MINUTES OF THE

SENATE Committee on Transportation

 

Seventy-First Session

March 6, 2001

 

 

The Senate Committee on Transportationwas called to order by Chairman William R. O'Donnell, at 1:39 p.m., on Tuesday, March 6, 2001, 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 Terry Care

Senator Maggie Carlton

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

Senator Valerie Wiener, Clark County Senatorial District No. 3

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Donald O. Williams, Committee Policy Analyst

Joan Moseid, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Michael R. Reed, Lobbyist, Baker and Drake Inc.

Donald L. Drake, President, Baker and Drake Inc., d.b.a. De Luxe Yellow Star Cab Company

C. E. Edwin Fend, Lobbyist, American Association of Retired Persons

Dana Mathiesen, Administrator, Central Services and Records Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety

Raymond (Rusty) C. McAllister, Lobbyist, Professional Firefighters of Nevada

Bill Shrenko, Director of Operations, Yellow-Checker-Star Transportation

Robert G. Anselmo, Administrator, Taxicab Authority, Department of Business and Industry

 

Chairman O'Donnell opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 119.

 

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)

 

Michael R. Reed, Lobbyist, Baker and Drake Inc., stated he was wholeheartedly in favor of the intent of S.B. 119.  He iterated there are a few amendments that can be added to improve this bill.  Mr. Reed passed out a written proposed amendment to S.B. 119 (Exhibit C).  He stated, “The way this bill is written now, it only applies to Las Vegas, in Clark County, and I do not see any reason why these measures should continue to apply only to the Clark County area.”  Mr. Reed stated he strongly believed these measures should apply equally to Washoe County, as well.  He stated, “After all, there are senior citizens and disabled people in both ends of Nevada,” and he said he does not see any reasons why there should be any exclusion.  Mr. Reed stated he also believed there should be some language to recognize the fact that many taxicabs are on the streets in both Reno, Sparks, and in the Las Vegas areas during long portions of the day, operating without any direct supervision, and the taxicab drivers are pressed to pick up as many customers as they can.  He expounded that, on occasion, the taxicab drivers would make an error of judgment and would not take care of a senior citizen or disabled person not known to that particular driver.  Mr. Reed said there should be some type of recognition that the taxicab drivers are the primary point of contact for customers and they need to have some responsibility, should they fail to pick up a senior citizen or disabled person.

 

Donald L. Drake, President, Baker and Drake Inc., d.b.a. De Luxe Yellow Star Cab Company, stated, “We, as the operator, are responsible for providing this service to the senior citizens and the disabled people . . . there are no ties to the driver . . . and this is why the intent fails.”  Mr. Drake stated, “You have to draw the driver into the on-the-line responsibility for picking up the senior citizens and the disabled people, and then this would become a bill with a good concept that can work.”

 

C. E. Edwin Fend, Lobbyist, American Association of Retired Persons, expressed his concerns for people being left on the street whether they are senior citizens or disabled people.  Mr. Fend recalled 2 or 3 years ago there was a meeting in Las Vegas dealing with these problems and they were more related to Citizens Area Transit (CAT).  He gave an example of an incident that should have never happened.  His example was the taxicab driver, who “dropped disabled people off at intersections (near the median) and they were not picking up the individuals at their doorsteps but down the street.”  He said he believed S.B. 119 relates to similar problems that he had described.

 

Mr. Fend commented there are senior citizens in Las Vegas as well as Reno and he was happy these measures for Washoe County were reviewed in the hearing.  He strongly indicated these measures are very important, that the senior citizens and disabled people are picked up and relatively on time because they have places to go, possibly see a doctor, and so forth.  Mr. Fend stated he does not know what can be done as was previously mentioned, but, because the taxicab drivers are out to make money, and he stated he has no problems with the taxicab drivers making money, but when the taxicab drivers are assigned a pick up they should fulfill their mission.  He emphasized, whether it is in North Las Vegas, or in Reno out on Neil Road, the senior citizens and disabled individuals need to be certain that they are going to be picked up and they should have reliable services.

 

Mr. Fend pointed out there was one measure he did not see in the bill and stated belief that it is necessary.  He suggested there should be some type of penalty.  Mr. Fend said, “I do not propose every time the taxicab driver goes out and picks up a senior citizen or disabled person the regulation should say ‘We are going to pull your license, but let us give the driver a second chance.’”  He commented a necessary legislation such as a penalty would let the taxicab drivers know this is a serious matter and they cannot pick and choose what areas they do not want to drive in to pick up a senior citizen or disabled person and take them wherever they need to go.

 

Chairman O’Donnell stated there was already a law or ordinance taxicabs must comply with, so they cannot choose their fares. 

 

Mr. Fend responded there is a law, but the taxicab drivers are not complying with the law.  Chairman O’Donnell agreed with Mr. Fend that there was some enforcement lacking.  He noted he had an experience before, in Las Vegas, where he had to wait for a taxicab for an hour, until he called again to let them know “who he was,” then they sent a taxicab.  

 

Senator Washington mentioned he was curious about Citilift and knows Citilift does a good job in the Reno/Sparks area but wanted to know whether this would be indirect competition with the taxicab companies.  He concluded he knows Citilift had contracted with the Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County (RTC), and RTC had made changes in their program and in the delivery or pick up of senior citizens and disabled people.  Senator Washington asked if these issues were very serious problems.

 

Mr. Drake responded RTC does a very good job in northern Nevada.  However, on a timely basis, a senior citizen or disabled person could schedule a doctor appointment ahead of time and the RTC would deliver the individual there 1 hour before.  He confirmed there were a lot of circumstances where the need for transportation would be on a much shorter basis than the individual relying on a taxicab.

 

Senator Washington asked Mr. Drake if his concern was addressing the urgencies or scheduling of a senior citizen’s or disabled person’s needs for transportation to and from a doctor.  Mr. Drake commented RTC does a tremendous job.  He reiterated these amendments are important and they should be considered because there is a lot of leniency in the bill. 

 

Mr. Drake also commented that between S.B. 119 and S.B. 270 there would be some penalties, and the bills would be very effective in cleaning up the problem areas.

 

SENATE BILL 270:  Makes various changes to provisions governing fully regulated carriers. (BDR 58‑553)

 

Chairman O’Donnell called upon Bill Shrenko, Director of Operations, Yellow-Checker-Star Transportation, and Robert G. Anselmo, Administrator, Taxicab Authority, Department of Business and Industry, in the Las Vegas conference room, to testify on S.B. 119.

 

Mr. Shrenko testified in support of S.B. 119, and said Yellow-Checker-Star Transportation companies were definitely concerned with the senior citizens and disabled people because he, Mr. Anselmo, and others have their American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) cards in their wallets.  He stated the Yellow-Checker-Star Transportation Company would like to see some form of county coordination because each taxicab company has two vehicles which deal with handicapped people, specifically.  He suggested it would be cheaper to take a limousine, especially if some of the senior citizens or handicapped people carpooled.  Mr. Shrenko said he believed by carpooling, this group would be making a coordinated effort for receiving better senior citizens’ and disabled people’s responses.  He pointed out the taxicab industry has been undersized for the last 2 years and this is an “open season” for taxicab companies.  Mr. Shrenko agreed there were stories about people missing their rides while waiting for a taxicab.  He then gave examples of these incidents happening in other areas as well, stating the same situation could happen in a restaurant on a Friday or Saturday, while some people have to wait in lines to be served, others may not get served at all. 

 

Mr. Shrenko commented, “But, at Yellow-Checker-Star Transportation, we answer more radio calls than any other taxicab company in the state of Nevada.”  Mr. Shrenko stated, “The Yellow-Checker-Star Transportation companies do 69,000 calls in a month on their mainframe computer and they also do 30,000 calls in a month on their Elite Fleet service, and from time to time with construction projects.”

 

Mr. Shrenko emphasized, especially in southern Nevada with the construction projects, there are times when there is a combination of traffic delays, rush- hour traffic, washouts, flooding, or other weather problems where a taxicab cannot get to the customer all the time, but he is not saying the problem does not exist.  But, he said, about 90 percent of the time the taxicabs do a good job in southern Nevada.  Mr. Shrenko said he does want to cooperate with the transportation committee by trying to do as much to help as possible, but would like for the committee members to look at countywide coordination.

 

Senator Care asked for a clarification of the expression, “Elderly and Handicapped.”

 

Senator Shaffer responded, “The reason handicapped was mentioned was some of these people are impaired in a way where they cannot walk to the corner stop, where you normally get public transportation, and this is the reason why these expressions were in the bill.”

 

Robert G. Anselmo, Administrator, Taxicab Authority, Department of Business ad Industry, started his testimony on S.B. 119 saying:

 

The certificates of public necessity in present companies will preclude the assigning of requests for transportation equitably on the certificate holders.  There are some questions as to whether the Taxicab Authority [TA] is building or amending the existing certificates already granted to include this proposed requirement.  There would be a cost involved to the agency since it would have to employ telephone operators to handle calls for service, in addition to the dedicated telephone lines, and the associated office equipment needed.  We would have a concern in determining whether or not the calling party is, in fact, an elderly person, we could be construed as being discriminatory in terms of providing adequate service to the traveling public.  The transportation provided for handicapped people is different and the transportation for them is available through the Citizens Area Transit system (CAT), Nevada Medi-Car system, or taxicabs.  It will be difficult for the Taxicab Authority to obtain certificates from permanently disabled or handicapped persons, since, in many instances, there have been requests by tourists for the handicap services and equipment service.  In the past the TA has relied upon the companies to deal with poor-service complaints.  Recently we have begun to place more emphasis on having poor-service complaints reported directly to the TA for investigation and appropriate action.  The TA has notified the companies that they intend to take aggressive action in ensuring that the traveling public has been served.  These companies have assured the TA that they would give their full cooperation in achieving these goals.

 

Mr. Anselmo continued by commenting on an article in the Las Vegas Review- Journal regarding the CAT system (paratransit system) on February 4, 2001, stating Laidlaw Transit Services, Incorporated, took over that function and they now operate 120 vans and buses which have a capacity for 2200 rides per day.  One of the difficulties that occurred to Laidlaw was, for example, one week in February 1612 requested rides were cancelled and they were cancelled because they were too late to accommodate additional riders.  He indicated this particular service was provided to people that were not meeting the requirement of being totally handicapped.  However, they are disabled to the extent they cannot walk from their house or apartment to the bus stop, and these people are not denied rides.  Since Laidlaw has taken over this service in the month of February, they had only denied 96 ride requests, and this system is working, he said.  The TA is now on-line with the City of Las Vegas on their response to the council reports.  The TA has asked the people who have a poor-service complaint, rather than contacting the company, to contact the Taxicab Authority.  Mr. Anselmo pointed out the TA would aggressively pursue the complaint and, in fact, if the TA found the company unreliable, the TA would take the company before a hearing officer, who could impose a fine.  Under the statutes and regulations presently, the TA has the authority to fine companies if they do not comply with their certificate conditions, which require them to provide reasonable and adequate services to the traveling public.

 

Mr. Anselmo summed up his testimony by saying, “The bill, as it is written, would only apply to Clark County and the TA has no jurisdiction in Washoe County.”

 

Chairman O’Donnell replied, “That is understood; however, that regulation may be changed this session.”  He asked Mr. Anselmo when was the last time TA aggressively pursued a company that did not pick up a patron.  Chairman O’Donnell also asked Mr. Anselmo if he would give him the name of the company the TA had aggressively pursued and the month the TA had aggressively pursued.  Mr. Anselmo replied the TA is aggressively pursuing two companies regarding poor-service complaints received from the traveling public.  In the past, the TA had not pursued these complaints because the traveling public did not know the TA existed, but they do now.  Chairman O’Donnell asked Mr. Anselmo to clarify that the aggressive pursuits were just starting.

 

Mr. Anselmo replied, “Yes, Mr. Chairman,” and stated, presently, the TA is examining some geo-locating systems that are being installed.  He said the TA had not determined whether or not this system was vital yet, and the TA is presently in the midst of holding hearings on creating a potential new taxicab company that would operate strictly west of Las Vegas Boulevard.  Mr. Anselmo confirmed this potential, new taxicab company was in the hearing but stated he does not know whether this company would be certified or not.

 

Mr. Shrenko replied during the past 20 years he had been in the industry, although the administrator does not get involved, whether it was Sandra Lee Avants, Deputy Commissioner, Transportation Services Authority, or Mr. Anselmo, every month Yellow-Checker-Star Transportation receives a telephone call, on a regular basis, from an investigator from the TA who was assigned to follow up on any complaints.  Mr. Shrenko noted his company reacts on individual complaints on a regular basis.

 

Chairman O’Donnell asked Mr. Shrenko how many people in his organization have been fined.  Mr. Shrenko answered, “Well, we discipline our drivers, and do not fine them, we either terminate them or give the driver time off.”  He asserted, in his experience there might be at least 70 or 80 drivers disciplined in the 6 years he had been with Yellow-Checker-Star Transportation.

 

Mr. Anselmo explained the TA does aggressively pursue drivers who refuse to transport and there would be investigators assigned to watch when a potential passenger walks up to a taxicab, then asks the driver to take them to a location; if the taxicab driver refuses without having concerns for the potential passenger’s safety, then the investigator would cite the taxicab driver in the hearing office.  He said a taxicab driver could be fined up to $100.  Mr. Anselmo said, in the past, the complaining party would usually contact the taxicab company and the TA would never hear about the complaints.  But, as of this day, the complaining party has been asked to contact the Taxicab Authority’s office in a timely manner.  The TA would then investigate the complaint and go after the company for failure to provide necessary services to the individual(s).

 

Chairman O’Donnell asked Mr. Anselmo, “What type of coordinating effort does the TA have in Las Vegas in terms of the handicapped transportation of individuals?”  He also acknowledged he was aware of two vans in each taxicab company and asked what happens when a taxicab company receives a third call.  Mr. Anselmo answered, normally the telephone calls would be referred to another taxicab company.  Chairman O’Donnell responded, “By whom?”  Mr. Anselmo replied, “By the dispatcher, in other words, the dispatcher would tell the passengers our handicap vans are in service at that time.  The dispatcher would ask the passenger if they would please call another taxicab company.”  Mr. Anselmo further commented if the passenger is in the northern sector normally they would be referred to the A-North Las Vegas Cab (ANLV).  Chairman O’Donnell responded, “Then, you know that for a fact?”  Mr. Anselmo answered, “Yes, sir, and there was a surveillance recently performed by Channel 13 News personnel on a variety of taxicab companies requesting the companies to send a taxicab to a specific location in Summerlin, in the Las Vegas area, and they found there were three companies who referred the Channel 13 News personnel to ANLV Cab and there were two companies that did send a taxicab rapidly, one was Yellow-Checker-Star Transportation who arrived at the location in approximately 16 minutes and the other one was A‑North Las Vegas Cab who arrived in 14 minutes.  He concluded that each company has their own telephone system and dispatch system.

 

Mr. Shrenko responded to Mr. Anselmo’s earlier testimony by asking Chairman O’Donnell to keep in mind no one knows the subject better than he because he is very familiar with the industry in Las Vegas.  Mr. Shrenko explained some taxicab companies such as the Frias Organization have four companies, so they basically have eight handicap vehicles, and the Yellow-Checker-Star Transportation has six handicap vehicles.  He concluded the average number of trips per company at his taxicab company would be anywhere between three or four vehicles per shift.  Mr. Shrenko noted Desert Taxi has two handicap taxicabs and if they run into a situation where their handicap vehicles were in service, they would refer passengers to the Ace Taxi or Yellow-Checker-Star Transportation because of the number of taxicabs each company has.

 

Chairman O’Donnell explained his reason for asking the question earlier in the meeting, “Did Mr. Anselmo know for a fact that the passengers were referred to other taxicab companies?”  He said he would be concerned the requirement would be from the county ordinance or the TA, which would mean each company should have two handicap vans accessible for the transportation of handicapped people, but, if all of the dispatched calls are going to one company and that one company could not handle all of these calls, Senator O’Donnell stressed the necessity of referral to another company.

 

Chairman O’Donnell insisted if these calls were not referred, this would be a big problem and his concern would be to have a local centralized number of vehicles accessible for the handicapped.  He commented, “I would assume what you [Mr. Anselmo] probably would need to do would be to put the various taxicab companies on a rotation list, so that the rotation service would be given to the people who desire to have the handicap service in a timely manner.”

 

Chairman O’Donnell stated the cost of owning a handicap van would be very expensive.  He said he strongly believes these handicap vans should be shared by the whole industry, instead of having one or two of the taxicab companies getting all of the dispatched calls.

 

Mr. Anselmo replied:

 

One of the problems the TA has presently, and which the board of the Taxicab Authority would be addressing shortly, is the issue that all of the taxicab companies cannot travel everywhere.  For example, the Henderson Taxi Company could take a passenger anywhere in the Clark County area, however, they cannot go beyond or north of Fremont Street in Las Vegas to pick up a passenger.  If the passengers were referred to the Henderson Taxi Company to go, let’s say, to the Fiesta [Casino Hotel], they would have to refuse the ride because the location would be outside the certificated area. 

 

Mr. Anselmo stated there is a proposal before the Taxicab Authority board to change all the certificates and then have all of the certificate holders pick up and drop off all passengers countywide.  He iterated the TA is trying to address the problem and some of these certificates are not conducive enough to going into every location.  Mr. Anselmo said there is one company that cannot pick up passengers north of Sunset Road in Las Vegas.

 

Chairman O’Donnell remarked, “This issue has always baffled me because we, at the state level, have the laws determining how many taxicabs could be allocated in the mechanism in which they are allocated and how many taxicabs can be allocated to each company.”  He stated this law has been in the books since he has been in the Legislature.  Chairman O’Donnell asked Mr. Anselmo and Mr. Shrenko if they need some help from the committee members in changing these measures.

 

Mr. Anselmo replied, “Potentially, yes, sir,” but at this particular point in time, he said, he believes the problem is that the companies and the TA are aware of some of the difficulties they are having, and hopefully they are going to the board on these regulations authorized by the statutes and are going to change some of these problems.  Mr. Anselmo said, as it stands now, the TA does have an archaic system.  For example, he said, the allocation of taxicabs and the way the court has ruled they must be distributed equally amongst all of the certificate holders, they are not prorated.  In other words, the larger companies do not receive any more than the smaller companies.  He commented this is a political issue with the taxicab drivers.  Every time there is a hearing where the TA’s board members consider putting more taxicabs on the street, the taxicab drivers complain it is economically damaging to them because the more taxicabs there are, the less rides the drivers receive.  As it stands right now, the industry is healthy financially, but there are some glitches that should be taken care of.  One of the problems is the issue to allow all of the companies to serve all of the Clark County areas except Mesquite, Laughlin and Primm.  He stated all of the companies should be allowed to pick up and drop off within the entire area.

 

Mr. Shrenko addressed Chairman O’Donnell saying he did not want to pass up the opportunity offered earlier in the meeting towards helping with the county-coordination issues.  He commented Mr. Anselmo has been very proactive and agreed they both have organized the proposed certificate changes; however, the TA, as it is now, has been “sort of dragging their feet for the last several months on these issues.”  There have been public hearings where the taxicab companies had been up for a vote on occasions and later postponed.  Mr. Shrenko said he would appreciate having any one of the committee members call the TA members and help everyone out because this issue is due for a vote on March 20.  Mr. Shrenko stressed all the help would go a long way in providing a generic service countywide.  He noted they had believed these problems were solved a few months ago, but they have been stagnating.

 

Chairman O’Donnell asked Mr. Anselmo, “What does the TA envision as far as establishing a program, and what would this mean to you?”  Mr. Anselmo asked Chairman O’Donnell if he meant in terms of allowing the taxicab companies to serve the entire county.  Chairman O’Donnell said, “No, in line 3, [page 1] of S.B. 119, where it says, “The taxicab authority shall adopt regulations establishing a program . . . .“  Chairman O’Donnell reiterated to Mr. Anselmo, “What would you envision?”  Mr. Anselmo said he believed the TA is currently heading in that direction.  He said, “My main concern is, industry-wide, there appears to be a lack of authority for the dispatchers over the taxicab drivers,” and he said he would like to reinforce this issue.  Mr. Anselmo commented, unfortunately, right now in the industry, once a driver gets into a taxicab and starts to drive, he almost becomes an independent contractor.  Even though the statutes require the taxicab driver to have a two-way radio in the taxicab, the radio has to be turned on.  He explained the TA has found, by research and observation, that in many instances the dispatcher would ask who is located in a certain area, even though a taxicab might be stationed across the street.  Mr. Anselmo said he believes there needs to be a more aggressive program in terms of the operators, to ensure the dispatchers have more authority.  He said the TA has to make a public service announcement letting the public know they are here for complaints.

 

Chairman O’Donnell asked Mr. Anselmo, ”What has the industry done in terms of Global Positioning Systems (GPS) for the vehicles?”  Mr. Anselmo responded the GPS is not the emphasis, the only company that has installed the GPS so far, and is still being debugged, is the Frias Company.  He said On Demand Sedan, which is a subdivision of Desert Taxi, have some GPSs in their limousines and there have been some technical problems with the system in general.  But, as the technology improves, this probably would become a very good tool which would allow the taxicabs to service the public in a timely manner.

 

Chairman O’Donnell remarked he understood there may be a problem with the GPS in terms of not having a “Centralized Tower” for vectoring purposes or location purposes.  He said this may behoove the TA to get into the GPS business, in terms of supplying the signal taxicab companies, collectively, can use to help them locate a taxicab to get the taxicab to the patron as fast as possible.  In other words, why should each taxicab company have to set up its own tower and equipment?  Chairman O’Donnell reiterated it may behoove the industry to work together and produce one site, instead of having numerous sites all over the city.  Mr. Anselmo noted he had attended a presentation that morning with a company located in Las Vegas who had put forth a proposed system.  He commented this company had the hardware and software prepared and they are looking into what it would cost to install this system. 

 

Mr. Anselmo justified that the TA has looked into the possibility of installing this system for safety purposes for the taxicab drivers as well as location purposes.  He mentioned that next week he and Tom Hickey, a former State Senator, will review the system.  Mr. Anselmo remarked the TA would be proposing this system be set up as the state agency system and not necessarily for any company.  Of course, the company could buy into the program once it has been set up.  He concluded this system looks viable but the TA does not know the price.

 

Chairman O’Donnell replied he knows the ambulances in Las Vegas use this system and it works quite effectively.  He stressed this system allows the closest ambulance to get to an emergency in no time.  He noted with the advent of this technology, there is not a reason in this world why the TA cannot use these artificial stars to help locate taxicabs.  Chairman O’Donnell iterated this system would not only work for the patron, but it would keep the driver safe, and the taxicab driver could be located immediately.  He expounded, “The reasons we are here today is to make sure the elderly and the handicapped get served.”

 

Mr. Reed said he just wanted to reiterate whether the taxicab driver or the certificate holder would be held responsible for failure to pick up any senior citizen or handicapped person.  He said he believes the amendments he and Mr. Drake had proposed would go a long way toward providing some statutory authority for these measures.

 

Chairman O'Donnell closed the hearing on S.B. 119 and requested a motion to introduce Bill Draft Request (BDR) 43-468.

 

BILL DRAFT REQUEST 43-468:  Makes various changes to provisions concerning reckless driving and duties of driver after accident so that those provisions apply to person who drives on premises to which public has access.  (Later introduced as Senate Bill 288.)

 

SENATOR CARE MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 43-468.

 

SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

*****

 

Chairman O'Donnell opened the hearing on S.B. 257.

 

SENATE BILL 257:  Revises provisions relating to special license plates indicating employment as current or former professional fire fighter. (BDR 43-505)

 

Dana Mathiesen, Administrator, Central Services and Records Division, Department of Motor of Vehicles and Public Safety, testified in favor of Senate Bill 257.  She read aloud her written testimony (Exhibit D).  Ms. Mathiesen’s written testimony was presented to the committee secretary for the record.

 

Senator Valerie Wiener, Clark County Senatorial District No. 3, gave a presentation on S.B. 257.  She asked that her written testimony be for the record (Exhibit E), stating:

 

I appear before you to urge your support for Senate Bill 257, which amends an existing law that provides for license plates for professional firefighters.  The changes I propose in S.B. 257 are few, but important, and I would like to take a moment to explain them to you.  First, you will notice throughout section 1, the addition of language “current and former” employment as a professional firefighter to help delineate who qualifies to apply for the plate.  To ensure proper distribution of plates, either the Professional Fire Fighters of Nevada or the Nevada Fire Chiefs Association may issue an identification card or a letter to affirm that an applicant qualified for the plate. 

 

Senator Jacobsen asked Senator Wiener why she excluded the volunteers. 

 

Senator Wiener answered Senator Jacobsen, “As I recalled there is a volunteer plate, which you [Senator Jacobsen] spoke articulately about, since I have been in the Legislature, for volunteer firefighters, and they are covered under the volunteer plate.”

 

Senator Jacobsen asked if these measures were for the active duty firefighters.  Senator Wiener explained she had been working for the Professional Fire Fighters of Nevada throughout the bill, and her presumption was the “Volunteer Firefighters” were covered under the volunteer plates.  She pointed out the professional firefighters’ lobbyists were in the audience and they would be able to answer any questions Senator Jacobsen might have.

 

Senator Jacobsen stated he was somewhat offended because he has 55 years’ service as a firefighter in Douglas County and he is a senior member, as well.  He said he believed if it had not been for volunteers, the firefighter services in Douglas County would not exist.  Douglas County, for example, has 14 fire departments, the 3 fire departments in Tahoe are paid, and the 11 in Carson Valley are volunteers, which total about 300 people.  Senator Jacobsen maintained without these firefighters these areas would be lost.  He continued commenting these volunteer firefighters do not receive any pay, travel, or clothing allowance.  Senator Jacobsen said he believed if there should be any honoring he does not care to leave out this group of people.  He also stated belief the volunteer firefighters are the most important factor in the rural areas.  Senator Jacobsen stated he does not want to see the volunteer firefighters excluded in any case.  He stressed the volunteer firefighters are the first to respond on wildland fires.  He stated the paid firefighters, on occasion, would go to a fire, but they are the first to leave.  Senator Jacobsen explained there are 2500 firefighters who are inmates, and he realizes they do not drive automobiles anymore, and they do not qualify.  Senator Jacobsen repeated, “I just do not like it because it only singles out one group that is no better than the other groups.”  He asked Senator Wiener if she believed the professional firefighters could sell 250 plates. 

 

Senator Wiener indicated the professional firefighters’ could respond to that question.  She stated the state had sold a substantial amount of plates and it is an existing plate.  Senator Wiener acknowledged one of the problems the professional firefighters had last session was they had to wait for the plate to be made because of the great demand for the “Tahoe plates.”

 

Senator Jacobsen said he believed the Legislature could accomplish the same measures by having a sticker that could be placed in the rear window of the automobile of a firefighter.  He suggested there should be one plate measure for all because, in the future, the plate will be covered with stickers and nobody would be able to read it.  Senator Jacobsen repeated he does not care to treat anyone any different, and all should be honored the same.

 

Chairman O’Donnell asked Senator Jacobsen if there is a “Volunteer Plate” presently for volunteer firefighters.  Senator Jacobsen answered, “It is a yellow identification plate,” and he said he has one in his office.  He asked Chairman O’Donnell if he wanted him get it.  Chairman O’Donnell said, “Yes.”

 

Chairman O’Donnell asked if these plates had anything to do with renewal.  Senator Jacobsen said it is just for identification purposes only and does not have a price.  Each local fire department issues them, the chief or the president in the fire department, and they are responsible for keeping track of the numbers on the plates.  This numbering system allows the fire department to take the plate away from a volunteer firefighter if he shows bad conduct.

 

Chairman O’Donnell replied to Senator Wiener, “I think you understand Senator Jacobsen’s meaning.”  Senator Wiener pointed out it would be in the best interest of the professional firefighters to come forth and give testimony.

 

Raymond (Rusty) C. McAllister, Lobbyist, Professional Fire Fighters of Nevada, testified on behalf of S.B. 257.  Mr. McAllister stated Senator Wiener brought this bill on behalf of the “Professional Fire Fighter’s Association of Nevada.”  He explained Senate Bill 257 was meant to address shortcomings in the way the statutes were originally proposed and passed.  Mr. McAllister provided some history on S.B. 257 and said this law was passed in 1997 to allow for the creation of license plates to recognize employment as a professional firefighter in the state of Nevada.  He commented the bill, as proposed, was meant to provide a means of recognition to those who have chosen this profession as a career, to serve the public and communities within the state of Nevada.  Mr. McAllister stated, as a full-time employee of one of the many professional departments, the exclusive use of these plates was meant to be a modest acknowledgement of the significant sacrifices made by those who have made such a choice.  Since the law was passed and ultimately funded in 1999, the professional firefighters have recognized there are two areas of the law in need of improvement.  The first area is designation of where the collected fees are going, and the second area is policing who are able to obtain the plates from the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety.

 

Mr. McAllister stressed when the law was originally passed, there was no designation of a charity or organization to be benefited by any of the fees generated as a result of the plates being sold; any additional fees simply went back into the DMV/PS general funds.  Since that time members have asked the professional firefighters to return and attempt to get the generated fees going into a charitable cause.  He testified they had looked at several worthy charities and decided the one that would be of the greatest benefit to them and to the people would be of a designated “burn care center” located within the state of Nevada.  Mr. McAllister stated this bill draft provides the portion of the application and renewable fees over the normal fees be dedicated to the “level one burn care centers” of the state.  He stated, it is intended these funds help provide specialized medical care to burn patients as a gesture of the continued efforts to aid victims of fires.  If a firefighter in the state of Nevada receives significant burns, he or she would be treated at one of these “level one burn care centers.”  He commented further, “We are asking that these funds go to a place where we, ourselves, may one day seek treatment.”  Mr. McAllister urged the second area of the law to be addressed is who is entitled to plates, and finally, the procedures for obtaining the plates.  These problems have come to the professional firefighters’ attention that many of the people who have obtained the plates from the DMV/PS were not meeting the criteria set forth in the law.  The fault does not fall on the DMV/PS but rather in the way the law was drafted for eligibility requirements.  These measures were left open with regard to who would be able to get a license plate, and the DMV/PS had just followed these measures.

 

Mr. McAllister drew attention to an incident in Las Vegas approximately 10 months ago.  He stated the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (METRO) arrested a man purported to be a personal injury attorney who had been practicing law without a license.  He explained the METRO had worked on the case for quite some time.  Mr. McAllister said this gentleman’s office was located across the street from the Federal Bureau Investigation’s (FBI) headquarters.  He indicated this was a combination FBI and METRO arrest.  After the arrest was made, they went into this man’s office and saw certificates on the walls which indicated he had attended classes at the National Fire Academy.  Mr. McAllister iterated what caught the professional firefighters’ attention, when the news media went to the parking lot, was this man’s car had license plates saying he was a professional firefighter. 

 

Mr. McAllister said another incident showed up in the Los Angles Firefighter’s Newsletter in a note from the editor.  It concerned a retired firefighter who lived in New York City for the last 25 years and had also lived in Carson City.  Mr. McAllister read aloud, “If you see me, wave, I can be recognized by my distinctive firefighter’s license plates that read ‘UNION’.”  Mr. McAllister added there was a picture of this person’s new license plates which were Nevada firefighters license plates.  He stated, “This gentlemen does not meet the criteria for displaying these plates, according to the original law.”  Mr. McAllister commented these laws state you must have spent 10 years of service as a professional firefighter within the state of Nevada.  He pointed out most of the legislators had received a call from the same gentlemen, who now lives in Las Vegas and his name is Charlie Delzotti.  Mr. McAllister continued his testimony that the DMV/PS had mailed Mr. Delzotti a letter asking him to return the license plates because he did not meet the criteria for obtaining “Nevada Firefighters” license plates.  Mr. Delzotti, in return, called Mr. McAllister and asked if there was anything he could do about this situation.  Mr. Delzotti did mention he was going to keep the license plates until the Nevada Highway Patrol came to his house and took the license plates away from him.

 

Mr. McAllister stated there had been other incidents involving the volunteer firefighters license plates used for identification purposes by people who were not entitled to them.  He said the professional firefighters have crafted a means to assist the DMV/PS to help identify the people who do meet the requirements for the “Nevada Firefighter’s” license plates.  All professional firefighters in the state of Nevada will be identified by one of the two organizations that represent the full-time career firefighters in this state.  He commented, “This would make it easier for the DMV/PS to identify qualified applicants according to the bill draft that is before the committee members today.”  Mr. McAllister stated the firefighters’ members would not have a problem with Ms. Mathiesen’s suggestion mentioned earlier in the meeting.  He concluded his testimony saying this is an attempt to police the firefighters’ own ranks, because they are in a respectable profession and would like to assure, to the best of their ability, the people who have the license plates are the people who truly represent the Professional Fire Fighter’s Association.

 

Mr. McAllister indicated there was one error in S.B. 257, section 1, subsection 5, on line 30, it should state:  “Motor vehicle privilege taxes and fees prescribed in subsection 4,” not subsection 3.  He addressed another point for clarification in the bill, the term “Professional” as used in this bill serves only to define the eligibility of career firefighters within the state of Nevada.  It is not intended to be demeaning to any of the highly respected “Volunteer Firefighter Emergency Medical Technicians” in the state of Nevada, he said, but to more clearly define the intent of the original statutes to recognize those who have chosen to make this position their full-time career.

 

Chairman O’Donnell responded to Senator Jacobsen’s concern of the necessity to have a full-time, taxpayer-paid fire department in certain parts of the state because there is not that many fires, nor emergencies.  However, he said, these individuals who volunteer to fight fires and emergencies are considered as a professional versus someone who has a full-time job, with a salary paid by taxpayers.

 

Chairman O’Donnell asked Mr. McAllister if he had a problem with changing the bill allowing the volunteers to be added into S.B. 257.  Mr. McAllister replied, “For several reasons the professional firefighters do.”  He said, “First of all, volunteer firefighters come and go.”  Mr. McAllister stated Senator Jacobsen could attest volunteer firefighters may be here one day and gone the next.  He commented he had read where there had been hard times in getting volunteer firefighters.  He maintained the professional firefighters do not mean to demean the volunteer fire departments.  As a matter of fact, they would recommended wholeheartedly if the volunteer firefighters would like to have license plates they should come before the committee members and present their own license plates for the Legislature to approve.

 

Mr. McAllister confirmed the Professional Fire Fighters of Nevada association had collected signatures, and provided artwork to the DMV/PS which saved the DMV/PS approximately a $20,000 charge from the 3M Corporation to get the artwork done.  He also stated the association lobbied for two sessions to get not only the law passed in its original form, but they also assisted last session in obtaining the means for funding to help set up the revolving account.  The Professional Fire Fighter’s Association sold 2000 license plates which have generated over $70,000 of income.

 

Mr. McAllister gave several examples, “If you are not a veteran, you cannot receive a veteran’s license plate.  Also, if you are not a Pearl Harbor survivor, you cannot receive a Pearl Harbor license plate.  But, if you are a volunteer firefighter, you should be able to receive a “Volunteer Firefighters” license plate in the state of Nevada that would recognize your position as a volunteer firefighter.”  He commented further by saying if every volunteer were able to obtain these license plates, there would not be any controls in policing the license plates.  Mr. McAllister said the professional firefighter does not have a choice whether they should respond to a call or not, because they cannot pick or choose what fire they have to fight.

 

Senator Jacobsen passed the volunteer firefighters’ license plates and samples among the committee members.  He added these license plates are designated and numbered for each volunteer firefighter, plus it can be taken away from a volunteer firefighter if misconstrued; each and every year he and the chief have to verify who has these license plates and this information is sent to the DMV/PS.  Senator Jacobsen stated the only cost for these license plates are the dies to make them.  He concluded all volunteer firefighters have to qualify.

 

Chairman O’Donnell asked Senator Jacobsen how many volunteer firefighters have been killed.  Senator Jacobsen acknowledged there is a Firemen’s Memorial in Carson City, and stated there are 25 to 30 volunteer firefighters who have lost their lives fighting fires.  This includes the U.S. Forest Service, the Nevada Division of Forestry, and so forth.

 

Chairman O’Donnell asked Mr. McAllister, “How many professional firefighters in Washoe County were killed due to fires?”  Mr. McAllister responded, “Four firefighters in southern Nevada have died, and these were paid professional firefighters in Nevada.”

 

Chairman O’Donnell closed the hearing on S.B. 257.

 

There being no further business, the hearing was adjourned at 3:01 p.m.

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Joan Moseid,

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Senator William R. O'Donnell, Chairman

 

 

DATE: