MINUTES OF THE JOINT meeting of the
Senate Committee on Transportation
AND THE Assembly Committee on Transportation
Seventy-second Session
February 18, 2003
The Joint Senate Committee on Transportation and the Assembly Committee on Transportation was called to order at 1:40 p.m., on Tuesday, February 18, 2003. Chairman Raymond C. Shaffer presided in Room 4100 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was videoconferenced to the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Room 4401, 555 East Washington Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
Senate Committee on Transportation MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer, Chairman
Senator Dennis Nolan, Vice Chairman
Senator Mark E. Amodei
Senator Terry Care
Senator Maggie Carlton
Senator Warren B. Hardy, II
Senator Michael Schneider
Assembly Committee on Transportation MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mrs. Vonne Chowning, Chairman
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall, Vice Chairman
Mr. Kelvin Atkinson
Mr. John C. Carpenter
Mr. Jerry D. Claborn
Mr. Tom Collins
Mr. Pete Goicoechea
Mr. Don Gustavson
Mr. Ron Knecht
Mr. Mark Manendo
Mr. John Oceguera
Mr. Rod Sherer
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Marsheilah Lyons, Committee Policy Analyst
Marji Paslov-Thomas, Senior Research Analyst
Kyle Wentz, Assembly Attaché
William Fowler, Committee Secretary
Lee-Ann Keever, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Jeff Fontaine, Deputy Director, Nevada Department of Transportation
Susan Martinovich, Assistant Director, Engineering Division, Nevada Department of Transportation
Chairman Shaffer opened the meeting by requesting the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) make its presentation to the committee members.
Jeff Fontaine, Deputy Director, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), explained his department was governed by the Board of Directors chaired by the Governor. The members included the Lieutenant Governor, the attorney general, the state controller and three members of the public appointed by the Governor. All meetings were videoconferenced to Las Vegas, Carson City, and Elko.
Mr. Fontaine introduced the following NDOT staff members: Susan Martinovich, Assistant Director, Engineering; Ruedy Edington, Assistant Director, Operations Division; Kent Cooper, Assistant Director, Planning Division; Robert Chisel, Assistant Director, Administration; and Dennis Baughman, Chief of the Communications Office. Mr. Fontaine stated those individuals would be available to answer the committee members’ questions.
Mr. Fontaine said NDOT’s work was significant and the department had 1650 full-time employees plus a number of seasonal employees. All State highways were planned, designed, overseen, constructed, and maintained by NDOT. Mr. Fontaine stated NDOT was becoming involved in the operations of highways, a new area of expertise for his department. He noted a highway had to be maintained as well as built.
Mr. Fontaine said NDOT employed a number of consultants whose emphasis was on design. These individuals helped NDOT in all phases of design and were available when NDOT required additional expertise. Contractors performed the actual construction of the highway projects.
Mr. Fontaine referred to NDOT’s presentation to the Senate and Assembly Committees on Transportation, tab A (Exhibit C. Original is on file in the Research Library.), that contained a map showing the location of NDOT’s maintenance offices throughout Nevada. The State is separated into three districts for maintenance purposes. The headquarters for District 1 is in Las Vegas, District 2 is in Reno, and District 3 is in Elko. Approximately one-third of NDOT’s employees worked in the maintenance field. The maintenance employees fixed potholes, cattle crossings, guardrails, performed traffic control, and cleaned highways among other duties. In the winter, those employees are assigned to winter snow and ice removal operations.
Mr. Fontaine wanted the committee members to realize the maintenance of the State’s highway system was dangerous. He stated highway fieldwork was dangerous by its very nature; high-speed, high-volume traffic added to the danger. Safety is a priority for NDOT. Mr. Fontaine said NDOT had a good record, however, accidents did happen. He told the committee members that four NDOT employees had been seriously injured outside of Elko in November 2002. Despite having the proper traffic controls in place, those employees had been hit by a car. The driver of the car was killed in the accident. The employees had to be taken into Reno by Care Flight for treatment. One employee was still hospitalized, while two other employees had lost their legs.
