The Senate Committee on Finance was called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio, at 9:00 a.m. on Thursday, May 13, 1999, in Room 2134 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, 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.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman

Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Vice Chairman

Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen

Senator William R. O’Donnell

Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.

Senator Bob Coffin

Senator Bernice Mathews

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Jean Laird, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Rick R. Loop, Lobbyist, Eighth Judicial District Court, Las Vegas, referenced the handout "Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Division, Access, It’s in Everyone’s Best Interest, 70^th Session-Nevada Legislature." (Exhibit C.) Mr. Loop explained the document compares judicial workloads in family divisions among judicial districts. He pointed out that judges in the Eighth Judicial District (Las Vegas) have twice the filings and twice the caseloads as judges in the next most busy district in the state, the Second Judicial District (Reno). He directed attention to page 7 of the handout and indicated that in 1998 the second district had 8,059 total filings in the family division, or 1,151 filings per judicial officer. He also indicated the eighth district had 37,290 total filings in the family division, or 2,486 filings per judicial officer.

Senator Raggio asked whether this was just for family court and Mr. Loop responded that it was the family division only. Senator Raggio asked how many family court judges are currently in the eighth district. Mr. Loop responded there are 8. Senator Raggio asked whether there are any others assigned to the family division. Mr. Loop responded there are 7 masters. Some are juvenile masters, some are URESA (Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Child Support Act) masters, and some are guardianship masters.

Mr. Loop explained the workload statistics he had just discussed were for judicial officers and that he had not yet discussed the workload statistics for judges. He said judges in the eighth district had 4,661 case filings per judge, or twice the amount for judges in the second district which had 2,686 filings per judge.

Mr. Loop directed attention to page 10 of the handout, which presents the number of judicial officers and judges per capita throughout the state. He said the second district has 44,479 people per judicial officer and the eighth district has 83,680 people per judicial officer.

Senator Raggio asked whether the appointed masters are full-time. Mr. Loop replied they are. Senator Raggio asked whether a master’s salary is comparable to the salary for a district court judge. Mr. Loop replied the masters are classified as Attorney IVs (team chiefs) and their salaries are higher than district judge salaries. Senator Raggio asked what the salary is for a team chief. Mr. Loop said it is $120,000 at the top of the salary range. He said the top salary for a judge with longevity would be very near that amount.

Mr. Loop directed attention to page 14 of the handout. He noted the total number of family filings for the eighth district was 37,290 in 1998, which he said also represents the heavy workload.

Senator Raggio noted the bill proposes 3 additional district court judges. Mr. Loop stated that originally the request was for 5 additional judges, but it was reduced to 3 because the facility would not be able to handle 5 additional judges. Senator Raggio asked whether the eighth district has the facilities for 3 new family court judges. Mr. Loop responded the new judges would run for office in November 2000 and would actually take office in January 2001. At that time, he said, the district will be able to accommodate 3 additional judges.

Senator Raggio requested confirmation the new judges would take office the first week of January 2001 and would be elected, not appointed. Mr. Loop responded that was correct. Mr. Loop added the fiscal note for the state would be less than $200,000 because the request had been reduced to 3 judges.

James J. Spinello, Lobbyist, Clark County, called attention to a proposed amendment to S.B. 401 (Exhibit D), which would allow counties with populations over 100,000 to increase the property tax override for family court. He said the reason is illustrated on page 17 of the handout (Exhibit C), which shows the existing budget for the family courts. The total budget is $11,602,557 and the current 1.92 percent property tax override generates about $6,326,976. He said the chart on page 16 of the handout (Exhibit C) includes the additional cost of the 3 proposed new judges and reveals a shortfall of $7,773,801.

Mr. Spinello informed the committee modifications will be made to the existing facility to accommodate the additional judges at first, but the long-term objective is to bring the family court into the new regional justice center when it is completed. He noted that will require substantial expenditure. He explained Clark County has planned for the new expenditures and, "as always," the budget is based on recovering just over half the actual operating costs and debt service for the family court with revenues from the property tax override. He noted the increase to 3 cents is not intended to cover all costs. He said the court is currently substantially supported by other general revenues and that funding scheme would continue in the future.

Mr. Spinello pointed out the proposed amendment (Exhibit D) would also impact Washoe County.

Senator Raggio asked whether the committee should be looking at the column titled "Addition of 3 Judges" on page 16. Mr. Spinello said that is correct. Senator Raggio observed the additional cost of 3 additional judges is $2.2 million. Mr. Spinello responded that is correct and referred the committee to Schedule C on page 19 of the handout (Exhibit C). Senator Raggio asked whether Schedule C represents all the supporting positions needed for 3 additional judges. Mr. Spinello replied that it does. Senator Raggio asked whether that would be county expense. Mr. Spinello replied it would be. Senator Raggio noted there is an additional cost depicted for the juvenile division. Mr. Spinello replied that is the additional cost if one of the 3 new judges is a juvenile judge (which is anticipated) because there are additional district attorney services required for juvenile court.

Senator Raggio requested explanation of the calculation line titled "Less 1.92% Property Tax Override." Mr. Spinello replied that is the amount the current rate generates and the calculation shows what the shortfall would be if the property tax override is not increased from 1.92 percent to 3 percent. He explained that is the reason for requesting the amendment to the property tax override. Senator Raggio requested confirmation that the requested amendment would increase the property tax override from 1.92 percent to 3 percent. Mr. Spinello said that is correct. Senator Raggio asked how much additional revenue that would generate. Mr. Spinello responded that would produce approximately an additional $3 million, for a total property tax override amount of about $9 million.

Senator Raggio asked why it is necessary to support the family court with property tax overrides. Mr. Spinello replied the family court is also supported by the county general fund and pointed out the override had been approved by the Legislature. Senator Raggio clarified his question by asking why it is necessary to continue to increase the property tax override to support the family court and suggested there may be other ways to fund this so Clark County does not need to impose this tax increase on its residents. Mr. Spinello responded the additional property tax override cannot be imposed if it results in a net tax revenue increase. He explained the Clark County taxpayer bill of rights requires a vote of the people for any net tax increase. Therefore, the additional property tax override can only be imposed to replace declining tax revenue sources. Senator Raggio asked whether the Legislature is being asked to override Clark County’s taxpayer bill of rights with this amendment. Mr. Spinello said "No." He reiterated the Board of Commissioners cannot impose an ad valorem that would result in a net increase without a vote of the people.

Senator Raggio asked whether this proposed amendment would apply to Washoe County. Mr. Spinello replied that it would. Senator Raggio asked whether Washoe County requested it. Mr. Spinello replied Clark County staff have had some conversations with Washoe County staff, who expressed some interest in such an amendment.

Senator Mathews expressed concern that the proposed amendment would affect Washoe County and said she had not been made aware of it. Second, she expressed concern the amendment does not specifically state the increase must go to a vote of the people. Mr. Spinello explained the taxpayer bill of rights requirement is strictly a Clark County requirement. Senator Mathews said this amendment does not indicate that at all. She said this bill would allow the county commissioners to increase taxes. Mr. Spinello replied that would be true in a county that does not have a specific prohibition in the taxpayer bill of rights.

Senator Rawson directed attention to the growth in cases depicted on pages 11 and 12 of the handout (Exhibit C) and asked whether there is any opportunity to generate fees, particularly for the guardianship cases. Cynthia Diane Steel, Judge, Family Division, Eighth Judicial District Court, Las Vegas, responded the guardianships do not generate much revenue. She said most of the guardianships that come through are "no-asset" guardianships, in which persons are seeking guardianships of a child, so there is very little opportunity to generate revenue.

Judge Steel informed the committee the eighth district family division is currently sharing courtrooms. She explained she does not have a courtroom on Monday afternoons because she had to relinquish it to the discovery commissioner. She noted some judges have full days in which they cannot be in their courtrooms. She said that to accommodate the 3 new judges, the district is reconstructing 3 small courtrooms in another area of the court for the juvenile program. She added that even then judges will still need to share facilities, but it is "doable."

Judge Steel pointed out the 3 additional judges, if approved, would probably only maintain the status quo because of the population growth in Clark County. She explained it is not uncommon for her to have 18 motions on 18 different families, who may need 4 or 5 different decisions. She also indicated she may have only 10 or 15 minutes per family to make a decision on who will get the kids, who will stay in the house, who will pay the car insurance, and how to initiate some sort of family support. She said she has to say "No, I have no more time" when people need to talk to her and need her help.

Senator Rawson assured her the committee is convinced there is a problem and is looking for possible solutions. He asked how much revenue results from the child support cases. Judge Steel responded money collected through the child support enforcement program goes to the families, not the court system. Senator Rawson said he understood that, but still wanted to know how much is being collected. Judge Steel replied she had heard as much as $1 million because the program is very effective. Senator Rawson said he understood that taking fees from that would defeat the purpose of collecting child support.

Senator Rawson asked what tax limit the 1.92 percent overrides, noting that it certainly is not an override of the constitutional $5 cap on property tax. Mr. Spinello responded that it is an override of the currently applied rate of $3.64, getting the amount closer to the $5 cap, but not exceeding it.

Senator Rawson asked whether there had been conversation with the Governor regarding this proposed amendment. Mr. Spinello responded he had had two conversations with the Governor’s chief of staff and is waiting to hear back from him.

Senator Raggio commented that additional information is needed for the committee on the tax situation and what the override actually references. He asked whether there was anyone from Washoe County to speak to this bill.

Madelyn Shipman, Lobbyist, Washoe County, indicated she did not realize the proposed amendment would affect Washoe County. She said the current law already indicates this property tax override is for each county whose population is 100,000 and indicates counties can levy an ad valorem tax up to 1.92 cents on each $100 of assessed valuation. She referenced her handout (Exhibit E) and pointed out Washoe County is not in the same situation as Clark County. She noted she had been on the study committee for family courts and indicated the recommendation of the study committee was to add 7 judges for Clark County.

Ms. Shipman indicated the Washoe County Family Court had economized by moving 2 general-jurisdiction judges to family court. She said Washoe County is at the end of its economizing and there will be nothing but growth in the future, especially with the child support laws in effect. She said her handout indicates there is a General Fund subsidy of about $800,000 anticipated for FY 2000. She informed the committee a 1-cent property tax assessment results in about $800,000 revenue.

Senator Raggio pointed out the state has traditionally provided funding for the salary cost when an additional judge is added. He asked why the $800,000 is represented in her handout as a subsidy, since the remaining costs are the county’s obligation. Ms. Shipman said she was referring to the original understanding when family courts were created that the ad valorem would "subsidize" the court system. Senator Raggio asked whether Ms. Steel was representing to the committee that Washoe County supports the requested ad valorem increase. Ms. Steel replied the Board of Commissioners had not discussed it. Senator Raggio asked her to determine whether Washoe County wants to be included. Ms. Steel said she would do that.

Senator Raggio said he did not know whether this bill would be processed because the Governor has said he wants no tax increases and there is reluctance on the part of Legislature to do anything that involves a tax increase.

Mr. Spinello stated Clark County believes the 3 additional judges are critical and necessary for the family court in Clark County, even though it does have a fiscal impact to the state. He informed the committee Clark County will support the court with or without the change in the override amount. Senator Raggio asked for confirmation that Clark County wants S.B. 401 passed with the authority for the additional 3 judges and the state providing the salaries for the 3 additional judges, regardless of whether the tax rate is increased. Mr. Spinello said that is correct.

Senator Raggio closed the hearing on S.B. 401 and opened the hearing on S.B. 469.

Carlos Brandenburg, Ph.D., Administrator, Mental Hygiene and Mental Retardation Division, Department of Human Resources, testified S.B. 469 is necessary to allow the division to serve individuals with conditions related to mental retardation. He said this is the result of the 1998 Perry versus Crawford court decision that mandated the state to provide services for individuals with conditions related to mental retardation. He pointed out The Executive Budget already includes funding for the clients addressed in S.B. 469.

Senator Raggio indicated the Joint Subcommittee on Human Resources/K-12 of the Senate Committee on Finance and the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means had closed the budgets accordingly. Senator Raggio asked the cost of this measure. Dr. Brandenburg responded it is the sum of the M-600 decision units in the mental retardation budgets. Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, informed the committee the cost is a combination of state and federal funds and is $1,195,661 in FY 2000 and $2,776,662 in FY 2001.

Senator Raggio indicated the committee does not have much choice on this because it is mandated by court decision. He asked whether the purpose of the bill is to provide a definition of related conditions in the law. Dr. Brandenburg replied that is correct. Senator Raggio asked whether Dr. Brandenburg could assure the committee the definition appearing on pages 1 and 2 of the bill is consistent with the court ruling and would be adequate to meet the requirements of the court ruling. Dr. Brandenburg said that it is.

Senator Raggio closed the hearing on S.B. 469. He indicated the committee could take action on this bill if the members desired. He explained that such action would assume the Senate Committee on Finance would approve the action taken by the joint subcommittee, but indicated there is really no other alternative.

*****

Senator Raggio opened the hearing on S.B. 491.

Daryl E. Capurro, Lobbyist, Nevada Motor Transportation Association, testified in favor of S.B. 491. He explained the bill essentially creates two taxicab authorities. The existing one in Clark County would be expanded to regulate limousines and taxicabs and would increase from part-time to full-time. He said the bill would create a taxicab authority in Washoe County to regulate limousines and taxicabs and would allow the rural counties to either "opt in to" the closest taxicab authority or regulate their own limousine and taxicab services. He said it would also deregulate buses and household good carriers.

Senator Raggio inquired whether the bill removes household goods carriers and buses, thereby deregulating them. Mr. Capurro replied that it does. Senator Raggio asked whether the one authority in Clark County would include limousines as well as taxicabs. Mr. Capurro replied that it would. Senator Raggio asked about the Washoe County taxicab authority. Mr. Capurro said the taxicab authority in Washoe County would also regulate both taxicabs and limousines. Senator Raggio inquired whether other counties would have the right to come under that authority and, if so, who would make that decision. Mr. Capurro replied that the County Commissioners of the rural county would decide whether to "opt into" the closest taxicab authority.

Mr. Capurro explained if this bill were passed the Transportation Services Authority (TSA) would continue to regulate nonconsent (third-party) tows. He said that would be the only regulation under the TSA. Senator Raggio asked whether Mr. Capurro was referring to towing companies. Mr. Capurro responded yes, "for nonconsent tows only." He noted that for most companies, particularly in urban areas, that represents 15 percent to 20 percent of the towing companies’ business. Senator Raggio asked who would regulate a company that does both first-party and third-party tows. He responded the federal government preempted Nevada from regulating consent (first-party) tows in 1995. He said that since federal authority also preempted Nevada’s authority regarding regulation of freight carriers, all safety and insurance oversight was transferred to the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety.

Regarding deregulation of buses, Mr. Capurro said the federal highway bill was passed and signed in July 1999 and provided further preemption. He referenced his handout "Sec. 4016. Authority Over Charter Bus Transportation" (Exhibit F) and noted the U.S. Senate amendment to Section 14501(a) of Title 49, United States Code essentially eliminated state authority to regulate intrastate and interstate charter bus transportation. He indicated if charter bus service is deregulated, special services and sightseeing services, which simply charter through a broker, would also be deregulated. He noted the ability of TSA to regulate is eliminated, particularly when an interstate broker is involved. He said Nevada has lost its ability to regulate buses and therefore the usefulness of TSA is essentially over.

Mr. Capurro explained that if S.B. 491 were amended to eliminate regulation of third-party tows, TSA could be eliminated, saving the Highway Fund $1.6 million a year. He said it would be necessary to retain the provisions for regulation of taxicabs and limousines by the two taxicab authorities. Senator Raggio asked whether S.B. 491 does that. Mr. Capurro said the bill only retains regulation of third-party tows. He reiterated that if the TSA regulatory authority over third-party tows were eliminated, the TSA could be eliminated altogether. He indicated a very large TSA budget has been proposed and the committee should take a strong look at that.

Michael R. Reed, Lobbyist, Baker and Drake, Inc., testified in support of S.B. 491 but indicated reservations about some of the language. He said his preference is to eliminate the TSA altogether, save $1.6 million, and turn the responsibilities TSA currently has over to the Clark County Taxicab Authority. He explained the Clark County Taxicab Authority could be the single regulatory body and if the rest of the state needs to regulate limousines and taxicab services, existing statutes give the counties the ability to do that. Mr. Reed referenced his handout "S.B. 491 Talking Paper, Prepared by Baker & Drake, Inc." (Exhibit G). He noted the handout had additional information and stated he would be available to answer any questions.

Senator Neal asked why this bill is just now being considered by the Senate Committee on Finance since it was introduced on March 19, 1999. Senator Raggio informed him the bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Transportation and was only recently referred to this committee because of the fiscal note.

Senator O'Donnell stated S.B. 491 had been heard by the Senate Committee on Transportation prior to the exemption date and that committee placed various amendments on the bill. He explained that when the committee changed the Taxicab Authority and the TSA responsibilities, there was a huge fiscal impact that had to be dealt with by the Senate Committee on Finance.

Robert N. Broadbent, Lobbyist, Frias Companies, testified Frias Companies had been in discussion with all taxicab companies in Las Vegas and said that in general, taxicab companies support S.B. 491 and Amendment No. 692 with the additional proposed changes in his handout (Exhibit H). He summarized the proposed changes as follows:

• Reduce the members of the Taxicab Authority from 5 to 3.
• Move regulation of limousines under the Taxicab Authority.
• Do not allow leasing in Clark County.
• Allow reappointment of commission members after a 4-year term.

He said it is his understanding the diversion language in section 15.5 of the bill will be withdrawn. He stated that in general, Frias Companies supports this measure with those proposed changes.

Senator Neal asked why taxicabs and limousines would not be deregulated. Mr. Broadbent recalled there were problems with taxicabs in the late 1960s. He testified that states which deregulated taxicabs are now putting regulations back in and Colorado is one example of that.

Senator Mathews asked why the witnesses would want to change the number of members from 5 to 3. She voiced her concern that only big companies would end up on the taxicab commission and stated that every company should have an opportunity. Mr. Broadbent said there was no opposition to a membership of 5, but it was reduced to 3 to keep the costs low. He said there needed to be time to consider this over the biennium and 2 years from now deal with proposed changes. He said the cost of two additional members, including benefits, would be about $200,000.

Harvey Whittemore, Lobbyist, Lionel Sawyer & Collins, testified on behalf of Bell Transportation Companies. He pointed out that over the course of the committee hearings on S.B. 491, the parties impacted most by this bill continued to negotiate components of the bill. He said Mr. Broadbent had presented the consensus amendments of the industry. He said further discussions as recent as this morning had revealed concerns about the October 1, 1999, date proposed in the amendment for initial allocations. He opined the solution is for initial allocations to take place when all pending applications are finally determined by a court of competent jurisdiction if there is an appeal.

Senator Raggio asked what section of the bill Mr. Whittemore’s testimony refers to. Mr. Whittemore responded it is section 116 of the bill and page 2 of the proposed amendments (Exhibit H), which indicates a date of October 1, 1999. He said the concerned parties have agreed in concept on a date which allows pending applications for limousines to be processed so "those individuals in the pipeline" would have the benefit of the allocation system. He explained that was a big issue during the hearings on this bill in the Senate Committee on Transportation. He stated that would be the only change to the proposed amendments (Exhibit H). He said it needs to be clarified that the date should allow for processing of pending applications. He said he would work with the committee if the committee decides to process this bill. He added that, with the consensus amendments being developed, concerned parties are close to a bill all can support.

Mr. Broadbent pointed out that subsection 4 of section 116 states that a company would have to be able to put a limousine in service in 30 days or lose the certificate, which is what the taxicab laws say. He said everyone has agreed it is not possible to get a limousine in service in 30 days because a limousine has to be purchased, cut, and "stretched." He stated it has been agreed that 120 days is more appropriate for limousines. Senator Raggio asked whether that is in the proposed amendment. Mr. Broadbent said it is not. Senator Raggio asked for a clean sheet with all the proposed amendments by the end of the day.

Tony Sanchez, Lobbyist, Jones/Vargas Law Firm, representing Pete Iliatas, requested section 15.5 of the bill be deleted from S.B. 491. Senator Raggio asked whether there was objection from other concerned parties to deleting section 15.5. No one indicated objection.

Garland Knopp, President, Action Moving & Storage, referenced a communication distributed to committee members (Exhibit I). He said he also wanted to verbalize that S.B. 491 deregulates moving of household goods within this state. He affirmed that is a major step and cannot be taken lightly. He pointed out states that have deregulated have experienced many problems and are finding it difficult to reinstate regulation after deregulation. He mentioned there have been news articles on television about the problems and there was an article in Consumer Reports about deregulation and the problems it has caused in Texas. He said a 2-year study should be conducted before deregulation is considered in Nevada. He said there would be negative impact on the people of this state, which has many new residents. He said deregulation would create a situation in which Nevada would get more of the "fly-by-night rip-off people."

Mr. Knopp said additional information is in his letter (Exhibit I), but he wanted to verbalize that movers in this state who deal on an ongoing basis with problems of the moving industry are opposed to deregulation. Senator Raggio asked whether Mr. Knopp was representing that as the unanimous opinion of the moving industry of this state. Mr. Knopp replied "Yes." Senator Raggio said he had received calls from the moving industry in support of deregulation. Mr. Knopp said there are some illegal movers in this state that may have contacted Senator Raggio. He admitted there had been one legal company that had supported deregulation, but that company had changed its position to oppose deregulation. He said his group had polled everybody in the state with certification and they were unanimously opposed to deregulation. He indicated he had permission to speak for the group as a whole that they want continued regulation.

Barry E. Jones, Owner, Carson Valley Movers, said this bill has two alternatives for household furniture movers. He said there has not been enough study done and indicated the bill should either be killed or be amended to include a 2-year study. He said the public risk has not been studied. Senator Raggio asked whether Mr. Jones would want the moving industry to remain under the regulation by the Transportation Services Authority during the study period. Mr. Jones responded that he would. He pointed out there are no complaints on file for regulated household movers. However, he said, there are complaints on file against illegal movers in Nevada. He said research is necessary before such a major law change is made when the public is at risk. Senator Raggio stated that Mr. Jones’ written testimony (Exhibit J) will become part of the record for this bill.

Ryan T. Campbell, Lobbyist, Campbell and Stone for A-Action Movers of Nevada, which is a United Van Lines Carrier, said A-Action operates an interstate household-goods moving service and has an application pending before the TSA for authority to operate intrastate. Mr. Campbell testified that A-Action opposes S.B. 491 because it deregulates movers of household goods. He said the public needs a venue for protection from unscrupulous movers and, as Mr. Knopp testified, there are several who are operating illegally now.

Senator Raggio asked what Mr. Campbell meant when he said movers operate illegally. Mr. Campbell replied movers operate illegally when they do not obtain a certificate and do not adhere to the rates and tariffs of the TSA. Senator Raggio asked, "If TSA is not doing anything about illegal movers, then what is the need for TSA?" He asked what good the regulatory authority is if there are illegal moving companies operating now. Mr. Campbell said "the teeth are in the regulations" as it stands now, but without regulation there will be no teeth. He added that without regulation, upon a new moving company’s entry into the business there would also be no determination of financial ability or business capability to provide the services.

Senator O'Donnell explained household movers are "federally deregulated" for interstate moving services but regulated for intrastate moving services. He said moves to California are not regulated, but moves from Sparks to Carson City are regulated. The disadvantage is that a company can be moved from Reno to Sun Valley cheaper than a company can be moved from Reno to Carson City.

Bill Hibbitt, Owner, Lawrence Mayflower Moving & Storage Company, said he had operated as an intrastate household goods carrier in Nevada for 22 years. He testified he is opposed to the deregulation of household goods carriers in S.B. 491. He stated the household goods moving companies in Nevada, as a group, support regulation. He said when the ICC (Interstate Commerce Commission) was disbanded at the federal level in 1981, household goods moving was deregulated and the torch was passed to states to determine what level of regulation was necessary. He said this is an industry that is fairly easy to get into at the local level because of low overhead costs.

Mr. Hibbitt said states that have been deregulated are now making the pendulum swing in the other direction. He said those states found that for public safety and protection, there is need for some type of "watchdog" over the industry. He indicated interstate carriers do not really compare because for larger van lines it is a different venue and it is more difficult to start a van lines than a local moving company. He said the Senate Committee on Transportation became sidetracked on the issue of fees and how the TSA would implement policies. He pointed out committee members and testifiers moved away from the fact there needs to be some type of "watchdog" for the industry. He added if it is not done at the state level, then the cycle will continue and the industry will become chaotic and deteriorate, and there will be a need later to regulate it. He questioned why Nevada would want to go through that process. He recommended the committee continue regulation and said the public will be the beneficiary in the end.

Dan Cooper, Cooper & Sons Transfer & Storage, Reno, testified in opposition to S.B. 491. He said it is too easy for people to get a business license and to then say they are a moving company. He pointed out the public is not protected if these companies do a move and cause $5,000 or $6,000 damage on someone’s property and "there is nobody to regulate," to ensure companies carry insurance to protect the public. Senator Raggio asked whether interstate moving companies are currently required to carry insurance. Mr. Cooper replied that they are. Senator Raggio asked who requires that if interstate movers are not regulated as indicated in earlier testimony. Mr. Cooper said there are limited regulations, such as the requirement that a mover have a motor carrier number and insurance. Mr. Cooper said if a customer attempts to sue one of the "fly-by-night" outfits, the company closes its doors then goes and gets another business license for $100 under another name, and the customers lose their worldly possessions.

Senator Mathews wondered how this bill got so far if none of the companies in this industry wanted this deregulated. Mr. Cooper said his industry has the same question. Senator Mathews asked where these companies were when the bill was developed and heard in committee meetings. Senator Raggio asked whether all this testimony was presented when the bill was heard in the Senate Committee on Transportation. Mr. Knopp answered that as this bill was being heard in the Senate Committee on Transportation, there were many amendments proposed in virtually every hearing, excluding the first one. He said the amendments were provided to the moving industry representatives at the hearings and the moving industry did not have opportunity to evaluate the amendments. Also, he said, his industry was led to believe the final and most important hearing would be teleconferenced to Las Vegas and all the Las Vegas moving companies showed up, but it was not teleconferenced. He said there was also a bad snowstorm in the north and people from his industry were not able to attend and were not represented when the decisions were made.

Donna Tryon, President and CEO, Adventure Photo Tours, said she was representing Adventure Photo Tours, ATV Action Tours, Starlight Tours, Desert Action Tours, and Rocky Trails. She said all these companies are based in Las Vegas and are concerned that S.B. 491 may allow for deregulation of "their type operations, which is providing scenic tours in four-wheel drive vehicles in very remote areas of the desert." She said that because of the nature of their operations it is mandatory scenic tour companies have properly maintained vehicles, drivers trained in safety, and proper liability coverage. Senator Raggio asked whether this industry is currently regulated by TSA. Ms. Tryon replied it is. Senator Raggio asked whether there is language in the bill that deregulates this type of endeavor. Ms. Tryon said it is unclear whether scenic tour companies are to be included within the descriptions of the limousine carriers. She said if this bill is passed, she would like scenic tour operators to be specifically included with the limousines or left under the regulation of the TSA.

Senator Raggio asked why someone in this particular endeavor would want to continue to be regulated. Ms. Tryon responded she has heard people mention that as soon as this bill is passed, they will start a tour company. She said these people have no business experience and do not understand the safety issues involved with this particular type of operation. She said there would also be a financial burden on the companies who wish to maintain a proper operation with proper safety programs and insurance. Senator Raggio pointed out that in any regulatory situation, thwarting competition cannot be a legitimate reason for not regulating an industry. He said there are other things to consider, such as the rulings on certificate of public necessity, which goes to the heart of the issue of deregulation.

Mr. Capurro said he needed to correct the record with respect to the testimony regarding household goods carriers. He said he was told at the last hearing in the Senate Committee on Transportation by Tim Pulitz and by representatives of Colonial Van & Storage that their companies wished to be deregulated. He informed the committee the entire industry objected to the $500 per vehicle fee.

Sam Pool, President, Colonial Van & Storage, testified his company did not wish to be deregulated and had never said his company wanted to be deregulated.

Mr. Knopp indicated he had talked to Tim Pulitz on the previous day and Mr. Pulitz indicated he wanted to retain regulation.

Senator Raggio asked whether the $500 per vehicle fee is in the bill. John Mendoza, Chairman, Transportation Services Authority, Department of Business and Industry, replied there had been a misunderstanding regarding the fee. He said that was explained to the industry and the industry indicated its preference to pay $2 per move rather than a set amount per vehicle. Senator Raggio asked whether that $2 fee was in the bill. Judge Mendoza said it is not in the bill. Mr. Knopp indicated proposed Amendment No. 6 in his handout (Exhibit I) would provide that change.

Senator Coffin wondered whether there was consensus in the Senate Committee on Transportation regarding this bill and the amendments. Senator Raggio appointed a special subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Finance to receive testimony, review testimony, and report recommendations regarding S.B. 491. He directed the subcommittee to also consider the possibility of a study as mentioned in testimony. Appointed to the subcommittee were Senators O’Donnell, Coffin, and Mathews.

Senator Raggio closed the hearing on S.B. 491.

Rick Combs, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, directed attention to the closing sheets. (Exhibit K. Original is on file in the Research Library.) He informed the committee this budget had been reviewed and approved by the Joint Subcommittee on Higher Education/Capital Improvements.

Mr. Combs said the subcommittee approved funding to implement a program for the qualification of persons who wish to submit bids on public works projects. He said this program was established pursuant to A.B. 547 of the Sixty-ninth Session.

Mr. Combs explained this funding will enable the State Public Works Board to contract with the Hearings Division to conduct appeals hearings requested by persons who are denied qualification by the board. He said the subcommittee also eliminated onetime out-of-state travel expenditures included in the base in The Executive Budget.

Mr. Combs explained decision unit E-710 includes a facsimile machine, network server, laptops, personal computers, and two computer hard drives.

*****

Public Works Inspection – Budget Page ADMIN-100 (Volume 1)

Budget Account 401-1562

Mr. Combs informed the committee this budget had also been reviewed and approved by the Joint Subcommittee on Higher Education/Capital Improvements.

Mr. Combs indicated the subcommittee approved funding in decision unit E-125 for increases to in-state travel to allow project managers to manage projects on-site. He explained the projects are currently managed primarily over the phone and through correspondence and it was determined to be more effective for project managers to visit the sites on a regular basis.

Mr. Combs said the subcommittee also approved funding for increased training for employees who work on the statewide roofing and statewide asbestos and lead paint removal projects. He explained the subcommittee did, however, reduce the amount from what was recommended in The Executive Budget based on a revised list of needed training programs provided by the manager of the board.

Mr. Combs said the subcommittee approved funding for a Program Assistant position and an Accountant Technician position. He explained the Program Assistant will assist with the new program for qualification of bidders previously discussed. He explained the Accountant Technician position will assist with preparing and reviewing documents necessary to perform construction management services. He clarified that the subcommittee approved the Accountant Technician position subject to the board’s commitment to develop a plan for allocating the costs in this account to the various capital improvement projects (CIPs). He noted the subcommittee heard testimony there was currently no method for allocating those costs to projects and part of the responsibilities of this position will be to implement such a method.

Mr. Combs pointed out the subcommittee did not approve funding for four additional positions recommended in The Executive Budget because the manager indicated he wished to delete those positions.

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

Health Division

Ginny Wiswell, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, stated the three Health Division budgets before the committee today had been reviewed by the Joint Subcommittee on Human Resources/K-12 and she would be reporting the subcommittee’s closing recommendations.

HR, Maternal Child Health Services – Budget Page HEALTH-48 (Volume 2)

Budget Account 101-3222

Ms. Wiswell informed the committee that in the Maternal Child Health Services Budget, the subcommittee approved redirecting unobligated Maternal Child Health (MCH) Block Grant funds for a statewide dental health initiative. She said the details of this initiative will be developed by the division in cooperation with the MCH Advisory Board. The initiative may include prevention and treatment components delivered through a collaborative effort with the Nevada School of Medicine. She indicated the subcommittee approved a Letter of Intent requiring the Health Division to report to the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) prior to implementation and quarterly thereafter on the status of the program.

Ms. Wiswell said the subcommittee recommended 3 new Public Health Nutrition Specialist positions. She explained 2 of these positions will be based in the Special Children’s Clinic to provide case management and treatment services for children with feeding problems and other metabolic disorders. She said the third position was approved to provide nutritional services to school-age children. Two of these positions are recommended to replace existing professional services contract services to provide more hours of direct client service at a reduced cost.

HR, Special Children’s Clinic – Budget Page HEALTH 54 (Volume 2)

Budget Account 101-3208

Senator Raggio asked whether this budget is for the northern and southern children’s clinics "with the waiting list issue." Ms. Wiswell replied that was correct and indicated the waiting list was the primary focus of the subcommittee. She said that to reduce the waiting list for diagnostic and treatment services at the Special Children’s Clinics the subcommittee approved a proposal from the Health Division to reallocate existing resources and funding from the Maternal Child Health Budget to the Special Children’s Clinic. She explained this reallocation is made possible by decreases in the number of clients accessing the MCH program for children with special health care needs. The plan, which is revenue-neutral, establishes 2.5 new positions for treatment services at the Reno clinic. For the Reno clinic the new positions will immediately create 35 more treatment slots for children, reducing the waiting time to no more than 2½ weeks.

In addition, Ms. Wiswell explained, the plan provides for the transfer of 7 positions from the MCH budget to reduce the waiting list for diagnostic and treatment services at the Las Vegas clinic. Once the plan is fully implemented, the division expects waiting time for diagnostic services to be reduced from the current 8 weeks to no more than 2½ weeks. The division indicated this should occur within 5 months and the waiting list will continue to decline to achieve same-week diagnostic appointments within 6 months. She said the plan would immediately create 40 new treatment slots for children. Two of the positions identified for transfer are currently vacant and are recommended to transfer to the Special Children’s Clinics effective July 1, 1999. The remaining positions, including funding for salaries and operating costs, will transfer as the positions become vacant through attrition. Ms. Wiswell noted the subcommittee recommended a Letter of Intent requiring the division to report to IFC on specific details of the plan as it develops.

Senator Raggio asked how the funding of this budget is affected overall. Ms. Wiswell responded the plan is revenue-neutral between the two budget accounts. Senator Raggio inquired whether the $500,000 increase in this budget comes from the MCH budget. Ms. Wiswell replied that is correct and noted there are also technical corrections that generate savings in this budget account.

Senator Raggio pointed out this transfer significantly addresses the waiting list problem in the Special Children’s Clinics. He noted the subcommittee and Ms. Wiswell gave the problem much attention. He expressed appreciation since this was difficult to "get a handle on."

*****

HR, Emergency Medical Services – Budget Page HEALTH-62 (Volume 2)

Budget Account 101-3235

Ms. Wiswell explained the subcommittee approved several enhancements to the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) budget to improve the program’s data management system. She pointed out the Assembly and the Senate closed differently in this account in the subcommittee. First, she said, both the Senate and Assembly subcommittee members agreed to provide additional state funds to upgrade the two data management systems used by the EMS program. She explained that one of the systems is not Year 2000 (Y2K) compliant and the other system is in need of assessment to determine future needs.

Regarding the proposed increase for additional training funds, Senator Raggio pointed out the Senate members of the subcommittee determined there was adequate training funding in The Executive Budget and there was no need to add another $40,000 over the biennium. He noted Senator Jacobsen had some problems with this action.

*****

Senator Jacobsen offered the suggestion for the future that P.O.S.T. (Peace Officers Standards and Training) could oversee the EMS training to create uniformity.

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

Ms. Wiswell informed the committee the next three budgets for review had not been reviewed by a subcommittee.

Public Utilities Commission – Budget Page PUC-1 (Volume 2)

Budget Account 224-3920

Senator Raggio asked whether there were any issues regarding this budget that need to be addressed because of changes and discussions on bills. Ms. Wiswell indicated the Governor has recommended a status quo budget for the Public Utilities Commission (PUC). She said the relevant legislation currently under review by the Assembly is S.B. 438.

Ms. Wiswell explained this bill continues the work begun as a result of the utility deregulation bill from the previous session, A.B. 366 of the Sixty-ninth Session.

Ms. Wiswell explained that S.B. 438 does not fiscally impact the PUC.

Senator Raggio noted S.B. 438 had been granted a waiver until May 26, 1999, for final action in the Assembly. He said he wanted assurance that any action taken on this budget would be subject to revision in the event there are significant changes in that measure.

Ms. Wiswell reiterated that in general this is a status quo budget. She mentioned this budget is entirely funded through the mill assessment, which is a tax levied on regulated utilities. She said the current assessed rate is 3.25 mills on gross utility operating revenues. She explained the Governor had recommended the base component of the budget be supported by a mill assessment rate of 2.94, which is lower than the current rate.

Ms. Wiswell noted the PUC is being evicted from its Las Vegas office and said decision unit E-276 would provide for the move of the office. She said this decision unit increases the mill assessment rate to 3.04. She pointed out this rate is still lower than the current rate of 3.25.

Ms. Wiswell explained decision unit M-200 is a continuation of the process begun under A.B. 366of the Sixty-ninth Session. She said it provides funding for consultants and consumer outreach programs to assist consumers with understanding the process of utility deregulation.

Ms Wiswell noted decision units M-201 and E-805 provide for personnel changes. She said that at the March 1, 1999 committee hearing, the PUC requested the M-201 decision unit be amended to delete 2 analyst positions, rather than just 1 as recommended in The Executive Budget. She explained the additional position to be deleted would be replaced with $50,000 for a temporary professional service contract. She explained decision unit E-805 provides for reclassification of 4 Senior Financial Analysts to Financial Analysts.

Ms. Wiswell noted there are several decision units for replacement software and ongoing upgrades to the existing computer equipment.

Senator Raggio reminded the committee the full Senate Committee on Finance heard the PUC budget and said staff recommendations reflect those discussions. He pointed out the main issues are the elimination of 2 positions and the change in the mill assessment for the office move.

*****

Public Utilities Commission-Administrative Fines – Budget Page PUC-9 (Volume 3)

Budget Account 224-3921

Ms. Wiswell explained the purpose of this budget is to collect administrative fines levied by the PUC. She said that at this time no expenditures have been identified and fines would be placed in reserve until expenditures are identified.

*****

B&I Transportation Services Authority-Administrative Fines – Budget Page B&I-202 (Volume 2) Budget Account 226-3923

Ms. Wiswell explained this budget is similar to the budget set up for the PUC for the collection of administrative fines. She said the fines are recommended to be reserved until expenditures are identified.

*****

Senator Coffin asked whether there were another budget related to the Transportation Services Authority that had not been closed. Ms. Wiswell said that is correct. Senator Coffin expressed concern that, if it is not known how many people will be regulated, it may be inappropriate to budget estimates for fines. Ms. Wiswell agreed but said this budget only provides authority for revenues to be placed in reserve and there are no expenditures authorized. She said there was some discussion about having the fines reverted at the close of a fiscal year, but legislation would be required and none has been processed. Senator Coffin asked whether anyone is counting on a specific amount of money to be reverted. Ms. Wiswell replied, "not at this time."

Senator Raggio recessed the meeting at 10:38 a.m. until the call of the Chair.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Jean Laird,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman

DATE: