The Committee on Transportation was called to order at 1:37 p.m., on Tuesday, April 27, 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

Mrs. Barbara Cegavske

Mr. Jerry Claborn

Mr. Don Gustavson

Mrs. Kathy McClain

Mr. Dennis Nolan

Mr. David Parks

Ms. Bonnie Parnell

Mr. Kelly Thomas

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mr. John Carpenter (Excused)

Mr. Tom Collins (Excused)

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblyman Mark Manendo, District 18

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Mrs. Chowning informed the committee the meeting would be teleconferenced in Las Vegas. She then opened the hearing on S.B. 338.

Mrs. Chowning began by presenting a letter from Laurel Stadler, chapter director of the Lyon County Chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (Exhibit C). Ms. Stadler wrote in support of S.B. 338 since many victims of drunk driving accidents were confined to wheelchairs and the legislation would grant them greater access.

Ed Gobel, president, Council of Nevada Veterans Organizations (CONVO), testified S.B. 338 was concerned with restoring dignity and freedom to people who were wheelchair bound and drove, like himself. He presented the committee with an outline of his testimony, which included a letter from Vince Triggs, executive director of the Nevada Association for the Handicapped (Exhibit D). People with electric wheelchairs generally had vans with side-loading wheelchair lifts and required an eight foot space for accessible parking as defined under the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The legislation before the committee would place Nevada in compliance with the intent of ADA. ADA was passed in 1990 to insure those with disabilities equal access by requiring reasonable accommodations be made to enable people with disabilities equal access to public facilities. They were not asking for anything unreasonable in the bill. S.B. 338 did not ask for any additional parking spaces to be added, just restrict certain spaces which were specifically designed for those with side-loading wheelchair lifts. The 8-foot spaces were required because the lifts extended 49 inches from the vehicle; in addition, room to maneuver the wheelchair was required.

Mr. Gobel stated they preformed a nonscientific survey in northern and southern Nevada on handicapped parking availability. In northern Nevada, they researched 611 handicapped spaces of which 21 were van accessible. In 17 of those 21 spaces, there were vehicles without a side-loading wheelchair lift, and in 16 out of the 17 spaces, there were alternative handicapped spaces available. In southern Nevada, there were 1,176 handicapped spaces of which 36 were van accessible. In 31 of the 36 spaces, there were vehicles without a side-loading wheelchair lift and in 23 of the 31, there were alternative handicapped spaces available.

Mr. Gobel concluded those who required handicapped parking but did not require a van accessible space generally used the spaces since they felt their vehicles would be far enough away from other vehicles to be protected from damage. The main issue was those with side-loading wheelchair lift vehicles did not have other options on where to park since they did require the additional room van accessible spaces offered. It they could not find an adequate space they were not able to go to the doctor, shop for groceries, or even go to the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV & PS). The bill was amended in the Senate to state parking lots with less than 60 spaces would not be affected by the legislation since it might create too great of an imposition by restricting space. CONVO concurred with the amendment since they were not trying to inconvenience others but simply wanting to allow those who required the additional room greater freedom.

Mrs. Chowning called attention to the fact the legislation would only affect those businesses with parking lots that had greater than 60 parking spaces, therefore total accessibility would still not be met. She noted most doctors’ offices had smaller parking lots and would not be affected by the bill. Mr. Gobel expressed while the bill did not allow for total access it was a step in the right direction. He would have liked to have at least one van accessible space in all parking lots but there was some objection to the qualification in the Senate so he had agreed to the amendment.

Mrs. Chowning noted the bill would only require one van accessible parking space per parking lot, so if a lot had 100 spaces only one of those spaces would have to meet the requirements for a side-loading wheelchair lift. Mr. Gobel indicated ADA also only required one van accessible space.

Assemblyman Parks communicated a friend of his had similar problems with a roof- mounted wheelchair lift. His friend had found it necessary to use two regular spaces to accommodate her needs; however, there were always people who would squeeze in next to her leaving her even less room to operate. He felt the legislation was a step in the right direction. Mr. Gobel mentioned he had tried using two spaces in the past but had his van towed three times. There was no real room for flexibility since parking lots generally had islands at the end of rows, but if they did not, the people would have to lower the lifts into traffic.

Robert Gronauer, retired law enforcement officer, echoed Mr. Gobel’s comments and added he was required to deal with illegally parked vehicles as a patrol officer and a supervisor before he retired. The legislation dealt with a serious problem and offered an acceptable solution to that problem.

Mr. Parks wondered if existing parking lots would have to be restriped or reconfigured to accommodate the proposed requirement. Mr. Gobel explained most parking lots with more than 60 spaces currently had van accessible spots. The bill would simply restrict those spots for their intended use. If the lots were to contain more than one van accessible parking space, they would only be required to restrict one for van use only.

Mrs. Chowning inquired if there had been any opposition to the bill during the hearings conducted in the Senate since the bill was an unfunded mandate to local governments and private businesses but no one had signed in opposition to the bill. Mr. Gobel indicated there had been no opposition to the bill in the Senate. He stated Vince Triggs of the Nevada Association of the Handicapped also supported the legislation but could not be present at the hearing. Mr. Gronauer stated no one had approached him to express opposition to the bill at any time.

Mrs. Chowning requested Mr. Grady from the Nevada League of Cities to come forward since there would be an effect on local government; the committee needed to know how the cities in the state felt about the legislation.

Tom Grady, representing Nevada League of Cities, explained they had always supported legislation in favor of handicapped parking. The only concern might be with private parking lots, but the cities would not have a problem complying with public parking lots.

Mrs. Chowning stated the committee could only assume by their absence that private businesses did not oppose the bill. She inquired about the penalty for those not in compliance. Page 3 of the bill stated "a person who violates any provision would be guilty of a misdemeanor plus a minimum fine of $100." Mr. Gronauer stated all traffic ordinances were misdemeanors under the Nevada Revised Statute (NRS). The fines listed for first, second, and third offenses were consistent with similar violations. The fines would be assessed against the owner of the vehicle who violated the statute, not the business.

Mrs. Chowning asked if there would be a similar fine to the businesses if the spaces were not provided. Mr. Gronauer indicated there would be a civil fine.

Assemblyman Mark Manendo, District 18, testified in support of S.B. 338 since handicapped parking was a sensitive issue for him. He did have some concerns on the legislation he hoped would be addressed. The first was he thought handicapped parking statutes tagged the driver of the vehicle and not the owner since someone could borrow a vehicle then illegally park. He also thought the current statute allowed law enforcement to ticket vehicles parked in the spaces adjacent to handicapped parking if the spaces were designated for handicapped usage. He informed the committee he had received telephone calls from constituents concerned with who would be responsible for the placement of the signs and their maintenance. He felt the legislation was a step in the right direction and would greatly assist law enforcement.

Mrs. Chowning expressed she still had a concern regarding the penalty for business owners who did not comply with the bill. The $100 fine was for those who parked illegally but there was no language regarding penalties for noncompliance.

Mr. Parks mentioned the requirements were issued with the building permit which required compliance with of ADA and state requirements.

Mr. Manendo remarked there was still the concern of who would be responsible for the signs and since many groups were not present the committee was not receiving all sides of the argument. Mr. Gronauer stated the legislation would not alter any of the current regulations regarding the enforcement of handicapped parking, which meant if a vehicle was illegally parked and the driver was not present, the owner of the vehicle would be the person cited for the violation.

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall asked if a private lot, which had more than 60 spaces, could choose to ignore the proposed regulation by stating they were in compliance with ADA. Mr. Manendo indicated he had a similar concern and would like to see the bill applied to all parking lots, not just those with more than 60 spaces.

Ms. Ohrenschall mentioned she was in favor of the bill and wanted to assure it accomplished what the sponsors intended but was unsure it did. Mr. Gobel explained the bill did not require any additional parking spaces be created. The intent of the legislation was to require existing spaces which had the 8-foot space for side-loading wheelchair lifts be restricted to the vehicles for which they were intended. It was not meant to change any statute dealing with handicapped parking other than restricting one van accessible space for the vehicles for which they were intended.

Ms. Ohrenschall asked if currently a business owner would be required to have a van accessible space, why the bill was necessary. Mr. Gobel responded ADA required at least one van accessible space designated as such; however, it did not restrict the types of vehicles allowed to park there other than those with handicapped parking privileges. S.B. 338 would restrict one van accessible space for vehicles with wheelchair lifts.

Ray Kelsay, representing Air Force Safety Association, testified from Las Vegas. He informed the committee his wife was wheelchair bound for 10 years so he knew the difficulties previously mentioned. He supported the bill and hoped it would pass.

Arvid Schnackenberg, representing Air Force Safety Association, testified in support of the bill from Las Vegas.

Juanita Clark, representing Charleston Neighborhood Preservation, testified from Las Vegas. One of the primary goals of the organization was to create a livable area for all residents. In order to accomplish that goal there needed to be accessible parking for everyone; they supported the bill.

Mrs. Chowning asked whether they were in favor of the legislation although it only applied to parking lots with more than 60 spaces. Ms. Clark indicated they concurred with the testimony previously given by Mr. Gobel.

Mrs. Chowning thanked the proponents for bringing the bill before the committee. The committee wanted to assist all members of the community and the measure was extremely user friendly. She closed the hearing on S.B. 338 and opened the hearing on S.B. 81.

Georgi Cody, representing Nevada Motor Transport Association, testified S.B. 81 was requested to clarify provisions put in statute during the 1997 session with regard to doubling fines on overweight vehicles during the freeze-thaw cycle. The Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) distributed a map each year designating roads which were vulnerable during the freeze-thaw cycle which was February 1 to May 1 of any given year (Exhibit E). NDOT had requested the legislation in 1997 with the support of the transportation industry; however, while all parties involved knew the map indicated the roads affected by the legislation the language in the bill did not reflect that intent. S.B. 81 would clarify the oversight by adding language referencing the map. Section 2 of the bill was amended in the Senate to read "the director shall designate restricted highways," instead of "the director shall by regulation designate restricted highways." The amendment was added because the affected roads were determined toward the end of the year by engineering studies and there would not be enough time for the director of NDOT to hold hearings on the topic. The bill should not surprise anyone since the map was widely distributed, and if someone chose not to comply with the map, the industry supported doubling their fines.

Russ Law, chief operations analysis engineer, NDOT, agreed with the testimony of Ms. Cody. He explained the department did not want to place the map in regulation since it did vary from year to year. The process generally took 3 to 6 months to complete since the engineers had to collect the pavement data, then analyze it. The work was completed during the fall so the director would not have adequate time to identify the roads in regulation but could designate the roads by using the map.

Mrs. Chowning asked if the language in the bill was broad enough so everyone would know to which roads it referred since the bill did not specify the types of roads which were affected. Mr. Law stated currently the department was attempting to determine how to alert drivers of the statute. They would have to make a concerted educational effort with drivers, the Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP), and the judges who enforced the double fines. They might have to post signs on the roads, but that had not been determined.

Mrs. Chowning inquired if the bill required further amending since there was no effective date and without an effective date the bill would become effective upon passage and approval. She also wondered if the department agreed there was no fiscal note on the bill. Mr. Law remarked since the freeze-thaw cycle would be completed by the time the bill would be effective, there was no problem with not having an effective date in the bill. Regarding the fiscal note, there might be a fiscal impact on the department if they decided to place signs on the roads. The signs would cost around $9,000, while a simple educational effort would cost approximately $2,000.

Mrs. Chowning indicated if there was a cost to the legislation the bill would have to go to the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means. Ms. Cody informed the committee the map was not a new process and there was not a problem with knowledge of the map in the industry. The problem they were having was citations were being issued during the freeze-thaw cycle on routes which were not on the map because the current statute was not clear. Vehicles traveling overweight were required to obtain an overweight permit and would be given a copy of the map so they would know which roads were affected. The problem was not with the industry’s knowledge of the roads, but with law enforcement’s knowledge of which roads were affected.

Mrs. Chowning commented with the bill, law enforcement would now know on which roads fines would be doubled. Ms. Cody remarked as long as the designated roads were concurrent with the map everyone would know.

Assemblywoman McClain wondered why signs would need to be posted if the industry knew the bill was referring to the map and the roads on the map were the ones to be designated. Mr. Law explained the current statute was applied statewide because there was no designation in the legislation for freeze-thaw routes. The bill from the 1997 session was intended to only apply to the freeze-thaw routes; however, the proper language was not included in the original bill which was an oversight of the department.

Mrs. Chowning asked if signs would be required or not. Mr. Law mentioned the department had not determined if they wanted to sign the routes or not. They wanted to make the statute fair to everyone but were uncertain if they would be able to do that through education.

Assemblyman Gustavson noted, as a professional driver, he had never seen the map presented to the committee. He hypothesized if someone driving an overweight vehicle had the map they could simply avoid the routes designated for double fines. It was illegal to drive an overweight vehicle and the bill appeared to state someone would only be overweight on the designated routes. Mr. Law claimed all routes were susceptible during the freeze-thaw cycle; however, the designated routes had been identified as particularly susceptible because the pavement condition was marginal. Overweight vehicles on those routes would deteriorate the roads much faster so there would be 2 years of wear in 1 year. The doubled fines were to act as an additional deterrent to keep overweight vehicles off the more susceptible roads. If someone was going to drive an overweight vehicle on the designated route or other routes, there was not much the department could do unless they were caught.

Mr. Gustavson stated his main concern was how the drivers were made aware of the map. He felt the majority of drivers would not check with the department before they began a haul so how would they know the law. Mr. Law observed that was a particular concern of the department as well. He indicated there would be an educational effort. Ms. Cody mentioned an overweight permit was required and if a driver obtained one they would receive the map along with the permit.

Cheryl Blomstrom, director, State Governmental Affairs, Nevada Chapter, The Associated General Contractors of America, Inc. (AGC), testified drivers’ operating overweight vehicles should know their vehicles were overweight. If they operated legally they would go through NDOT and receive a permit and a map. The AGC distributed the maps to all their members, as did the Nevada Motor Transport Association. Both organizations would inform their members of the changes in the law and begin the educational effort mentioned by Mr. Law.

Mrs. Chowning closed the hearing on S.B. 81 and opened the hearing on S.B. 235.

Joseph Guild, representing State Farm Insurance, testified NRS defined what a left turn lane was but did not define what a right turn lane was. The statutes regarding left turn lanes could be seen on page 3 of the bill beginning on line 22. The insurance industry wanted the definition of a right turn lane placed in statute since claims relating to accidents occurring in what could be considered a right turn lane were being dismissed from courts. The bill was amended in the Senate to combine it with another bill they had which concerned similar issues.

Mr. Guild explained the bill contained information regarding the different types of traffic lanes and their usage. The additions to the bill regarding right turn lanes were located on page 2, section 1, subsection 4, and page 3, section 3, subsection 1. Both additions defined what constituted a right turn lane and what could be done in the turn lane. The additional language on page 2, section 2, subsection 3, was regarding motor vehicles driving in bicycle lanes through intersections, which was the amended language from the Senate. The bill simply filled a gap in the law and should clear up any misunderstandings on the part of drivers.

Mrs. Chowning noted there was a provision which allowed for 200 feet of travel in a center lane to prepare for a left-hand turn; however, there was no provision in the bill for preparing for a right turn. Mr. Guild indicated NDOT would be able to answer questions regarding the technical issues in the bill.

Mr. Gustavson indicated he was in support of the bill since there was a problem with people who did not obey traffic laws. He did have a concern with current statutes and felt the bill might require further amending since NRS did allow for a driver to pass another vehicle on the right if the vehicle was making a left hand turn on a 2 lane highway and there was no obstruction on the shoulder of the road. He felt right turn lanes should be clearly marked as a turn lane and not be used for any other purpose. Mr. Guild revealed he did not have a problem with further amending the bill in order to fill any additional gaps in the law.

Tom Fronapfel, assistant director, Planning Division, NDOT, testified the 200 feet specified in the center lane was provided to prohibit people from using the center lane as a travel lane. The issue with the right turn lanes was shoulders had been designated throughout the state as bicycle lanes; however, some lanes could legitimately be used as travel lanes for vehicles. Discussions in the Senate centered around restrictive or permissive use by vehicles, a solid white line would mean restrictive use while a dashed white line would be permissive. The different types of lines would serve two purposes of identification: one for the motor vehicle driver to know if they would be allowed to progress onto the shoulder, and the other for the bicyclist to know if motor vehicles might be entering the path.

Mrs. Chowning noted the language on page 2 which stated, "a vehicle shall not enter or proceed through an intersection while driving in a pathway or lane provided for bicycles," was still a bit confusing.

Mrs. McClain thought motor vehicles were currently prohibited from driving in bicycle lanes. Mr. Guild explained that was not always the case. A vehicle was required to yield the right-of-way to a bicycle traveling in the lane; however, there were exceptions to that rule such as entering or exiting an alley or driveway or for operating a disabled vehicle.

Mrs. Chowning noted there were exceptions for vehicles in bicycle lanes, but the bill stated a vehicle would not ever be allowed to travel in a bicycle lane while going through an intersection. Mr. Guild explained vehicles should be required to use a lane designated for traffic if they wanted to travel through an intersection. The language would address situations where someone was trying to avoid motor vehicle traffic by using the bicycle lane to go through an intersection then "jump back" into the vehicle travel lane. Oncoming traffic would not expect someone in the bicycle lane to travel through the intersection, but to turn right. A number of potential accidents could be avoided with the language before the committee.

Mrs. Chowning observed a vehicle would be able to use the bicycle lane for the purpose of making a right hand turn, but not for the purpose of traveling through the intersection. Mr. Guild indicated she was correct. The law did allow the use of the bicycle lane for the express purpose of completing a right hand turn onto another street and there were dashed white lines to indicate vehicles could enter the lane only for that limited purpose.

Mrs. McClain mentioned the bill before the committee appeared to remove that language from statute so a vehicle would not have the ability to use the bicycle lane. Mr. Fronapfel mentioned that was the purpose of the solid and dashed white lines. The dashed line would indicate permissive use so vehicles could enter the bicycle lanes for limited purposes and bicyclists would know vehicles could enter. There had been a number of incidents in Reno concerning the use of bicycle lanes and the requested language would ease the confusion.

Mrs. McClain asked if the situations would be addressed in the driver’s manual and the driver’s test. Mr. Fronapfel stated NDOT had been working with the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV & PS) to revise the driver’s manual to incorporate the situations discussed.

Mrs. Chowning closed the hearing on S.B. 235 and opened the hearing on S.B. 301.

Ms. Cheryl Blomstrom, representing AGC, testified the bill before the committee would resolve a minor problem with contractors and subcontractors working with NDOT. The bill would require a contractor to disperse money to the subcontractors within 15 days of being paid by NDOT and allow interest to be accrued if payment was not made within the required time period. It also created a dispute resolution process with NDOT acting as the mediator to settle disputes between the contractor and the subcontractor.

Mrs. Chowning inquired why there were two separate bills (the other in the Government Affairs Committee) dealing with the payment of contractors and subcontractors and why the requirements for both were different. She felt the Public Works Board and NDOT should have the same provisions governing the payment of the people who completed the work. Ms. Blomstrom explained there were two different sections in NRS that dealt with NDOT and the Public Works Board. Chapter 408 was specific to NDOT and the conditions were different than the regulations in place for the Public Works Board.

Mrs. Chowning commented there could have been two separate bills, but the same provisions should have been set forth in both. She felt the contractors working under NDOT might be receiving an unfair advantage over other state contractors. Ms. Blomstrom remarked the provisions set forth in the bill for the Public Works Board were different because of the different projects. Public works projects tended to be more complicated and required more inspections than highway projects. The restrictions in the public works bill were actually more stringent than those set forth in S.B. 301.

Eric Raecke, manager, State Public Works Board, announced the intent behind S.B. 301 was the same as the intent behind the public works bill. The bill before the committee was much less complicated than the other bill and would accomplish the same thing.

Rod Johnson, representing NDOT, testified there were only slight differences between the two pieces of legislation. The main difference was the departments were in different chapters of NRS. Another difference was a 5 percent withholding versus 10 percent, but this was because of the different ways in which the two departments paid their contractors.

Mrs. Chowning remarked S.B. 301 would essentially put everyone on notice if they did not pay their subcontractors and suppliers in a timely manner, there would be legal repercussions. Ms. Blomstrom stated that was correct.

Jack Harker, owner, Harker and Harker, explained his company had worked in various roles for the state, including prime contractor and subcontractor. There had been a variety of problems in the past with new contractors or contractors who had financial problems and had not paid the subcontractors. The subcontractor would then have to file a lien against the prime contractor which could take many months. The bill before the committee would help the smaller companies assure they received their payments in a timely manner.

Mrs. Chowning wondered if the provision which allowed NDOT to attempt to resolve disputes was a workable solution to the lien process. Mr. Harker indicated the bill would put everyone on notice that they should pay their bills, or the state would be able to get involved sooner and solve the problem.

Marty Giudici, owner, American Ready Mix, testified in support of S.B. 301 since it would assure subcontractors and suppliers on NDOT projects would be paid in a timely manner. It would address a problem with out-of-state contractors entering the state then not paying the state companies who worked on the job. Cash flow was critical to small businesses and the legislation before the committee would assure the cash would remain flowing.

Assemblyman Parks indicated his support for the bill since he knew the problems between contractors and subcontractors. He felt contractors would tell the subcontractors they had not been paid for the job so they would not be able to pay the subcontractor for their work when in actuality the contractor would be paying their own bills first.

ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS MOVED DO PASS ON S.B. 301.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYMEN CEGAVSKE AND NOLAN NOT PRESENT. ASSEMBLYMEN CARPENTER AND COLLINS WERE ABSENT (EXCUSED).

Mrs. Chowning closed the hearing on S.B. 301 and opened the work session on S.B. 65.

ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED DO PASS S.B. 65.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYMEN CEGAVSKE AND NOLAN NOT PRESENT. ASSEMBLYMEN CARPENTER AND COLLINS WERE ABSENT (EXCUSED).

Mrs. Chowning closed the work session on S.B. 65 and opened the work session on S.B. 67.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED DO PASS S.B. 67.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

Assemblyman Bache stated he would be opposing the bill because it kept the current request limit on special license plates at 250 in 4 years. He wanted to see the request limit increased to 1,000 plates in 2 years.

Mrs. Chowning closed the work session on S.B. 67 and opened the work session on S.B. 209.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN MCCLAIN MOVED DO PASS S.B. 209.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.

With no further business before the committee Mrs. Chowning adjourned the meeting at 3:28 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Jennifer Batchelder,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman

DATE:

S.B.209 Requires temporary placard for