Assemblywoman Chowning asked the committee members to look at NDOT’s newsletter (Exhibit C) illustrating an incorrect seat belt fit. The newsletter contained photographs of the injured workers Mr. Fontaine referenced. Assemblywoman Chowning wanted the committee members to acknowledge those workers and thank them for the work they had done for the State. Assemblyman Chowning said she wanted NDOT and the injured workers to know there was legislation pending which addresses workplace safety.
Mr. Fontaine said NDOT was very involved in modern technology. He mentioned NDOT’s website as it contained valuable information for the citizens of Nevada. The website was frequently updated with real-time information. Mr. Fontaine explained the road and weather information system which was NDOT’s oldest and best known technology. There were 58 mini weather stations throughout the State used to relay information on pavement conditions and atmospheric conditions to NDOT’s computers. The information would then be used to deploy NDOT’s maintenance forces during storms and to use NDOT’s resources efficiently.
Mr. Fontaine said NDOT was developing a geographic information system that would use global positioning systems to map all Nevada roads and their features.
Mr. Fontaine stated NDOT had an initiative to inventory right-of-way data and information. This information was antiquated and not automated. The audit conducted by the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) discussed the need to inventory the information. The new system, called the Integrated Right-of-Way Information Network (IRWIN), would inventory all the right-of-way information and assist NDOT in addressing concerns raised by the audit.
Mr. Fontaine referred to tabs B and C (Exhibit C). Tab B contained a map of the major roads in Nevada and included approximately 5500 miles of centerline highways.
Mr. Fontaine stated NDOT wanted a statewide balance program that would target the resources where they were needed and was the basis of the transportation program. Mr. Fontaine explained chart 1 of tab D (Exhibit C) showed where the road miles were in the NDOT highway system with the majority of the roads located in the rural counties. Chart 2 contained a population breakdown for the State; 89 percent of Nevada’s population resided in Clark County, Washoe County, or Carson City. A 5-year average of NDOT expenditures for projects was contained in chart 3 of tab D (Exhibit C). Such expenditures included capital projects, right-of-way engineering, and actual construction. The expenditures were broken down on a county-by-county basis with a 5-year average, from FY 1996 through FY 2000 showing the majority of funding for maintenance projects had been spent in rural counties. The majority of funding had been spent for congestion relief or capacity projects.
The NDOT’s actual expenditures for FY 2002 were contained in chart 4, tab D (Exhibit C). Mr. Fontaine said 35 percent of the maintenance or preservation dollars in FY 2002 were for Clark County as opposed to a 10 percent average the previous 5 years. The reason for this increase was NDOT’s increased maintenance efforts in Clark County; such maintenance was necessary to preserve the State highway system.
Mr. Fontaine talked about tab F (Exhibit C) which contained an overview of NDOT’s budget and its three major sources of revenue: federal funds, state funds, and other funds. Other funds were derived from insurance verification fees and other fees collected by the Department of Motor Vehicles or the Department of Public Safety. Mr. Fontaine explained how those funds were dispersed, including expenditures to other State agencies. Mr. Fontaine said the expenditures for administrative support services comprised a low percentage of NDOT’s budget.
Assemblyman Gustavson asked to be provided with a breakdown of expenditures for construction, engineering, and right-of-way. Mr. Fontaine agreed to provide Assemblyman Gustavson with the requested breakdown of expenditures.
Mr. Fontaine referred to the spreadsheet contained in tab E (Exhibit C) which showed a 10-year cash flow projection. The projection figures had previously been provided to the money committees of the Legislature as part of NDOT’s budget presentation. Tab E addressed the proposed $325 million in requested bonding authority for major projects including continuation of U.S. 95 widening in northwest Las Vegas, the Henderson spaghetti bowl, the I-15 widening from Las Vegas to Primm, the first phase of the Reno-Carson freeway, and the completion of the Carson bypass.
All NDOT projects were done in consultation and cooperation with local governmental entities as required by federal law. Mr. Fontaine said such cooperation was a good idea and allowed NDOT to receive federal funding. In urban areas, the consultation was done with metropolitan planning organizations (MPO). The MPOs were described in greater detail in tab G (Exhibit C). Both Clark and Washoe Counties had MPOs, and due to its growth, Carson City would have its own MPO. The Lake Tahoe Basin had its own MPO due to special language in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) legislation.
