P. Fritsch, and Mr. Andrew J. Urban, Jr., for the City of Henderson, provided testimony against AB 138 (Exhibit D).
Mr. Rich Romer, Traffic Manager for Clark County, indicated AB 138 would incur significant detrimental fiscal impacts to Clark County. Mr. Romer reiterated several points made by previous testimony.
Mr. P.D. Kiser, Chief Traffic Engineer for Nevada Department of Transportation, testified against AB 138. He pointed out the wording in the bill did not say anything about state highways, so if passed as written the state highways would be exempt, which he felt was not the intent of the bill. Mr. Kiser noted there was a Nevada Traffic Control Devices Committee, whose members included all state traffic engineers, city and county traffic engineers and law enforcement agencies. He said the committee was concerned about and had discussed school zones, and had put together a pamphlet regarding school zones, signing, signals and lights among other things.
Mr. Kiser indicated the policy as discussed by Mr. Grayson had guidelines for flashers, even for streets with speed limits below 30 mph.
Mrs. Kenny asked if the state had liability insurance in case of an accident where improper signage might have contributed.
Mr. Kiser replied a person could sue the state, but he did not know if there was special insurance. He indicated there were limitations by state law as to what the state could be liable for.
Mr. Bache questioned if there was a standardized school zone sign for the state.
Mr. Kiser referred to the national Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices as mentioned earlier.
Ms. Bonnie James, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, testified in opposition of AB 138.
Ms. Anita Laruy, representing City of North Las Vegas, introduced Charity Fechter, Transportation Analyst for City of North Las Vegas. Ms. Fechter indicated the city had done a brief fiscal analysis on the effect of this bill (Exhibit E).
Ms. Barbara McKenzie, City of Reno, testified AB 18 as written with the 30 mph clause would cost the City of Reno between $90,000 and $150,000 depending on type of equipment installed, not including annual maintenance.
Chairman Garner indicated he would establish a subcommittee consisting of Mr. Bache, Mrs. de Braga and Mr. Hettrick. He expressed concern there were still problems with traffic and school zones with so many people working on it.
Chairman Garner listed the following items which had been mentioned and which he wanted taken into consideration by the subcommittee:
1. state vs local government
2. weigh the cost of a child's life against the cost of installation of signs
3. unfunded mandates
4. future costs vs immediate costs
5. clarification of definition of terms
6. fiscal impact
7. urban/rural conflict
8. public and private involvement with respect to schools
9. state highways
10. use of signs only when children were present
11. other alternatives other than signs
Chairman Garner suggested the best that might be gained from this would be a resolution, and asked it be considered.
Mr. Neighbors mentioned one other option might be the possibility of phasing this in over a given number of years and setting priorities for the areas to be signed.
As there was no further testimony, Chairman Garner closed the hearing on AB 138.
There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 9:39 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
LINDA FEATHERINGILL
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Government Affairs
February 12, 1993
Page: 1