MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Transportation
Seventy-First Session
May 24, 2001
The Senate Committee on Transportationwas called to order by Chairman William R. O'Donnell, at 1:36 p.m., on Thursday, May 24, 2001, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was video conferenced to the Grant Sawyer Office Building, Room 4401, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
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 Terry Care
Senator Maggie Carlton
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Donald O. Williams, Committee Policy Analyst
Joan Moseid, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Daryl E. Capurro, Lobbyist, Nevada Motor Transport Association
Bruce Breslow, Commissioner, Transportation Services Authority, Department of Business and Industry
Michael K. Sullivan, Lobbyist, Nevada Limousine Coalition
Anthony F. Sanchez III, Lobbyist
Michael R. Reed, Lobbyist, Baker and Drake Incorporated
Alfredo Alonso, Lobbyist, Nevada Resort Association, and MGM Mirage
Brock Lewis, Concerned Citizen
Edward Wheeler, President, Omni Limousine
Ray Vinole, Owner, High Roller Transportation Limited Liability Corporation
Chairman O’Donnell opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 576.
SENATE BILL 576: Makes various changes to provisions governing fully regulated carriers. (BDR 58-1557)
Daryl E. Capurro, Lobbyist, Nevada Motor Transport Association, testified on behalf of S.B. 576, saying the Nevada Motor Transport Association supports the bill. Mr. Capurro noted, “I believe what you have is a situation in which all parties, with respect to taxicabs, limousines, and bus companies, are in accord with this and we would like to see it pass.”
Bruce Breslow, Commissioner, Transportation Services Authority (TSA), Department of Business and Industry, testified on behalf of A.B. 576, iterating he was here to reaffirm his support for the bill.
Chairman O’Donnell asked, in light of the recent court action with Judge Ronald D. Parraguirre, Department 1, Eighth Judicial District Court in Las Vegas, “How does this bill relate to that particular situation?”
Mr. Breslow stated Judge Parraguirre upheld all the rules and regulations, but on two points ruled the regulations were not applied correctly by the TSA when it allowed the intervenor process allowing established companies to influence the licensing of new, competing companies to go forward without limitations. Mr. Breslow said the district court ruling also ordered the intervenors be consolidated which, he noted, is what the Transportation Services Authority has been doing for the last couple of years. This suit was filed in 1998, he said, now, we have a piece of paper from Judge Parraguirre which gives us the right to react a little bit stronger. We had another court ruling which said we had to allow all intervenors in, so we were very leery of being taken to court every time we limited them. Unlike inferences in the newspaper reports, we were very thrilled with the ruling, he said.
Chairman O’Donnell asked Mr. Breslow, “Does this bill help you or hurt you in any way, in terms of dealing with transportation issues and adjudication of Judge Parraguirre?”
Mr. Breslow iterated S.B. 576 does not address those issues. This is mostly a public safety bill which started as a cleanup bill. What is imperative to us, is the TSA can do background checks on limousine drivers, he said. Currently, there is not any statewide protection for the public in regard to limousine drivers. He said there are no teeth with regard to household goods movers and about 60 percent of TSA enforcements address complaints for the illegal “household goods movers.” The TSA can fine them, but they have thumbed their noses at the fines and refused to pay, he said. The Attorney General’s office does not have the time or the money to go after them, the only recourse the TSA has would be to impound the illegal vehicles. The TSA has that right with limousines and it has been very effective; and the TSA has that right with taxicabs everywhere but in Clark County. This bill would allow the TSA to have impound power over the “household goods movers,” and the “illegals,” which would allow us to protect the public interest, he said.
The gaming amendment (amendment requested by the gaming industry to include “super-stretch limousines”), we feel, makes common sense and we support it.
Chairman O’Donnell stated his next question was made on behalf of testifier Michael K. Sullivan, who represents a client who is concerned about the number of allocated vehicles. He asked Mr. Breslow to stipulate, on the record, what his position is with regard to the allocation of permitted vehicles on the street, as well as the allocation process.
Mr. Breslow stated there are approximately 2000 taxicabs in the Clark County area, and there are a little more than 1000 legal limousines. About 60 percent of those limousines have been added within the last 2 years. “The TSA has approved, I believe, 17 new licenses within the last 2 years for limousines companies,” he said.
Mr. Breslow continued:
Some of the older licenses, issued before I was on the commission, were unlimited licenses and those companies have the right to put as many limousines on the street as they would like, and they have. In the last couple of years, the TSA has required applicants to have the financial fitness to be able to afford the limousines they are asking for. If they have the financial ability to put five limousines into service, and they can afford the insurance, and the driver training, et cetera, we will approve five limousines. This has gotten a handle on the total proliferations of the limousine market. We have seven cases that, I believe, Commissioner Paul J. Christensen is hearing next Tuesday. They are all from limousine drivers who have illegally jumped taxicab stands soliciting business.
Mr. Breslow added, there are so many limousines on the road, he could easily predict seeing another 500 going into service by next session.
Chairman O’Donnell asked if the Transportation Services Authority would allow a taxicab company to add vehicles to the limit of its license prior to and inclusive of a new allocation. For instance, he said, if a limousine company were approved for five vehicles and it only had two at the present time, would it be allowed to put the other three on, as well as participate in the allocation of the limousines.
Mr. Breslow said, absolutely, the certificate allows a company a certain number of limousines, and when it reaches the financial wherewithal to be able to afford the next allotment. “Currently, they may have 6 with the ability to go to 12 limousines by 2002. We certainly do not intend to apply any sort of restriction on their current certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN),” he said.
Mr. Breslow explained:
The allocations system would then take effect after they have reached the number they have or their CPCN, but it does not affect and cannot apply to the unlimited licenses. We have to have a moratorium because some of the taxicab owners’ allocations would never apply without some sort of regulation that would say, “Hold it, if we are going to do an allocation system, you cannot go and buy or put 500 limousines on the street tomorrow.” This would defeat the purpose or the intent of this bill.
Chairman O’Donnell asked Mr. Sullivan to come forward and asked him whether “these measures satisfied his concerns, now there are two out of the three commissioners on the record.”
Michael K. Sullivan, Lobbyist, Nevada Limousine Coalition, answered, “Yes,” and responded:
I am not a lawyer and what I am afraid of is the definition of a “fully regulated carrier.” In section 38, subsection 2, on page 17, “A fully regulated carrier of passengers shall not, before the effective date of those regulations, increase the number of traditional limousines or livery limousines that it operates in a county whose population is 400,000 or more.”
Mr. Sullivan commented, this is in the law, but he does not know what could happen from a legal standpoint. He said this is not definite, if someone wanted to he could go back and say, “I should not have said that because I do not have the legal right.” He commented, “Although, I do trust what he says, this scares me when someone could say, ‘Now this is the law, whatever we have said’; then [turn around and say] we are sorry, we did not have the authority to say it.”
Chairman O’Donnell asked, “In what section did you find those measures?”
Mr. Sullivan suggested they may want to consider doing something with the language such as, “The people who already have certificates,” or something to that effect. It is so black and white that if the TSA were to come back, it basically says we cannot do anything. He added, even with the commitments there may be some who could legally say we could not do it.
Senator Washington asked if subsection 2 had been heard before, earlier in the transportation committee meeting.
Chairman O’Donnell responded no, this is brand new language.
Mr. Sullivan said this language was in the first bill, S.B. 270, and passed out of the Senate Committee on Transportation this session. “But we opposed it then, and we are afraid without more defining language, we might not be held to it,” he said.
SENATE BILL 270: Makes various changes to provisions governing fully regulated carriers. (BDR 58-553)
Mr. Breslow asked, “May I offer a suggestion?” Chairman O’Donnell responded, “Yes,” and then asked Mr. Sanchez if he could come forward and testify as well.
Mr. Breslow suggested inserting the words “unless allowed by a restricted CPCN after “shall not,” in section 38, subsection 2 of S.B. 576 would address specifically questions with regard to numbers of vehicles allowed. He iterated then only the carriers having restricted CPCNs would be allowed to increase up to their allocation numbers.
Mr. Sullivan commented the suggestion sounded good to him, but he represented five or six different companies, any or all of whom could have another opinion.
Anthony F. Sanchez III, Lobbyist, stated he was a former counsel for the Public Service Commission of Nevada, which had regulated the limousines and taxicabs industry. He said he had not looked at the current provision until now.
Chairman O’Donnell said, “What we are trying to do is codify the comments made by both Mr. Breslow, and Mr. Christensen regarding the ability for limousine companies to add vehicles to their fleets up to the maximum number permitted in their licenses.” He elucidated verbal agreements pertaining to the statutes, as we have read in the district court decision and the newspaper, have made this a gray area, as far as he was concerned, in the law. Hopefully, all involved can solve Mr. Sullivan’s problem.
Mr. Sanchez insisted the language suggested by Commissioner Breslow, “Fully regulated carrier passengers shall not, unless allowed by an existing restricted CPCN,” should read, “existing as of the date of passage, and shall not be, before the effective date.” Chairman O’Donnell asked if the language would preclude or exempt them from the entire allocation process.
Mr. Sanchez remarked he believed if the word “restricted” was in the law or the words “existing or restricted CPCN,” because they have their limitations at this time. Chairman O’Donnell iterated, “We need to allow them to go to their limit and then participate in the allocation process.” He asked Mr. Sullivan whether this would solve his problem.
Mr. Sullivan answered yes, stating he would like to put this statement on the record:
The reason that we were concerned about this is we are starting this system and most of our companies are small who would like to grow, and some would like to grow even more than their allocated number. My reasoning for wanting to not have any kind of moratorium until 2002 [is it] would at least give them a chance to grow. They would not be able to grow any more than their certificated number unless they go again in front of the TSA.
Senator Care acknowledged he did not read Judge Parraguirre’s decision. He stated, to his understanding, the problem is when there were the interveners, and in essence, the TSA was saying to the new applicant, “Go work it out with the interveners.” Then the interveners, in the course of working it out, would threaten the course of deposition and all manner of cost and fees, to delay the process to the extent the upstart would then have no choice but to strike an agreement that he or she would not like to have.
Mr. Breslow answered anybody who made such statements should not be working for the TSA. He said, “If someone from the TSA is telling an applicant they have to go work out a side deal, it is totally wrong and I do not personally know of anybody who might have said that who is currently working for the TSA.” Mr. Breslow said the judge cited Mr. Dennis Colling, who was on the TSA before Mr. Breslow. He noted he intends, at the next agendized meeting, to bring up this issue of seeing some type of statement go on the record. Mr. Breslow explained sometimes when people are applying for licensing, the enforcement staff tries to be helpful, and someone might say, “This could be a very long process, you could go and do something.” He commented, however, no one should be saying this to anyone. So we need a policy in place, in his opinion, to set the record straight, because you cannot give an applicant advice to go cut a deal on the side. That is stupid, and if this is being done, it is wrong. And if this has been done in the past, the judge is correct in punishing the agency for doing it.
Senator Care stated the provision in the section the gaming industry would like to have in there, it would seem to him, might have the effect of actually decreasing the demand for limousines across the board, for both the big guys and little guys. He asked Mr. Breslow if he had any thoughts on it. Senator Care continued, secondly, there are some provisions in this bill and we have talked about the proficiency in English, for example, but there would not be any requirement for someone driving a resort’s limousine to have proficiency in English, as well. Would this apply?
Mr. Breslow said the resorts are exempted from almost all of the laws. There is one thing applying to the resort industry, which he said they have been violating for some time because it has been common sense to do so, especially with some properties owning three or four resorts. He commented further, they might want to take a client to dinner at the Mirage Hotel and Casino or go see a show at the MGM Grand Hotel/Casino, the law says, “You can leave your hotel and go to one place and then you must come back to your hotel.” Mr. Breslow expounded, all they are asking for is what we do support, the right to be able to take their “high rollers” (their clients) to more than one stop, but they cannot charge for that type of transportation, and cannot compete with the limousine market, it must be their own clients to their own properties. The TSA does support their right to be able to make one more stop, especially now, when a lot of companies own several hotels.
Chairman O’Donnell commented he believes also, some of the hotels are not contracting with limousine companies. Mr. Breslow responded if it is contracted, then they would have to follow all the rules and regulations. If it is a free service that the hotel provides, Chairman O’Donnell noted, then the hotel is providing it free to the customer.
Mr. Breslow added if they are contracting with a company, the company is under the rules.
Senator Carlton remarked to Mr. Breslow:
I am just curious and I do know the intent of the bill, and I do understand how important it is to be able to perform these background checks on limousine drivers, and then I do understand Mr. Sullivan’s concerns. But when I get into the bill in section 11, where we are talking about a physician’s certificate, and then we go to section 13, where it described the duties, and the trip sheets, then in section 14, describing the dress codes, I feel, personally, that these are more regulatory-type issues and should be between the employee and the employer, and now we are actually putting dress codes in statutes. I do have a few concerns about this and when you add these concerns to the fining capability that is in this bill, that a driver may be fined and disciplined progressively, in a combination of any of these issues. Are these issues really important to this bill?
Mr. Breslow said, currently, any violation fine might go up to $10,000; this bill lays out a fine schedule that starts at $50 and up. So, this is much more reasonable and less arbitrary than in the past. This fine schedule in the whole section is talking about the conduct. It is boilerplate language that was taken from the Taxicab Authority (TA). He explained, under the original bill which was going to merge the two agencies, this language was already in place and is state law, the English language is a part of the same boilerplate language in state law, and it has been state law since 1962 from the TA. Mr. Breslow stated he would not make a comment regarding dress codes because he does not know the history on dress codes.
Mr. Breslow added, the industry has supported having their drivers make a good presentation because they are the first people a tourist sees or a local resident sees. He suggested the committee members ask the Taxicab Authority representatives about their dress-code policy. He commented as far as medical checks, this is already state law. The TSA does require a medical card and the drivers have to have it in their possession.
Chairman O’Donnell responded this law applies to taxicabs and limousines companies, now. It used to apply only to taxicabs. In addition, the reason why it is new language is if you look at Chapter 706 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) . . . he then asked if some chapters had been deleted.
Mr. Sanchez said, yes, the latter half of Chapter 706 of NRS was deleted.
Chairman O’Donnell said the repealed section of the law is not in his book and usually they would print the repealed sections.
Mr. Breslow responded he did not believe those were the repealed sections they were only the proposed changes. The dress codes, the restrictions Senator O’Donnell mentioned are a part of the state law applying to taxicab drivers, and now it would apply to limousine drivers as well.
Chairman O’Donnell noted, with regard to concerns about the ancillary provisions, they are currently state law, but they apply to taxicab drivers. “We could apply this law, but I believe we would be doing the public a disservice.” He commented he certainly does not want a taxicab driver smoking a cigar or chewing snuff in a cab he gets into.
Senator Carlton said “My only point is a lot of these regulations, I see, are in my place of employment rules through house policy, and they are not in the NRS. If this law does exist currently for the taxicab drivers, I would continue to have concerns about these statutes even though they do exist. I believe these type of issues are between the employer and the employee.
Chairman O’Donnell noted, “I do not believe I am going to change your mind.”
Michael R. Reed, Lobbyist, Baker and Drake Incorporated, testified on behalf of Baker and Drake, Inc, and said they continue to support S.B. 576.
Alfredo Alonso, Lobbyist, Nevada Resort Association, and MGM Mirage, stated his clients also support S.B. 576.
Senator Care reiterated the concerns raised by Senator Carlton and he said if a company is deregulated or exempted, then this would really become a matter between the employer and the employee, or a driver versus the resort. He asked Mr. Alonso if he had this discussion with the industry and what steps would the industry take with respect to their own limousine drivers, background checks, uniforms, smoking, English-only, et cetera. Senator Care suggested this was not a matter in which the state should be involved.
Mr. Alonso stated each of the properties has its own human resources department setting policies for all of their employees, including the drivers, unless a property contracts with another limousine company, then those policies would be discussed with the contracting entity.
Chairman O’Donnell noted the question might be better addressed to a hotel property owner. However, if this was left up to each and every cab company to determine what its standard dress code would be or for smoking, there would be approximately 15 different standards available. The reason why taxicabs and limousines are regulated is because they are a transportation mode for the touring public. He stated, “In this state we have done so for years and years,” and noted he could remember the taxicabs wars Las Vegas used to have. We have regulated this industry very specifically and very succinctly because it is our representation from the state to the public. And if there is any question as to the importance of a taxicab in a city dealing with tourism, then I would invite you to go to the city of New York or the city of Washington, D.C., and see the lack of regulation and the lack of succinctness in their policies. He continued, “Then you would see what you get.” Chairman O’Donnell said he believes in 1962 the TA was born and appropriately took the control of the taxicabs and started these standards to make sure the public was treated fairly.
Chairman O’Donnell:
I do remember when people pulled the drivers out of the taxicabs and they were beaten up by other taxicab drivers. This is why we have the regulations we have today, and I am proud to say our taxicab industry is one of the finest in the nation when it comes to treating the motoring public. We have the fairest, we have the most police work done, and these drivers do a heck of a good job for all of us, and a heck of a good job for all the hotels. And they should be commended for what they do. But they also adhere to all the rules and regulations. For that is why we have a good transportation industry in Las Vegas and Reno.
Mr. Capurro stated, with regard to some of the issues Senator Care brought up, even though they would be exempted from the regulations of the Transportation Services Authority, they are still subject to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, which are fairly extensive with respect to both equipment and drivers, regarding commercial driver’s license (CDL), safety, and the like. So they would not be scot-free and they are still subject to those federal rules.
Brock Lewis, Concerned Citizen, stated he was there to voice his opposition to S.B. 576. Chairman O’Donnell asked Mr. Lewis if he could tell the committee his reasons for opposing the bill. Mr. Lewis said he would like to give a little bit of his background.
Mr. Lewis stated:
I have been a Nevada citizen for 7½ years, and I have 5 years in the limousine industry in the Las Vegas area, and I have been an American Citizen for 41 years. I was raised in Alabama by my paternal grandparents, basically by my grandmother. Ever since I was a little boy, the thing I have always remembered her telling me was, “Son, you can be anything you want to be in this country, and if you work hard enough, you can be anything that you want to be.” I guess the caveat she forgot to add was, “as long as it is not in the transportation industry in Nevada.”
Mr. Lewis said S.B. 576 does not represent the American Dream, but represents more of an “American Nightmare” because you will be working for someone else for the rest of your life, basically as a sharecropper. He said, “We can work the land, but we cannot own it; and for lack of a better term S.B. 576 should be called “the sharecroppers bill.”
Mr. Lewis noted, quite frankly:
This bill is advocated by the TSA and the large southern limousine companies. This is just a brazen attempt by their interests to get from this Legislature what the court wouldn’t give them: the power to maintain an unbreakable cartel in the limousine industry. Everybody is for safety and this is good for the traveling public and no one he knows is opposed to that type of regulation. But what they are opposed to, and what I am opposed to is language that grants the large companies protection from competition.
Chairman O’Donnell stated he believed the TSA chairman testified today there were 17 new companies permitted over the last 2 years. He asked Mr. Lewis if he was aware of that.
Mr. Lewis replied, “Yes, sir, I am aware of that and in fact, I am presently undergoing the process myself. But a lot of these companies, as Judge Parraguirre said, if I may quote, ‘These limousine companies are forced to either cut a deal with existing companies or get run to death in the paper mill.’ Mr. Lewis reiterated, a lot of these companies have had to cut deals with the existing companies, to limit themselves to a certain number of cars, or to whatever deal they cut with these existing companies, and this is what Judge Parraguirre ruled, when he said they were violating the constitutional rights of some limousine license applicants from 1998 to 2000.
Mr. Sanchez added he would like to submit and read aloud a letter from the Latin Chamber of Commerce (Exhibit C) of which he serves as a member of the board of directors. He said this provision was dear to him, although the Latin Chamber of Commerce has a neutral stand on this bill and they do not have an opinion one way or another on its merits, except for section 8, subsection 1, paragraph (b), subparagraph (2), which requires drivers to read and communicate in English.
Mr. Sanchez read aloud:
On behalf of the Latin Chamber of Commerce, we are writing to you today to express our fervent opposition to a provision contained within Senate Bill 576. Specifically, we are opposed to the language in section 8(1)(b)(2) [subsection 1, paragraph (b), subparagraph (2)] that states that a regulated carrier of passenger’s driver’s permit will only be issued upon proof that the applicant can read and orally communicate in the English language. We understand this bill will be heard today in the Senate transportation committee and we urge you to delete this provision from the legislation.
Mr. Sanchez commented further:
We heard testimony earlier from Commissioner Breslow, Transportation Services Authority, that these provisions probably have been around since 1962 and I would say that is inaccurate from a past time and does not apply to today’s environment. Considering various laws that you have passed, offering driver’s license examinations in Spanish, it just seems as though you are setting a different standard in an industry that is not applicable to other industries and with that, we would ask that, that provision be deleted from the bill today.
Chairman O’Donnell replied to Mr. Sanchez, “I believe, I fully understand the intent of taking this provision out. But let me call to your intention, section 12 subsection 2, paragraph (b). What if we delete the language in section 8, but we keep in the language in section 12?”
Chairman O’Donnell read aloud section 12:
Require the person to signed a statement acknowledging that he has received a complete copy of NRS 706.011 to 706.791, inclusive, and sections 2 through 24, inclusive, of this act and any regulations adopted pursuant thereto, and has read and familiarized himself with the provisions included therein.
Chairman O’Donnell asked, “Would we have to have NRS 706.011 written in all languages for anyone who desires to participate in a taxicab permit?”
Mr. Sanchez commented:
I believe this begs the question or tries to create issues that do not exist, and I do not believe we have an influx of people trying to do that. I believe it is up to each individual person whether they feel they are confident to sign that statement. I am not advocating that the statement should be changed. I believe that the provision should not be there and I am assuming they are going to be in this business and some company is going to hire them. The company is going to make sure that their drivers speak English, and I believe it is unnecessary.
Chairman O’Donnell responded:
That statement is hypocritical! Because, if the company who will be hiring the drivers will make sure they speak English then why would you want the companies to apostate that policy too, as well. This is not an indictment against the Spanish-speaking community. This is, to me, good law; it has been on the books since 1962, and this has been adhered to by the TA. And we, in the City of Las Vegas and the City of Reno, can get into any cab and know that when you get into a cab you can give the directions of the place you want to go to, and know that you are going to go directly there.
Chairman O’Donnell commented further, “Now I have been in cabs in New York City and in Washington, D.C., and if they do not speak English, then you could be taken anywhere, and you will be charged for being taken anywhere.” This is good public policy, it is not an indictment against the Hispanic community, against the Japanese community, against the Chinese community, or against the Polish community, or against the Romanian community. He reiterated this is a good piece of legislation.
Mr. Sanchez stated the Latin Chamber of Commerce believes the business decisions should be made by those who run their own companies, and this is an unnecessary regulation. He said if they wanted to have this policy, and he was sure many of them do, it should be left up to the company. But, he said he thinks it is very unfair to characterize what was described earlier as our “very well-run industry, one of the best in the country,” then compare it to other locations that might have a problem.
Mr. Sanchez continued:
I don’t know how many times, as an attorney, because we might have a lack of caseload in a particular area or something, we might cite the California or somewhere else. How many times have we all heard the response, “I don’t care what goes on in those other states, this is Nevada and we do what we want to do here, we’re independent and that’s what the state was founded upon.” So I would hope we wouldn’t compare ourselves to other jurisdictions that might have problems. I’ve never heard any testimony or have witnessed in my previous experience as a counsel for the agency that licenses these limousines, that we had complaints or issues regarding the provision of language. I think at a time when issues like this are so out there in the public realm, I think it sends a bad signal, and I think it is symbolic, and I think it is something that is not necessary, it’s not preventing anything today that’s occurring, and I feel that it’s the right thing to do, and that’s the way the chamber [Latin Chamber of Commerce] feels.
Senator Care stated the problem is it simply says, “Read and orally communicate in the English language.” He commented we have children in high schools who are fluent in English and probably cannot pass a proficiency exam because they trip up on specific rules. Senator Care iterated he believed it is possible that someone could be fluent in written language and not be able to speak it or vice versa, adding, “And I do not believe it is actually necessary, even if it is an existing law.”
Mr. Sanchez commented, “I believe that I am unaware of any other provision in other regulated industries where they single this aspect out. But I do understand the heavily regulated aspect to transportation in the safety issues that are contained therein, there is no evidence that this has ever been a safety issue and I believe this could more easily be phrased as, ‘to be able to communicate to get the job done.’ The limousine company is not going to hire somebody if they cannot provide good service. Let the business decide that and do not legislate it.” He said, “And again, we request that this provision be deleted in the form of an amendment.”
Edward Wheeler, President, Omni Limousine, stated he was currently a new applicant with the TSA and also was a plaintiff in the lawsuit against the TSA. He said before he addresses the opposition, he would like to address exactly what Judge Parraguirre said in his ruling.
Mr. Wheeler read:
The court finds the combined action of The Defendants, the TSA, Ambassador Limousines, Bell Trans and Star Limousines, LLC, violated Plaintiffs, Ray Vinole [High Roller Limousines], John West [AAA Interstate Limousine Service], and Ed Wheeler do possess rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Nevada Constitution. And the way I currently feel is that the TSA is falsely claiming the decision as a victory, and they are apparently proud that they have been violating the constitutional rights of Nevada citizens because the TSA has been claiming that it won the suit.
Mr. Wheeler stated his main issues for S.B. 576 for himself, as well as for other individuals in the Las Vegas area who are trying to get into the industry and for some of the small companies that were licensed over the last 2 years, he maintained, approximately 99 percent of every one of those companies who were issued a certificate within the last 2 years cut a deal, and they were limited to maybe 3, 6, or 12 cars. The majority of them were highly restricted.
Mr. Wheeler noted he wanted to address a couple of issues, one being the allocation system. He said allocation proposed in S.B. 576 is far too vague, and will allow the TSA complete control in using their own judgment to make fair decisions regarding the allocation, when just last week, District Court Judge Parraguirre ruled the TSA violated applicants’ due process rights in their applications for limousine certificates, proving the TSA was not acting fair towards these applicants. He asked, “Are they really the ones to make fair decisions? Maybe they should wait a few years to prove themselves.” He said the allocation system would stop small operators from ever having any chance to grow or compete for new business in the industry, keeping them small and never a threat to the larger limousine companies. The allocation system would close the door to this industry for potential new operators. It would create a lower level of service and quality, resulting in having unhappy customers.
Mr. Wheeler said the allocation system would create a transportation monopoly between the larger existing limousine companies who also own the taxicab companies. He then added the TSA keeps comparing taxicabs with limousines, when they are two completely different industries. The taxicabs wait in designated cab lines or list their telephone numbers in the telephone book. The limousine companies spend thousands of dollars on advertising and marketing to bring in new business. Mr. Wheeler questioned how the TSA could try to restrict a company with strong marketing skills from growing at its own pace.
Mr. Wheeler stated:
Why would the larger limousine companies who currently have unlimited licenses be in favor of a bill that would now restrict them, if it wasn’t to try and keep out the competition for good. The answer, in my opinion, is not an allocation system, but instead proper TSA enforcement of limousine companies that are actually operating their limousines as cabs on the road. That is why you’re seeing these companies buying hundreds of vehicles. They send them out every night. This is supposed to be a prearranged industry. These drivers go to work, and they get given the keys to the car and they get told to go out and find some work, and they hustle. That’s where your limo wars are coming in where you mentioned taxi wars. The problem I have with that is you talk about taxi wars. The majority of these thousand limousines on the road are owned by the same guys who own the cab companies. That sounds like an internal problem to me. They’re not talking care of business at home. These drivers are going out every night operating as sales people. They’re drivers, not sales people. They go to work for a limousine company that’s supposed to be prearranged, that should be sent out on charters if they’re not going to the airport for pickups. But every night you see drivers talking to doormen, soliciting customers, trying to get work, paying commissions, going to the adult clubs, or whatever it is. These companies are sending out 200 to 300 cars a night on the road with barely any work for these drivers. I see drivers telling me that they’ve been out in the car all night out front of the Rio [Rio Suite Hotel and Casino] and haven’t made a dime.
Mr. Wheeler drew attention to the definition of a “bus.” He said this is clearly an attempt by the TSA to try and regulate vehicles intended to be deregulated by the Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century (TEA-21), and he said the newly proposed definitions do not include, anywhere, a definition of the SUV buses that are on the road which are considered excursion vehicles. Mr. Wheeler indicated the TSA stated on S.B. 119 that these vehicles would now fall under the definition for livery limousines, in which they do not, because the livery limousines’ definition limits are up to 15 passengers. And none of these SUV buses have 15 passengers, they all carry approximately 18 to 22 passengers. He said this would basically put these operators completely out of business.
SENATE BILL 119: Requires taxicab authority to establish program for transportation by taxicab of elderly persons and permanently handicapped persons in certain counties. (BDR 58-692)
Mr. Wheeler questioned the definition of “bus” and wanted to know why the TSA has not provided the committee with clarification from either of the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration or the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and he noted their definition truly describes a “bus” in the TEA-21. Mr. Wheeler stated this seem as though they have not done their homework, or is it the truth that they did not like the answer the government agents gave them.
Mr. Wheeler acknowledged he had asked for a written statement from the TSA, and he is still waiting, but he said he was referred to one of the CFRs (Code of Federal Regulations). He read from the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Part 571, which refers to federal motor vehicle safety standards with regard to bus emergency exits and bus safety requirements. Mr. Wheeler read the definition of “bus,” “a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons.” He said this does not look much like the TSA’s new definition, and noted it seemed the TSA was targeting specific companies to basically run them out of business. Mr. Wheeler summed up saying, “I hope you will vote no to S.B. 576, and if anything, I hope you will give it a couple of years to let the TSA [commissioners] prove themselves. And there are some good things in this bill, other issues.”
Ray Vinole, Owner, High Roller Transportation Limited Liability Corporation, stated he runs 20-plus passenger excursions. He said he had an agreement with the TSA and they were willing to delete the “bus definition,” and he reiterated to Mr. Breslow he would like for the TSA to delete the bus definition.
Chairman O’Donnell asked, “In what section is that?” Mr. Vinole quoted, “Section 2.”
Chairman O’Donnell commented, “You might not have to worry about it.” Mr. Vinole said he was also in agreement with Mr. Wheeler’s testimony. He expounded he was one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, and there were definitely issues in the testimony that were absolutely true. Mr. Vinole asked the committee to please vote no on S.B. 576, and come back later to see if there were changes made within the TSA procedures.
There being no further business, the hearing was adjourned at 2:31 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Joan Moseid,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator William R. O'Donnell, Chairman
DATE: