The Committee on Transportation was called to order at 1:30 p.m., on Tuesday, February 23, 1999. Chairwoman Vonne Chowning presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All Exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mrs. Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall, Vice Chairwoman

Mr. Douglas Bache

Mr. John Carpenter

Mrs. Barbara Cegavske

Mr. Jerry Claborn

Mr. Tom Collins

Mr. Don Gustavson

Mrs. Kathy McClain

Mr. Dennis Nolan

Mr. David Parks

Ms. Bonnie Parnell

Mr. Kelly Thomas

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblyman Richard Perkins, District 23

Assemblyman Mark Manendo, District 18

Assemblyman Roy Neighbors, District 36

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

• BDR 43-1061 – Prohibit the use of a cellular phone by the driver of a motor vehicle while the vehicle is in motion (A.B. 328).

• BDR 43-1309 – Revise provisions regarding the use of loaner license plates

(A.B. 329).

Assemblyman Richard Perkins, District 23, explained A.B. 59 was introduced at the request of a constituent, who contacted him regarding handicapped people who rode motorcycles, but had no means for handicap parking. The intent behind the bill was to add a provision to existing Nevada law to issue a handicapped license plate or other provision for a motorcycle. All A.B. 59 was meant to do was add motorcycles to the handicapped license plate statute.

Mrs. Chowning questioned why the bill needed to come before the legislature, since it seemed the issue could be handled administratively within the authority of the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV & PS). Mr. Perkins presented the committee with a letter from Steve Williams, a Las Vegas resident, who wrote the DMV & PS about the problem and the response from Donald Denison, Las Vegas Director of DMV & PS, which told him to seek a legislative remedy (Exhibit C).

Mrs. Chowning then began public testimony for those who supported A.B. 59.

Danielle Kohler, secretary, A Brotherhood Aimed Toward Education of Nevada (ABATE), read from prepared testimony (Exhibit D). Ms. Kohler expressed her support for the bill, stating people who had qualified for legal status as disabled, and rode motorcycles, should have the use of handicap parking extended to them. She testified she would be equally as satisfied with a sticker if that would be easier for the DMV & PS, instead of a license plate. Included in her testimony was a letter from David Brown, a member of ABATE from Silver Springs, who also supported the bill.

Mrs. Chowning inquired if Ms. Kohler supported the bill for a special plate because the normal handicapped placard issued was designed to be hung from the rear view mirror of an automobile and was not practical. Ms. Kohler responded theft of the placard was of primary concern for motorcyclists. Since the placard was normally hung on the rear view mirror of an automobile, theft of the placard was not a problem because the doors could be locked. In the case of a motorcycle, there were a limited number of places to hang a placard and hanging it in the open air became a theft problem. Unfortunately there were people that would take advantage of that. The motorcyclist would have to replace the placard, which could become quite an ordeal in itself.

Emily Jones, Fernley resident, testified she was a motorcycle rider and handicapped. She relayed she was born with cerebral palsy and had severe asthma. She had a plate on her automobile, as well as the placard. She has had the placard stolen twice from the motorcycle because of the easy access, since a motorcycle could not be locked. The process of replacing a stolen placard involved going to DMV & PS in person to get the form, then going to the doctor and taking the form back to DMV & PS which would mail a new placard in 3 to 4 weeks. She had made copies of the placard when staying at motels, which said the original was with her in the motel room. She had several occasions when police officers wanted to issue her a ticket for that reason. Having the placard was a great benefit since she could not walk very far, but enjoyed riding a motorcycle. She explained she had no preference whether a sticker or a plate was made available.

Gary Horrocks, executive director, Nevada Association of Concerned Motorcyclists (NACM), read from prepared testimony (Exhibit E). He stated he had been trying to get a motorcycle plate for handicapped parking for over 3 years without success. He had been riding motorcycles for over 30 years and had degenerative arthritis in both knees. All but 12 states, including Nevada, issued a license plate for motorcyclists, which had the handicap emblem embossed on the plate. He expressed some concern over a sticker if it were to be 3 inches high, since there were not many places on a motorcycle to place such a large sticker. However he would be interested in a smaller sticker much like the ones used for yearly registration. Included in his statement were copies of a placard and a motorcycle plate to show the actual sizes of each.

Mrs. Chowning asked for confirmation of the proposed amendment for using a sticker instead of a plate. Mr. Horrocks explained NACM was looking for a sticker similar to the yearly registration sticker currently used, since a 3-inch design would overwhelm a motorcycle plate. In states that did issue handicapped plates a smaller die was used for the emblem that took up about two letters on the plate, but a sticker or decal would be fine since it would be less expensive. The normal placards had the blue and white format with an expiration date and a sticker could indicate the same information. He thanked Assemblyman Perkins for bringing the legislation forward, since he had run into "roadblocks" for more than 3 years.

Mrs. Chowning reiterated the cost would seem to be less if a sticker were to be used; however, the committee would question the DMV & PS representatives about that. Mr. Horrocks explained that NACM was not there trying to cost the state any more money, they would only like what should be already provided to them in the existing provision.

Mrs. Chowning stated it also appeared a sticker would work well since some people could be diagnosed as disabled because of a particular infirmity, which was not permanent, so a sticker could be removed or covered. Mr. Horrocks asserted from experience, the DMV & PS would recheck the issuance of handicap license plates and placards every 2 years. Having the disabled person supply a doctor’s statement until such time the department determined the person was permanently handicapped was the process DMV & PS used. The department would then automatically send a renewal sticker for a plate and a new placard.

Assemblyman Carpenter inquired about the 2-year issuance, stating he thought the placards were only given out on a 6-month basis, while the license plate was for longer periods of time. Mr. Horrocks explained the department did issue temporary placards, but normally both the placards and the plates were issued on a biennial basis and a doctor’s statement was required every time either needed to be renewed.

Mr. Carpenter asked if a sticker was to be used, would there be enough room on the license plate for that and the registration sticker. Mr. Horrocks stated other states used a decal approximately 1 square inch in size, which could fit in the upper right hand corner of a plate. Ms. Jones explained DMV & PS gave her one plate and one placard which she was able to use on any one of her three automobiles but not for her motorcycle.

James Utterback, administrator, State Motorcycle Safety Program, informed the committee he had also met handicapped motorcyclists who had their bikes modified so they could continue to ride. He explained he had friends, one who was missing an arm and one who was missing a leg, who had their bikes modified so they could continue to ride. Neither of them lived in Nevada, but in Idaho which did issue handicapped plates.

Mrs. Chowning asked if Mr. Utterback had any preference as to a plate or a sticker. Mr. Utterback claimed he would go with whatever the DMV & PS preferred, since they would be able to determine the least expensive and least intrusive way to accomplish the goal.

Owen Ritchie, assistant chief, Registration Division, DMV & PS, declared the department was in agreement with A.B. 59, except they would like to have a change in the statute on section 1 line 4, which stated "including a motorcycle". The DMV & PS would like the bill to read "other than a motorcycle" instead, since the section dealt with only license plates. The department would prefer to use a sticker since it would not take up as much room, the dies would not have to be redone, a new account code would not have to be added to the system, and a new plate would not have to be designed. He added a fiscal note for the bill would be required if a new plate was to be made. A sticker would also be beneficial since it was only required for parking and there would be no fear of it being stolen. The sticker could be made in accordance to federal standards, which said the symbol had to be 3 inches high; although there might be ways around the regulation. He would have to check.

Mrs. Chowning questioned what additional cost would be required for people who currently had handicap plates, or would DMV & PS pick up the cost by just sending the stickers to those who requested them. Mr. Ritchie explained the department could add the sticker option when someone came in to apply for a handicap plate. He claimed a sticker would cost the department about 64 cents.

Mrs. Chowning asked if the cost reflected the design as well. Mr. Ritchie related there might be a minimal cost for the design, but he was not prepared to answer what that cost would be.

Mrs. Chowning wondered if the sticker was required to have the 3-inch design. Mr. Ritchie explained the current bill stated the emblem had to be 3 inches, and he thought that came from federal regulations, but he would look into it.

Mrs. Chowning expressed concern if the decal did have to be 3 inches and if it were to be located on the license plate, would the Highway Patrol be able to read the plate. Mr. Ritchie explained if a sticker were used, a uniform decision would have to be made about where to put the sticker, whether it would be located on a fender or on the license plate.

Mr. Utterback observed the military issued decals granting access to bases and traditionally motorcyclists were required to attach the decal to one of the "fork legs" or bars that hold the front tire on, and in most instances there would be plenty of room for a decal as was discussed. However, the drawback was, the decal would be subject to road punishment and would not last as long as a decal affixed to license plates. But if it were an issue of every 2 years, he thought the sticker would last that long since he had been retired for 10 years from the military and his motorcycle still had the decal on it.

Mrs. Chowning explained the committee would not be able to act on A.B. 59 without first deciding on those issues, namely if there would be a sticker and if it must be 3 inches high. Mr. Ritchie explained he would look into the federal mandates to see if the requirement was 3 inches.

Mrs. Chowning explained the bill could be amended to say any federal regulations would have to apply, then the committee could pass the bill in an amended form to convey the concept they desired. If there were significant changes in the language of the bill after returning from the legal division, it could be brought back to committee for another look.

Assemblyman Bache indicated he was opposed to deleting the language "including a motorcycle". Currently the language stated the department may issue a special license plate, but DMV & PS had taken the position they would not do that. He felt the department’s position was one of the reasons Assemblyman Perkins brought the bill forward. By having "including a motorcycle" in the bill, the department would take action and resolve the problem. DMV & PS currently had the authority, if they so desired, to create a special license plate for handicapped motorcyclists, but would not do so. Mr. Ritchie reiterated the creation of a new plate for motorcycles would require a fiscal note, since the size and design of the current motorcycle plate would have to be changed. Additionally another account fund would be required, which was the way police officers identified the plate as being a handicap issuance. The process entailed much more than simply deciding to create a handicap plate for motorcycles.

Mrs. Chowning explained A.B. 59 came to the Transportation Committee because it originally dealt with the creation of a special plate, but the testimony indicated a sticker could be used instead of a plate, and it seemed that was the way the bill was going. Now the committee was going back to the issuance of special plates and whether to include or delete certain language. If the committee was not going to do special plates, it did not need to get into that argument. The committee must decide if there should be a license plate or a sticker.

Mr. Collins expressed the Assembly Committee on Transportation was the committee for special plates and Nevada had a reputation for being able to provide plates for firemen, Elks lodges, Masonic lodges, Lake Tahoe, and any other group that requested them. The DMV & PS did all those special plates, so to add one more plate for handicapped motorcyclists should not be a problem and he felt the department would be in support of it. Mr. Ritchie indicated the department would have no problem producing a handicapped motorcycle plate or any other special plate as long as they were funded to do so.

Mrs. McClain inquired if the DMV & PS had any idea how many plates they would have to produce for motorcycles. Mr. Ritchie testified the department did not have a feel as to the exact numbers. Although the department did not think there would be that many, they would like to take care of those who were requesting them.

Mrs. Chowning confirmed the sticker would cost 64 cents and wondered how much a special plate would cost. Mr. Ritchie explained a special plate would not cost that much more, however the initial set-up cost would be between $10,000 and $15,000.

Mrs. Chowning asked if a new plate was designed, would those requesting a new plate have to relinquish their existing plate to receive the new one. Mr. Ritchie informed the committee those requesting a new plate would have to relinquish their existing plate.

Mr. Carpenter expressed the sticker seemed to be the simplest and easiest way to provide motorcyclists with handicapped parking access, so the committee should proceed in that direction. He felt the committee should amend A.B. 59 to require a sticker only.

Mrs. Chowning suggested that the amended bill should contain whatever federal language was applicable. Mr. Carpenter agreed.

Mrs. Chowning explained the bill still included the phrase "including a motorcycle" in section 1 and asked Mr. Carpenter if he would like to keep that language or exclude it. Mr. Carpenter explained he would like to exclude the language since it only dealt with a license plate and the bill drafters could work on the bill so it would only pertain to a sticker.

Mrs. Chowning clarified the amendment for the committee as containing two points:

1. To delete "including a motorcycle" in section 1, and

2. To change A.B. 59 from a special handicap license plate for motorcycles to a sticker to be placed on the motorcycle that would be developed by DMV & PS, and be consistent with federal regulations.

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS

A.B. 59 WITH THE AMENDMENTS CLARIFIED BY CHAIRWOMAN CHOWNING.

ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Perkins remarked the language in section 1 did not make that much difference and should be left in. That way DMV & PS would have the flexibility in the future to come out with a special plate if demand for a sticker was to increase. He felt the language did not force DMV & PS to make a special plate immediately, but rather allowed them the flexibility to create either a sticker or a plate. However, if the committee wanted to pursue the amendment, it did reflect the intent of the bill and still allowed people to have handicapped parking access for motorcycles.

Mr. Carpenter agreed with Mr. Perkin’s comments and changed the amendment to not delete "including a motorcycle" in section 1, but still to allow a sticker to be developed.

Mr. Claborn agreed to the changes in the motion.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

Mrs. Chowning closed the hearing on A.B. 59, and opened the hearing on A.C.R. 3.

Assemblyman Tom Collins explained A.C.R. 3 came about because after the 1997 legislature he spoke with the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) about pavement maintenance. At that time the state had a limited amount of money to spend on pavement and improving transportation and travel, since secondary issues such as sound walls were taking money away from those projects. After meeting with NDOT it was determined more highway maintenance could be completed if certain state roads, such as alternate routes now used as city center streets, were traded for local roads which could be classified as new alternate routes. NDOT felt a study should be completed to determine which roads should be swapped before the legislature began drawing lines; they also thought, as a cooperative effort, cities and counties should be included in the decision making process.

Mr. Collins gave an example of how the resolution would work: Clark County and NDOT could get together to determine which alternate routes or state highways should no longer be considered as such, since they were now busy city thoroughfares. If the county had a new road built outside of town they wanted designated as a state highway or alternate route, the two entities could swap roads. The resolution would encourage NDOT and local entities to exchange roads so the State of Nevada would not be paving roads that did not go anywhere but could put their limited resources to better use. The intent behind the legislation was not to create a hard and fast bill on where to draw the lines, but to create a cooperative effort between the local entities and the state to begin studying which roads should be traded.

Mrs. Chowning inquired about the fiscal note on the legislation and when the transfers would begin. Mr. Collins explained right now there was progress in the area of transfers. For example, in Reno on McCarran Boulevard, NDOT was releasing one street that had become a busy "city" street, instead of an alternate highway route, and NDOT picked up another street that was being created by the city as a new alternate highway. That was encouraging since the process generally happened only when it became a necessity. Another example would be in Clark County, the Las Vegas Strip was an alternate route coming through Las Vegas; however, most evenings and especially weekends, it was not an effective alternate route. The state had made certain commitments and would not be able to trade that section of road, but would be able to work with the county to determine other alternate routes. A.C.R. 3 would help to open up the lines of communication, allowing the state to study the roads and figure out which roads should be swapped with the cities.

Assemblywoman Cegavske asked if NDOT was prepared to do the study; if NDOT was going to ask for funding from the legislature, and what would be the cost of the study. Mr. Collins indicated NDOT was prepared for the study, since it was their recommendation the legislature help improve the discussions with the cities and counties.

Mrs. Cegavske asked whether NDOT would be prepared to pay the cost. Mr. Collins explained the meetings with the local entities would occur when NDOT officials were already in the area conducting other business and would become part of the normal planning meetings currently being held.

John Whitaker, statewide roadway information systems manager, NDOT, testified currently NDOT would like to maintain a neutral position on the bill as it was written on February 2, 1999, which asked for a limited study. NDOT conducted biennium cursory analysis so they could determine road swaps with local entities. However, there was a revision of A.C.R. 3, which included the study of all 53,000 miles of local roads within the state. NDOT would be impacted greatly if the study would include all roads of the state. NDOT analyzed such things as traffic levels, intended use, distress levels, pavement histories, and remedial actions needed to bring those roads up to standard, as well as title searches, surveys, and mapping. Currently, between $12,000 to $15,000 was spent to study 5,400 miles of roadway. If the study was expanded to 53,000 miles of road, the cost would be multiplied by 10. That figure was based on readily available data within the department.

Heidi Mireles, chief right-of-way agent, NDOT, reiterated what Mr. Whitaker had explained that there were costs associated with the process. The procedure for road swapping was: NDOT first determined the interest of the state and then an agreement was written with the local entity, as well as a "consent to relinquishment," which was then acted upon by the local entities. A "resolution of relinquishment" also went to the Board of Transportation for the directors’ vote of approval. The costs of the transfers were included in the report to the Board of Transportation. NDOT had discovered, through past experience, mapping for some of the roads was not always available and if the department had to get involved in researching public records, the cost became considerably more expensive. NDOT, while remaining neutral, would be very concerned with covering the cost associated with the process.

Mrs. Chowning noted NDOT would not be able to determine a fiscal note since it did not know what the study would entail.

Russ Law, representing NDOT, indicated there were many roads NDOT was interested in possibly trading. For example, Fourth Street in Reno was discontinuous, in that the city maintained Second, Third, and Fifth Streets; however, Fourth Street was the old United States Route 40 and therefore on the state maintenance system, but it probably should now be maintained by the city. Also, regarding McCarran Boulevard in Reno, some sections of the street were state maintained while other sections were maintained by the city. NDOT felt there should be some continuity and those areas did need to be examined.

Mrs. Chowning asked Mr. Law if he was saying the resolution was no longer necessary since NDOT was already doing what the resolution required. Mr. Law explained NDOT did have a process for doing what the resolution required, just as Mr. Whitaker stated. NDOT may need to take a more comprehensive look, but it may not need to be mandated through legislation. He reiterated NDOT was neutral on the resolution and would do what the legislature required.

James Spinello, franchise service manager, Clark County, explained the county was fully supportive of A.C.R. 3. The county believed, as previously mentioned, there had been road swapping going on but without much consistency. They had spoken with Mr. Collins earlier to ask only that it be made clear in the resolution that local governments be included. The county provided some recommended changes (Exhibit F) which should ease concerns on the part of NDOT. If local entities were able to be part of the study, they would be able to answer some of the department’s concerns. They felt that was consistent with the intent of A.C.R. 3. It appeared very clear from the intent, local entities would be a part of the study to help answer questions as well as assist with some of the costs associated, and they were anxious to assist. Clark County had also asked that a bill be introduced which would aide in relieving inconsistencies in maintenance of roads, which were maintained by both state and local entities (A.B. 182). The county hoped by studying those issues, many problems could be resolved.

Bruce Arkell, special projects coordinator, Clark County Department of Public Works, stated in 1983 Clark County signed an agreement with NDOT to transfer some of the arterial roadways for maintenance. There had been some confusion which ended with both local governments and the state being involved in the maintenance of the same facilities. That problem could be resolved with the resolution. The actual transfer of roads may take time but the decision to transfer them was a fairly easy one, and the authority to transfer roads did presently exist. The county hoped to swap some roadways with NDOT during the next year. A.C.R. 3 would prompt both local governments and the state to straighten those problems out. The amendments proposed addressed concerns with the original draft, which had NDOT making the decision of which roads to swap and then report back to the legislature.

Mrs. Chowning asked if any roads in Clark County had been swapped out thus far. Mr. Arkell responded it depended to which time frame she was referring. In 1983, NDOT through an inter-local agreement, took over about 90 miles of the arterial system. Not all those roads had yet been transferred thus far. The county had been attempting to straighten that out with NDOT over the past year. It had been a continuing, ongoing discussion and the resolution would help with the process immensely.

Mrs. Chowning stated A.C.R. 3 did sound like a project that needed to occur.

Assemblyman Thomas asked Mr. Spinello to compare A.C.R. 3 and A.B. 182 which, if passed, would require the state to meet local standards. If both passed NDOT would be required to meet those local standards and then hand the roads over to the locals. Mr. Spinello explained it would not be an unusual instance for any owner where a road was dedicated to have to meet required improvements. So in terms of what would happen to the state, there would be no difference than what any other owner would have to complete before dedicating any roadway. The connection between the two bills was: A.B. 182 dealt with urban areas which had grown to meet state routes which did not always have sidewalks or streetlights, while A.C.R. 3 would help identify those roads and aid in the transfer process. The roads addressed in A.B. 182 did not have a developer or owner to provide the off-site improvements to meet county standards. In A.C.R. 3 local entities would also be responsible for improvements on roads to be transferred to the state. The county was not attempting to require the state to spend any more than the local entities would for the same process.

Mr. Arkell expressed A.B. 182 dealt with standards on roads which were already constructed. A.C.R. 3 dealt with roads which would be constructed in the future. That would be the difference.

Robert Hadfield, executive director, Nevada Association of Counties, indicated support of A.C.R. 3 with the proposed amendment with which Mr. Collins was kind enough to agree. He agreed that all entities should be looking at those issues. The proposed amendment would put local governments on an equal footing with the state, which he felt was both appropriate and necessary.

Thomas Grady, executive director, Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities, agreed with the amendment and supported the bill as amended.

Mrs. Chowning announced because of the amendment, the committee would hold a work session on A.C.R. 3 on a later date. She requested Mr. Collins work with the interested parties before then and report back to the committee. Mr. Collins agreed with the Chair. He then clarified the testimonies presented to the committee by both NDOT and local governments showed agreement that roads needed to be swapped. The resolution would only require a formal study be conducted.

Mrs. Cegavske observed from the testimony the different entities indicated they were already studying the problem and working on transferring roads. Therefore, did the committee need to legislate what had been occurring. Mr. Collins explained there needed to be a comprehensive plan on how the state maintained the highways, how those roads were released to the cities, and how the state took over city streets. The study would not have to be completed in 6 months or even 18 months, but it would need to be done.

Mrs. Chowning closed the hearing on A.C.R. 3 and opened the hearing on A.B. 45.

Assemblyman Mark Manendo, District 18, began with a brief history behind A.B. 45. During the 1997 session the Assembly passed A.B. 7 which subsequently became law. That legislation allowed police departments the option of recruiting volunteers to distribute parking tickets to those illegally parked in a handicap zone. During the interim he worked with members of the Southern Nevada Center for Independent Living to determine what else the legislature could do, and out of those meetings came A.B. 45. The intent behind the bill was to increase judicial punishment for second and third offenders of the parking violation. The intended punishment would consist of community service; second offenses would consist of no less than 8 hours but not more than 15 hours, and the third offense would be no less than 25 hours but not more than 100.

Mr. Carpenter contemplated requiring offenders, as part of their community service participate in the ticketing program. They might not be so inclined to break the law again if they were required to enforce the law. Mr. Manendo indicated the Center for Independent Living wanted the community service hours to consist of working with the disabled community in some way. He felt the judges would want flexibility in sentencing the defendant. Although it would be at the discretion of the committee, judges might not react kindly to being told where to sentence a defendant, but he would not have any problem if the committee chose to amend the bill.

Mrs. Chowning wondered how enforcement of the program had been going. She also clarified how the program operated; a group of volunteers would go out, issue citations, then return their ticket books to the police. Mr. Manendo stated the volunteers were trained by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. They went in teams of two to patrol a specific route, and at the end of their shift, volunteers reported back to a police substation to turn in their ticket book. The volunteers were only permitted to police handicap parking spaces, nothing else. He related that on the first day of the program the first ticket was issued within the first hour.

Mrs. Chowning asked if volunteers would have enhanced enforcement capabilities by explaining to the offenders what the possible ramifications were on second and third offenses. She announced she was uncomfortable having volunteers take on that responsibility. Mr. Manendo explained the volunteers would only be writing the tickets. Judges would hand down the sentences. A.B. 45 would mandate sentencing for second and third offenses. Volunteers would not have contact with the offender, they would only write the ticket.

Mrs. Chowning called attention to the community service portion of the bill. She inquired who would oversee the community service, if there would be any fiscal ramifications in administering the program, and if judges had enough avenues of community service for the offenders. Mr. Manendo informed the committee no one had approached him about a fiscal note on the bill. He thought it would be treated like any other offense. For example, if someone was caught painting graffiti and went before a judge, the judge could impose a fine and require so many hours of community service.

Mr. Collins applauded the efforts made by Assemblyman Manendo on behalf of the disabled community.

Assemblyman Parks expressed concern the committee had heard no testimony from the judicial system regarding how the bill would affect the courts.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED DO PASS ON A.B. 45.

ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

Mr. Manendo thanked the committee.

Mrs. Chowning closed the hearing on A.B. 45 and opened the hearing on

A.B. 33.

Assemblyman Roy Neighbors, District 36, testified A.B. 33 came out of the Legislative Commission’s interim study committee of construction and maintenance of highways and roads. He explained Nevada faced a serious shortfall in available revenue for highway systems, which included $476 million for highway maintenance and $1.4 billion for capacity projects. A.B. 33 was drafted to help alleviate part of those problems by allowing NDOT to adopt a fee schedule that reflected the actual cost of road damage caused by overweight loads. The current law limited vehicle weight and posted substantial fines for those who exceeded that limit; however, there were exceptions. Non-divisible loads, which were loads that could not be divided between two or more vehicles, such as large pieces of machinery or prefabricated parts of buildings, needed to apply for a special permit from NDOT to be able to haul the objects in Nevada. Those loads inevitably exceeded weight limits; however, NDOT was limited by law to charge only the administrative cost of issuing the permit. Simply stated, those who hauled overweight loads on Nevada highways paid only a nominal fee for the issuance of a permit and contributed nothing to any road damage they might have caused. The issue before the Assembly Committee on Transportation was a matter of fairness: should the thousands of dollars of damage caused by a single overweight vehicle through the course of one trip be borne by the taxpayers of Nevada, or by the vehicle which caused the damage.

Mrs. Chowning asked if the interim committee addressed the question of how much the fee increase would be, and how much additional revenue would be brought in. Mr. Neighbors stated those figures were not brought up; NDOT requested A.B. 33 from the interim committee.

Mr. Claborn asked for clarification about what was considered overweight: Was Mr. Neighbors referring to oversized cranes, or loads of dirt and other materials. Mr. Neighbors explained NDOT could answer the question better than he, but one example that arose during the interim was future movement of trucks carrying material to Yucca Mountain.

Paul Mouritsen, program analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, mentioned NDOT would develop a fee schedule and would be able to address what those fees would be.

Mr. Claborn wondered what the tax differential was between oversized trucks and standard automobiles. He thought the truck companies paid 10 to 15 percent more in taxes and he did not want to put anyone out of business because of added fees. Mr. Neighbors expressed the intent of the bill was not to put any undue hardships on the trucking industry. His concern was focused on those who abused the system by putting too much weight on the trucks, for the number of wheels, on the road.

Mr. Gustavson disclosed he had been a professional driver for many years, but the bill would not affect him since he had not been in the trucking industry for over a year.

Mr. Collins also disclosed he had a professional license and had hauled large equipment. He recalled the fees had been adjusted in 1993 and felt A.B. 33 was an attempt for the legislature to adjust the fees to keep up with the actual cost of repairing the roads. Mr. Neighbors explained he had recently seen some of the road damage being discussed. He felt the roads were properly built for the correct weight limitations, but when those limits were not followed, the grooves created in the roads were extreme.

Mr. Law, explained the department addressed the fee structures to the interim committee, chaired by Assemblyman Neighbors, because the actual cost of providing certain services was not being met. A.B. 33 would allow NDOT to recover damage costs associated with overweight loads, as well as the administrative costs the current law allowed.

Mr. Law expressed since the law was complex he would inform the committee of the reason for issuing the permits. He began by explaining all loads were divisible with properly placed items; however, non-divisible loads were not reasonably divided. For example, a triple trailer would normally be considered divisible because whatever was being hauled could be divided, such as gravel, sheep, or cows. An extreme example of a non-divisible load would be an autoclave, such as the one delivered from Utah to a mine in Nevada. The autoclave weighed 1.9 million pounds and could not be reasonably divided because it was a pressurized system with extensive welding done at a fabrication shop in Utah. Most non-divisible loads consisted of construction equipment and mobile homes, which made up 90 percent of all permits issued. The remaining 10 percent were for agriculture and mining equipment.

Mr. Law continued, NDOT issued about 35,000 permits a year (Exhibit G); about 15,000 or 43 percent were for overweight loads, and 20,000 or 57 percent were for oversized loads. The non-divisible load permits were used for vehicles which were either overweight or oversized. Oversized loads meant the trucks were greater than 8½ feet wide, longer than 70 feet, and higher than 14 feet. Overweight loads exceeded the axle limit allowed which was 20,000 pounds for a single axle, 34,000 pounds for tandem axles, and 42,000 for triple axles (Exhibit H).

Mr. Law disclosed the cost of the permits was $50 for an annual permit and $15 for a one-time use permit, which were valid for 5 working days (Exhibit I). The administrative services division, who would explain the routes allowed to be traveled, issued the permits. The routes were checked on a yearly basis by both the bridge and pavement engineers to assure the roadways could continue to handle the load limits.

Mrs. Chowning asked Mr. Law to explain Exhibit I. Mr. Law indicated Exhibit I was a chart showing pavement damage cost due to overloads. It was formulated from a logarithmic scale because road damage was exponentially related to loads. The vertical scale represented cents per axle-mile traveled, and the horizontal scale showed the amount of the overload. The chart showed the cost per thousand pounds overload for single, tandem, and triple axles. So, the cost of a single axle running 4,000 pounds overload would be 11 cents per mile of travel. Most overloads ran from 1,000 pounds to 5,000 pounds over the legal limit.

Mrs. Chowning responded the only cost the vehicles were paying was $50. Mr. Law explained the $50 was for an annual permit. A one-time trip would cost the company $15. He added the $15 might not be fair either because the fee did not take into account distance traveled.

Mrs. Chowning asked if anyone had tried to rectify that in the past. Mr. Law explained that NDOT had submitted a bill during the 1993 session to change the fees, however it failed; NDOT was not advocating a tax increase, but rather a fee which appeared equitable with the cost of administration. A.B. 33 would let the department set the fee structure, which currently was set under administrative code in 1993 at a rate of $15 per trip and $50 annually.

Mrs. Chowning clarified the bill would give NDOT more flexibility to expand fees to correspond with road damage. Mr. Law reaffirmed the Chair’s statement.

Mr. Collins remarked that currently the law stated fees could only be set to recover the administration fee and the proposal before the committee was to allow NDOT to collect also for damages to roads. Mr. Law thought that was the intent of the interim committee.

Mr. Carpenter asked if there was a relationship between speed and road damage. Mr. Law explained that relationship had only been established for bridges because higher speeds impacted bridge joints more than lower speeds. There were some recent studies which established a relationship between pavement smoothness and dynamic loading, but it was not a long established principle.

Daryl Capurro, managing director, Nevada Motor Transport Association (NMTA), expressed opposition to A.B. 33 because the bill affected those companies who complied with the law, more than targeting those who violated the law. He explained if an overly large item, such as an autoclave, needed to be moved NDOT had checks in place to assure undue stress would not be placed on the road. The bill addressed legal loads which were carried in accordance with the permits issued by the department. The problem NMTA had with the bill was procedures were currently in effect to allow NDOT to increase fees as needed. The department would simply need to conduct hearings on the proposed increase. In fact, both the Associated General Contractors and NMTA supported a doubling of the fees during the last meeting held. The very language NDOT was attempting to eliminate in the bill would allow them unjustified freedom to charge whatever amount they wished without legislative oversight. He stood ready to support any effort by NDOT to recover costs incurred with respect to the issuance of permits under the current law. NMTA felt the current language of the law provided all the flexibility needed for the department to establish reasonable fees.

