MARICOPA COUNTY LEGISLATIVE DEVELOPMENT REQUEST FORM-2004

To request that an issue be considered for inclusion in the 2004 Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Legislative Package, please complete this form (with attachments if necessary) and return it to Government Relations (301 W. Jefferson, 10th Floor) by September 5, 2003.

Elected Official/County Department/Office

Short Reference Title for Legislation Requested:

Legislation Requested By:

Name: Jon White Title: Intergovernmental Policy Manager

Address: MCDOT 2901 West Durango St. Phoenix AZ 85009

Telephone: 602-506-0012 Date: 9/4/03

Fax # 602-506-4882

Names and telephone numbers of other individuals knowledgeable on this subject:

Subject Area:

Reasonable or prudent speeds on unpaved roads

Affected County Office(s)/Department(s):

MCDOT, MCSO

Background: (Briefly describe need for legislation)

(Adapted, in part, from the House Staff Summary of 2003 HB2295.) Speed limits are not posted on many unpaved roads in rural Maricopa County or throughout the rest of rural Arizona. Conditions on unpaved roads are unpredictable and can change significantly depending on soil types along a given route, traffic volume, and time since last grading. In many cases an appropriate, consistent speed limit cannot be established. Aside from these practical difficulties, costs for posting Page Two -- 2004 Legislative Development Request Form and maintaining speed limit signs on the 11,000 miles of unpaved roads in Arizona would be unacceptable for the counties. The common practice throughout Arizona (and all the Western States) is to leave speed limits un-posted on unpaved roads. Consequently the effective speed limit defaults to the reasonable and prudent speed established in statute. Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) § 28-701(A) prohibits a person from driving a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent under the circumstances, conditions and actual and potential hazards then existing… However, ARS § 28-701(B) establishes a prima facie evidentiary standard that speeds in excess of established limits under certain conditions are too great and therefore unreasonable. These conditions are: 1. Fifteen miles per hour approaching a school crossing 2. Twenty-five miles per hour in a business or residential district. 3. Sixty-five miles per hour in other locations. According to the Arizona Association of County Engineers (AACE), conditions on unpaved roads are unpredictable and can change significantly depending on soil types along a given route, traffic volume, and time since last blading. Consequently, AACE states that the current statutory limit of sixty-five miles per hour on an unpaved road is not reasonable or prudent under any condition. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) recently published Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very Low-Volume Local Roads that states: “Unpaved roads are intended to operate at low to moderate speeds. Design speeds for unpaved roads should normally be 70km/h (45 mph) or less, but may be as high as 80 km/h (50 mph) in situations the designer considers appropriate.” For Arizona’s counties the 65 mph default speed limit poses serious liability concerns. Motorists traveling at 65 mph on unpaved roads are at much greater risk of having accidents that may be attributed in part to condition of the road (i.e., condition that is highly variable over time and distance). With the prima facie standard for reasonable and prudent speed set at 65 mph in statute without consideration of the variable condition of unpaved roads, injured parties often find an opportunity to recover damages from the county based on the allegedly unsafe condition of the road. Costs to a county for a single incident may run to the hundreds of thousands of dollars. In effect, these litigants are transferring the costs associated with their unsafe driving practices onto the public through the county.

Page Three -- 2004 Legislative Development Request Form

Recommended Solution: (Briefly describe what the suggested legislative change would be designed to accomplish.)

Establish a new standard, i.e. that operating a vehicle in excess of 45 miles per hour on an unpaved road in an unincorporated area is prima facie evidence that the speed is too great and therefore unreasonable. Include a provision that the 45 mph speed limit cannot be used to cite drivers except where there is another violation. (This would be similar to the existing statutory situation for seat belt use.) Establishing the speed limit with an enforcement provision limited to use only as a secondary citation should alleviate concerns (of the legislators in particular) that long- standing practice of driving at high speeds on certain unpaved roads will be curtailed unreasonably.

