MINUTES OF THE

      ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      April 28, 1993

 

The Assembly Committee on Transportation was called to order by Chairman Larry L. Spitler, at 1:38 p.m., on Wednesday, April 28, 1993, in Room 331 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Mr. Larry L. Spitler, Chairman

      Mr. Val Z. Garner, Vice Chairman

      Mr. Bernie Anderson

      Mrs. Vonne Chowning

      Mr. Tom Collins, Jr

      Mr. Louis A. Toomin

      Mr. William D. Gregory

      Mr. Lynn Hettrick

      Mr. James W. McGaughey

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

      None

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

      Assemblyman Richard Perkins, District 23

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Kerry Carroll-Davis, Senior Research Analyst, Legislative              Counsel Bureau

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 497:   Limits, in certain counties, period for which                          vehicle may be used as taxicab.    

 

Assemblyman Richard Perkins, District 23, from prepared testimony (Exhibit C), spoke in support of the bill. 

 

Mr. Perkins, answering a question from Mr. Toomin, stated a fiscal note was requested but had not been received.  Mr. Perkins stated the concern of the constituent requesting the bill was  vehicles were being used for too long with thousands of miles put on the vehicles which made them unsafe and unreliable. 

 

Mr. Larry Bell, Whittlesea Bell and Whittlesea Blue Cab, Henderson, Nevada, testified in opposition to the bill.  Mr. Bell explained why the language "four model years or 52 months..." was adopted in the 1991 session.  He stated most taxicab companies replaced vehicles on a four year cycle.  A problem with the old language stating "48 months," required vehicles to be taken out of service on December 31, of the year in which the 48 months expired.  This caused a problem as December 31 was the busiest night of the year.  Mr. Bell stated another problem encountered using "48 months" was sometimes vehicles were ordered late in the year but not received until February or March of the next year.  He cited possible reasons why vehicle delivery would be delayed.  Mr. Bell stated the Taxicab Authority issued extra medallions for extra vehicles to operate during January/February as those months were peak seasons for conventions and meetings. He stated by taking vehicles out of production at the end of their model year did not leave enough spare vehicles available for the heavy demand.  Mr. Bell distributed copies of criteria set by state law that taxicabs were required to meet before going into operation (Exhibit D).   Mr. Bell addressed repairs and periodic inspections.  He reiterated the Taxicab Authority would not allow unsafe vehicles to be used. 

 

Chairman Spitler asked how the model year time frame evolved.  Mr. Bell recollected the time frame was implemented to correct a problem with used cars being acquired and placed in taxicab service.  He said the original language which stated "20,000 miles allowed" was implemented for companies to purchase "program cars." 

 

Mr. Toomin observed the motor carrier statutes had pretty stringent requirements regarding inspections and mechanical problems and asked the average length of time that cabs were inspected.  Mr. Bell responded cabs could be inspected at anytime; however, he was aware a program existed where quarterly inspections would be attempted to be made of the entire fleet.

 

Pat Coward pointed out using a vehicle for a longer period was often not cost efficient.  He stated the longer a vehicle was used, more wear occurred and increased repair was needed.  It was more costly to purchase vehicles to replace the vehicles which needed repair.  Mr. Coward reiterated the change addressed in the previous session was to accommodate special medallions issued by the Taxicab Authority for special time frames to take care of increased busy periods.

 

Patrick Fagen, Yellow Checker Star Cab Companies, testified in opposition to the bill.  Agreeing with previous testimony given by Mr. Bell, he wanted to further emphasize when A.B. 406 of the 66th Legislature was addressed, language in that bill, which is currently law, was carefully and diligently crafted.  He stated this provided more flexibility to use back-up vehicles.  Mr. Fagen also felt proponents for A.B. 497 needed to justify what had happened since last session to justify the changes being requested.  Reiterating a point made in prior testimony, Mr. Fagen stated current law protected the public in terms of maintenance, safety, and appearance of vehicles. 

Answering a question from Chairman Spitler, Mr. Fagen stated, other than normal types of complaints cab companies received, there was not an increase in complaints due to current law. 

 

Chairman Spitler asked if cab companies who did not belong to the Taxicab Authority also had the yearly requirement.  Mr. Fagen stated they did not as the Public Service Commission had not adopted regulations nor were there statutory provisions requiring similar yearly turnaround.

 

With no further testimony on A.B. 497, Chairman Spitler closed the hearing.

 

      WORK SESSION

 

Chairman Spitler stated a request for a committee introduction had been received through Mr. Collins from the wholesale dealers asking for an amendment that would issue licenses to wholesale dealers that would meet the same requirements as a retail dealer for bonding and insurance purposes.  Chairman Spitler cautioned this committee introduction was received very late in the session and he was not hopeful they would receive a whole lot; however, as a courtesy, committee introductions would be accepted for approximately two more weeks.  

 

      MR. ANDERSON MOVED FOR A COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION FOR A BILL DRAFT REQUEST RELATING TO WHOLESALE DEALERS LICENSES.

 

      MR. HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Chairman Spitler stated BDR 32-848 had been received revising authority of the Regional Transportation Commission to adopt regulations for the operation of systems or services financed by the commission, etc.

 

      MR. ANDERSON MOVED A COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 32-848.

 

      MR. GARNER SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 379:   Revises provisions regarding windshields and                           front windows in motor vehicles.

 

Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, District 28, reiterated A.B. 379 was a citizen safety bill.  She stated her intent was not to ban auto window film but to allow medium tint on front side windows and to establish good public policy by allowing a fair law regarding window tinting.  Mrs. Chowning then addressed provisions of her proposed amendment (Exhibit E).  Mrs. Chowning stated the first provision of the amendment restricted the bill for automobiles required to be registered in the state.  Distributing a fact sheet of other state's window tinting requirements (Exhibit F), Mrs. Chowning felt tourists would not be affected as only two states had less restrictive window tint requirements, 24 states had the 35 % car window tint requirement (as proposed by A.B. 379), and 20 states had even stricter requirements.  Mrs. Chowning explained additional provisions of the proposed amendment.  Also distributed were letters from the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police (Exhibit G), the Nevada Sheriffs' and Chiefs' Association (Exhibit H), and the City of Reno's Police Department (Exhibit I), which concluded possible fiscal impact to law enforcement agencies by adopting the bill was negligible. 

 

Chairman Spitler understood a member of the audience wished to address the committee and explained under normal circumstances, public testimony was not accepted in work sessions, however, to extend courtesy, he would allow the person in attendance to comment.

 

Ray Spectrum, representing himself, asked the purpose of the bill and what it was trying to accomplish.  Mrs. Chowning stated the purpose of the bill was to have a uniform law regarding window tinting on automobiles.  She stated the approach she took was allowing a medium tint of 35 percent.   Embarking on the previous weekend, Mrs. Chowning relayed an incident in which she and her husband were almost involved in an auto accident because eye contact could not be made with another vehicle with dark tinted windows at a four way stop.  Pedestrians also need to make eye contact with drivers at intersections.  Mrs. Chowning stated many senior citizens requested the bill because of fear they felt when they were unable to see drivers of cars. 

 

Mr. Spectrum  felt the tinted windows provided safety measurements for single women driving alone or with their children.  He stated the windows provided security from people involved with carjackings.  Those people were not able to see inside the vehicle that women were alone.  Mrs. Chowning thanked Mr. Spectrum for the comments and repeated the bill only addressed front side windows. 

 

      MR. COLLINS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 379.

 

      MR. TOOMIN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      MOTION CARRIED BY MAJORITY VOTE.  (MR. GARNER AND MR. SPITLER          VOTED NO. MR. GREGORY WAS NOT PRESENT AT THE TIME OF VOTE)

 

 

Chairman Spitler entered into the record a call received from Tom Miller voicing support for A.B. 379 (Exhibit J).

 

With no further business, meeting adjourned at 2:30 p.m.   

 

 

            RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

           

                                   

            Carolyn J. Harry

            Committee Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assembly Committee on Transportation

April 28, 1993

Page 1