Mr. Carpenter asked about axle requirements on trucks moving the overweight loads. He thought they were required to have more axles underneath them if they were considered overweight. Mr. Capurro explained that through the permit process NDOT informed a company what loads would be allowed and on what roads they could travel. They were able to dictate what axles and configurations must be put under loads in order to move them. Very large loads, such as the autoclave, are not moved on an annual or one-time permit, those were specific permits. If someone did not follow the permit instructions there were provisions in place to fine them, and he supported that.

Mr. Carpenter reiterated his question, feeling he did not receive an answer, were those trucks with more axles than normal considered overweight. Mr. Capurro stated they could be legally overweight, since there were weight limits in place. However, trucks carrying non-divisible loads had different axle limitations than normal truck movement. They would not be considered overloaded with respect to the permit issued since they would meet the required guidelines.

Mr. Collins asked if the primary issue on the bill was to change the fee from one which addressed servicing only the fee system to a fee which included highway repair for the amount of highway estimated to be damaged. Mr. Capurro thought regulations presently existed which dealt with damage acquired on specific operations.

Mr. Claborn reaffirmed Mr. Capurro’s statement, the truck which carried the autoclave into Nevada was designed to carry large amounts of weight. They were required to have so many tires per axle to meet state specifications. The vehicle, which cost over $1 million, met the state’s requirements and was not overloaded.

Cheryl Blomstrom, director, State Governmental Affairs, Nevada Chapter, The Associated General Contractors of America (AGC), related she completely agreed with Mr. Capurro. They had, in the past, supported NDOT through a regulatory process in raising fees as necessary. They were again prepared to come to the table and look at rational, reasonable fees. AGC was very uncomfortable with a law that eliminated reasonable or some sort of legislative oversight.

Mr. Collins asked if Ms. Blomstrom agreed with the position that A.B. 33 changed the fee from one for service of the system only, to one which included road maintenance. Ms. Blomstrom believed the Nevada Administrative Code covered road damage. She attended a hearing over the summer where the collection for road damage and the time frames for paying fines were discussed with NDOT.

Dean Kirsch, heavy tow manager, Quality Towing, testified a normal big semi, legally loaded had 18 tires and weighed 80,000 pounds. The big truck Quality Towing used, which could haul a quarter of a million pounds, had 58 tires on it and distributed less ground pressure loading than a normal, legal truck. The real problem with A.B. 33 was that the bill was open-ended. It would not present a solution at all, but just leave the door open for NDOT to charge anything it wanted. He had personal experience of paying $6 and $7 a mile in permit fees to travel through Louisiana, Wyoming, and Washington. Those costs were all passed on directly to the consumer. When he bid for a transport job from Nevada to Florida or from Las Vegas to Reno, whatever cost he quoted his customer would include the permit fees. So if the state charged $1,000 for a permit, that cost went to the customer, and that customer might be, a firefighter in Florida, such as was the case last summer. He was strongly opposed to the open-ended language. The industry paid 10 times the fee of a normal automobile when trucks were licensed: trucks cost $2,000 to license while automobiles cost $200 or $300. There was a provision in Nevada law, that if he damaged anything, such as a bridge, the state would come after him to pay for repairing the bridge.

Mrs. Chowning asked if he had any problem with the current law. Mr. Kirsch stated he did not. He felt if he made the mistake, he should be the one to pay for the repairs, which had happened in the past. He asserted the language, as written, was too vague and it scared him to death.

Clark Whitney, general manager, Quality Towing, agreed with the remarks of Mr. Kirsch and Mr. Capurro. He felt one point that was not made was in the matter of road damage. It appeared to him most of the damage everyone had seen, such as the road damage Assemblyman Neighbors had described, was made by illegal loads which did not have permits. He expressed the state might want to focus on the enforcement of the current overload laws, rather than the creation of open-ended legislation, since there were many who did overload their trucks.

Mrs. Chowning requested NDOT provide the following information for a future work session on A.B. 33, if the road damage described was caused by illegal loads, the number of permits issued over the past 2 years including the number issued for unusual circumstances, and the number of overweight permits verses oversized permits.

Mr. Collins offered to work with interested parties on possibly amending the bill to explain how the fee structure would be determined, so the bill would not include any open-ended language. He also requested NDOT bring forward what additional permits and fees were paid for the super heavy loads, which had been discussed.

Mrs. Chowning, with no further questions, adjourned the meeting at 3:40 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Jennifer Batchelder,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman

DATE: