MINUTES OF THE

      SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      April 29, 1993

 

 

 

The Senate Committee on Transportation was called to order by Chairman William R. O'Donnell, at 1:30 p.m., on Thursday, April 29, 1993, in Room 226 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Senator William R. O'Donnell, Chairman

Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen, Vice Chairman

Senator Mark A. James

Senator Leonard V. Nevin

Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.

Senator Lori L. Brown

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

Senator Thomas J. Hickey (Excused)

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

Assemblyman Douglas A. Bache, Clark Country District 11

Senator Ernest E. Adler, Capital District

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Paul Mouritsen, Senior Research Analyst

Terri Jo Wittenberg, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Henry Etchemendy, Executive Director, Nevada Association of School Boards

Debbie Kayhill, Lobbyist, Nevada Education Association

Kimberly A. Bennion, Lobbyist, Nevada Division of California State Automobile Association (CSAA)

Marvin A. Leavitt, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas

Tom Grady, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities

P.D. Kiser, Professional Engineer, Chief Traffic Engineer, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT)

Anita Laruy, Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas

 

 

Chairman O'Donnell opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 138.

 

Assembly Bill 138:      Revises provisions regarding speed limits in school zones and school crossing zones.

 

Assemblyman Douglas A. Bache, Clark Country District 11, testified in favor of A.B. 138.  Assemblyman Bache said the bill was the result of some constituent complaints and he said the original bill dealt with installing flashing yellow lights at various school zones.  He continued, the current bill would add a provision that would exclude some school zones during certain times of the day, if they have the flashing yellow lights.  He said the bill also defines a speed limit beacon.

 

Chairman O'Donnell asked  Assemblyman Bache to explain section 5 in more detail.

 

Assemblyman Bache explained, the bill would cover speed zones when schools are in session.  He added, the zones would not be in effect when school is not in operation, either during weekends and holidays, or before and after school. 

 

Chairman O'Donnell said he wished to play "devil's advocate" for a moment to make a point.  He explained, he is driving down the street and school gets out at 3:00 p.m. and at 3:15, when there are no flashing lights, he is going 35 or 45 miles per hour and he hits a child.  He asked if his attorney could argue that it would be okay to exceed the 15 mile per hour zone so long as it is not during the hours when school is in operation.  He said that since the school got out at 3:00 p.m., the school was not in operation at 3:15 p.m. and therefore he would not be in violation of the 15 mile per hour school zone limit.

 

Assemblyman Bache said the local governments were responsible for setting the school hours and these hours vary from community to community.  He added, when the bill refers to hours of operation, it could include after school activities and even when there are still people still in the school building.

 

Chairman O'Donnell said these hours are normally designated on a sign near the school.

 

Assemblyman Bache said the schools let the local government know what their schedules are and the local government sets the time frame for the school speed zones.

 

Chairman O'Donnell said an attorney could refute the language of this bill.

 

Senator Nevin said several years ago the Senate Committee on Transportation had asked the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) to conduct a study on school zones and how to make them consistent within the state.  He gave the am example of several school zones in Las Vegas which are on the same street.  He said one school zone speed limit may end at 3:30 p.m. and the next one, a few blocks away, may end at 3:45 p.m.  He continued, this is very confusing and people think they are safe and law enforcement people are writing a lot of tickets in these areas.

 

Assemblyman Bache said the problem with making the school zones consistent throughout the state is that all schools do not start and end at the same time.

 

Senator Brown said she liked the wording "when school is in operation" as opposed to "when school is in session."  She explained that "when school is in session" could mean just when classes are in session, whereas, "when school is in operation" could include any time the secretary is still there, which is until all the kids are dispersed.

 

Senator Nevin said using "when children are present" has got to be the worst definition there is.  He said this is difficult to define because there may be one child who is walking down the sidewalk at 5:00 p.m.

 

Senator Brown said the sign should reflect the hours the school zone is in effect and the school would have the option of when these hours would be.

 

Senator Brown asked about the size of the signs being used to designate these areas.

 

Assemblyman Bache said Clark County had gone to using a 3-foot by 4-foot sign on most of their five and seven lane roads.  He added, the minimum sized signs get "lost in the shuffle."

 

Henry Etchemendy, Executive Director, Nevada Association of School Boards, testified in favor of A.B. 138.  Mr. Etchemendy said that all of the school districts in the state had signed off on the bill as written.  He added, with respect to Senator O'Donnell's hypothetical situation, each permanent sign that designates a school zone must clearly designate the hours for which the speed limit applies.  He said this was currently in the law.  Mr. Etchemendy said he had a copy of the NDOT report referred to by Senator Nevin earlier in the meeting.

 

Chairman O'Donnell said "The sign says one thing.  The law says another."  He suggested the law say "during the hours the posted speed limit applies."

 

Mr. Etchemendy agreed and also suggested changing line 17 to read "during the hours that are not included in those hours established in section 6 of this act."

 

Chairman O'Donnell also suggested changing the section which says "where children cross" to "where children legally cross."

 

Mr. Etchemendy said he supported any changes necessary to make the bill stronger.

 

Senator Nevin said the school hours need to be addressed and perhaps the school zone hours need to be made consistent throughout the state.

 

Debbie Kayhill, Lobbyist, Nevada Education Association, spoke in favor of A.B. 138.  Ms. Kayhill said this is a serious issue and needs to be addressed.

 

Kimberly A. Bennion, Lobbyist, Nevada Division of California State Automobile Association (CSAA), stated the CSAA was in favor of A.B. 138. 

 

Marvin A. Leavitt, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, testified in support of A.B. 138.  Mr. Leavitt said he did have some concerns about the bill and read from a report ( Exhibit C) from the city engineer.

 

Senator Nevin asked if they had addressed the flashing lights in their report.

 

Mr. Leavitt answered, the flashing signs would cost the City of Las Vegas about $350,000.

 

Senator Brown asked what the minimum size of the signs are now.

 

Mr. Leavitt said the minimum signs in Clark County are 2 feet by 3 feet.

 

Senator Brown asked if there were more accidents in the areas where the signs are the minimum size.

 

Assemblyman Bache said he did not have any data on the accident rates around specific school zones.  He added, he had measured some of the signs and had found them to be 18 inches by 36 inches.

 

Tom Grady, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities, stated his organization was in favor of A.B. 138.

 

 

P.D. Kiser, Professional Engineer, Chief Traffic Engineer, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), testified with regard to A.B. 138.  Mr. Kiser said the NDOT likes the bill in the current, amended form, much better than they liked the original bill.  He added, the NDOT did have some suggestions on how they thought the bill could be improved.  He referred to a resolution (Exhibit D) which had recently been approved by the Nevada Traffic Control Committee.  Mr. Kiser went through the resolution's three points.

 

Chairman O'Donnell asked about the size of a stop sign.

 

Mr. Kiser said the stop sign sizes vary from 30 inches, up to 48 inches.  He added, in most urban areas the stops signs would be 30 inches or 36 inches.  He continued, on some of the state highways the NDOT uses 3 foot by 4 foot signs.

 

Chairman O'Donnell asked if these signs were replaced periodically.

 

Mr. Kiser said that more often than not, the replacement is a result of vandalism or some damage.  He added, if the sign is clearly visible and understandable during the hours when it is in effect, then there would be no need to replace it.

 

Senator Brown put together a replica of a sign which was 2 feet by 3 feet and had it held up in the back of room.  She said she wanted to be able to see how the sign looked from a distance.

 

Mr. Kiser said the 2 feet by 3 feet was just the speed limit portion of the sign.  He added, there would still be the sign that goes on top that says "school" and there is the sign on the bottom that says the hours.

 

Chairman O'Donnell closed the hearing on A.B. 138 and opened the hearing on Assembly Concurrent Resolution (A.C.R.) 31.

 

Assembly Concurrent Resolution 31:      Urges local governments to take certain action relating to school zones.

 

Assemblyman Bache testified in favor of A.C.R. 31.  Assemblyman Bache said this resolution was the result of an Assembly Committee on Government Affairs subcommittee on A.B. 138.  He added, the committee recognizes that installing flashing lights at all school zones could be prohibitive and so they asked for the resolution urging local governments to consider installing the flashing lights.

 

 

Chairman O'Donnell asked if the resolution asked the local governments to make more signs or to design them better.

 

Assemblyman Bache said the resolution asks the local governments to identify school zones in congested areas that would benefit from the flashing yellow lights and to consider installing them in these recognized areas.

 

Mr. Kiser said this resolution was also reviewed by the Nevada Traffic Control Committee.  He added, there were already efforts underway to identify areas which would benefit from the flashing yellow lights.

 

Anita Laruy, Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas, stated her organization was in favor of A.C.R. 31. 

 

Senator Nevin suggested the resolution also read that the entities work in coordination with the NDOT rather than leaving it wide open.

 

Chairman O'Donnell closed the hearing on A.C.R. 31 and opened the work session on Senate Bill (S.B.) 190.

 

Senate Bill 190:  Provides that imposition of fine is discretionary under certain circumstances for driving without insurance.

 

Senator Ernest E. Adler, Capital District, explained the amendment to S.B. 190.  He said the bill allows the judge to fine uninsured drivers from $300, up to $1000, or if they do not have the money to both pay the fine and the insurance, the judge can impose the full $1,000 fine and then suspend the fine for 1 year under the condition they report in monthly with proof of insurance. 

 

Senator Adler said the reason this needs to be done on a  monthly basis is because, in talking with insurance agents, he found that a person could buy a 1 year policy, show proof to the court and then cancel it and get their money back.

 

Senator James said he liked the bill better before the amendment.

 

Senator Adler said the bill would allow the person to send a letter to the court along with proof of insurance and the person did not have to go in person.

 

Senator Nevin said the person could go to the court house and show proof to the court clerk.

 

Senator James said a person cannot show evidence to the court by showing it to the bailiff or the court clerk.

 

Senator Adler said the bill should read "proof" to the court.

 

Senator Brown said she still thought it was bad policy to allow for a "zero" fine for past actions that have put the public in danger, because the person had been riding around without insurance.

 

Chairman O'Donnel said this bill would still provide for a fine of $1000, but it is suspended and the conviction would be on the person's record.

 

Senator Brown said she thought the $1000 fine was still cheaper than buying insurance, for most people.

 

Senator James said he viewed the bill as good legislative action and as anything but, encouraging uninsured drivers.  He said the courts let people go with suspended fines for much more serious offenses than this.

 

Senator Nevin said this bill now produces a person who has never had insurance and if he or she drop their insurance, the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV) is going to be notified and then the DMV can go after that person for dropping his or her insurance.

 

Chairman O'Donnell closed the work session on S.B. 190.

 

      SENATOR MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 190.

 

      SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATOR HICKEY WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.  SENATOR BROWN VOTED NO.)

 

 

There being no further business before the committee, Chairman O'Donnell closed the hearing at 3:43 p.m.

 

                                          RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                                                          

                                       Terri Jo Wittenberg,

                                       Committee Secretary

 

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

 

                                     

Senator William R. O'Donnell, Chairman

 

 

DATE:                                

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Senate Committee on Transportation

April 29, 1993

Page 1