Other Potential Solutions: (Briefly describe other potential solutions to address the need and whether such solutions have been attempted; for example, administrative solutions.)

Posting speed limits on the 800 miles of unpaved road in Maricopa County’s system, or the 10,000+ miles in the rest of rural Arizona, would be prohibitively expensive and ineffective. Conditions of unpaved roads vary over time. Consistent, appropriate speed limits are very difficult to establish.

Note that 28-701D provides for reduced speeds under certain conditions (hills, curves, etc.) This would seem to address the liability issue but, in practice, has not.

Organizational Impact: (Describe anticipated impacts of proposed legislative solution, such as programmatic, administrative, etc.)

The impact of this legislation would be to limit the County’s exposure to liability without imposing any additional costs on the County.

Impact of Not Securing Legislative Change: (Describe the consequences if the proposed legislation is not pursued or passed this year.)

Without the change, Maricopa County and other counties will continue to be exposed to an unreasonable risk of liability from road conditions. A single incident may cost a county hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Page Four -- 2004 Legislative Development Request Form

County Fiscal Impact: (Briefly identify positive or negative fiscal impact of proposal on Maricopa County.)

See above.

Other Fiscal Impact: (Briefly describe positive or negative fiscal impact of proposal on state, cities or other governments, or on the private sector.)

See above. Potential Support or Opposition: (Identify any groups or other County departments who may support or oppose the proposed legislation and describe the reasons for, and level of, their support or opposition.)

Arizona Association of County Engineers Possible support from the County Supervisors Association and County Sheriffs

HB2295 (Pierce) came close to passing the House in 2003. It failed in 3rd Read when rural representatives became alarmed during floor debate that they would be prevented from driving normal speeds on otherwise safe unpaved roads. This discussion was led by Rep Farnsworth who observed that the bill was simply an attempt by the counties to limit their liability. This was precisely the point, but it was somehow interpreted as an improper move by the counties.

Affected Statutes and Suggested Language: (Photocopy the existing section of statutory language, if any, and attach to this form together with suggested, marked-out or marked-up language.)

See attached

Note: If additional space or more information is necessary, please attach separate sheet(s) to this form.

Questions? Call Government Relations at 506-2798 (Melody Henderson) or 506-7075 (Diane Sikokis) for assistance. s:\caoffice\govaff\leg2004\LEGDEVFORM04.doc 28-701. Reasonable and prudent speed; prima facie evidence; exceptions A. A person shall not drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances, conditions and actual and potential hazards then existing. A person shall control the speed of a vehicle as necessary to avoid colliding with any object, person, vehicle or other conveyance on, entering or adjacent to the highway in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to exercise reasonable care for the protection of others. B. Except as provided in subsections C and D of this section or except if a special hazard requires a lesser speed, any speed in excess of the following speeds is prima facie evidence that the speed is too great and therefore unreasonable: 1. Fifteen miles per hour approaching a school crossing. 2. Twenty-five miles per hour in a business or residential district. 3. Forty - five miles per hour on unpaved roads in unincorporated areas. 3. 4. Sixty-five miles per hour in other locations. C. A peace officer shall not stop or issue a citation to a person operating a motor vehicle on a roadway in this state for a violation of this section unless the peace officer has reasonable cause to believe there is another alleged violation of a motor vehicle law of this state. C. D. The speed limits prescribed in this section may be altered as authorized in sections 28-702 and 28-703. D. E. The maximum speed provided in this section is reduced to the speed that is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and with regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing, including the following conditions: 1. Approaching and crossing an intersection or railroad crossing. 2. Approaching and going around a curve. 3. Approaching a hillcrest. 4. Traveling on a narrow or winding roadway. 5. A special hazard exists with respect to pedestrians or other traffic or by reason of weather or highway conditions. E. F. A person shall not drive a motor vehicle at a speed that is less than the speed that is reasonable and prudent under existing conditions."