The MPOs were responsible for coordinating with their local governmental entities to set and prioritize their projects. The MPOs were also responsible for creating transportation improvement programs (TIPS). Both NDOT and the MPOs worked very closely together on the TIPs to ensure approval by the transportation board. Federal law required the TIPs be accepted or rejected in whole.
In counties where no MPO or a regional transportation commission existed, NDOT worked closely with the counties on transportation projects. A county consultation tour would be conducted on a yearly basis by NDOT. This tour required an NDOT official to meet with every board of county supervisors or commissioners to discuss their county’s pending transportation projects and determine the State’s pending transportation projects. During the county tour, NDOT would present its proposed projects to the county. Under Nevada law, a county is authorized to reject an NDOT project or select an alignment for an NDOT project. The NDOT took its close level of cooperation with the counties seriously.
Mr. Fontaine outlined the Stewardship Program that allowed NDOT to designate certain activities on federal projects to local governmental entities. The local entities had to comply with federal requirements. The program allowed the local entities to use their resources instead of waiting for NDOT to provide resources. The projects could either be on the State system or a local system.
Mr. Fontaine told the committee members about the reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) legislation, formerly known as the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). Under the act, Nevada received $200 million in federal funding for highway projects. NDOT hoped to receive a 20 percent increase under the next reauthorization of TEA-21. Such an increase would equal $240 million and would be in effect for the next 6 years. Mr. Fontaine said Nevada should receive the increased funding due to Nevada’s growth. Mr. Fontaine said he would be working with the Governor’s office and Nevada’s congressional delegation to ensure Nevada received its share of money under the TEA-21 reauthorization. The local governmental entities and Regional Transportation Commissions would assist NDOT in presenting a unified voice to Congress.
Mr. Fontaine stated both NDOT and Assemblyman Manendo had submitted bill draft requests (BDRs) concerning the 0.08 percent blood alcohol content (BAC). He referred to tab I (Exhibit C) which outlined the sanctions that would be applied to Nevada should such legislation not be passed by the Legislature. The sanctions would be financial in nature, and Nevada would lose $2.9 million in FY 2004, $5.7 million in FY 2005, $8.6 million in FY 2006, and $11.4 million in FY 2007. Mr. Fontaine noted the money would be returned to Nevada once legislation addressing 0.08 percent BAC had been passed. However, it was NDOT’s position that it was better to pass such legislation now. Nevada would not have to worry about asking the federal government for money it was owed.
Assemblyman Gustavson said there was a line in tab I (Exhibit C) which stated, “…highway construction funds will be withheld…”. Assemblyman Gustavson wanted to know if that was how the federal language read. Mr. Fontaine said the language was a mandate of the federal government, and the states did not have much discretion as far as the BAC issue was concerned.
Assemblyman Collins asked if NDOT had spoken with the attorney general’s office on the subject of State’s rights as related to the federal language Assemblyman Gustavson had referenced. Assemblyman Collins said previous Legislatures had not passed 0.08 percent BAC legislation due to the offset of federal fund benefits versus additional incarceration costs and other judicial penalties. He wanted to know if the dollar figures had been weighed to balance the issue.
Mr. Fontaine said he was not sure NDOT had looked at the additional costs associated with 0.08 percent BAC legislation, the increase in incarceration, or the increased costs law enforcement agencies would face if such legislation passed. NDOT’s interest was the federal withholding of funds and reducing vehicular fatalities.
Assemblyman Manendo said under Title 23 of the United States Code, incentive monies of almost $1 million a year had been available to Nevada; however, the Nevada Legislature had failed to secure that money by its failure to pass 0.08 percent BAC legislation. He said he felt the lost money was more than the cost of incarcerating people convicted under such legislation.
Assemblyman Collins stated in the past, a 20 percent increase in court time, jail time, and other costs associated with 0.08 percent BAC legislation had been presented to the Legislature’s judiciary committees. He asked if a comparison had been made between the increased costs versus the federal monies received under such legislation. Chairman Shaffer said Assemblyman Collins would be provided with an answer to his question.
Mr. Fontaine addressed the LCB audit report of NDOT, tab J (Exhibit C). The audit covered project selection, programming, prioritization, and how NDOT managed its surplus right-of-way. The NDOT accepted all audit recommendations and drafted an audit compliance plan. This plan would be submitted to LCB by March 11, 2003. Mr. Fontaine said NDOT would improve its documentation and communication tasks, especially the right-of-way documentation which was part of IRWIN.
Mr. Fontaine made a PowerPoint presentation to the committee members (Exhibit D). He stated Nevada’s highways were in good condition. Nevada had been rated as having the best highways in the category of the Interstate National Highway System (NHS) in the nation; 75 percent of NHS highways were in good or better condition. Mr. Fontaine said additional information on the rating was contained in tab K (Exhibit C). The NHS comprised 40 percent of the State’s highway system and carried two-thirds of all traffic on the NDOT system including high truck volumes and weights. The NDOT had a proactive pavement management system. It was NDOT’s philosophy to fix Nevada’s roads before extensive reconstruction was required. Such reconstruction was expensive. The NDOT also paved roads in urban areas and re-paved the Las Vegas Strip and Resort Corridor in Las Vegas in October 2002. These projects required coordination and cooperation from all entities involved. The NDOT met with the affected property owners, worked at night, minimized traffic control, and picked up all equipment in the morning before the workday started. Despite such difficulties, Mr. Fontaine said those two paving projects were a great success.
The NDOT was responsible for bridge maintenance in Nevada and had a program to facilitate such maintenance. While NDOT owned only 1000 of the 1500 bridges in Nevada, it inspected all bridges in the State. Federal funds were available on a yearly basis to inspect and maintain the bridges. As Nevada was the third most active seismic state in the country, NDOT had a seismic retrofit program to reinforce and shore up bridges throughout the State.
The NDOT’s road system comprised 12 percent of the roads in Nevada, but carried 59 percent of the traffic load and 89 percent of heavy truck traffic in the State. Mr. Fontaine pointed to a map on page 2 (Exhibit D), which illustrated the great distances between the major routes in Nevada. The map also showed which East Coast states would completely fit in Nevada with room to spare.
Mr. Fontaine said the NDOT extended considerable time in snow and ice removal. While the majority of such removal was in the north, some snow and ice removal had to be conducted in the southern part of Nevada as well. Mr. Fontaine stated NDOT was proud of the numerous times the roads in Nevada stayed open during winter storms due to NDOT’s snow and ice removal efforts. He mentioned the Mt. Rose Pass in Washoe County, was the highest, year-round mountain pass open in the Sierras maintained by NDOT. Avalanche control was another of NDOT’s responsibilities. This task was performed primarily at Mt. Rose in order to keep the roads leading to the ski areas safe.
Mr. Fontaine reviewed NDOT’s recently completed projects: the Cheyenne Interchange; the Durango Interchange; the U.S. 95/Phase 1; the I-15 widening to Primm; and the I-15 Sahara widening. All projects had been completed since the 2001 Legislature adjourned. Mr. Fontaine reviewed projects currently under construction by NDOT: the Reno spaghetti bowl, the busiest interchange in northern Nevada; the next phase of the U.S. 95 widening; Valley View and Decatur Bridge widening; the Hoover Dam bypass; widening of U.S. 50 and U.S. 50A between Fallon and Fernley; U.S. 95 widening from Hoover Dam to Laughlin; I-15 South; and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Bridge replacement.
Mr. Fontaine noted trucks were not currently allowed on Hoover Dam and the bypass project would allow such traffic. The Nevada approach of the project would go out to bid in spring 2003 and the actual span project would go out to bid in the fall 2003. This project may be completed in 2007.
Mr. Fontaine stated that during the UPRR bridge replacement project, the existing bridge would be dismantled and shipped to Carson City for use by the Virginia and Truckee Railroad.
Mr. Fontaine reviewed the projects which NDOT would be letting for contract during 2003: the next phase of U.S. 95 widening, Summerlin-Rainbow interchange; reconstruction of Decatur-El Rancho at U.S. 95; lane additions to El Rancho in both directions; St. Rose Parkway; Lamb Boulevard Interchange; Henderson spaghetti bowl; Carson Freeway, First Phase; Reno-Carson Freeway, First Phase; Clear Acre Interchange reconstruction, and the Freeway Arterial System Transportation (FAST) in Southern Nevada.
Mr. Fontaine said the contract for the Henderson spaghetti bowl would be the largest contract ever let by NDOT and would complete the I-215 Beltway. Mr. Fontaine said the Reno-Carson Freeway Project required four bridges that were on the critical path for completing the freeway. He added all of the bridges for the NDOT projects outlined in his presentation would be manufactured in this country.
Mr. Fontaine explained the FAST system was comprised of dynamic message signs that would give motorists accurate and timely information needed to make informed decisions about their routes.
Assemblywoman Chowning asked if the Lamb Boulevard project would be placed near the women’s prison in southern Nevada. She was concerned about the residents and workers of both the prison and Nellis Air Force Base. Assemblywoman Chowning said she wanted either the prison or the freeway moved. She did not want to put people’s lives or health in danger by situating the freeway too close to the prison. Mr. Fontaine said he would get back to her with an answer to her question.
Assemblyman Manendo asked about NDOT’s annual budget for building sound walls. Mr. Fontaine replied the sound wall retrofitting program was funded at $2 million per year on a matching basis. The local governmental entities had to match NDOT’s contributions to the program on a dollar-for-dollar basis in order to participate in the program. The matching program was for retrofitting existing highways with sound walls. When a new highway was constructed, sound walls were included as part of the project. When NDOT made significant improvements to an existing facility or when capacity was added to a highway, sound walls would be included as part of the project’s cost.
Assemblywoman Ohrenschall asked which method NDOT used to determine which projects would be retrofitted with sound walls. She specifically wanted to know if a local governmental agency had to contact NDOT in order to participate in the retrofitting program or did NDOT maintain a schedule of facilities requiring retrofitting.
Mr. Fontaine stated NDOT received requests for sound walls from both local governmental entities and residents. Mr. Fontaine said NDOT kept a list of proposed sound wall projects; however, the list might not be up-to-date or official. Mr. Fontaine told the committee members NDOT had a good idea concerning the residential areas which needed sound walls.
Mr. Fontaine outlined the procedure by which a request for a sound wall was reviewed. When NDOT received a sound wall request, it was reviewed and NDOT contacted the local governmental entity representing the residents who made the request. The contact was made to determine if the local governmental entity had funds available to match NDOT’s funds. Unless matching funds were available from the local governmental entity, NDOT would not be able to construct a sound wall.
Assemblywoman Ohrenschall asked if NDOT provided guidance on obtaining matching funds to groups or individuals requesting sound wall retrofitting. Mr. Fontaine said NDOT directed such groups or individuals to their local governmental entity and then contacted the appropriate entity on behalf of the requesting parties. When contact was made with the local governmental entity, NDOT asked if that entity wished to participate in the sound wall retrofitting program. If the entity answered no, then the project could not begin.
Assemblywoman Ohrenschall asked NDOT to provide the committee members with a list of the older highway projects that should be looked at for sound wall retrofitting. Mr. Fontaine agreed to do so.
Mr. Fontaine spoke about NDOT’s enhanced projects. He mentioned State Route 28, Incline Village’s bicycle lane, streetlights, sidewalks, and drainage improvements were all enhancement projects. Enhancement projects were funded by the federal government at a rate of $4 million per year. Mr. Fontaine referred to page 12 (Exhibit D) which contained a partial list of completed and pending projects funded by this program. The proposed projects would be recommended by a committee comprised of State and local governmental entities. Such projects would not be limited to roadways, and would include sidewalks, bike paths, and landscaping.
Mr. Fontaine told the committee members about NDOT’s Freeway Service Patrol, a program designed to aid stranded motorists in Clark County. The program had been so successful, it was expanded to Washoe County. The Freeway Service Patrol was funded out of NDOT’s program and had proven to be extremely helpful and popular. In Clark County, 18,000 motorists had been helped by service patrol personnel during 2002. The first 2 months the Washoe County Freeway Service Patrol program had been in operation, 780 motorists had been assisted by service patrol personnel. All service patrol personnel were qualified mechanics or emergency medical technicians.
Mr. Fontaine told the committee members that Clark County School District (CCSD) had built a new elementary school next to an existing freeway. Before the school opened, NDOT received complaints about the noise. The NDOT met with CCSD officials. At the meeting, the CCSD officials were told in order for NDOT to build a sound wall next to the school, the CCSD would have to provide matching funds. The school district agreed to provide matching funds and the sound wall was built. Mr. Fontaine reviewed the types of sound walls constructed by NDOT on page 13 (Exhibit D). He added the construction cost of a sound wall was approximately $2 million per mile.
Mr. Fontaine told the committee member NDOT’s planning division was responsible for other means of transportation such as bike lanes, pedestrian access, rail, and general aviation plans.
Assemblyman Goicoechea said he had two questions. First, his constituents in Lander County were concerned that NDOT’s chip overlay project would impact the Human Powered Bicycle Race in Lander County. The Lander County officials wanted to know if the road could be overlaid instead of chip sealed. Second, Assemblyman Goicoechea asked why NDOT had routed the Canada‑Mexico Truck Route (CAN-MEX) through Utah instead of Nevada. Mr. Fontaine said NDOT would review the situation in Lander County. He noted the bike race was for recumbent bicycles, and speed records were being broken by the recumbent bicyclists. Mr. Fontaine said records were being broken, in part, due to the smoothness of the road system in Nevada. Mr. Fontaine promised to review the situation for Assemblyman Goicoechea.
The CAN-MEX route was designated by Congress as part of the National Highway System Act of 1998. Nevada did not have any involvement in the designation process.
Assemblyman Goicoechea asked if the CAN-MEX agreement would be valid until June 2003. Mr. Fontaine told him the agreement was a memorandum of understanding between the five CAN-MEX corridor states: Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, Utah, and Montana. The agreement discussed how those states could plan to develop the corridor. Development would include promoting tourism and commercial freight movement.
Mr. Fontaine outlined the programs administered by NDOT’s multi-modal program. He noted when a new project was in the development stage, the needs of bicyclists would be taken into consideration. In the smaller communities in Nevada, NDOT assisted the local transportation departments with transportation plans.
Mr. Fontaine said NDOT took its responsibility as a good environmental steward very seriously and felt NDOT had a good environmental ethic. He mentioned NDOT’s work in the Lake Tahoe Basin as being nationally recognized.
Mr. Fontaine concluded his presentation by stating NDOT had been busy and he hoped the committee members agreed with that statement. He noted that NDOT had accomplished quite a bit in the past couple of years and faced huge challenges in the future. Mr. Fontaine assured the committee members NDOT was ready to face those challenges through NDOT’s work program that would help improve mobility, address safety concerns, help maintain NDOT’s system, and provide congestion relief. The employees of NDOT were aware of the importance of transportation to the citizens and economy of Nevada. Mr. Fontaine thanked the committee members for the support shown to NDOT by both the Senate and Assembly Committees on Transportation.
On behalf of the committee members, Assemblywoman Chowning thanked Mr. Fontaine and NDOT. She noted all residents of Nevada were impacted by NDOT’s work. Assemblywoman Chowning said she applauded NDOT’s efforts to work with local governmental entities and provide jobs for Nevadans.
Assemblywoman Chowning asked Mr. Fontaine about rest facilities in Nevada and the criteria for determining where a rest facility would be located. Mr. Fontaine said NDOT recognized the need for rest areas due to the vastness of Nevada’s landscape. To assist with planning rest areas, NDOT created an ad hoc rest area committee with a coordinator who had authority and responsibility for the program. A rest area map was developed by NDOT which showed there were no full or complete rest areas between Fallon and Elko. Based on the information contained in the rest area map, NDOT would review the entire rest area program. He noted rest areas were expensive to develop due to water and sewer facilities not always being available in rural areas. Mr. Fontaine said a rest area was expensive to maintain and subject to vandalism. Despite the cost of construction and maintenance, NDOT believed rest areas were important and would continue to build them.
Senator Carlton said during the 2001 Legislative Session, legislation had been passed which dealt with transportation dollars being used outside the State. She asked how many of the transportation dollars were being spent outside of Nevada and what had been done with those dollars. Senator Carlton asked if NDOT operated the Las Vegas traffic signals.
Mr. Fontaine said the bill Senator Carlton referred to did not pertain to State highway funds, but rather local highway funds. He said he did not know how much local governmental entities had spent outside Nevada, but was aware that Clark County was planning on spending money on the Needles Highway project in California.
Regarding the signals, NDOT and local governmental entities in Las Vegas and Clark County participated in operating the traffic signals in southern Nevada. The chief operator of the system was the City of Las Vegas.
Senator Carlton said she witnessed a terrible accident over the weekend and requested information on how traffic could be slowed down. Despite taking the appropriate precautions, accidents continued to occur at the intersection near Senator Carlton’s residence, and she wanted to know what further steps could be taken to prevent accidents at the intersection.
Mr. Fontaine said he would be glad to meet with Senator Carlton and requested she provide him with the names of the streets to which she was referring. He said NDOT would provide Senator Carlton with specifics as to how NDOT would address the subject if the streets were part of the NDOT system.
Assemblyman Collins asked about the exchange of streets between local governmental entities and NDOT. He also asked about multiple jurisdictions. Before receiving his answer, Assemblyman Collins complimented Mr. Fontaine on the State highway system. He asked if the City of Las Vegas was taking credit for NDOT projects or had NDOT worked in partnership with the city. Assemblyman Collins also wanted to know how many miles NDOT had given up to local governmental entities and how many miles NDOT had received from those entities.
Mr. Fontaine said NDOT had an active program as well as direction from the Transportation Board to relinquish and/or exchange roads with local governmental entities. The board had voted to relinquish Main Street in Las Vegas and the Las Vegas Strip in Clark County. Both the City of Las Vegas and Clark County agreed to the relinquishment. He offered to provide a list of relinquished streets to Assemblyman Collins. Mr. Fontaine stated NDOT in Reno had a very comprehensive plan worked out by the district engineer and the City of Reno. The plan called for certain city streets to be exchanged for McCarran Boulevard. Mr. Fontaine explained how the exchange program operated, adding NDOT believed the McCarran Boulevard properly belonged within State jurisdiction.
Assemblyman Manendo asked for and received clarification from Mr. Fontaine on how funds for the sound wall retrofitting program were used. Mr. Fontaine replied NDOT put together the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) that listed all of NDOT’s projects. The Federal Highway Administration had to approve STIP and the program was fiscally constrained. A category for sound walls was included in the yearly STIP plan with $2 million assigned to the program. The money would be allocated by NDOT as projects were presented for consideration. The $2 million limit had never been reached by NDOT.
Assemblyman Manendo asked why the limit had not been reached when there appeared to be so many projects requiring sound wall retrofitting. Mr. Fontaine explained the matching basis appeared to be the reason why the limit was never reached. Assemblyman Manendo asked if a match was required. Mr. Fontaine stated the program had been set up to require matching funds from local governmental entities. Assemblyman Manendo suggested the matching funds portion of the program be reviewed for more people to benefit from sound wall retrofitting. Assemblyman Manendo said he was disappointed to learn that the $2 million earmarked for sound wall retrofitting was never fully expended.
Susan Martinovich, Assistant Director, Engineering Division, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), said her presentation highlighted NDOT’s Landscape and Aesthetics Master Plan (LAMP). She directed the committee members’ attention to Exhibit E (Original is on file in the Research Library.). She thanked those responsible for its publication: Mark Hoversten and his staff at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV); Fred Welden, Chief Deputy Research Director, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau; the Landscape Advisory Committee Chairman, former Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa, the vice chairmen of the Landscape Advisory Committee, Secretary of State Dean Heller, and Las Vegas City Councilman Michael Mack.
Ms. Martinovich said she wanted LAMP to be a document used by planners and understood by people. In May 2000, the Transportation Board agreed to participate in the development of LAMP. Until that time, NDOT had not been consistent in its landscaping requirements for projects. While a landscape plan was needed, NDOT did not want such a plan to be NDOT dictated. A citizens’ advisory committee was formed to provide oversight; the complete membership was listed on page vii (Exhibit F). The University of Nevada, Las Vegas had been retained by NDOT to prepare the LAMP and gather input. A number of meetings and workshops were conducted to receive input from interested parties.
The LAMP’s ultimate vision is that the community be considered in highway projects and to have Nevada’s beauty reflected in the highway landscaping. The State Transportation Board adopted LAMP in June 2002. When LAMP was adopted, NDOT formalized a policy that landscaping and aesthetics would be considered along with all other design factors for State transportation projects. Additionally, local communities would be involved in the planning, design, and maintenance of the landscaping. The landscape features would be regionally appropriate. All concerned parties would share in the funding and maintenance.
Ms. Martinovich reviewed the LAMP and noted it was a plan-to-plan which set forth LAMP’s guidelines. The next step of LAMP required the development of individual corridor plans, the creation of designs based on the corridor plans, the construction of projects, and finally, the maintenance of the completed facilities. A corridor plan entailed a length of highway with a plan to establish a community requested theme for that particular corridor.
Ms. Martinovich assured Assemblywoman Chowning the corridor plans included rest areas. The LAMP identified 11 corridors in Nevada with different types of highways and highway features. The LAMP presented guidelines and examples of the features and provided opportunities for design examples as well as levels of treatment. The LAMP contained extra landscaping features a community could pursue to enhance a highway.
Ms. Martinovich told the committee members landscaping was not confined to plants and trees, but also extended to structures along or part of a highway.
Ms. Martinovich addressed the costs associated with LAMP; the primary cost would be program management and staff time. Additionally, there would be consultant costs for developing the corridor plans and design pursuit, initial construction or retrofitting costs, and long-term maintenance costs.
Ms. Martinovich said some of the proposed treatments were beyond NDOT recommendations. The costs of those proposed treatments would be the landscaping and aesthetics costs. Under LAMP, 3 percent of the total construction costs for new capacity construction could be applied toward landscaping and aesthetics. To assist with paying for the landscaping and aesthetics, a 50-50 community-matching program would be developed. The program would be similar in nature to the sound wall retrofitting program. The local jurisdictions would provide the applications for participating in the 50‑50 community-matching program.
Ms. Martinovich said NDOT wanted the local jurisdictions to participate in LAMP, both the development and maintenance of the corridors. It had been proposed that NDOT hire a maintenance contractor to provide the needed upkeep. This contractor would bill the local jurisdictions for services rendered.
The funding provisions of the LAMP would be evaluated in 5 years to determine the most efficient aspects of the program. At that time, a new plan would be considered and possibly adopted by the Transportation Board.
Ms. Martinovich said the University of Nevada, Las Vegas had been hired by NDOT to administer the consultant contract for the corridor plans. It was NDOT’s intention to have a contractor on board by summer 2003 in order to start the public processes. The appropriate local jurisdiction would be presented with a copy of the corridor plan that applied to their jurisdiction and asked to approve the plan. A process and procedure for the Matching Funds Program was being developed. Also being developed was the master boilerplate maintenance agreement. It was NDOT’s goal to have all parties participating in the landscaping and aesthetics programs to know their duties and those duties would be consistent.
Assemblywoman Chowning complimented Ms. Martinovich on the inception of LAMP. She mentioned the landscaping features of the freeways around Phoenix, Arizona, were works of art. Assemblywoman Chowning said such landscaping made a statement about the city and the state. Assemblywoman Chowning said landscaping was very important in providing peaceful surroundings to people and that the committee members had to get a handle on the sound wall retrofitting situation. Assemblywoman Chowning asked if NDOT was working with the State Arts Council to take advantage of money that agency might have. Ms. Martinovich said the art dollars might be available to local jurisdictions or groups to be applied toward landscaping and aesthetics.
Chairman Shaffer turned the meeting over to Assembly Chairwoman Chowning who introduced Bill Draft Request (BDR) 43-117 which revised provisions relating to the use of safety belts in motor vehicles. This measure was voted on by only the Assembly Committee on Transportation. The Senate Committee on Transportation did not participate in the vote on BDR 43-117.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 43-117: Revises provisions relating to the use of safety belts in motor vehicles. (Later introduced as Assembly Bill 161.)
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 43‑117.
ASSEMBLYMAN SHERER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
There being no further business, Chairman Shaffer adjourned the meeting at 3:10 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Lee-Ann Keever,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer, Chairman
DATE:
Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairman
DATE: