The Committee on Transportation was called to order at 1:47 p.m., on Tuesday, May 11, 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

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Mrs. Chowning began the meeting by reopening the hearing on S.B. 381.

Nile Carson, deputy chief of police, Reno Police Department, testified the two most common complaints the Reno Police Department received from citizens was traffic speed and the running of stop signs and traffic lights. The department had a list of priority traffic assignments and was not able to keep up with the volume of complaints they received. S.B. 381 would greatly limit the ability of the police department to use any method available to enforce traffic complaints since they did not have sufficient tax revenue to support the number of personnel required to handle the volume of complaints. Mechanical devices assisted law enforcement’s ability to control traffic; for example, radar trailers had been proven to slow traffic in school zones. They had also had successful results slowing down traffic and reducing the number of people running red lights during sting operations at major accident locations when the public was given advanced warning.

Mr. Carson indicated the main reservation people appeared to have with the bill had been the idea government was "laying in wait" to constantly observe its citizens. He felt if the public was advised where the devices were to be used, their objections would cease. The cameras used for traffic violations were very different than normal surveillance cameras. They would not be on continually, recording all actions in range of the camera, but rather take a photograph of a specific violation. The local authorities should also have to prove the case of a violation if a citation was argued in court, which was how the current process worked. He also felt if the government were to use the devices they should be of such a quality they would not only show the violation but also the violator. Technology was advancing every day and society should make use of the advances made. Restrictions could be added to the ability to use cameras to regulate traffic codes instead of completely disallowing them. The devices would also cut costs for police departments since the amount of time and paperwork officers spent on traffic violation could be greatly reduced.

Mrs. Chowning informed the committee the letter Mr. Carson had previously presented was included in the work session document (Exhibit C). It contained a proposed amendment, which would state the cameras could not be used unless a warning sign had been posted. The amendment also stated that the evidence from the camera could not be used for a first offense, only for a subsequent offense. She wondered how the subsequent offenses would be determined. Mr. Carson commented the posted signs should also state the types of violations monitored. The subsequent offense would have to occur within a 30-day period. The first photographed offense would be considered a warning and if the person were caught a subsequent time on camera in a 30-day period, they would be issued a citation.

Assemblywoman Parnell questioned if the bill would affect the radar trailers used in school zones or if it only referred to electronic devices which captured images. Mr. Carson mentioned the bill would not affect the radar trailers; however, there might be a problem with some people thinking they were included.

Ms. Parnell noted the definition of an electronic device allowed "or other system." Mr. Carson indicated that was his concern with the bill. Additionally it stated "detection" and the radar trailers did detect violations.

Ms. Parnell remarked she had observed the same concerns and wanted them mentioned.

Assemblyman Nolan stated he did not have a problem using cameras for the purpose of crime prevention and detection. Las Vegas had recently installed cameras on area transit buses to prevent assaults, pick pocketing, and other crimes. The cameras had reduced crime by 50 percent in part due to the notification signs put up to act as a deterrent. However, he did have a concern with posting a warning sign, which listed specific crimes because it would limit how the images could be used. He felt if the camera was to capture an image of any crime committed the image should be used as evidence. He informed the committee in London, England, cameras were used in areas with high crimes since there were not enough police officers. They used cameras to routinely spot potential problems before they got out of hand. The use of the cameras had helped to reduce the number of rapes and muggings throughout the city. Mr. Carson disclosed the cameras used on traffic signals were not surveillance cameras which took continuous pictures. The devices on signals were tripped when specific violations were committed. The cameras were able to detect vehicles that were speeding or running a red light and captured the image with the appropriate violation printed on the image.

Mr. Nolan claimed he had not had an opportunity to study the proposed amendment merged with the original bill. He thought the bill would eliminate the use of the cameras on traffic signals which had been installed in Clark County for the purposes of monitoring traffic flow, accidents, and other violations. He asked how the proposed amendment would affect the current usage of the cameras. Mr. Carson communicated the amendment would not affect the cameras used by traffic engineers to monitor signals and intersections but would allow law enforcement to utilize the cameras for certain traffic violations.

Mr. Nolan observed Mr. Carson was requesting an amendment to a bill of which he otherwise did not approve. He asked him if he would be fine if the bill in its original form did not pass. Mr. Carson asserted he would be pleased if the original bill did not pass.

Mrs. Chowning inquired how many other states allowed the use of cameras to target traffic violations and if there had been any lawsuits regarding the use of the cameras. She also wondered if the cameras were triggered when someone ran a red light or if they took pictures of everyone going through the intersection.

Mr. Carson informed the committee he had not compiled any formal research on the issue, but he did have personal knowledge of three states that used the devices. He knew of the cameras because there were posted signs. He did not know of any lawsuits regarding the cameras; however, some states had passed laws making the registered owner of the vehicle responsible for the violation, unless they were able to prove they were not the driver at the time. He did not feel the owner of the vehicle should be automatically convicted unless they were the one driving the vehicle at the time, but the government should still be required to prove the case against them. On the question of the workings of the cameras: the camera would be triggered when the violation occurred. The devices used a system of lasers and sensors at the entrance to the intersection. If the detectors were triggered, the camera would be activated and capture an image of the violation.

Mrs. Chowning noted the cameras would not simply take a picture of everyone going through the intersection.

Assemblyman Carpenter questioned why the citation would be issued for the third violation. Mr. Carson stated a citation could be issued on the second violation if it occurred within a 30-day period. If someone committed a violation, they would be notified the vehicle was observed committing the violation along with a copy of the picture. If that same individual was captured committing a second violation within 30 days of the first, they could be issued a citation.

Mr. Carpenter asked what Mr. Carson thought would happen if the issue were placed on the ballot to give people the chance to fully express their opinion on the devices. Mr. Carson mentioned it depended on the community. The majority of the people complained about speeding and the running of red lights in the larger cities so the issue would probably pass.

Mr. Carpenter declared he did not think it would last if put to the people.

Assemblywoman McClain observed the amendment would completely change the intent of the legislation and would then be sent back to the Senate where it would probably not pass. She asked if the cameras were used and an accident occurred because someone ran a red light, could the images be used as evidence. If the images could be used and the technology was currently available the images should be used in court.

Mrs. Chowning stated the original bill would completely ban the use of cameras. The amended bill received from the Senate would allow the use of the cameras only if an officer were present. She did not know if the images were allowable in court.

Assemblyman Gustavson wondered if someone ran a red light when the device would be triggered. He thought the testimony from the original hearing on the bill was if someone entered the intersection while the light was yellow, then changed to red while the person was in the intersection, they would be guilty of a running a red light. He researched the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) and discovered the statute stated an intersection could not be entered once the light had changed to red. He specifically wanted to know if the device would be triggered when the light was yellow or red. He also wondered if there would be one camera at an intersection or if there would have to be four.

Mr. Carson remarked the law was if someone entered an intersection while the light was yellow and it turned red while they were still in the intersection they were allowed the right-of-way to proceed safely through the intersection. It had been his understanding there had recently been a bill which stated the vehicle must be completely through the intersection prior to the light changing to red, but he was not positive about that. Normally multiple cameras were placed at intersections to monitor traffic from all directions. They would be set according to the present statute directives. Currently, the devices would be set to capture images if vehicles entered the intersections after the light had changed to red. If the statute was to change to: completely through the intersection, the device would be triggered as soon as the light changed to red.

Mr. Gustavson mentioned he was unaware of the legislation to which Mr. Carson referred but felt it would be difficult to enforce if there was such a bill. Mr. Carson stated he understood why someone would bring such a bill forth to try to stop the speeding through a yellow light.

Gary Wolfe, representing Nevada Highway Patrol Association, explained he was a retired Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP) officer. He had been in law enforcement for 31 years and had written a lot of traffic tickets. He felt S.B. 381 was a good piece of legislation as written and should not be amended. An electronic device should never be the sole deciding factor for someone’s fate since it created a police-state situation. Cameras used for surveillance were beneficial and should be used as evidence if an officer was present. Currently, if someone was issued a ticket, they had the ability to go to court and face their accuser. He was unclear how someone would be able to question an electronic device. The devices should be used in conjunction only with human officers present.

ASSEMBLYMAN THOMAS MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 381.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE SECONDED THE MOTION.

ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE PROPOSED TO AMEND S.B. 381 BY DELETING SECTION 1, SUBSECTION 2.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.

Ms. Parnell remarked the amendment proposed by Assemblyman Bache would put the bill back in its original form which she had supported. Her concern was, if passed, the bill would have to be returned to the Senate where they had amended it in the first place. There was the possibility of completely losing the legislation if that occurred.

Assemblyman Collins indicated there was enough time left for a conference committee on the bill if the Senate did not concur with the amended bill.

Mr. Nolan asked Assemblyman Bache what the intent behind the proposed amendment was.

Assemblyman Bache stated the amendment would put the bill back into its original form. He felt if law enforcement was able to use the devices the image of the police state would be given to the public, even if officers were present. The devices should be eliminated altogether, which was the original intent of the prime sponsor of the bill, Senator Mark James.

Mr. Carpenter communicated support for the motion because if an officer were required to be present there would be no need for the devices at all. He felt the officer would not be able to read the device then have the opportunity to cite the offender.

Mr. Nolan stated he did not have a problem with the bill in its current form. Technology had benefited all legislators during the present session including the kind of technology they were discussing. Every committee room had been installed with cameras and the offices installed with monitors so the legislators could view what was occurring in committees. There had been discussion of televising the committee meetings throughout the state in 2001. He felt technology was not something from which the committee should shy away but utilize.

Mr. Nolan informed the committee that in some of the very large cities of the world cameras were used to monitor activities. Officers were able to monitor various locations from central communication centers then dispatch officers on patrol when problems arose. Although he felt the technology should be used, he would reluctantly support the motion since the bill would probably go to a conference committee where the amendments would be able to be addressed.

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall revealed she agreed with the analysis given by Mr. Wolfe. She felt the committee should honor the legislative intent of the prime sponsor of the bill and return the bill to its original form.

Mrs. McClain noted the Assembly Committee on Judiciary had dealt with a bill involving wire-tapping telephones, but there had been no appetite in the committee to allow that to happen. She supported the amendment to remove subsection 2 from the bill sending it back to the Senate.

Assemblyman Thomas inquired if subsection 2 was removed, would there be any residual effects on some of the information used by police and viewed by the general public such as the video cameras in police cars. Mr. Wolfe explained the devices used to capture the images were separate and different from the surveillance cameras used in police cars or to monitor intersections. He supported those electronic aides. The problem with the device used for traffic violations was it captured a single image of the vehicle and the citation would be mailed to the offender. The bill would also not interfere with radar or laser guns officers used to track speeds.

Mr. Nolan observed section 1 held a provision which stated, "except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, a person or governmental entity shall not use or cause to be used for gathering evidence or for any other purpose, an electronic device for the observation, detection of violations of this chapter." He felt the wording could affect the use of cameras in the police vehicles. Mr. Wolfe indicated the bill was specific to moving traffic violations for which cameras were not used. There was a potential issue with regard to high-speed chases, but since the cameras were only used for surveillance it should not interfere with the ability to use the tapes as evidence. The whole intent of the legislation was to prevent the use of the devices for capturing images so a citation could be mailed to the individual.

THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT TO REMOVE SECTION 1, SUBSECTION 2 OFFERED BY ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

Mr. Thomas withdrew the motion of do pass.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 381 WITH THE AMENDMENT VOTED ON BY THE COMMITTEE.

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

Mrs. Chowning closed the hearing on S.B. 381 and opened the hearing on S.B. 129.

Mary Henderson, representing Washoe County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC), explained Michelle Gordon would present the bulk of the testimony on the bill. Basically the bill would allow RTC board members to have staggered terms.

Michelle Gordon, administrative services director, Washoe County RTC, read from prepared testimony (Exhibit D). S.B. 129 would establish staggered terms of office for counties with populations more than 100,000, but less than 400,000. The bill would only affect Washoe County. Currently, terms of the RTC board members expired on December 31 of even numbered years. There was a great chance all five board members could be replaced at the same time. Staggered terms were commonly used to prevent such occurrences. The RTC board in Washoe County was comprised of: two county commissioners, two Reno City Council members, and one Sparks City Council member. The bill would have three members, one from each entity, with terms expiring on December 31 of even years, the remaining two members would serve with terms expiring on December 31 of odd years.

Mrs. Chowning noted the bill was similar to A.B. 270 which did the same thing for the RTC board members in Carson City.

Mr. Carpenter asked what happened if one of the board members was defeated in a re-election bid. Ms. Gordon stated another elected member of the local policy board would replace the member. Ms. Henderson remarked each elected body in the county appointed a member to the board. If the member no longer held office, they could no longer serve as a member of the board and the local governments would be required to appoint a new board member. She indicated the Washoe County Commission and the cities of Reno and Sparks all supported the legislation.

Nina Laxalt, representing the city of Sparks, testified the city fully supported the legislation and was happy to present it on behalf on the RTC.

Barbara McKenzie, representing the city of Reno, testified the City Council had voted in unanimous support of the bill and urged the committee to pass it.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN MCCLAIN MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 129.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYMEN CEGAVSKE, GUSTAVSON, NOLAN, AND PARKS NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

Mrs. Chowning closed the hearing on S.B. 129 and opened the hearing on S.B. 266.

Pete English, chief, Registration Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV & PS), testified the department had requested the legislation so they would be able to impose a fee for priority processing of certificates of title. Priority processing under S.B. 266 would be within a 3-day period. The department had three title centers in the state and was only able to produce expedited titles over the counter on an appointment only basis. The revenue generated from the fee would be used to hire three additional staff who would then handle all expedited title requests.

Mrs. Chowning clarified, if someone wanted their certificate of title within 3 days they would have to pay $15 for the first title, and $5 for each additional title. She asked if the titles took more than the requested 3 days if the person would be reimbursed. Mr. English stated the department would refund the money if they took longer than 3 days. The $15 fee was for the first two expedited titles, $5 was for each additional title. The fees were in addition to the $20 title fee currently in statute.

Mrs. Chowning relayed the secretary of state had a similar program currently in place and had been able to generate a considerable amount of revenue. The request for an expedited title was a request so it was not mandatory. She wondered how long the regular title process took. Mr. English mentioned the title processing centers had approximately a 14-day turn around after the date they received it depending on the mail time from Las Vegas.

Mrs. Chowning inquired why the titles would have to be mailed from Las Vegas. Mr. English commented there were title services in Las Vegas for businesses such as dealers and registration services because of their high volume, but were not able to offer the service to the general public at that point in time.

Mr. Carpenter asked if the people who had not requested the expedited service would have their requests delayed further because someone else paid an additional $15. Mr. English stated a backlog would not be created since the additional staff would be dedicated to working on the expedited titles.

Mr. Carpenter inquired about how many people would request the expedited title service; and, if everyone began requesting it, would DMV & PS be able to handle it. Mr. English mentioned the department did not expect a huge demand for the service. The people who generally required expedited titles were either leaving the state and needed to transfer the title quickly or dealers and other businesses involved in the selling and purchasing of vehicles on a regular basis. The department was estimating approximately 100,320 expedited transactions annually.

Mrs. Chowning wondered how they were able to determine that number. Mr. English explained they had counted the current number of title certificates with which they worked and current demand for the program to obtain the estimate of the impact on the program.

Mrs. Chowning called attention to the request to add three additional positions. Mr. English suggested, according to the estimates, the program would bring in $601,000 annually. The cost of administering the program would be approximately $114,000, leaving a net of $487,000 in revenue.

Mrs. Chowning asked if the bill would need to go to the finance committees since the program would generate revenue. Mr. English stated he was unclear if the bill would have to go the money committees.

Mrs. McClain questioned from where the amount of $15 came for the first two requests and why they did not just charge a flat $5 fee no matter the number of requests made. Mr. English explained the original bill contained a $15 flat fee, but was amended by the Senate.

Mrs. Chowning clarified the fee for expedited service was in addition to the regular fee of $20. Section 1(c) contained a $35 fee for requests of certificates of title issued on vehicles not present in Nevada. She inquired if the department would also be able to process those requests in 3 days if the $15 fee was paid. Mr. English stated they would be able to since it was just a matter of processing the paperwork.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 266.

ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Carpenter indicated he would be voting against the motion. He felt if the regular fee was raised everyone who made a request for a certificate of title would be able to have it processed within 3 days. The additional fee appeared to give those with money precedent over those less fortunate.

Mr. Bache mentioned he did not have a problem with the bill since the Secretary of State’s Office currently had a similar program. An aspect of their program he wanted to see placed in the bill was a timeframe for processing the regular requests, then a rebate program if the documents were not received by the deadline.

Mrs. McClain declared she did not have a problem with the bill, but felt it did not make sense to charge $15 for the first two requests and $5 for each additional request. She felt it should be a flat fee of either $15 or $5. Mr. English reiterated the original bill contained a $15 flat fee and was amended in the Senate to include the additional $5.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN MCCLAIN PROPOSED TO AMEND S.B. 266 TO DELETE THE ADDITIONAL $5 FEE AND CHARGE A $15 FLAT FEE PER DOCUMENT FOR EXPEDITED SERVICE.

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Bache communicated the legislature had dealt with a bill in 1997 dealing with fees for public records which had an effective date of July 1, 1999. The 2-year period was allowed since the bill required all fees for documents and public records to be set so they merely covered costs and the program was not a profit making one. Mr. English mentioned the fiscal note the department prepared had included three additional positions and equipment related to the process. Those costs totaled $114,000 which generated $487,444 in revenue.

Mrs. Chowning asked regarding the fiscal note. Mr. English indicated the fiscal note was based upon the assumption 10 percent of the transactions would be at the $5 rate and 90 percent of the transactions would be at the $15 rate. The Senate had amended the bill due to concerns related to businesses that dealt with a high volume of transactions, who would be adversely affected by a $15 fee for every transaction.

Mrs. McClain commented there was no language in the bill which required them to use the expedited service, so they could use the regular service if they did not want to pay the additional fee. She felt the argument regarding business was invalid.

Mr. Nolan questioned the justification for amending the bill. Mr. English remarked the Senate was concerned with businesses such as dealers who dealt with high volumes of title certificates.

Mrs. Chowning noted the Senate felt the businesses would be willing to pay $15 for the first and second titles and $5 for each subsequent title. Mr. English stated Wayne Frediani, with the Nevada Franchised Automobile Dealers Association, had testified in support of the bill.

Mrs. McClain thought the dealers were getting a break over the ordinary citizen who had to pay $15. Mr. English mentioned the dealers would still be required to pay $15 for the first two transactions. The high volume of certificates they requested was the reason behind the change. Most citizens were only requesting one to two certificates anyway.

Mrs. Chowning observed the $15 and $5 fee was still in addition to the $20 title fee, therefore if someone wanted an expedited title they would still have to pay an additional fee.

Mr. Carpenter claimed the dealers would pass the fee onto the consumer whether it was $15 or $5.

Elana Marton, committee policy analyst, informed the committee the statute to which Assemblyman Bache referred was NRS 239.0552. It stated a governmental entity "may" charge a fee for providing a copy of a public record. The fee could not exceed the actual cost of the entity to provide the copy unless the fee was set in a specific statute.

Mrs. Chowning indicated the statute referred to copies of public records. She asked if the document would be considered a copy of a public record. Mr. English stated the document they had been discussing was the ownership certificate of a vehicle.

Mrs. Chowning mentioned the statute would not apply since the document was not a copy, but thanked Assemblyman Bache for raising the point.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN MCCLAIN AMENDED HER PREVIOUS MOTION TO CHARGE $10 PER DOCUMENT.

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Nolan remarked DMV & PS dealt with a lengthy menu of fees for various services provided. The department was well equipped to handle a dual fee for the expedited service. He felt citizens and businesses were better served by a dual fee policy set by the Senate. He would be voting against the amendment.

THE MOTION FAILED WITH ASSEMBLYMEN BACHE, CARPENTER, CLABORN, MCCLAIN, AND THOMAS VOTING IN FAVOR OF THE AMENDMENT. ASSEMBLYMEN CHOWNING, COLLINS, NOLAN, AND PARNELL VOTED AGAINST THE AMENDMENT. ASSEMBLYMEN CEGAVSKE, GUSTAVSON, AND PARKS WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

Mrs. Chowning reminded the committee there was a motion on the floor from Assemblyman Collins to do pass S.B. 266 which was seconded by Assemblyman Nolan.

THE MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYMEN BACHE, CARPENTER, AND PARNELL VOTING NO. ASSEMBLYMEN CEGAVSKE, GUSTAVSON, AND PARKS WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

Mrs. Chowning closed the hearing on S.B. 266 and opened the work session on S.B. 80.

Ms. Marton indicated the proposed amendment located on page 5 of the work session document (Exhibit C) was not current. Section 1, subsection 1(b), should not be deleted which would require school zones to be in effect one half hour before and after school was in session. She explained Assemblymen Cegavske and Collins had worked on the amendments in conjunction with DMV & PS and the city of Henderson.

Mr. Nolan inquired if Senator O’Donnell had been consulted on the proposed amendments.

Mrs. Chowning indicated he had not been consulted on leaving in the language to have the school zones in effect one half hour before and after school.

Mr. Collins mentioned the decision to leave the language in had been decided recently and they were willing to work with Senator O’Donnell if there were any problems.

Mr. Bache revealed he had worked on the definition of school zones during the 1993 session and had a strong vested interest in the issue. He had a large problem with the part of the amendment which would create a 24-hour school zone by having signs stating "when children are present." The language would require a school zone to be in effect if children were out at midnight. The subject had been broached in 1993, and he had the same problem with it then because it did create a 24-hour school zone.

Mr. Collins commented currently there were signs throughout Clark County which stated "when children are present," but the signs varied from school to school. The goal was to create some consistency with the signs. "When children are present" protected the children, which was the intent behind the signs in the first place. The safety of the children had to come before motorist convenience and improved traffic conditions. Children went to and from schools for various activities other than classes and their parents were not always present. If the signs got people to slow down, the goal was reached.

Mrs. McClain informed the committee she did not like any part of the bill and felt the law was fine as it currently read. The bill implied motoring traffic was more important than the safety of the children in Nevada. The bill would be impossible to enforce since a variety of school zone times would be created and no one would know from one school to another what the school zones were. Motorists knew school zones were in effect from 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. so they should remain that way.

Mr. Bache divulged he had notified the city of Las Vegas regarding the signs which currently stated "when children are present" were illegal since they did not conform to current statutes. The city would not remove the signs, but they were still illegal. "When children are present" created a 24-hour school zone since motorists would be required to slow down to 15 or 25 miles per hour if it was 7:00 p.m. and children were playing near the school zone.

Mrs. Chowning recalled there had been a bill in the 1997 session which attempted to change the signs to "when children are present." The bill failed for the reason discussed by Assemblyman Bache, but the intent was similar to S.B. 80 which was to get people to slow down even when school was not in session. There were other activities that occurred around schools for which people needed to slow down, such as soccer games.

Mr. Nolan expressed he thought Senator O’Donnell’s intent was to create "when children are present" without actually putting the wording on the signs. The intent was one half hour before and after school and when children were present, but not to create a 24-hour school zone. Since the bill would allow school districts to help determine when beacons should be on, the intent was to allow motorists to travel at the regular speed limit during the day while classes were in effect. If the bill allowed for "when children are present," Assemblywoman McClain’s previous concern regarding kindergartners coming to and from school during the middle of the day would be addressed without the beacons being on. Motorists should not be expected to maintain a 24-hour school zone when children were not anticipated to be present.

Mrs. Chowning stated if it was the intention of the committee to allow the individual school districts to completely determine the times school zones were in effect the bill would have to be further amended, but it would bring the legislation back to the original intent of Senator O’Donnell.

Mr. Carpenter asserted the safety of the children of the state was a very serious accustomed issue. He felt the motoring public had become accustomed to slowing in school districts, and it appeared to be working in some areas of the state. The safety of the children was a greater concern to him than the ability of motorists to drive faster or create pollution. The law should remain as it was currently since people were used to it and did comply with it.

Mrs. McClain disclosed her main problem with the bill was the section that stated the school zones were not to be in effect during the hours the students were in class. She felt the language sent a terrible message to the public since children were not always in class when they were supposed to be.

Mrs. Chowning mentioned she had wondered when there would be a school zone, since the section allowing for one half hour before and after school had also been removed and the section to which Assemblywoman McClain referred really did not allow for a school zone at any time during the day.

Mr. Collins informed the committee the proposed amendment would change the "must" to "may" for allowing school zones while classes were in session which addressed previous concerns raised by Assemblymen Carpenter and McClain. The purpose of addressing the signage was because of the 1993 decision by the city of Las Vegas to change the times school zones were in effect in their city charter to before and after school only and not while classes were in session. Since then the legislature had been trying to deal with the issue which was raised in 1997 by Assemblywoman Kathy Von Tobel.

Mr. Collins indicated the issue was one of traffic congestion versus child safety. Schools were being built near utilities and other similar facilities because the land was cheaper. If they were constructed in neighborhoods, residents complained about the increase in traffic, so they were built on primary and secondary arterioles in communities. Traffic was disrupted when that occurred because of the buses, and the children using the crosswalks on major intersections. The issue was fairly simple. If motorists were upset because they had to slow for the children, they should travel another route or time their trips better. Protecting the safety of the children was the most important issue of S.B. 80. Anything the legislature could do to address the safety of the children was much more important than the expedition of traffic.

Ms. Ohrenschall stated she agreed with Assemblyman Collins; however, she felt if the current laws were changed motorists would only become confused. Motorists currently knew when school zones were in effect and did comply with them.

Mr. Collins mentioned there had been a series of articles in the Las Vegas Sun in 1998 discussing the subject since there was currently confusion regarding school zones. Some of the cities in Clark County had school zones in effect all day while others had "when children are present." One of the goals of the bill was to bring greater consistency to school zones throughout the state.

Mr. Bache observed the signs which stated "when children are present" currently being used by some cities throughout the state were illegal and felt the state should not amend the NRS to comply with them. He was offended by the implication he was not concerned with the safety of children because he was very concerned with their safety. He had a 12-year-old daughter who had to cross a seven-lane road to get to school every day. A resolution had been set for all school districts to place flashing beacons on any major roadway around the schools. The legislature had not mandated the signs since the school districts indicated the signs were expensive and they would not be able to place them around all schools.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN MCCLAIN MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 80.

ASSEMBLYMAN THOMAS SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Nolan declared he was against the motion. He felt the legislation would allow the local school districts to involve themselves in the determination of their school zones. It would allow them to look at each school and figure out what was best for them. He agreed the current statute was adequate, but felt the bill would have made the statute better.

Mrs. Chowning remarked complete control of the school zones would not have been given to the local districts since the amendment would have required them to consult with state and local traffic officials.

THE MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYMEN CHOWNING, COLLINS, AND NOLAN VOTING NO. ASSEMBLYMEN CEGAVSKE, GUSTAVSON, AND PARKS WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

Mrs. Chowning closed the work session on S.B. 80 and opened the work session on S.B. 179.

ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 179.

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYMEN CEGAVSKE, COLLINS, GUSTAVSON, AND NOLAN NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

Mrs. Chowning closed the work session on S.B. 179 and opened the work session on S.B. 81.

Ms. Marton explained the bill would allow the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) to designate certain highways as being subject to the freeze-thaw provisions currently in statute.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 81.

ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION.

Ms. Parnell thought the Nevada Motor Transport Association was against the legislation.

Daryl Capurro, representing Nevada Motor Transport Association, stated the association was in support of the bill. He recalled there had been some questions regarding signage on the roads, but NDOT had determined there was no need to sign the roads.

Mrs. Chowning informed the committee there would be no fiscal note attached to the bill since NDOT had determined they did not need to sign the roads. If they were required to post 60 signs, the fiscal note would be $9,000, but since they would not post signs, there was no fiscal note. Mr. Capurro relayed the department had stated they would produce a list of designated roads which would be sent to all registered carriers in the state. It would be similar to the map NDOT had presented to the committee during the original hearing on the bill. The Nevada Motor Transport Association, along with the Associated General Contractors and others, would receive enough information to send to all their members.

THE MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYMEN CEGAVSKE, COLLINS, GUSTAVSON, AND PARKS NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

Mrs. Chowning closed the work session on S.B. 81 and opened the work session on S.B. 154.

Ms. Marton explained there was a proposed amendment to the bill located on page 7 of the work session document (Exhibit C). The amendment would eliminate any reference to weight in the bill which would require restraints for all children under 5 years of age.

Mrs. Chowning stated the amendment would delete, "or who weighs less than 40 pounds" from section 1, subsection 1, of the bill.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 154 WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Nolan expressed his concern with eliminating the weight reference as contradicting federal codes regarding child safety restraints. He knew there had been studies on the restraints and did not want to place a 6 year old in danger if they weighed less than 40 pounds, but who would no longer be required to be restrained by Nevada law.

Joanne Keller, highway safety coordinator, Office of Traffic Safety, DMV & PS, explained there were references to weight but the studies had been inconclusive. The problem with the current statute was the confusion with having the option of "5 years of age or weighing less than 40 pounds." The amendment would also revert the bill back to the original form.

Mr. Bache expressed a preference for a weight determinate rather than age. If someone had a 3-year-old who weighed 60 pounds, the child would not be able to fit into the car seats. The parents would have to place the child in a seat belt which would be illegal, according to the bill.

Mrs. Chowning indicated part of the original testimony was there were different types of child safety restraint devices. There were varieties of other options for parents of intermediate children, such as booster seats.

THE MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE VOTING NO. ASSEMBLYMEN CEGAVSKE, GUSTAVSON, AND PARKS WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

With no further business before the committee the meeting was adjourned at 3:47 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Jennifer Batchelder,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman

DATE: