The Senate Committee on Transportation was called to order by Chairman William R. O'Donnell, at 01:30 p.m., on Tuesday, March 16, 1999, in Room 2149 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 R. O'Donnell, Chairman

Senator Mark Amodei, Vice Chairman

Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen

Senator Maurice Washington

Senator Raymond C. Shaffer

Senator Valerie Wiener

Senator Terry Care

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Senator Raymond (Ray) D. Rawson, Clark County Senatorial District No. 6

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Joan Moseid, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Senator Raymond (Ray) D. Rawson, Clark County Senatorial District No. 6, related his experience with a friend who lost both legs to an accident. He said he offered to drive her to a therapy appointment and sit with her through the treatment. He elucidated through the experience he became aware that the handicap parking spaces did not allow room to set up a wheelchair, or additional space for side access to a van. He emphasized that nonusers do not appreciate the need handicap parking serves. He concluded S.B. 338 moves the process along in providing facilities to better accommodate the needs of the handicapped.

Ed Gobel, Lobbyist, President, Council of Nevada Veterans Organizations, stated that without this bill, at last count, 3,186 people in Nevada would have no independence whatsoever. He said even when he goes to his doctor, his wife accompanies him, because of inadequate space in the handicap parking to maneuver his wheelchair out of his vehicle on his own. He said the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) requires 8 feet of space in addition to the vehicle for side loading of a wheelchair. He submitted a survey of handicap parking in Nevada (Exhibit C). He noted that over half of the vehicles parked in the van space were not equipped with side-loading wheelchair lifts. He pointed out that a few places such as Nellis Air Force Base have started issuing citations to those who do not have side-loading wheelchair lift vans, but are parking in those spaces. He said there are times he cannot go places because there is no room in the handicap parking area for side-loading vans, or no one to help him. Mr. Gobel demonstrated the amount of space needed by using the 8-foot conference table in the committee room.

Senator Care asked if Mr. Gobel was aware of a bill by Assemblyman Mark A. Manendo, Clark County Assembly District No. 18, which mandates community service for people who violate handicap parking spaces. He stated that since there is no language to that effect in this bill, he suggested the language in Assemblyman Manendo’s bill be added to S.B. 338 to make it consistent.

Chairman O’Donnell noted inclusion of the other bill’s language would generate a conflict notice. He stated changing the date the bill becomes effective, could take care of the conflict notice.

Mr. Gobel added the way the bill is structured, it is subject to the penalties of the previous section. He noted if the penalties are increased by the community service, it too will automatically apply to this bill, then the bill would not need an amendment.

Chairman O’Donnell closed the hearing on S.B. 338, and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 296.

Daryl E. Capurro, Lobbyist, Nevada Motor Transport Association, said the bill eliminates the economic regulation of buses and eliminated the final vestige of economic regulation of tow cars. He said the bill turns the insurance and safety requirements over to the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS), which has had the requirements for safety and insurance on all other vehicles. He articulated in 1991 the federal government deregulated all interstate transportation. He said except for issues of safety and insurance, there is essentially no regulation of interstate commerce. He continued in 1994 elements of household goods movers were deregulated. He added tow cars were also deregulated, insofar as first-party tows are concerned; those are when the car owner calls for a pickup. Mr. Capurro stated the new highway act, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21^st Century (TEA-21), which passed and became effective on July 21, 1998, provided for a preemption by the federal government for the states in regulating what was referred to as charter bus service. He provided copies of H.R. 2400 conference report (Exhibit D) relative to the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) issue, including the specific language resolving the different issues between the senate and house bills regarding highway funding. He said the Transportation Services Authority (TSA) now has the authority to economically regulate household goods carriers, limousines, and taxicabs. Mr. Capurro noted taxicabs within Clark County are regulated by the Taxicab Authority (TA). He pointed out at the airport in Las Vegas, the taxis are regulated by the TA, while limousines are regulated by the TSA, and both are regulated by the Clark County Airport Authority, which has the power to decide who comes onto the airport property. He sees this as causing some confusion as to how situations are handled. Mr. Capurro stated the bill deregulates what remains of tow-car operations, that being third-party tows, and deregulates buses in line with the conference report for H.R. 2400. He continued he was sure the TSA or someone would point out the language in the conference report contains language that says the authority over charter bus transportation is preempted. He pointed out essentially by preempting the regulation of charter bus services, the props have been kicked out from under effective regulation of any other kind of bus operation. He explained the brochure titled "Guaranteed Tours" (Exhibit E. Original is on file in the Research Library.) is not a bus company, it is an interstate broker. They do not own buses and do not have authority to operate buses in Nevada. However, they lease vehicles that come into Nevada from out of state, and puts them into sightseeing service to points of interest within Nevada. He noted although the brochure is oriented to southern Nevada; the rest of the state also has the same experience. Mr. Capurro said this puts the Nevada operator at a disadvantage. He explained, the TSA recently adopted a requirement that tour bus operators could only pay a 10-percent commission to brokers or others who arrange or help arrange tours. He said that same requirement does not apply to the interstate broker who leases charter buses from other states, and repackages for tours within Nevada. He said neither the rates nor the commissions are regulated. The situation is a broker offering a commission that, in many cases, substantially exceeds 10 percent. He voiced that charter bus services should not have been regulated once the TEA-21 was signed into law. He indicated that since 1994, when the first preemption came out, only a handful of states have elected to maintain economic regulation on other types of transportation, whether it was buses, tow cars, household goods movers, taxicabs, or limousines. He said states like Texas were once heavily regulated, and now have no regulations for transports.

Mr. Capurro elucidated S.B. 296 is designed to specifically eliminate the last vestiges of economic regulation of tow cars and buses. He said with respect to third-party tows, those are the ones called to an accident scene or to remove an illegally parked vehicle. He said most all the law enforcement agencies have a rotational call-out system. He explained that for a tow-car company to participate in third-party tows, the company would have to apply to be included on the rotation call-out list. He said the law enforcement agencies have the ability to set the standards by which the tow-car company would operate and participate. He pointed out law enforcement’s regulation of third-party tows provides the level of comfort needed for the industry.

Chairman O’Donnell wanted to know how could nonconsensual tows be deregulated, while consensual tows are regulated. Mr. Capurro responded that a court decision in Arkansas said state-level deregulation did not preempt local-level ability to regulate transportation.

Chairman O’Donnell inquired whether there were any ordinances in Reno or Las Vegas that pertain to nonconsensual tows. Mr. Capurro remarked he was not sure; however, he did know Reno provided for the rotational call-out system relative to law enforcement-initiated tows.

Chairman O’Donnell wanted to know if rotational tows would also be eliminated if nonconsensual tows were deregulated. Mr. Capurro answered all that is being done is to remove regulation on the state basis through TSA.

Chairman O’Donnell concluded that anybody could put their name on the rotation list. Mr. Capurro stated it would be anybody who could meet the standards set forth by a particular law enforcement agency; and abide by that agency’s rules. He added some agencies might have to address and adjust some of their standards and requirements, but the law enforcement agencies have the authority to make those considerations.

Senator Care referenced a letter (Exhibit F) from Randy Isaacs, State Government Affairs Representative, Greyhound Lines Inc., questioning the $500-a-bus fee and the financial burden it would put on them. He asked Mr. Capurro to comment on the letter’s contents.

Mr. Capurro responded the first place the issue of fees came up was in the Senate finance committee, who asked the TSA to propose a way of funding itself other than from the Highway Fund. He said the TSA responded with a fee schedule. He said it was noted the TA was completely fee supported, each taxi in Clark County pays approximately $2,800 a year from the fares for regulation. He continued the majority of TA funding in the rest of the state came from the Highway Fund. Mr. Capurro concluded he was not sure if the $500-a-bus fee came from what he surmised.

Timothy A. Puliz, President, Puliz Moving and Storage, said he was asked to speak on behalf of the intrastate-certificated moving industry. They are the majority group concerned about current regulations being offered through the TSA. He insisted the industry is rampant with noncertificated or illegal movers. He stated, as a group, the moving industry supports continued regulation as currently provided by the TSA. He stressed the moving industry wants to address the ability of the TSA to assist them in regulating and minimizing the illegal operator currently in the market place. He stated the industry is aware the illegal movers are not paying their share of workers’ compensation, payroll taxes, fees, and other taxes. For example, several years ago his company was audited by workers’ compensation. The workers’ compensation people indicated Puliz Moving and Storage paid just under 30 percent of all the workers’ compensation fees in Nevada for the moving industry. He said the point is the customer receives no protection or guarantees for their possessions, and could be liable should an accident occur to one of the illegal movers. He concluded the moving industry supports S.B. 296, and would be willing to discuss alternative ways of funding the program.

Dawn M. Porter, Controller, Colonial Van and Storage, said the company supports the bill as it stands, but does have concerns with enforcement of the regulations to protect consumers. The consumer does not have the ability to identify whether a mover is legal and properly insured, protected, and enforcing the claims on damaged possessions, or anything else a consumer has a reasonable right to expect. She proposed monitoring the ads that say the mover is licensed, is the easiest way to enforce the regulations. She added it also helps the moving industry to maintain its reputation for good service.

Senator Washington asked to be given a step-by-step description of the process to become a certificated household goods mover. Mr. Puliz responded that his new company was just certificated last week, and it is not a difficult process. He explained an application is filed with the TSA. The TSA asks the applicant to prove financial fitness, to document the safety and maintenance of the equipment, and state a public need or necessity for the service. He said the whole process took 6 months, including the audit of his financials. He added sometimes other companies may request proof of the new company’s ability to perform, and that the new company will not be in direct competition with the existing business.

Senator Washington asked what happens if a company protests the entry of another moving company into the local market area. Mr. Puliz expounded there is currently an application before the TSA from a certificated interstate mover in Las Vegas who wants to become an intrastate mover. He said some of the intrastate movers are protesting the application. The applicant is currently in hearings to determine whether the protests have any validity. He stated this process provides good checks and balances, and the TSA will make the final decision.

Senator Washington recited the application process as presented by Mr. Puliz; and stated he was still having difficulty with why an application would be denied. Mr. Puliz replied the final outcome is up to TSA. He added that if the interveners’ statements do not provide substitutive value, then the protest is thrown out. Mr. Puliz agreed the process could be very time consuming, as long as a year; and involve legal fees and other associated costs. He said he has been on both sides of the process.

Senator Washington posed the problem of how the process could be more inclusive rather than exclusive, how to shorten and streamline the process, how to keep the application process from becoming cost prohibitive, and how to make the process more beneficial to legitimate applicants.

Ms. Porter added one important point is the noncertificated movers do not have an interest in becoming certificated. The illegal operator competes by using noninsured labor, rented trucks with no safety inspections, and noncertified drivers. She stated that is how the noncertificated movers are making money. She emphasized the agencies have no idea how much the illegals can hurt the industry by the misrepresentation and fraud that happens. She iterated making the process easier is not the answer. The answer is to make the illegal operators become legal or stop them from advertising.

Mr. Puliz asserted a big issue is claim settlement. He said, for example, his company was hired to handle the furniture and fixtures for the Governor’s Mansion during the renovation. He said when uncrating a large piece of marble, it was discovered to be broken. He remarked the good news was Nevada hired a certified mover with insurance and cargo protection. He said the issue was not who did what, but that there was insurance to replace a $5,000 piece of marble. He asserted that kind of insurance costs; but that is the kind of consumer-protection issues the TSA requires certified movers to provide customers. He added the unknowing consumer is not getting that kind of service from the noncertificated movers.

Vice Chairman Amodei asked that the record reflect the following people concur with S.B. 296: Barry E. Jones, Carson Valley Movers; Clarence Butler, Southern Nevada Movers Inc; Neil Holder, All American Van and Storage; Al Puliz, Puliz Moving and Storage; Bill Hibbit, Lawrence Moving and Storage Company; Kip Lar Rieu, Owens Brothers Transfer; Bill Stypowany, Great Western Van and Storage; John Burkhardt, Action Moving and Storage; Garland Knopp, Action Moving and Storage.

David Anderson, Anderson Towing and Transportation, provided background on his entry into the towing business. He said the Public Service Commission of Nevada (PSCN) first started regulating tow cars in 1972. Prior to that his parents operated their business for 4 years without regulation. He recalled the family debated regulation and decided to support regulation to keep unscrupulous people out of the business, and to show cause why another tow-car business was needed in the same market place. He pointed out since that time many rules and regulations were put in place. He expounded about 10 years ago the PSCN decided it needed to strengthen its authority, and the state enacted legislation making it a misdemeanor if an operator violated a PSCN regulation. He said soon thereafter a competitor suspected a local branch of a state agency was not acting within guidelines. The PSCN took 3 years of his towing records for that agency. He said at the end of the PSCN’s 2-month investigation, he was cited with 14 violations, which meant 14 misdemeanors. He related the judge read all 14 counts, and said it seemed minor to him, but the PSCN must have had a reason. Mr. Anderson stated he almost did not call his attorney, but was glad he did. His attorney plea-bargained most of the charges, and he plead guilty to two misdemeanors, which was a $2,000 fine. He voiced the experience really opened his eyes that he could have gone to jail for some technical errors over not circling a.m. or p.m., or recording a time or date. He said the bottom line is the experience turned him against regulation.

Mr. Anderson continued since deregulation his company has grown, since being founded in 1978, to include equipment transport, and from an annual payroll of $250,000 to one of $750,000. He stressed he still believes in laws and regulations; that is what keeps the system working. However, regulations can be abused under certain circumstances. He said recently his company merged with RoadOne, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Miller Industries with an annual gross revenue of approximately $750 million. He told the committee he filed with the TSA to merge with RoadOne in April 1998. Two days before the pre-hearing conference in June he checked with TSA to find out if there was anything at all he needed to know or do; the response was everything looks fine. At the conference, the TSA told him he had transferred his stock without their authority. He negotiated down to a fine of $10,000 for not filing on time. He said the TSA told him RoadOne had purchased a company in Las Vegas, and the company RoadOne had purchased was told to file. Mr. Anderson pointed out the TSA had not sent any paperwork, nor notified RoadOne or himself; and he had not been in contact with RoadOne prior to the conference. The TSA’s stand was the need to file should have been communicated through the various companies, not by TSA. He maintained since he handled the transfer, the TSA should have verbally, or in writing, informed him of the need to file regarding items associated with the businesses. Mr. Anderson emphasized he believes in rules, and he also believes in free enterprise. After all of that, he said he is in favor of S.B. 296.

Chairman O’Donnell asked Mr. Anderson who his contact was at the TSA. Mr. Anderson replied most of the contact was with an investigator whose name escaped him at the moment. He said the other person was Dennis Colling, who conducted the preconference hearing, and was the person with whom the fine was negotiated.

Chairman O’Donnell asked if Mr. Colling was in attendance, to come forward and tell the committee what happened regarding Mr. Anderson.

Dennis Colling, Chief, Administrative Services Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS), stated at the time referred to he was manager of transportation for the TSA. He said Anderson Towing was issued a citation for consummating a sale and transfer without the TSA’s approval. At the time he, Mr. Anderson, and Mr. Anderson’s attorney negotiated whether or not to have a hearing, to which he was entitled.

Chairman O’Donnell wanted to know what the threat was to the public, or if it just was a TSA rule that mitigated a $10,000 fine. Mr. Colling answered the company that purchased Anderson Towing was operating in Nevada without proper authority, without the approval of the regulating body, and had been operating in the state for quite a while without any authority. He said by regulation only certificated carriers could operate within Nevada.

Chairman O’Donnell reiterated the rogue company bought Anderson Towing, and Mr. Anderson was fined because he now runs the company. He wondered why the rogue company was not given the fine. Mr. Colling stated he was not an attorney, but would try to explain. He said the registered company was Anderson Towing, and until the TSA approved the sale and transfer to RoadOne, the company the TSA was dealing with was Anderson Towing. He said Mr. Anderson’s attorney was present, and the attorney was aware of the situation. He suggested to Mr. Anderson to deduct the $10,000 from his attorney’s fee.

Senator Washington asked for clarification. Mr. Anderson responded that, unfortunately, he did not communicate with the other company in Las Vegas that was purchased by RoadOne, regarding the TSA. He said he was aware the TSA required a transfer. The problem was he asked the TSA if anything was needed; at that time, in fact, a TSA investigator came to his office 2 weeks prior to the preconference when the vice president of RoadOne was in his office. He said the investigator asked a number of questions at that time of each of them, and nothing was said about an unregistered company and associated regulations. He added that at that point he could still stop the transfer of his stock into RoadOne. He noted it was several months later before the TSA contacted him regarding what the company could charge in rates. He said at that point he felt the TSA was uncertain as to where they stood regarding the industry. He said Mr. Colling admitted as much in the preconference hearing. He said the company in Las Vegas was caught in the middle because the TSA did not know what the structure of the agency would be at that time.

Chairman O’Donnell asked Mr. Colling where he worked now, and if he were in a position to negotiate fines. Mr. Colling replied he worked for the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, and has nothing to do with fines. Chairman O’Donnell commented, "Good."

Richard Campbell, Jr., representing A-Action Movers of Nevada (A-Action), said the company is an interstate carrier of household goods. He said A-Action is the company seeking intrastate authority in Nevada. He said A-Action is supportive of regulatory oversight by the TSA regarding household goods movers. He said the concern is with the policing provisions that have remained in the bill. He voiced the fines were not high enough to discourage household goods movers from engaging in business without a certificate from the TSA. Mr. Campbell noted there are many movers who advertise in the Yellow Pages and include a certificate number, which is known they do not have. These uncertificated movers continue to operate because a $100 to $1,000 fine is cheap compared to the cost to apply for a certificate, and the added costs of complying with regulations. He concluded there is not enough teeth in the bill to discourage the unlicensed carriers from going through the application process.

Senator Washington remembered trying to require unlicensed carriers not to advertise, and the response from the regulating agency was they did not have the staff to police the industry. He asked if there has been any improvement in pursuing violators.

Mr. Campbell surmised they do not have the personnel or the resources to adequately police the industry, and the higher fines would help to discourage the activity.

Senator Washington said he was pretty sure none of those present would want fines increased, and there has been no other suggestions regarding enforcement. He wanted to know what was expected to be accomplished by increasing fines.

Mr. Campbell answered funds must be acquired from some source in order to fund policing the unlicensed carriers.

Barry E. Jones, Carson Valley Movers, said he has a video ready for viewing (Exhibit G. Original is on file in the Research Library.), and thinks it is extremely important the committee sees the tape. He said the video would answer in 4 minutes an hour’s worth of questions. He presented some of his observations on the moving industry (Exhibit H). He noted there is a proposed bill that addresses disconnecting telephones belonging to people who advertise in the wrong place in the phone book. He urged that focusing on that action would mean reducing the problem by at least half.

Ms. Porter added the movers have discussed the fee structure. She stated the main point is the regulation has to be effective for the movers to want to contribute. She pointed out California cuts the phone number. She recognized it requires the phone company’s cooperation, but it is the cleanest way to effectively enforce unlicensed movers, and does not require a large enforcement staff.

Chairman O’Donnell stated the phone disconnect was his amendment to the bill. Ms. Porter averred the TSA has never acted on phone disconnect. She said she does not know if part of the problem is the cooperation from the phone companies.

The video (Exhibit G), by KLVX Communications in Las Vegas, was shown.

Garland Knopp, representing Action Moving and Storage, referenced the videotape when the news reporter stated only two new licenses have been issued to movers in the last 25 years. He questioned the statistics, saying more licenses have been issued. He noted the customer who said she was unable to find a licensed mover, must have been preprogrammed by interviewee Mr. Ruggles (unlicensed mover), because that is a favorite line. He said he has worked in the moving industry in Nevada for 25 years, and has had his own moving company since 1987. He told the committee it is a rare occurrence when a moving company cannot take care of a customer. His company policy is never turn down a local move, because there are so few of them, as so many go to the illegal movers, and we are so tickled when we finally get one. He said it has been mentioned that one of the things the customer is exposed to is State Industrial Insurance System (SIIS) (now Employers Insurance Company of Nevada (EICON)) claims; that is true. He researched old rental agreements that illegal movers have customers sign. He compared the rental agreements with Nevada law; and when a person signs a lease agreement on a vehicle, according to Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), that is like ownership. In otherwords, the operator of the vehicle is as liable for the leased car as he/she would be if he/she owned the car. He said the same is true if a person operates a U-Haul truck, they are still liable for what happens with that vehicle. He pointed out that illegal movers are having customers sign vehicle rental agreements, and other people are driving the trucks. He said the certified movers would like to see attention brought to the truck rental agreement practice before an incident occurs. He added other items to be addressed are SIIS claims injuries, and damage claims on the customers’ own goods. He emphasized there is a major difference between regulation of household goods and the regulation of taxicabs, limousines, buses, etc.; the customers can get out of a taxi if they do not like what is happening. But when a household goods mover is hired, the customers watch all of their possessions drive away; the customers have no control from that point on. He said that one point is the key factor for regulation of the moving industry. He expounded when he worked for Mayflower in the 1970s, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) came in, because the helper the Mayflower driver picked up at the truck stop, convinced the customer to rent a U-Haul and he would drive it to Phoenix for her. That customer never saw her possessions again; they were sold at an auction behind a truck stop. The U-Haul truck turned up in Georgia, and the customer was liable for the truck. The customer went to the truck stop and found a few things, such as clothing, nothing else. Mr. Knopp concluded that is what can happen when customers do business with illegal movers.

Mr. Knopp communicated people call his company asking for information on moving. After explaining the process and the charges, the customer is cautioned to check for TSA numbers, because the customer is so exposed. He said sometimes the people call back saying they wished they had listened to the warning. Sometimes the customer is given a low quote, but at the destination are asked to produce double the amount in cash, or the customers’ goods will not be unloaded; at that point there is no choice. He said these are just a few examples of what goes on all the time. He pointed out one problem with having the telephone disconnected is the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) number. He said even though the ICC has been dismantled, an ICC number is still required for interstate transport. If the number appears in the Yellow Pages ad, then Nevada cannot have the telephone disconnected, because the state would then be interfering with interstate transport. He would guess that is why the TSA has been very careful not to put the state in that position.

Mr. Knopp submitted questions regarding S.B. 296, and proposed amendments to the bill (Exhibit I). Additionally, he submitted Proposed Washoe County Regulation and Licensing of Motor Carriers (Exhibit J. Original is on file in the Research Library.). Mr. Knopp asked for clarification of what was intended by a designated independent hearing officer.

Chairman O’Donnell responded the new language is "must" instead of "may." And the hearing officer is an independent person from outside the TSA; not from the board. Mr. Knopp wanted to know if the independent hearing officer would mean additional cost. Chairman O’Donnell answered, "yes." He added the movers would cover the cost.

Mr. Cappuro interjected that language is Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) language to coordinate with existing language in statute.

Mr. Knopp noted the language regarding brokerage has been deleted, and asked what the brokerage status is now. Senator Washington asked Mr. Knopp what his preference was as to regulate or deregulate brokerage. Mr. Knopp responded if the intent is to deregulate, then he would like to have the bill say that. If, however, brokerage is to be regulated, then the bill should be amended to indicate that. He emphasized the ideal is to not allow brokerage, then it would be easier for the TSA to enforce the illegal movers’ activities.

Mr. Cappuro remarked brokerage is a common issue with buses. He said if buses are deregulated, then there would be no need to regulate passenger issues. He pointed out that the bill proposes deregulating buses, but also covers regulation of passengers. He noted there is no need for one without the other.

Mr. Knopp proposed an amendment to S.B. 296 stating, "brokerage of transportation for taxicabs, limousines, and carrier of household goods is no longer applicable." He said he would leave the appropriate wording to the LCB.

Senator Wiener asked for clarification. One person is talking about no need for the regulation of brokerage for movers, and another wants brokerage as an illegal activity. The other person is talking not regulating them because they are not certificated; therefore they are not legal. She concluded there are a lot of different ways of looking at brokerage.

Mr. Capurro said it does not matter what the person is called, the person is calling himself a broker. He said the section of the bill deals with brokers who provide transportation services primarily with respect to passenger sightseeing, charter services, and the like.

Mr. Knopp agreed with the transportation services’ analysis, but the particular person seen in the video has been dancing around the law for years. He said the intent of the licensed movers is to close as many of the loopholes as possible. This way a judge who is not familiar with transportation would have something to work with in court. He stated he would like to amend his proposed amendment on brokerage to leave out any reference to taxicabs, limousines, and buses. He said there is interstate brokerage, but he understood that intrastate brokerage was not allowed because of all the certification rules. He asked for clarification and to prevent problems in the future that the proposed amendment be added to the bill.

Mr. Capurro stated he has no problem with brokerage activities that deal with household goods. He believes the LCB removed reference to brokerage because of its application to buses. However, he had no objection to amend the bill to reference brokerage as applied to household goods.

Chairman O’Donnell wondered why the TSA does not make Mr. Ruggles legal. Mr. Knopp explained the man does not want to be legal, because he would then have to raise his rates. He expounded a licensed moving company cannot operate in this state at $50 an hour and make any money. He said insurance, maintenance, and other costs are very high in the moving business. He said in the video, interviewee Mr. Holder (certificated mover) mentioned he was paying $40,000 a year for ads in the Yellow Pages. Mr. Knopp said compare the same size ads placed by Mr. Ruggles, and it is easy to see Mr. Ruggles is paying more than twice the yearly amount because he has more ads. Mr. Knopp maintained Mr. Ruggles does not want to change, because Mr. Ruggles is skimming off a large share of the moving business.

Chairman O’Donnell noted in the Las Vegas Yellow Pages that Mr. Ruggles has three ads without an ICC number, and one with an ICC number. Mr. Knopp commented that Mr. Ruggles is a unique individual. Mr. Ruggles goes way back to the PSCN, and recently the TSA has been very careful because Mr. Ruggles has some very high-powered attorneys and can make life difficult for others.

Senator Washington asked for clarification on Mr. Ruggles’ ownership involvement with the various moving companies listed in the Las Vegas Yellow Pages. Mr. Knopp stated Mr. Ruggles professes not to own the companies, but just brokers for other companies. Mr. Knopp referenced the Las Vegas Yellow Pages ads pointing out the ads for moving and storage, and use of other phrases that do not differentiate Mr. Ruggles from a full-service mover. When Mr. Ruggles gets a job, he then hires what he refers to as independent contractors to do the work. Mr. Knopp stated it is his understanding if an independent contractor does not pay workers’ compensation, then the hiring company is still liable. Mr. Knopp continued that Mr. Ruggles tells the people hired off the street they are "the moving company." Mr. Ruggles presents the customer with two sets of papers. One is the truck rental agreement, and the other is the labor contract for "the moving company," which is, in reality, the people hired for that job.

Senator Washington noted Mr. Ruggles has pretty well figured out the system; so if anything happens, he is not the company, just a broker. Mr. Knopp stated, rhetorically, why would a person with that kind of operation want to become certificated. Mr. Knopp added he would like to see the TSA check on the applicants who were turned down to find out why the turndown. He mentioned he purchased his authority in 1990 from a bankruptcy as the high bidder. He appeared before 18 interveners, who are now on the same side, and he was approved in August 1993. He said he has intervened in other authority applications where the applicant was turned down do to fitness. The applicant has to be able to provide for the public, have insurance, prove safety and maintenance, and have nothing come back on the TSA as the certifying body. He iterated the TSA checks for drug use, convictions, felonies, financial history, financial backing, and other factors to prove soundness of the business. Mr. Knopp added that most applicants are turned down before they get to a hearing. Some withdraw their applications when they find out about all the checks that would be run on them. He restated the committee might find it helpful to know exactly why applicants are denied certification before any changes are made to the application procedure.

Senator Care noted the example of disastrous experiences in dealing with nonregulated movers, but that could happen with a nonregulated tow-car company. He said in a free-market society, he is having problems sorting out selective deregulation. He wanted to know what was really wrong with deregulating the moving industry, considering there are so many operators out there that are not regulated now.

Mr. Knopp surmised when the federal government deregulated freight, they chose not to deregulate household goods. He stated that cannot just be an oversight. He said the moving industry, by its very nature, is an industry in which the consumer needs protection. He noted there is no protection from illegal movers. He stated there is regulation of taxicabs; because, for example, in Mexico where there is no regulation, the condition of the vehicles is terrible, and the service unreliable. He said that is not the image Las Vegas wants for its tourists. He said the same applies in moving household goods, where the consumer can have reasonable expectation of the responsibility of the mover. Mr. Knopp requested Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 706.285, 706.756, 706.013, 703.375, 706.756, and 706.476 also be included in the bill to apply to household goods movers (Exhibit I). He proposed to amend S.B. 296 to include between a 2.5-5.5 percent surcharge on every local move to fund the TSA.

John F. Mendoza, Chairman, Transportation Services Authority, Department of Business and Industry, said he appreciates all the comments from the household goods movers, they are absolutely correct. He explained the TSA was originally the transportation division of the PSCN. The TSA was transferred to be its own agency with three commissioners. He said at the time the TSA was separated from the PSCN it was near the end of the 1997 Legislative Session, with problems about jurisdiction areas, financing, etc.. With no time remaining in the session there was only a tentative budget, and a time was set for 2 months later to set a working budget. At that budget meeting concerns were expressed regarding underfunding, understaffing, and an inability to address all the areas of jurisdiction. Everyone was at a loss as to where the funding for the TSA would be found. As an accommodation, the TSA secured money from the Taxicab Authority (TA) trust fund. That amount was approximately $366,000 a year. That money allowed the TSA to start operating in October 1997. He said the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) knew the TSA was limited in funding and staff, and asked the TSA to take limited functions, from the TA, and the TSA. A function for the TSA was illegal limousines, which were to be impounded at the time they were apprehended. He said the language is mandatory, there is no discretion; the TSA "must" impound. The TSA holds a hearing on the impounding within 2 judicial days after impoundment. A determination is made as to whether the operator was licensed and certified to operate as a for-hire conveyor of passengers. If the operator was not properly certified and licensed, then by statute the TSA must fine the operator. The statute permits fines of up to $5,000 for each violation that occurred at the time of impoundment. He said the general penal statute NRS 706.771 authorizes the TSA to fine up to $10,000 for any violation of the statute. He said the TSA also has the right to refer the operator to a justice of the peace, if the violation is a gross misdemeanor. He said the problem was the TSA had zero priority with district attorneys statewide, because the case was from a state agency, unless it was an airtight case. He said the statute is still on the books, but the TSA rarely, if ever, uses criminal prosecution. The TSA uses civil action to proceed through citations, hearings, and commission representatives. He said fines can be assessed regularly, but the question is how to enforce the fines. He added many of the operators are "fly-by-night." The illegal operators rent a limousine or van, then enter into contracts with conventioneers, and people who have places at the conventions. He said the TSA has advised the convention authority and others of these illegal operators.

Chairman O’Donnell asked Mr. Mendoza to address the problem of illegal household goods movers. Mr. Mendoza said the statute does not allow the TSA to disconnect telephones. The statute does allow the TSA to look and to make inquiries of the telephone companies. He added the TSA must file criminal action, and until recently did not have legal counsel nor funding for legal counsel. The TSA has now filed several requests.

Chairman O’Donnell asked for copies of proceedings requesting telephone disconnect of illegal household goods movers. He noted in the Las Vegas Yellow Pages a full-page ad for Starving Students, and asked if they were legal movers. Mr. Mendoza replied they were not. He added there is a Starving Students movers in almost every city in America.

Chairman O’Donnell read an ad from the Las Vegas Yellow Pages that said "Out of state or local moving service experts." He said if that is illegal, why cannot the TSA go to court and disconnect that telephone number. Mr. Mendoza replied the TSA would have to do it exactly as the statute gives the TSA the authority; and that is to turn it over to someone who is actively practicing law, such as their attorney, who must go through all the processing established by the court. He concluded the TSA has not been able to do that, because funds and staff are very limited. Mr. Mendoza stated that in today’s Las Vegas Sun newspaper there is an article about Las Vegas mover Steven Moresca (sic) whose company, Insta-Move, was recently fined $12,000 for operating without a state certificate. The article continues that Mr. Moresca will continue to conduct business even if he does not get a license, stating he thinks the state certification system is unfair. Further in the article Mr. Moresca refers to the TSA process that allows companies to intervene when a competitor seeks an application or when a license is amended. Mr. Moresca concludes that the TSA does not interfere with his operation; that the TSA is just doing their job, and that the TSA is really on his side, but the laws are unfair. Mr. Mendoza stated the problem is the TSA does not have the personnel.

Senator Washington observed that Mr. Mendoza, just by using the telephone book, identified a number of illegal movers. He said the statute says the "authority may petition the court," and the authority is the TSA. He said if the TSA really does need a lawyer, then the attorney general is the prosecuting authority, and they can file the petitions with the court to disconnect the telephones of the illegal operators.

Mr. Mendoza said he raised the question about the TSA doing the disconnect requests, and the attorney general advised the TSA they could not.

Brian Hutchins, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Transportation and Public Safety Division, Office of the Attorney General (AG), said his department would be charged with handling requests from the TSA. He said the 1997 budget authorized one deputy to serve a new agency with all-new regulations, and coming up to speed with its operation. He said there has been significant difficulties with the process. He said although only one deputy was budgeted, he has assigned up to four deputies from other agencies to assist the TSA, as their workload at the other agencies permitted.

Chairman O’Donnell concluded it looks like the committee will have to deal with the TSA, the TA, and maybe the merger of the two agencies. He added there is also the differences between Reno and Las Vegas. He stated that the bill will be held until all the TSA and TA bills regarding household goods, taxicabs, limousines, tow cars, etc. requested this session have been heard, and then make a decision. This will eliminate the possibility of conflicting bills and make it better for everyone.

Mr. Hutchins stated he has concerns with the language in some areas of the bill already showing conflicts and legalities. For example, in section 36 and section 39, it indicates the DMV&PS will regulate insurance. He said the question is, if the TSA is regulating some of the different businesses, should liability be part and parcel of that regulation. He has the same concern with section 38 regarding horse-drawn carriages. He said the TSA has been eliminated from regulating the non-consent tow cars in sections 41, 45, 48, and 49. He pointed out there would be no TSA disciplinary action available in section 75. He said presently the TSA can take action to see that disciplinary fines are paid. He pointed out that section 75 removes that authority. He said similarly, section 34 would eliminate the ability of the TSA to investigate any kind of complaint against tow cars and buses. He said this means consumer complaints would not go through the TSA. He understands the proponents of the bill intended that omission.

Chairman O’Donnell wanted to know where the consumer complaints would be directed. Mr. Hutchins surmised since there is no state agency, the consumer would most likely go to the Better Business Bureau. He noted the Consumer Affairs Division of the Department of Business and Industry may be a possibility, and he would look into it.

Mr. Hutchins continued as a result of removing tow cars from regulation, there is no requirement that tow cars provide adequate, just and reasonable charges for nonconsensual tows. He said there is a minor technicality the TSA could still handle; and that is, the TSA would no longer be able to adopt, by reference, the federal regulations; the department would be doing that. He added there are still some federal regulations the TSA may choose to adopt by inference. The TSA still has regulatory authority, they would have to state those regulations as a whole, and go through the regulation process; they just could not adopt. He addressed section 27, saying the intent was to remove tow cars and buses from the regulatory scheme, but "common or contract motor carrier" was left in. He concluded there would still be a prohibition from operating defective, unsafe vehicles. He said he has not seen anywhere in the bill or in chapter 706 of NRS where a state entity could take action for a violation, or who would regulate. He stated the DMV&PS could only declare the vehicle out of service.

Mr. Mendoza noted that reporter, Richard Rolatta, who regularly covers the TSA agenda meetings, summed things up when he wrote, "The TSA monitors limousines, buses, towing companies, and moving companies that operate statewide, and taxis that operate in all but Clark County. Lately the agency has stepped up enforcement efforts against companies operating illegally as carriers of household goods. In other action A-1 Towing was cited on December 8 for failing to substantiate charges on a bill on a tow in Churchill County. A-1 [Towing] owner, David McCarter, admitted to the violation and paid a $500 fine last month as part of the settlement agreement." Mr. Mendoza commented that there appears to be a continued need to look at the industries as far as the possibility of receiving funding. He remembers that was one of the directions stated to the TSA at the IFC meeting, that if there was to be a merger, there had better be a funding process. He iterated a funding process has been started, but has not been included in the Governor’s budget.

Chairman O’Donnell stated that from his prospective, he is not enamoured of merging the TSA and the TA.

Ross Chichester, Lobbyist, Douglas County, representing Douglas County Sheriff’s Office (DCSO), said unlike some of the larger agencies, the DCSO has relied heavily on the PSCN to establish the conditions under which tow cars operate. The DCSO is concerned that if the tow cars are deregulated, the DCSO would have to enter into contract agreements. He would also like to know where the authority is for the DCSO to enter into contracts with tow-car companies, or could it be included in this bill.

Chairman O’Donnell closed the hearing on S.B. 296, and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B. 337).

Senator William R. O’Donnell, Clark County Senatorial District No. 5, said he came up with the bill 4 years ago. At that time he took several legislators to Washoe Valley and proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that a siren cannot be heard at 55 mph on the highway, until the siren is within 8 feet or less. He said it is a physics problem in that the airflow over the siren distorts the sound so bad that the only people hearing the siren were the people living in structures along the freeways. He stated the first reaction of the driver who suddenly hears the siren and sees the flashing red lights is to put on their brakes. He said the California Highway Patrol does not use sirens to pull vehicles over on the freeways; they use flashing lights and spotlights. The only thing use of a siren at high speeds does is wake people up who live along the freeways; mostly in apartments. The bill also authorizes an emergency vehicle to operate a warning lamp without using a siren. He said there are two types of emergency vehicular travel, a Code 2, and a Code 3. He said Code 2 means the vehicle runs with lights only, and is illegal in Nevada at the present time. He said Code 3 means the emergency vehicle runs with both lights and siren.

Senator Care wanted to know if there were ambulance drivers who would rather not use the siren on the freeway, but are under the impression they have to adhere to the "rules." Senator O’Donnell replied, in actuality, the ambulance driver can make more money by going Code 3 to the hospital. He added it is an adrenaline rush when everyone is moving out of the driver’s way.

Senator Care surmised that if there were a long line of cars stopped on the freeway and an ambulance had to get through on the emergency shoulder, would that be cause to use the siren. Senator O’Donnell responded that would not be a good place for a siren, because drivers are taught to pull over to the right when they hear a siren. He added, if people could be warned the emergency vehicle is there, but not scare the drivers, then there is a much better chance of the ambulance getting through to the accident. He said the other part is everyone on the freeway is already stopped, so there is no reason for the siren. He said in that scenario, a siren would have no effect.

Senator Jacobsen said his concern is in the rural areas a lot of distance is covered, and a siren is for the safety of the vehicle and its passengers. He said he would not want to micromanage the person behind the wheel, and he has mixed emotions regarding the bill.

Senator O’Donnell stated that most of the fire trucks, because of their weight, do not go much faster that 45-50 mph. He asked that if exempting the fire department from the bill would get the committee’s approval of the bill, then he would agree. He added the problem vehicles are the ambulances and police cars.

Senator Shaffer commented that having been an ambulance driver for Douglas County, and having experienced driving blind around curves, he is reluctant to do without a siren.

Senator O’Donnell responded that the problem is biggest in the Las Vegas area, and would exempt other areas if he could get the senator’s vote.

Vice Chairman Amodei wanted to know who would enforce the appropriate use of the siren. Senator O’Donnell acknowledged that was a good point. He said it would be a matter of policy as to whether an area wants the residents along a freeway to be awakened all hours of the night, it would be their call. He stressed he has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that sirens on freeways do not work. The sirens scare people in the oncoming lanes, and wake everyone who lives on either side of the freeways.

Senator Wiener noted that the mountain driving Senator Shaffer referred to would not apply, because the bill is addressing freeways.

Raymond L. Sparks, Deputy Director, Public Safety, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS), stated the DMV&PS agrees with the comments made about the relative lack of effectiveness of a siren on the freeway. He said there are some situations where the siren might be useful. For example, if an officer was trying to make a traffic stop on the freeway, and the driver of the car was going at a slower speed and not looking into the rear view mirror. He said while the general concept is supported, and the sirens can be an annoyance at night, the DMV&PS would like to suggest an option be preserved for law enforcement to use discretion and use the siren only when absolutely necessary.

Senator O’Donnell asked if the DMV&PS has a policy now, or is planning on making it a policy in the future. Mr. Sparks answered that right now if an officer was operating an emergency vehicle, and violating any of the normal traffic laws, they would have to be operating both the red lights and siren. He stated by statute the use of the siren could not be restricted.

Senator O’Donnell queried if it would work to strip the bill down to allow a Code 2 on freeways only; just lights only unless use of the siren were warranted. Mr. Sparks acknowledged that could work.

Senator O’Donnell concluded that if the NHP were exempted, exempt northern Nevada and the fire departments; then there may be a bill.

Senator Jacobsen recalled years ago that the ambulances would be escorted through the cities, but it became a safety factor and was stopped. He asked if there were circumstances when an escort would be provided today.

John A. Bawden, Deputy Chief, Major, Nevada Highway Patrol Division (NHP), Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, stated escorting is no longer a general practice. He said there are a few exceptions, such as a presidential visit.

Senator O’Donnell stated if the sirens were not used during the President’s visit, then the police were in violation of the law. He said he just wants to make a point that there are, and can be, exceptions.

Major Bawden commented the events in which he has been involved in included complete control of the highway, including ramps shutdown, so the sirens were not necessary. The lights served the purpose of letting others in the area know where the motorcade was at any given time and point. He surmised that the sirens were used when the motorcade traveled along surface streets where there was not complete control of the traffic.

Mr. Sparks added there are times only lights are used, in disregard of the law, as a practical matter. He said it does cause a problem, because under statutes both the siren and emergency lights would have to be activated to enable the operator of the vehicle to disregard the traffic laws, even if they were only going 5 mph over the speed limit.

Gary E. Milliken, Lobbyist, American Medical Response (AMR), stated AMR is in opposition to S.B. 337, as it is currently written. He said there are situations in which the traffic is so jammed up it is difficult to get the ambulance through. He said one problem is a situation dealing with a heart attack, in which there is a time limit to get the patient to a hospital. He said under those circumstances ambulance drivers use any method at their disposal, including sirens, that can expedite the transition through traffic. He said it may not be necessary to use a siren all the time, but there are certain times when it is absolutely necessary.

Senator O’Donnell asked if he could impose on the NHP, to take Mr. Milliken, Ms. Miller, and Mr. Lowery out in a patrol car at 55 mph and demonstrate no matter how fast you want to get to a hospital with a heart attack patient, it does not make any difference. It is like turning on nothing, because it cannot be heard. He said if he proves to them, then maybe they will understand the point of the bill.

Vice Chairman Amodei responded the committee would certainly take that suggestion under advisement.

R. Alexis Miller, Lobbyist, Regional Emergency Medical Services Authority, stated her client is opposed to S.B. 337 for the same reasons as stated by Mr. Milliken.

Robert Dudley Lowery, Lobbyist, City of Henderson, said Chief Hill of the Henderson Fire Department has to have that siren to get from Henderson to University Medical Center (UMC), because he has to use the freeway to get there.

Raymond C. McAllister, Lobbyist, Professional Firefighters of Nevada, stated opposition to the bill. He said there are over 1,500 Code 3 calls a year. He clarified ambulance drivers are paid extra only for using Code 3 when responding to an emergency call, they do not get paid extra when going to the hospital. He added he was a paramedic for over 6 years, and never transported a patient, Code 3, unless it was necessary. He agreed that the siren is difficult to hear at 55 mph, but it is due more to the new quieter cars; and with the air-conditioning on and the radio operating, the driver hears very little outside the vehicle. He said that during sunny days, a flashing light is not easily seen, especially on fire engines where lights are higher on the vehicle. He said fire engines are governed at 65 mph as a matter of public safety only. He said ambulances can go faster than 65 mph.

Mr. McAllister explained cities are rated for fire insurance. One of those ratings is based on response time to emergencies from the time of the call to the time of arrival of the first emergency unit, which should be no more than 6 minutes. He conveyed with the increased population growth, any delay incurred only extends response time. For example, with today’s lightweight roof truss construction, it has been shown if a fire burns freely in an attic space, lightweight trusses can fail in less than 5 minutes, resulting in roof collapse. He said in Las Vegas a lot of roofs are made of tile and many air conditioners sit on rooftops, under that weight the roofs collapse quickly. He said the best way to combat roof collapse is quick response to put out the fire before it gets into the attic space. He said the fire department operates under several medical principles for medical service calls.

Senator O’Donnell said he appreciates what is being said, but it is moot regarding hearing a siren when a vehicle is moving at high speed. It is meaningless on freeways.

Mr. McAllister said that traveling without warning signals and sirens increases liability for cities. He pointed out the bill says a vehicle may travel with warning signals, but without sirens. He said the bill does not say, "on the freeway." He added he does not have a problem with the freeways as long as it is left up to the operator and department policy. He says his department’s policy is to turn off everything when on the freeway, because the vehicle is governed at 65 mph and everyone else passes them.

Senator O’Donnell pointed out that one part of the bill states a siren cannot be used on a freeway, and the other part of the bill says a siren "may" be used at the discretion of the operator.

Senator Jacobsen observed the siren question centers around a noise factor. He asked if the noise of the siren did anything for the operator in making him/her more aware and alert to the surroundings.

Mr. McAllister responded he believes the siren makes the driver more aggressive, and that was not a good thing. He said as the driver becomes more experienced, the siren does help the driver’s awareness of his/her responsibility.

Terry Taylor, Fire Captain, East Fork Fire Protection District, representing Nevada Association of Arson Investigators, and Southern Nevada Fire Chiefs Association, said the part no one likes is not to be able to use a siren while on a freeway, under any circumstances. The bill does not distinguish the speed of vehicles on the freeway or the speed of the emergency vehicle. He stated that having been a police officer and now a fireman, he totally agrees the siren cannot be heard at 55 mph. However, at lower speeds, which can occur on a freeway, the siren wakes people out of freeway lethargy. He added that Douglas County has no freeways; however, patients are transported to facilities in Reno, usually during inclement weather when Care Flight is not available. He said the paramedic firefighters have reported running into situations where the sirens assist in moving vehicles out of the way, usually when inclement weather forces traffic to move slower. He added the emergency runs from Douglas County area to the hospitals in Reno average about two a month in good weather, and about ten a month in the winter months.

Captain Taylor added that if the bill removes the liability from the governmental entity that operates the vehicles, then having the option to use or not use a siren is a good thing. He understands the southern Nevada fire departments have a problem with the present law and with the way the bill is written because of liability concerns. If the language of the bill can be changed to allow for operator discretion, and it is clear there is no liability on the part of the operating entity, then the southern Nevada fire departments would have no problem with the bill. He said the arson investigators are generally in unmarked vehicles, as is the bomb squad, but on occasion they would like to have the option to use the siren.

Senator O’Donnell said it is not the intent of the bill to impede use of a siren to get to the scene, but asks consideration of those residents living along freeways. He averred many constituents have called his office regarding sirens in the night disturbing their sleep. He emphasized he would be tickled if a compromise to satisfy both parties could be reached.

Chief Taylor reiterated that the words, "under any circumstances on a freeway," were unacceptable.

There being no further testimony, Vice Chairman Amodei closed the hearing on S.B. 337, and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B. 324.

Michael R. Reed, Lobbyist, Baker and Drake Inc., stated the bill is a result of problems arising out of the passage of Assembly Bill (A.B.) 366 of the Sixty-ninth Session, which took a great deal of the transportation responsibility from the PSC and established a new TSA.

Mr. Reed said the rural and northern Nevada taxi operators have found that broad regulations for the whole state do not work. He pointed out that conditions in Clark County are markedly different from those elsewhere in the state. He said that after the bill was written, it was discovered that many taxi drivers in other parts of the state are having similar problems to those in Clark County. He said, as a result, he would like to propose the bill be amended to apply only to counties of less than 400,000 population. He noted that bill also references incorporated cities within counties, and pointed out it would not be a good thing to have a plethora of regulations amongst the various jurisdictions. He proposed the reference to cities and incorporated cities be removed from the bill. He emphasized the bill is permissive in that it does not require any county to do anything; they can if they elect to do so.

Donald L. Drake, President, Baker and Drake Inc., d.b.a. De Luxe Yellow Star Cab Company, explained his father and another taxi-company operator went before the 1941 Legislature for a definition of taxi service and basic regulations. He said at that time there were four pages of regulations. He said since the TSA was established 2 years ago, they have been trying to merge the Clark County Taxicab Authority with the TSA, bringing the regulations up to 144. He explained the purpose of A.B. 324 is to reduce those regulations, and produced proposed regulations to bring them down to 32 pages (Exhibit J). He said in 16 counties taxi operators are very concerned with residential business. He said 65-70 percent of his business is from locals. In Las Vegas it is difficult to find a taxi more than two blocks away from The Strip. He elucidated that between all the taxi regulations, there really is not a good taxi service in Clark County. He said he is concerned with protecting the independent contractor status in Washoe County. It is his belief that the market should set the need for taxis. He said 6 years ago Governor Miller appointed Kenny Guinn, and a number of other respected citizens to look at ways to cut state government. One of the recommendations the group made was for the state to get out of regulating taxis. He said right now there is a funding problem, which is upsetting the Highway Fund and taxi operators in Clark County through their TA who think all taxis should pay their fair share. He said if the taxis in the other 16 counties paid $2,800 a taxi annually, there would not be a taxicab operating outside of Clark County. He proposed disbanding the TSA and cutting back on regulations would put free enterprise back into the taxi market. He said S.B. 324 is supported by Washoe County Sheriff Richard Kirkland. Sheriff Kirkland told him there has been a long-standing problem between the Washoe County Sheriffs and Chiefs Association and the Clark County TA, and the TSA, regarding peace officer status. He asked the committee to pass the bill to allow county and local governments to assume regulation of taxicabs.

John Cardinelli, representing Sunshine Taxi, stated he is in favor of removing authority over taxicabs from the TSA. He said he does not want South Lake Tahoe, Winnemucca, Fallon, and others having to abide by the same regulations as Reno, let alone Las Vegas, because the operations are as different as night and day. He opined it would work better to have the counties adopt taxi regulations, than to try to work with a state agency. He stated anytime the taxis at Lake Tahoe had a problem, it was near impossible to get the attention of the TSA, even when they were located in Reno. He emphasized anytime the taxi operators registered a complaint, it seemed the TSA would attack the operators rather than the problem. He observed that he has had the least amount of problems with the TSA, because he only had to pay a $1,000 fine for moving a filing cabinet, rather than a $10,000 fine like many of his associates.

Senator Care asked for some examples of TSA regulations that do not work because of geographic location.

Mr. Cardinelli responded that before the TSA it was the PSCN. With the PSCN the only way a person could be certificated was if someone died, went out of business, or purchased a certificate from someone. He said, essentially, the markets were locked. Since the TSA became an agency, it seems anyone can get a certificate. For example, recently in Lake Tahoe, a clearly unfit, unsafe operator who has been operating illegally for years and cited numerous times, submitted a shabby application, proved no need or necessity, showed no fitness, and was granted a certificate. He said this type of situation appears to be typical. Now it appears the TSA has changed and is not going to issue anyone a certificate. He conveyed there does not appear to be any consistency with the TSA. He noted the problem with the TSA merging with the TA in Las Vegas, is the TA wants all new vehicles with less than 12,000 miles on the odometer. He stated that may work in Las Vegas where vehicles are running 24 hours a day. He said Douglas County and Stateline do not have the same volume of business. He only runs 22 taxis a year, and to replace them with new ones would put him out of business in no time.

Senator Jacobsen asked if California taxis operate in Nevada. Mr. Cardinelli answered this is similar to the situation the moving people talked about. He elucidated that a taxi registered in California with no California business will hold themselves out at a taxi stand at a casino and do intrastate as well as interstate drops. He said all that the Nevada taxis have gotten from the PSCN and the TSA is there is no budget, no teeth in the law, cannot interfere with interstate commerce, etc..

Chairman O’Donnell queried if Mr. Cardinelli paid an annual fee for his taxi and is done in Las Vegas. Mr. Cardinelli replied he pays an annual fee of $36 a vehicle. Commenting further, Mr. Cardinelli said he is not trying to dictate particular regulations; he strongly supports taxi regulation on a more local level.

Chairman O’Donnell wanted to know who was checking taxis now. Mr. Cardinelli stated local law enforcement does not check taxis. He stated for the past 10 years no one has done background checks. He said, recently, a program was started with the City of South Lake Tahoe to perform background checks. He added that to the best of anyone’s knowledge no one has needed a background check; that may have just been luck.

Chairman O’Donnell stated he personally is looking at establishing a northern Nevada regional TA. Mr. Cardinelli opined this situation is similar to the siren bill, where one size does not fit all. Chairman O’Donnell acknowledged the analogy and stated there has to be regulation of taxis, and the Highway Fund will no longer fund the cost of regulation; funding will have to come from the taxi industry.

Ignacio Garijo, Owner, Winnemucca Cab Company, said several years ago his company filed complaints with the TSA concerning unauthorized moves by several companies. He said Mr. Colling of the TSA told him it would be helpful if the TSA were provided with more detail as to where, when, and what company was in violation. Mr. Garijo said as a businessman he did not have the time or resources to investigate a tow-car company. In his opinion, once a regulatory agency is made aware of a problem, the agency should then investigate the charges to completion. He was told an investigator would check into the matter in the near future. However, to date no one has heard from or seen an investigator.

Chairman O’Donnell inquired if Mr. Garijo paid any fees for his operation. Mr. Garijo responded he pays $36 a year. Chairman O’Donnell stated that may be why no one has come forward to investigate the complaint. He then wanted to know if Mr. Garijo had any objection to paying a higher fee. Mr. Ignacio replied he would consider a reasonable amount. Chairman O’Donnell commented, "that was the right answer." Mr. Garijo claimed the last contact he had from a regulatory agency was in 1995. He added that he has documentation of an out-of-state carrier who regularly picks up fares in Winnemucca and takes them to Elko. He stated this is an obvious violation of Nevada law. He said something has to be done about it, as it is detrimental to his business. He urged the taxi business must be regulated consistently and thoroughly. His concern is that regulations be enforced in a just and timely manner, whether on a local or state level. In his opinion local or county government would be more aware of the public’s needs, and would have more of a hands-on approach to taxi issues. He pointed out there is a big difference in the regulations needed for areas over 500,000, and communities with populations of 5,000 or 10,000. He said the perfect example is regulation of casino shuttles. He continued he is confident that if there had been a local representative of the TA to enforce regulations, the situation he described would have been resolved in a timely manner, and in a more economical manner.

Harvey Whittemore, Lobbyist, Whittlesea-Bell, said the company’s position is that the transition of the TSA out of the PSCN needs to have time to work through some of the problems the PSCN had in regulating the taxi industry. In his client’s opinion, it is better to have decisions made at the policy level as to whether the TA would be merged with the TSA, or to establish independent agencies. He said the scope of regulations dealing with taxis in Douglas County, Washoe County, Winnemucca, and other places, are much different than the TA regulations in Las Vegas. To suggest otherwise is inherently unwise in terms of presenting a record which people can review and determine the merits of this bill. He said to have separate regulations for Washoe County and others could create more problems than it would solve; plus those regulations would need to be seen before deciding what to do with this bill. One consideration is to be sure there is a minimum standard in regulations statewide. He pointed out setting minimum standards that are fair to all counties and locales, is already the purview of the TSA. His client is not in favor of over-regulation, nor are they supportive of deregulation. He noted his client has no position regarding leasing.

Senator Wiener asked if there has been dialogue regarding the assessment fee to fund the TSA, because there is quite a diversity between Clark County and the rest of the state.

Mr. Whittemore responded those who participated in the last session’s legislation were aware of inadequate funding, and knew they would have to address that consideration during this legislative session, because no agreement was reached by the end of the session. It was everyone’s opinion at the time, that it was important to establish the TSA in order to develop statewide regulations.

Royale Street, Owner/President, Reno-Sparks Cab Company, Executive Limousine, and Capital Cab, stated he is opposed to S.B. 324. He said if regulation is at the county level, he can envision counties who need to raise revenue not being discretionary about certifying taxicabs. He said if that would become the case, he could see taxi service going down with unsafe vehicles, unkempt drivers, and use of alcohol, especially among leasing drivers. He said he leases, but limits his cars to being returned to the yard every 12 hours, because it is the only way to check on the drivers. He stated his company fires four to five drivers a year for alcohol use.

Senator Care asked Mr. Street what his assessment is regarding certificates being issued too freely. Mr. Street answered he has not been tracking the issuing of certificates, but it did not appear to be too freely. He opined the TSA seems to be too hard on certificated taxis; for example, his company recently received a notice of a $10,000 fine for having the wrong police application on file. He voiced it was not the wrong application; it had been retyped with an inadvertent omission and sent with a page accidentally missing. He said instead of simply requesting the missing information be provided, the TSA is looking for ways to make a dollar.

Senator Washington stated it was possible to miss noticing whether a driver has been drinking, and asked how Mr. Street monitors his drivers. Mr. Street told the committee every shift the driver has to come to the cashier to get the keys to the taxi, and the cashier can usually tell at that point if a driver has been drinking.

Madelyn Shipman, Lobbyist, Washoe County, and Washoe County District Attorney, said the Washoe County Board of Commissioners has no desire to regulate taxicabs; they are unanimously in opposition to the bill. She opined from listening to the testimony that there are bigger issues to be resolved. She stated Washoe County believes the regulatory process would be a time consuming and costly one, and does not have the ability or expertise to properly regulate taxicabs.

Senator Washington stated, in defense of his own bill, he finds it amazing that during election time he, as a legislator, is pushed by the county for home rule; and here he is trying to give it to them, and the county does not want it.

Chairman O’Donnell closed the hearing on S.B. 324, and opened the hearing on bill draft requests (BDRs).

*****

*****

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:10 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Laura Adler,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator William R. O'Donnell, Chairman

DATE: