MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Transportation
Seventy-First Session
February 13, 2001
The Committee on Transportationwas called to order at 1:38 p.m., on Tuesday, February 13, 2001. 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
Mr. John Carpenter
Ms. Barbara Cegavske
Mr. Jerry Claborn
Mr. Tom Collins
Mr. Don Gustavson
Mr. John J. Lee
Ms. Kathy McClain
Mr. Dennis Nolan
Mr. John Oceguera
Ms. Debbie Smith
COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall, Vice Chairwoman
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman Lynn Hettrick, Assembly District 39
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Paul Mouritsen, Committee Policy Analyst
Jackie Valley, Committee Manager
Geri Mosey, Committee Secretary
Sue Modarelli, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Fred Droes, P.E., Chief Safety Engineer, Nevada Department of Transportation
Richard W. Wilkie, Legislative Advocate, City of Henderson
Dan Musgrove, City of Las Vegas
Kimberly J. McDonald, MPA, Management Analyst, City of North Las Vegas
Chairwoman Chowning brought the meeting to order and opened the hearing on A.B. 6.
Assembly Bill No. 6: Provides for issuance of endorsements to holders of noncommercial licenses to tow certain vehicles. (BDR 43-292)
Assemblyman Lynn Hettrick, Assembly District 39, testified as to why A.B. 6 should not be passed. On behalf of a constituent in his district, Assemblyman Hettrick stated the bill needed further revision and referred to an example of a constituent who was cited for towing a third vehicle. In this instance, the man was cited for pulling a golf cart behind his fifth-wheel trailer while driving in the state of Oregon. The golf cart provided mobility for the man’s disabled wife and Oregon’s law enforcement would not accept the state of Nevada endorsement which allowed a third vehicle to be in tow. The goal of A.B. 6 would be to make sure other states honored the Nevada license endorsement for a third vehicle in tow. Certain states allowed Nevada’s endorsement regarding a vehicle in tow on the freeway but not on a two-lane road and in such instances, nothing could be done. However, Assemblyman Hettrick stated clarification and specificity might make this endorsement more acceptable by other states. Assemblyman Hettrick requested that the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) legal staff draft a bill and reported further development would be undertaken. Assemblyman Hettrick would coordinate with the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV/PS) and the Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP) to resolve this issue before he brought it back to the committee for approval.
Chairwoman Chowning agreed not to act on A.B. 6 at that time. Chairwoman Chowning asked Assemblyman Hettrick if the gentleman in question currently held an endorsement in Nevada. Assemblyman Hettrick affirmed his constituent did have the appropriate endorsement applicable to Nevada law; however, a ticket for towing the third vehicle was issued to the constituent while driving in Oregon. Chairwoman Chowning inquired about additional costs. Assemblyman Hettrick stated there was no additional cost to the customer, beyond the standard license fees, for this type of endorsement. He further stated, to the best of his knowledge, there was no additional cost to DMV/PS.
Assemblyman Claborn sought further clarification and compared it to an added restriction like Nevada had for wearing glasses. Assemblyman Hettrick explained, initially an attempt of this type was made by including an endorsement to pull an additional trailer up to 1,400 pounds, which would comply with federal law. Review of Nevada law showed there was already a provision in this state; furthermore, the goal was to provide substantial clarification to ensure Oregon law enforcement would accept Nevada’s endorsement as well as national reciprocation. Assemblyman Hettrick noted he would keep the committee informed of his progress.
Chairwoman Chowning closed the hearing on A.B. 6 as there were no further questions or testimony. She then opened the work session on A.B. 7 and invited Assemblyman Tom Collins to introduce the bill. Chairwoman Chowning noted there would be further discussion regarding a field trip to the prison on Thursday later in the meeting.
Assembly Bill No. 7: Revises provisions governing school zones and school crossing zones. (BDR 43-817)
Assemblyman Collins introduced A.B. 7 noting this bill evolved from problems that were encountered in his district. Assemblyman Collins noted A.B. 7 deleted Section 3, which said, “This section does not prohibit the use of automatic traffic control devices in school zones in lieu of permanent or portable signs.” Assemblyman Collins described automatic traffic control devices as being a red, yellow, and green traffic light, which could be seen in many intersections. He provided pictures (Exhibit C) for the record, to demonstrate a notable difference between the automatic traffic control electrical device and a yellow flashing warning light.
Assemblyman Collins reported many lobbyists and legislators had concerns A.B. 7 would do away with the yellow flashing lights at local school zones. He explained yellow flashing warning lights would not be affected by this legislation. Furthermore, there would be no cost to the school districts since local governments would be responsible for providing designated signage.
Assemblyman Collins stated the intent of A.B. 7 was not to burden the school districts with the costs of signage. Preferably the law would direct school boards to designate school crossing zones after proper signage had been placed. He reported problems that arose from the process in our state as follows:
The problem existed when signage was not displayed and the crossing guards were not in place before the children were told to cross a street.
The law required a speed limit of 25 miles per hour (mph) or less in a school zone or school crossing zone. Assemblyman Collins reported serious incidents in the recent past, due to vehicles which sped through designated crosswalk intersections.
The intent of A.B. 7 was to make the speed limit no greater than 25 mph in a school zone or school crossing zone during the hours that children were crossing or whatever was designated by local government regulation.
Assemblyman Carpenter verified the intent was to slow down the traffic. Assemblyman Collins affirmed the purpose was to lower the speed limit to 25 mph based on the city’s signage, “When children are present” or “During certain school hours,” as posted, relative to the local government authority provided by this legislature. Assemblyman Carpenter asked if the speed limit should be included in A.B. 7. Assemblyman Collins stated current statutes already provided that no school zones or school crossing zones are to be greater than 25 mph in the state of Nevada. He emphasized the need to remove the exemption for a traffic light. Assemblyman Carpenter asked if a traffic light could be added even if the exemption was removed. Assemblyman Collins clarified the intent was not to determine where a traffic light was located; a traffic light was not an exemption to a speed limit of 25 mph. Assemblyman Collins referenced Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 484 regarding school zones and school crossing zones, and noted the speed limit in Nevada could be no greater than 25 mph.
Chairwoman Chowning noted, if possible, Mr. Mouritsen would read the statute. Assemblyman Collins defined the school zone as property adjacent to the school, whereas, a school crossing zone could be a mile away from the school. Children were instructed to cross public streets at designated school crossing zones. It was determined A.B. 7 Section 3 needed to be stricken, hence, this section would not prohibit the use of automatic traffic signal devices in school zones in lieu of a sign. Assemblywoman McClain asked to edit the part that says, “does not prohibit” and replace it with “this section prohibits the use of automatic traffic control devices in lieu of permanent or portable signs.” Assemblyman Collins agreed to the change.
Assemblyman Lee raised concerns as to whether A.B. 7 could really solve problems with traffic, making reference to someone who broke the speeding law in a school zone. He noted another sign might not influence an individual of this type to slow down. Assemblyman Lee felt hesitant to impose further restrictions on a burdened area such as Rancho Road, which was a corridor for drivers who traveled to and from heavily populated areas within his district. He felt slowing traffic down at intersections twice a day might cause further traffic restrictions and might not be a solution. Assemblyman Lee added children crossed these busy streets and were learning how to cross safely.
Assemblyman Collins mentioned one fatality and another child who was seriously injured at a busy intersection that did not allow enough time for children to get all the way across the street. Incidents had been reported such as; a crossing guard who was standing out in the street when the light turned green, yet drivers ignored him and drove through the intersection rapidly; or a crossing guard not always able to escort a group of children all the way across the street before the light changed.
Assemblyman Collins noted many crosswalks have been removed on Rancho primarily because of this thoroughfare problem. School district regulations provided; where there are unsafe intersections, such as Riverside and Rancho; whenever a street was too dangerous or deemed to be too dangerous for children to cross, the school districts would provide buses within the two-mile distance. School districts had discretion to provide buses within the two-mile distance, however, the required distance must be two miles or greater. Alleged funding shortages have resulted in removal of some of these buses at the risk of children’s safety. Discontinuing these bus routes inspired new legislation to maintain safety. The purpose of A.B. 7 was not to teach the children to be safe merely to teach the drivers to be safe in school crossing zones.
Assemblyman Lee asked if a longer flashing “Don’t Walk” sign would be a better alternative to just another law not being enforced. Assemblyman Collins stated the longer flashing sign have already been in place.
Chairwoman Chowning clarified A.B. 7 as written now required additional signage referencing Exhibit C that noted a 25 mph speed limit sign could be placed. She added these extra signs should alert people to slow down. Chairwoman Chowning further stated each district would be responsible to post signage; in addition school districts could include the flashing yellow light.
Assemblyman Collins noted local governments along with school districts and Regional Transit Authority (RTC) make the decisions as to where flashing yellow lights are placed which would not be an issue for debate. Typically the flashing yellow lights are placed where there are no controlled traffic lights. Chairwoman Chowning also noted A.B. 7 as written provided that the district which designates a school crossing zone in an intersection which displayed a red, yellow, green traffic light was also responsible to post a 25 mph speed limit sign.
Assemblywoman Smith raised the question of what effect the additional signage would have on local government. She asked for clarification of A.B. 7 FISCAL NOTE, as it stated there was no effect on local government yet the bill requires posting extra signs. Assemblyman Collins explained the local government currently would post signage at intersections based on school district proposals or designations. Assemblywoman Smith asked if all the signs within each zone had to be consistent for the entire district. Assemblyman Collins replied at this time there were no requirements of consistency, however, standardization of signage would be another separate issue.
Mr. Fred Droes, Chief Safety and Traffic Engineer, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), testified in favor of A.B. 7. He mentioned his concern, in reference to Section 3, was the language might be misinterpreted to include prohibiting the automatic school zone indicator used to display times when a school zone is in effect. Mr. Droes felt it might be necessary to clearly define “automatic traffic control devices”.
Mr. Mouritsen explained, by deleting Section 3, Section 1 and Section 2 would then be left to stand alone which meant they would apply in every case, whether permanent or temporary, portable signage that designated a school zone or school crossing zone must be posted. Mr. Mouritsen determined “automatic traffic control device” was perhaps a term generally understood to be a traffic signal. He was unable to locate a definition in the preliminary section of NRS 484, Vol. 26.
Mr. Droes expressed his concerns regarding exclusion of the use of automatic devices used to indicate hours of operation for school zones or school crossing zones. Mr. Droes added typically the flashing yellow beacon was a school speed limit sign; furthermore, this has been the most effective way to warn drivers of a school zone. He felt a clear definition would be appropriate. Mr. Droes stated he didn’t research the definition of the automatic traffic control device, however, he offered his interpretation, from an engineering perspective, to be one that operated electronically on some type of timer.
Assemblyman Collins stated he would support clarification language to distinguish an automatic traffic control device, which would differentiate it from the flashing yellow lights. His intention was not to force local government to install yellow flashing lights just to make the speed limit 25 mph. Chairwoman Chowning recommended changing the wording in Section 3 of A.B. 7, which eliminated the words “automatic control devices” and inserted the words “flashing yellow beacons” to indicate school zones.
Assemblyman Claborn noted there could potentially be as many as three or four different school sessions and he asked who would be responsible for setting out the portable signs; for example, the school crossing guards, the school district, or NDOT.
Mr. Droes replied, typically the local school districts posted those types of signs when the school was built. The counties and cities also posted signage for school districts as part of their traffic operations.
Assemblyman Claborn further inquired whether the school district would be responsible to ensure that the crossing guards would post signage. Mr. Droes declined to respond based because the issue was out of his area of expertise. Assemblyman Collins provided an example of two elementary schools that could be affected by this legislation. The two schools had a street in between them which was closed to traffic at certain times of the day. In this instance, school employees posted signage or temporary barricades. Assemblyman Collins added most situations required permanent signage.
Chairwoman Chowning opened the floor to other witnesses seeing no further questions of Mr. Droes.
Richard Wilkie, who represented the City of Henderson, supported A.B. 7, which required posting additional signage. He also verified additional costs would not be an issue.
Dan Musgrove, who represented the City of Las Vegas, also supported A.B. 7, and reported he had no problem with additional costs.
Kimberly McDonald, Transportation Specialist, for the City of North Las Vegas, mentioned she was unsuccessful in her attempts to confer with a staff member and would provide further testimony when she reached the individual.
Chairwoman Chowning noted this testimony could be heard later as this issue would be continued in work session. Seeing no further questions or testimony Chairwoman Chowning closed the hearing on A.B. 7. No action was taken on A.B. 6 or A.B. 7 which would be continued in a work session tentatively scheduled for next Tuesday, February 20, 2001.
Chairwoman Chowning announced that on Thursday, February 15, 2001, the Transportation Committee would tour the license plate factory in Carson City at the Department of Prisons. She notified the members and guests of dress code requirements as follows: no one, male or female, should wear blue jeans or jeans of any kind; the Department of Prisons suggested women wear slacks rather than a dress; blue or black clothing was not recommended. Chairwoman Chowning requested members who had assistants accompanying them to let the secretary know as soon as possible in order to arrange transportation.
There being no further questions or testimony the meeting was adjourned at 2:24 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Geri Mosey
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman
DATE: