MINUTES OF THE
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Sixty-seventh Session
May 26, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Transportation was called to order by Chairman Larry L. Spitler, at 1:15 p.m., on Wednesday, May 26, 1993, in Room 331 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Larry L. Spitler, Chairman
Mr. Val Z. Garner, Vice Chairman
Mr. Bernie Anderson
Mrs. Vonne Chowning
Mr. Tom Collins, Jr
Mr. William D. Gregory
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Mr. James W. McGaughey
Mr. Louis A. Toomin
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman Joseph E. Dini, Jr., District No. 38
Senator Bob Coffin, District No. 3
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Kerry Carroll-Davis, Senior Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ron Hill, Department of Transportation
Jerry Penn, Nevada Association of Letter Carriers
Doug Dickerson, City of Las Vegas
Paula Treat, United Parcel Service
Darryl Capurro, National Motor Transport Authority
Donna Varin, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 608: Provides for designation of Six-Mile Canyon Road in Storey and Lyon counties as state highway.
Assemblyman Joseph E. Dini, District No. 38, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Dini explained Six Mile Canyon Road was located in both Lyon and Storey Counties, starting near Dayton and going up into Virginia City. He indicated the road was used heavily and maintenance of the road was a real problem as Storey County was very small. Mr. Dini stated by improving the Six Mile Canyon Road, considerable time would be saved and mileage would be reduced by approximately 25 miles for residents living in east Lyon County and Churchill County who commuted to Reno. Mr. Dini realized the road was parallel to Silver City road, but he indicated residents of Silver City were trying to reduce the volume of traffic traveling their road and the bill would assist the Silver City residents in their endeavor. Mr. Dini also felt the road would help the tourist industry in Virginia City by being more easily accessible. He urged consideration be given for passage of the bill.
Mr. Anderson commented he had traveled the road many times and enjoyed the scenic beauty. He asked by proposing a paved road and acquiring wider rights-of-way, if the road might lose its pristine uniqueness. Mr. Dini replied the same concern was voiced with mining in the area; however, mines in the area had never caused problems. He stated mines also maintained parts of the road. Mr. Dini acknowledged the immense amount of traffic on the Six Mile Canyon road in the summertime.
Ron Hill, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), testified in opposition to the bill. Because NDOT maintained 5,400 miles of highway surface throughout the state, Mr. Hill informed the committee, NDOT, throughout the years, had been attempting to eliminate sections of roadway out of the system which were really not of statewide significance. He stated NDOT viewed the Six Mile Canyon Road as less significant in terms of other highway needs. Mr. Hill stated if the Six Mile Canyon road was placed on the highway system, the road would be competing for very limited funds under the ISTEA bill. He stated the recent trend of ISTEA funding becoming an urban bill left very little money for rural areas. Mr. Hill stated a traffic count recently completed on the Six Mile Canyon Road found one section of the roadway had only carried 225 cars a day and would be competing with roadways carrying 15,000 - 20,000 cars a day. With NDOT's ten-year plan showing $3 billion in needs and only a projected income of $1.5 billion, Mr. Hill stated he was not sure if the intended objective of the bill would ever be met as the point might never be reached where the road would become a priority.
Chairman Spitler asked the cost involved in building the road. Mr. Hill replied the fiscal note portrayed the cost at $2.9 million for pavement which did not include utility cost.
Mr. Hettrick asked if the estimated fiscal note considered acquisition of rights-of-way. Mr. Hill stated the note assumed the rights-of-way would already be in place. Mr. Hill explained the process the road would follow if the bill was passed, indicating the road would be placed on a list and compared with all other roadways statewide. He suspected the road might be shown as a need in the ten year plan; however, because the road would be competing with so many other high volume roadways, he suspected the Six Mile Canyon road would never float to the top.
Chairman Spitler asked how the state determined whether a road was going to be constructed or a road needed upgrading. Mr. Hill replied determinations were based on an economic analysis comparing benefits to the taxpayers as a result of costs in building the project. On that basis, Mr. Hill stated the department literally had hundreds of millions of dollars worth of projects competing for a specific fund. He stated those projects toward the top of the priority list were recommended for funding. Mr. Hill stated the process was extremely long and also included an environmental impact statement be conducted on most proposed projects.
Mr. Anderson acknowledged the growth of subdivisions in the area of the Six Mile Canyon road and asked if a lower level of construction might be considered instead of full pavement of the road should the proposed bill be approved. Mr. Hill responded the bill proposed the the Six Mile Canyon road become a state highway which required NDOT to maintain the existing gravel road and relieve counties of their responsibility for road maintenance. Mr. Anderson asked the cost involved in transferring obligation for the road from the county to the state. Mr. Hill responded he did not have the figure but indicated maintenance to the road if paved would be approximately $46,000 a year. Mr. Anderson clarified if the road was paved, the $2.9 million obligation would apply to the first instant. Mr. Hill agreed. He stated only one dirt road currently existed in the system.
Mr. Dini felt Storey County would cooperate with the state in upkeep of the road if the road was placed into the system. Mr. Dini agreed the road was a long term project but emphasized by placing the road on the system, the state could begin working on the road little by little and not as one massive overhaul project. He emphasized the county's difficulty and unaffordable expense in maintaining the road. Mr. Dini stressed the importance of Virginia City's role in tourism and repeated tourism would be greatly enhanced by the convenient access the Six Mile Road would provide. Mr. Dini concluded his testimony by stating the community was greatly in support of the bill.
SENATE BILL 382: Exempts postal service vehicles from prohibition against parking near public or private driveway.
Senator Bob Coffin, District 3, sponsor of the bill, testified in support of the bill. Senator Coffin historically provided the bill had been introduced to address a problem created by management of the postal service in the Las Vegas area. Although some of the problems were addressed, Senator Coffin indicated a need for the bill still existed and the bill was brought forth at the request of the letter carriers union. Providing insight to the problem, Senator Coffin stated an unusual incident occurred the previous year when a memo was handed down from management to letter carriers in Las Vegas indicating if the letter carriers parked their mail truck within five feet of a driveway while delivering mail and the vehicle was somehow involved in an accident, the postal carrier would be personally responsible for the charges regardless of who was responsible for the accident. Senator Coffin indicated a statute was already in existance which prohibited all citizens from parking within five feet of a private or public driveway. Senator Coffin indicated the proposed bill was needed for management purposes as the current statute un-nerved letter carriers as it was virtually impossible for them to deliver mail without parking near driveways. He felt if the law could not exempt people who delivered the mail, it was a sign society was very "stiff-necked." He concluded approval of the bill would help solve a problem while helping a lot of people. He indicated representatives of the letter carriers union, the new postal service management, and law enforcement officials were present to further testify on behalf of the bill. Senator Coffin recognized an amendment was going to be proposed by the United Parcel Service representative and indicated his support for the amendment. He was encouraged labor relations were improving drastically with the postal service.
Mr. McGaughey examined a situation in which a postal truck needed to encroach into a driveway but prevented the resident from entering or exiting the facility. Senator Coffin replied the bill provided for the vehicle to only be exempt while on official business. Mr. McGaughey pointed out many large complexes had cluster mailboxes and a mail truck might need to block a driveway for 10 - 15 minutes. Senator Coffin responded the hypothesized situation did not exist as it was against management policy. Mr. McGaughey offered an amendment which might state postal carriers were allowed five feet but could not encroach on any driveway. Senator Coffin stated further testimony would indicate many instances where mail could not be delivered without encroaching on driveways.
Mr. Garner exemplified his mailbox was located very close to his drive and understood the need for trucks to park in his driveway and he did not have a problem with that.
Mr. Collins acknowledged cluster mailboxes in new communities were often located between driveways without five feet of curb on either side.
Mr. Toomin questioned an amendment being proposed to include the United Parcel Service would entail consideration for other delivery type vehicles, such as garbage trucks, etc. Senator Coffin deferred the question to other people planning to testify. He did indicate the proposed amendment referred only to vehicles on official business.
Mr. Anderson expressed appreciation for the postal carrier who delivered to his residential subdivision; however, he stated he was under the impression the separation of powers between federal and national government exempted federal agencies from state rules and regulations. Senator Coffin replied federal vehicles might be exempt from taxation but he did not believe federal vehicles were exempt from traffic regulation.
Mr. McGaughey repeated his concern a situation might arise where the postal carrier blocked the driveway while delivering to a large complex or large office building where an emergency vehicle might be detained from leaving or entering. Senator Coffin deferred the question to those who would be testifying later.
Jerry Penn, Financial Secretary, Letter Carriers Union, testified in support of the bill. He stated letter carriers faced violation of the law everyday while trying to deliver mail. Mr. Penn indicated many homes were being built with no curbs at all with cluster mail boxes or with mailboxes placed in locations where the mailman could not park without being in violation of the law. Mr. Penn further elaborated on the memo issued which triggered evolution of the bill. He repeated the memo had indicated the letter carrier would be at fault if an accident arose while they delivered mail and parked on a driveway. Addressing earlier questions asked, Mr. Penn stated in terms of parking for any length of time, letter carriers were only present for a couple of minutes, at the most five minutes, but most often less than one minute. He explained situations involving a large number of boxes such as apartment complexes usually had a space provided for the mail trucks to park or the trucks parked in vacant spaces as drivers were instructed not to block driveways for a lengthy time. Mr. Penn stated most locations for emergency vehicles were red zone restricted parking areas which letter carriers were instructed not to park in. Mr. Penn stated police officers had indicated they would not cite postal carriers for being in violation of the law unless they needed to. Mr. Penn emphasized postal carriers faced violation of the law everyday and faced anxiety by not knowing what would happen on a day-to-day basis. He indicated the purpose of the bill was to take stress off everyday letter carriers who delivered approximately 1 million pieces of mail each day and faced violation of the law everyday.
Doug Dickerson, City of Las Vegas, testified the parking enforcement agency of the City of Las Vegas was in support of the bill. He indicated the agency felt they could enforce laws near private and public driveways and still allow postal employees to carry out their duties without violating the law. Mr. Dickerson was unsure of the number of tickets issued to postal carriers.
Paula Treat, representing the United Parcel Service, indicated they were delayed in offering amendments to the bill while it was in Senate Transportation. Ms. Treat indicated the proposed amendment would include other official postal type deliveries and carriers in being exempt from the law. She indicated UPS had the same type of situation where packages were delivered in a timely manner with no indication of abuse. She asked consideration be given to including similar delivery services into the bill.
Chairman Spitler asked the number of citings UPS might have received. Ms. Treat indicated very few citings had taken place as UPS drivers normally parked in locations farthest away from the point of origin to be extra careful when parking spaces were not available. She stated certain situations did exist where it would be impossible to do the job of delivering or picking up without parking illegally.
Mr. McGaughey asked if the amendment also included companies such as Federal Express. Ms. Treat replied it would as they would not be able to include only UPS. She stated the amendment would read to include other services that deliver letters, services, packages, documents to businesses or residences operating under official business. Mr. McGaughey asked if the amendment also applied to dry cleaners, water deliverers, etc. Ms. Treat submitted the proposed amendment (Exhibit C).
Daryl Capurro, Nevada Motor Transport Authority, voiced concern with the proposed amendment as other types of delivery services might also appear before the committee indicating they also had the same concern as expressed on behalf of UPS, such as milk carriers, bread carriers, pizza deliveries, and many other services who delivered to residences. He stated UPS and Federal Express did not just deliver official documents as they also delivered items ordered from mailhouse order companies, packages, etc. Mr. Capurro indicated there was very little difference in service performed by UPS and milk or bread carriers. He was concerned where a specific sector of transportation was set forth with a privilege when others were not.
Mrs. Chowning commented most of the legislation they addressed dealt with "intent" of statutes. She conveyed the way current law was written forced people every single day to disobey the law. She stated trash disposal companies, water distribution companies, etc. existed and many large apartment complexes did not have curbs, or designated parking spots where someone could legally park anywhere. She expressed it was shameful the proposed bill was before the committee as the intent of the law was for those people who clearly abused situations and parked for long periods of time. She stated she did not feel the postal people needed to come before the legislature in the first place. Chairman Spitler agreed a degree of reasonableness was needed.
Mr. McGaughey commented the next request for an amendment would probably derive from pizza deliverers, dry cleaners, flower shops, food suppliers who deliver hot food, etc. He felt it would be rather discriminatory to allow package deliverers five minutes to deliver a package, but not allow a pizza company five minutes to deliver a pizza.
Mr. Collins stated postal services had a routine schedule and delivered in a uniform, consistent system; however, pizza companies, etc. did not deliver door to door, six days a week, in a set schedule. He commented a huge difference existed between postal deliveries and other services.
Mr. Penn indicated one difference between other delivery units and postal delivery units was private delivery units were allowed to utilize a person's private driveway and did not experience problems the postal carrier did.
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 609: Establishes fees for renewal of commercial driver's license.
Mr. Collins declared he was a holder of a commercial driver's license and the hearing process would determine if a conflict existed.
Donna Varin, Chief, Driver's License Division, Department of Motor Vehicle and Public Safety, testified in support of the bill. She stated the bill was requested by DMV to establish fees to be charged for collecting and renewing commercial driver's licenses. She stated the proposed bill needed to be added to the statutes as it was inadvertently excluded when the commercial driver license statutes were enacted in 1989. She stated drivers would begin renewing licenses in February of 1994 and it was critical to add the authority at the time. She reviewed with the committee the proposed new language establishing the fees.
Mrs. Chowning asked the estimated additional, generated revenue. Mrs. Varin replied for the first year, it was estimated approximately 2,080 renewals would be processed for about $112,320. She stated the large increase would take place in the second year as 7,776 applicants were anticipated with a $419,000 monetary intake.
Chairman Spitler clarified the DMV budget was based on the figures described. Mrs. Varin agreed. She also explained a conversation held earlier with Briget Baker from LCB indicated LCB - Fiscal Division was looking at an amendment which was technical in nature only. Mrs. Varin stated although the fees were totaled together, $1 of the fee went to photo expenses; however, LCB was concerned the way the bill was written might not allow the authority for DMV to collect or disburse the $1.
Chairman Spitler inquired on the technicalities of the amendment and whether the amendment would require the bill be referred to Ways and Means or amended in committee. Mrs. Varin responded she would check with LCB so the bill amendment could be expedited.
Mrs. Varin, answering a question from Mr. Hettrick, stated the bill would amend all fees in the commercial driver's license.
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 428: Allows issuance of citation to driver or adult passenger of motorcycle for failure to wear protective headgear only if driver is stopped for another offense.
MR. GARNER MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE THE BILL.
MR. TOOMIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
MR ANDERSON MOVED TO ACT ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE BILL.
Mr. Anderson explained his amendment would require all passengers to wear protective headgear while riding on a motorbike.
Chairman Spitler indicated a motion had been made and seconded and asked if the seconder of the motion wished to withdraw his motion to hear the amendment. Mr. Toomin indicated his desire to listen to the amendment.
Mr. Anderson explained it was his intent to amend the bill so anyone, regardless of age, would be required to wear a helmet while riding a vehicle. Mr. Toomin asked if the law would be primary. Mr. Anderson indicated the law would be primary as the driver would be cited if the passenger was not wearing a motorcycle helmet.
MR. TOOMIN RESCINDED HIS MOTION.
Mr. Garner indicated his motion was still on the floor. Chairman asked for a second. There was no second.
MR. ANDERSON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS.
Mr. Anderson again explained his amendment which would require all passengers to wear protective headgear helmets. He stated the law would not be mandatory for drivers; however, it would be primary for the driver if passengers on the motorcycle were not wearing a helmet.
Mr. Toomin asked if the amendment would then require "gutting" of the bill to include the amendment. Mr. Toomin voiced concern rival language existed in the bill. Mr. Anderson stated the law would be secondary for the driver and primary for the passenger to wear helmets.
A discussion ensued on the proposed amendment. Mr. Anderson explained situations to which the proposed amendment would apply.
Mr. Toomin indicated he misunderstood the explanation earlier and did not wish to rescind his motion.
MR. COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION BY MR. ANDERSON TO AMEND AND DO PASS.
Mr. McGaughey commented the amendment changed the bill significantly and asked courtesy be extended to the sponsor of the bill before action was taken. He felt it unfair to redo a bill with a chief sponsor's name printed on the bill without contacting the chief sponsor. Mr. Anderson replied he had discussed the amendment with the primary sponsor and the primary sponsor had concurred with the amendment, as did the motorcycle association.
A discussion ensued on point of order. Mr. Garner explained Mr. Toomin had indicated he only withdrew his motion for an explanation of the amendment. Mr. Garner clarified upon understanding the proposed amendment, Mr. Toomin understood he had determined his motion to second the motion to indefinitely postpone the bill was what he wanted.
CHAIRMAN RECOGNIZED THE MOTION AND SECOND TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 428.
Mr. Anderson declared he spoke against the motion to indefinitely postpone for the purpose of taking an amendment later had the motion to indefinitely postpone failed.
Mrs. Chowning commented on her support for the motion to indefinitely postpone. She expressed her appreciation for participation in the democratic process and indicated her reservations with the bill's intent for safety involved in wearing protective headgear. She conveyed an experience in which a child of a family friend had died as a result of a motorcycle accident whom she believed might have survived had he been wearing a helmet.
Mr. Collins voiced his opposition to the motion of indefinitely postponing the bill as an opportunity should be given for the committee to hear amendments offered on the bill.
Mr. Gregory declared he had mixed emotions on the bill. He stated he had intended to vote against the bill as one of his main concerns of the bill dealt with motorcycle passengers not wearing helmets, in particularly minors. Mr. Gregory indicated the presence of the amendment in the event the motion to indefinitely postpone failed, prompted him to oppose the motion to indefinitely postpone. Mr. Gregory stated he was confident by requiring people to wear helmets prevented people from dying; however, he did voice concern on whether or not it was his position to be worried about individuals' safety when they had the right to choose whether or not to protect themselves. He indicated he would oppose the motion to indefinitely postpone; however, he would support the bill with the amendment for passengers.
CHAIRMAN SPITLER RECOGNIZED THE MOTION BY MR. GARNER TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 428 AND THE SECOND GIVEN BY MR.
TOOMIN.
A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN.
THE VOTE HAD FOUR AYES, FOUR NAYS AND ONE ABSTENTION. (MR. ANDERSON, MR. COLLINS, MR. GREGORY, AND MR. HETTRICK VOTED NO, MR. MCGAUGHEY ABSTAINED).
MR. MCGAUGHEY CHANGED HIS ABSTENTION TO AN AYE VOTE.
MOTION CARRIED BY A MAJORITY VOTE (MR. ANDERSON, MR. COLLINS, MR. GREGORY AND MR. HETTRICK VOTED NO).
* * * *
Chairman Spitler indicated a request for a committee introduction of an assembly concurrent resolution had been asked by Mr. Anderson.
Mr. Anderson explained the resolution would put forth philosophy that speed limits should be set by the state within guidelines established by state engineering studies. Mr. Anderson stated the resolution would indicate the state's position relative to state sovereignty in terms of road surface control.
MR. GREGORY MOVED FOR A COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION.
MRS. CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE.
Mr. McGaughey asked if the resolution posed any threat of federal funding sanctions. Mr. Anderson replied a resolution would not. He stated the resolution would more closely approximate the national philosophy setting forth speed limits.
* * * *
Mr. Toomin referred to the Transportation Committee Meeting held Monday, May 24, 1993, and expressed concern that testimony given on A.B. 565 was misinforming. He indicated he had contacted the National Chairman of the Pearl Harbor Survivors Association in New Jersey who would be forwarding a letter explaining the full extent of the Pearl Harbor Survivor's Association and the issue of the Pearl Harbor license plate.
Mr. Anderson commented the Northern Nevadan citizens who testified in opposition to A.B. 565 had not castigated themselves as anything other than Pearl Harbor survivors and veterans who participated in the war. He stated the people who testified had either served in the military or had lived near the island of Oahu. Mr. Anderson stated the group was the same group who had initially asked for the Pearl Harbor Veteran license plate.
Mr. Toomin agreed and stated Mr. Anderson's point was not what he was disputing.
Chairman Spitler interjected and commented the situation had arisen where one group said one thing while another group implied another and the committee would try to accommodate both groups.
With no further business, Chairman Spitler adjourned the meeting at 2:30 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Carolyn J. Harry
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Transportation
May 26, 1993
Page 1