MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Transportation
Seventy-First Session
March 15, 2001
The Committee on Transportationwas called to order at 1:45 p.m. on Thursday, March 15, 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
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall, Vice Chairwoman
Mr. John Carpenter
Mr. Jerry Claborn
Mr. Tom Collins
Mr. Don Gustavson
Mr. John J. Lee
Ms. Kathy McClain
Mr. John Oceguera
Mrs. Debbie Smith
COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:
Mrs. Barbara Cegavske
Mr. Dennis Nolan
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Assembly District 11
Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Assembly District 35
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Paul Mouritsen, Committee Policy Analyst
Sue Modarelli, Recording Committee Secretary
Glenda Jacques, Transcribing Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Jim Spinello, Representing the Clark County Legislative Team
Marty Manning, Director, Clark County Department of Public Works
Bob Ostrovsky, Representing City of Las Vegas
Margaret McMillan, Director, Governmental Affairs, Sprint
Judy Stokey, Governmental Affairs Executive, Nevada Power/Sierra Pacific
Doug Bierman, Representing Eureka, Lander, and Lincoln Counties and City of Caliente
Tom Stephens, Director, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT)
Eugene Weight, District Engineer, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT)
Stan Olsen, Representing Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and the Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association
Chairwoman Chowning welcomed the “gifted and talented” students from several schools in Washoe County and opened the hearing on A.B. 175.
Assembly Bill 175: Requires board of directors of department of transportation to relinquish portions of certain state highways to county or city under certain circumstances. (BDR 35-820)
Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Assembly District 11, stated Section 4 of A.B. 175 itemized several urban roads in Clark County that would be transferred from the state to county jurisdiction. Washington Road went from one end of Las Vegas Valley to the other and had a small half-mile section underneath I-15 that belonged to the state. The roads should be transferred to the local jurisdictions to facilitate the construction and repair of utilities. The city of Las Vegas had a separate bill that dealt with the problem on a city-level and it could be incorporated into A.B. 175. The transferring of roads to the local government might not save money immediately, but there would be significant cost savings to the state in the future.
Chairwoman Chowning asked for clarification on the provisions of the bill and the associated timelines. Section 1 said a board of county commissioners “may” adopt a resolution and was enabling language. If the resolution was adopted the county board “shall” require the director of the Department of Transportation to negotiate the terms to relinquish certain highways or roads.
Assemblyman Bache said he had given the basic concept to bill drafting and they had created the actual language.
Chairwoman Chowning asked who determined the amount of money paid to the local jurisdictions from the Department of Transportation (NDOT) to “… own, operate, maintain, overlay, rehabilitate, improve or control… ” the transferred road. She was unclear whether arbitration was needed, if the money was not paid within one year.
Assemblyman Bache replied the transfer cost would be negotiated between local jurisdictions and the state.
Mr. Collins said the topic was discussed four years ago and a resolution was drafted. The map that outlined the original roads in question looked different than Mr. Bache’s list.
Assemblyman Bache replied the roads designated in the bill were primarily in the county area. The city of Las Vegas had a separate list of roads.
Mr. Collins asked how alternate routes would accommodate traffic flow when state routes were blocked. Assemblyman Bache believed the county could address that question because they controlled the various roads.
Chairwoman Chowning clarified A.B. 175 applied to the entire state, even though Section 4 listed those roads in Clark County that had priority. Assemblyman Bache replied there was no population clause in the bill and the language applied to any city or county in Nevada.
Jim Spinello, Lobbyist, Clark County, strongly supported A.B. 175. The issues affected local jurisdictions and adjacent property owners where “dual jurisdictions” controlled the same piece of real estate. The bill established a forward moving policy to transfer the roads.
Mr. Carpenter related Elko had taken over a state road because of constituent desires and it had become problematic because of the lack of funding to repair the road.
Mr. Collins asked how A.B. 175 affected easements, sidewalks, gutters, curbs, landscaping and lighting. He questioned if the bill improved any of the roads listed in Section 4.
Marty Manning, Director, Clark County Department of Public Works, said local jurisdictions already maintained the road peripherals. A.B. 175 addressed what happened to the pavement. It would improve efficiency to have all management features under one jurisdiction.
Mr. Collins asked whether surfacing of roads had been a problem using interlocal agreements. Mr. Manning explained current agreements with the state covered street sweeping, stripping, or signage. Overlays occurred only when capital improvements were involved. Local jurisdictions supplied repair, updating, upgrading, or maintenance costs.
Bob Ostrovsky, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, supported the concept A.B. 175. The city of Las Vegas had met with the Nevada Department of Transportation about the transfer of roadways. Decisions concerning funding, the condition of the roads upon transfer, transfer dates, and what roads would be transferred had not been reached. The transfer process could take up to ten years because local jurisdictions and NDOT agreed roads needed to be fully rehabilitated before transfers took place. There were many roads within the city of Las Vegas that needed to be included in A.B. 175. Local governments would incur the cost and responsibility of maintaining those roads.
Chairwoman Chowning asked for clarification on Section 1, subsection 2, of A.B. 175 regarding the agreement to determine the amount of money attached to each road. Mr. Ostrovsky explained the bill outlined it would be the Board of County Commissioners, or the appropriate local government entity, that would negotiate the price with the State Board of Transportation through NDOT. An arbitrator would make the decision if an agreement could not be reached. Current negotiations did not include an arbitrator, but the Governor’s Office had promised to work within the budget restrictions of local jurisdictions.
Mr. Collins asked if local jurisdictions felt they should be given funds to maintain any road transferred to them. Mr. Ostrovsky felt NDOT should transfer a portion of their road maintenance budget to local governments to maintain the road. NDOT would rehabilitate the roads prior to transfer and the cities would accept full responsibility for them.
Mr. Collins asked if NDOT needed to give the local jurisdictions money after the roads were rehabilitated. Mr. Ostrovsky said local jurisdictions needed to look at the roads and determine what was the “right thing to do” for the citizens who traveled the roads.
Mr. Collins reiterated A.B. 175 proposed to eliminate state responsibility for the roads, but the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) still needed to deal with multi-governmental situations. Mr. Ostrovsky explained the city of Las Vegas was trying to settle the matter with NDOT and did not intend to impact the RTC’s authority.
Chairwoman Chowning clarified that arbitration would take place if no agreement was reached within one year. Money was transferred within 30 days of reaching an agreement. Mr. Ostrovsky said if the committee decided to process the bill, he would submit a list of roads. NDOT had a list of 160 miles of road that was the most comprehensive and least controversial.
Margaret McMillan, Director, Governmental Affairs, Sprint, supported A.B. 175 and the counties and cities working out an agreement through regulation. The growth in southern Nevada required quick response to customer needs and they appreciated anything that made working with local governments easier.
Judy Stokey, Governmental Affairs Executive, Nevada Power supported A.B. 175 and anything that expedited their process. Chairwoman Chowning asked if Nevada Power had experienced problems or significant delays. Ms. Stokey replied it took a long period of time to get any permit through multiple entities.
Chairwoman Chowning expressed concerns about yearlong delays for construction permits. Ms. McMillan said many delays were due to construction schedules, but the permit process came first. Local entities were aware where the growth was and expedited permits when possible.
Mr. Collins asked if Nevada Power or Sprint had problems in emergency situations. Ms. McMillan said delays had been experienced during reinforcement of existing lines and new construction. There had been no problems with emergency repairs.
Assemblyman Collins had experienced situations where the city would not close roads for environmental needs. Ms. McMillan said her company accepted the timelines of construction crews not working during peak traffic hours on major thoroughfares.
Doug Bierman, representing Eureka, Lander, and Lincoln Counties and the city of Caliente, supported A.B. 175 in concept and stated their considerations had been clarified and addressed. Mr. Bierman submitted his prepared comments (Exhibit C).
Tom Stephens, Director, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), submitted a prepared statement (Exhibit D). The department opposed the bill because local governments could unilaterally take over selected portions of the state highway system and be given significant highway funding. New legislation was not needed to mutually transfer roads because the State Transportation Board already had that authority. NDOT was prepared to set up a task force to work with Clark County and the cities in southern Nevada to develop scopes and schedules of transfer. The bill was not needed if NDOT and the Transportation Board could mutually agree upon a list of roads to transfer. Mr. Stephens drew attention to the current NDOT road system in Exhibit D and felt any road transfer should be done on a global level and not by “bits and pieces.”
Chairwoman Chowning asked if all involved entities had participated in the discussions. Mr. Stephens said North Las Vegas and Henderson had not participated.
Mr. Stephens believed the roads included in the “national highway system” should remain under NDOT’s responsibility (Exhibit D). Because NDOT did not own the whole road, right-of-way issues were complicated. Many casino frontage roads belonged to the county or city making records confusing. The proposed task force would address all problems in the bill. Any street transferred in good condition became the responsibility of the local jurisdiction and NDOT opposed the transfer of state funding with the roads. The state did not pay for maintenance of streetlights and sidewalks because they were considered property-owner items. The state installed traffic signals but did not maintain them. Local jurisdictions received funding for their highway systems from gas and vehicle privilege taxes.
Mr. Stephens commented NDOT would work with local entities to determine the feasibility of transferring certain highways controlled by the state to counties or cities in exchange for certain roads controlled by counties or cities. It was not acceptable for one entity to take over roads unilaterally. The state was opposed to the transfer of state funding for the maintenance of local jurisdiction roads.
Chairwoman Chowning stated an agreement was reached at the end of last session and asked what had happened during the interim. Mr. Stephens replied Paradise Road had been transferred and they were working on Flamingo Road in Las Vegas and some other roads in Reno. The problems had been compensation and a more statewide system instead of just Clark County. It could take four years or more to work out the logistics, but NDOT would work with all entities involved. They hoped to have an informal agreement by the State Transportation board meeting on April 6, 2001.
Ms. McClain questioned what the “negotiated 1983 agreement” and “National Highway System” was on the submitted map (Exhibit D). Mr. Stephens clarified there were a number of roads in Nevada that were part of the National Highway System. The system included US 50, US 93 up to Alamo, US 318 north of Alamo, US 95, and other major routes in the state. Rainbow and Tropicana Boulevards in Las Vegas, and McCarran Boulevard in Reno were on the system. The routes were designated necessary for interregional travel.
Ms. McClain asked if federal funding was received for those roads. Mr. Stephens said federal funds were received and used on freeway expansions and new construction projects.
Gene Weight, District Engineer with the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), explained NDOT entered into a local agreement with local entities in 1983 to ease expenditures for the local street systems in Las Vegas. NDOT received a gas tax increase that was spread out to the local entities by accepting responsibility for some of the roads.
Ms. McClain asked if NDOT controlled the roads in the 1983 agreement. Mr. Weight replied NDOT maintained the roads, although they did not own the right-of-ways.
Mr. Stephens commented the return of the roads to the county would be easy because NDOT did not own the right-of-way on those roads.
Ms. McClain asked if the roads on the National Highway System were transferred to the counties, would the federal money associated with the roads transfer as well.
Mr. Stephens replied the money received for those roads was not used on them and was used for freeway expansion. The money was given to Nevada and could be sub-allocated to local entities under a stewardship agreement.
Mr. Collins clarified the agreement outlined NDOT would resurface or maintain roads and a tax increase would be spread over the whole state. Mr. Weight added the interlocal agreements were very specific about what was maintained and what was not.
Chairwoman Chowning commended NDOT and the work that had gone into Exhibit D. She appointed Assemblywoman Ohrenschall to chair a subcommittee with Assemblyman Carpenter and Assemblywoman McClain as members. She assumed Washoe County had no problems with the bill because they were not present.
Chairwoman Chowning, seeing no further testimony, closed the hearing on A.B. 175 and called a brief recess. The Chair reconvened the meeting at 3:00 p.m. to work session three bills.
Chairwoman Chowning opened the hearing on A.B. 113 and asked Paul Mouritsen, Committee Policy Analyst, to summarize the bill.
Assembly Bill 113: Provides for issuance of special license plates for support of rodeos. (BDR 43-1005)
Mr. Mouritsen summarized the work session document (Exhibit E) and A.B. 113.
Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Assembly District 35, presented an amendment (Exhibit F) that proposed a portion of the license plate profits benefit established rodeos. Money from the Nevada High School Rodeo Association was used for rodeos and scholarships. It was noted that children who participated in the rodeo program did well in school.
Chairwoman Chowning said A.B. 113 allowed 50 percent of the proceeds gathered to go to the Reno Rodeo Foundation and 50 percent to the Nevada High School Rodeo Association. The proposed amendment presented a quandary, since the designated groups in the bill would need to relinquish part of their funding to fulfill her amendment. Assemblywoman de Braga said disbursement through the amendment was at the discretion of the Board of Directors of either group.
Chairwoman Chowning asked if the primary sponsor of the bill had agreed on the amendment. Assemblywoman de Braga reported Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Assembly District 31, had not seen the final version of the amendment, but had agreed to the concept.
Mrs. Smith believed A.B. 113 allowed the Reno Rodeo Foundation and the Nevada High School Rodeo Association discretion to support other programs and was not sure if the amendment was needed. Assemblyman de Braga believed the amendment provided extra clarification for the program.
Mr. Carpenter verified the Reno Rodeo Foundation and the Nevada High School Rodeo Association each received half of the proceeds and whether they could support other rodeos. Assemblywoman de Braga clarified any excess funding could support individual rodeos throughout the state.
Mr. Carpenter felt the amendment would be appropriate if the language was clear on how the funding would be distributed. Assemblywoman de Braga said each contestant was assessed $5 per event and that helped support the state finals. The rodeo club money helped send the contestants to the national finals. The proceeds of A.B. 113 could be used to reduce the assessments or assist in sending contestants to the state and national finals.
Mr. Collins asked how the Reno Rodeo Foundation would distribute funding. Assemblywoman de Braga replied each club had two members on the Board of Directors and the funding would be distributed fairly.
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 113 WITH ASSEMBLYWOMAN DE BRAGA’S AMENDMENT.
ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY WITH MS. CEGAVSKE, MR. NOLAN AND MR. LEE ABSENT FROM THE VOTE.
Chairwoman Chowning opened the work session on A.B. 136 and asked Mr. Mouritsen to review the bill as summarized in the work session document (Exhibit E).
Assembly Bill 136: Requires issuance and display of one license plate for motor vehicle. (BDR 43-952)
Chairwoman Chowning extended the privilege of the Chair and acknowledged Lieutenant Stan Olsen, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and the Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association, opposed A.B. 136. He believed it was an officer safety issue, a crime issue and a witness issue. There were instances in the field where the officer needed to see the front license plate for surveillance or when passing a vehicle. Lieutenant Olsen cited an example where seeing a front plate was instrumental in apprehending criminals without gunfire exchange.
Mr. Collins asked how many citations were issued for missing front license plates. Lieutenant Olsen replied individuals without front license plates were not targeted for citations. It was a “probable cause” issue if the car needed to be stopped.
Ms. Ohrenschall stated she had received an e-mail from a parole officer who opposed the bill since he used front license plates to check on his clients in public places. Lieutenant Olsen replied information could be obtained on vehicles during “high risk” warrants and provided protection to the law enforcement officers. Vehicles in tight quarters could sometimes hide their license plate if they only had one.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 136.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Collins felt there should have been a better presentation of the opposition and was not prepared to vote at this time.
Mr. Gustavson understood law enforcement’s concern on the issue, but stressed 20 other states did not require front license plates and 5 of the remaining 30 states had proposed similar legislation.
Mrs. Smith was concerned about the public relations issue with the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety and not saving the taxpayer money with only one license plate. She did not believe there was a compelling enough reason to pass the bill.
Mr. Carpenter was concerned about the safety issue. He was also concerned about removing up to $500,000 revenue from the prison industries through the per-plate assessment fee.
Chairwoman Chowning said the only license plate that was caught on the cameras in convenience stores was the front one and that was a tool that helped law enforcement solve crimes. The camera at automatic teller machines (ATMs) captured front license plates as well. She was opposed to the bill.
THE MOTION PASSED WITH MS. CEGAVSKE, MR. NOLAN AND MR. LEE ABSENT FROM THE VOTE.
Chairwoman Chowning adjourned the meeting at 3:30 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Glenda Jacques
Transcribing Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman
DATE: