MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Transportation
Seventy-First Session
March 27, 2001
The Senate Committee on Transportationwas called to order by Chairman William R. O'Donnell, at 1:34 p.m., on Tuesday, March 27, 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:
Assemblyman Tom Collins, Clark County Assembly District No. 1
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Donald O. Williams, Committee Policy Analyst
Joan Moseid, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Tom McGowan, Concerned Citizen
Bill Gregory, Lobbyist, Schwartz Investment Partnership
A. Jonathan Schwartz, Milton Consulting Incorporated
Tom Stephens, Director, Nevada Department of Transportation
Daniel C. Musgrove, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas
Dave Kimball, Las Vegas, Deputy Commissioner, Transportation Services Authority, Department of Business and Industry
Paul J. Christensen, Las Vegas, Chairman, Transportation Services Authority, Department of Business and Industry
A. R. (Bob) Fairman, Representative, Budget Chauffeur Drive, No Stress Express
Bob Flaven, Las Vegas, Chief Investigator, Taxicab Authority, Department of Business and Industry
Chairman O’Donnell:
We will open the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 7.
ASSEMBLY BILL 7: Revises provisions governing school zones and school crossing zones. (BDR 43-817)
Assemblyman Tom Collins, Clark County Assembly District No. 1:
Basically, this is a very simple piece of legislation, and that is what probably makes it a little bit confusing. If you (committee members) read the two pages before and after 484.3665 of the Nevada Revised Statues (NRS), it would help you find the reason for this bill. What this would do is eliminate a loophole in the law. Correctly, we have signs for school crossings in school crossing zones to reduce the speed limit either all day, or during the hours posted, or when children are present. The exception is when there is a controlled traffic device, meaning a red, yellow, and green light. This bill has no effect on yellow flashing lights. This is only the red, yellow, and green traffic signal. While this was debated in the Assembly for one day, a job in Las Vegas was extended because of the loophole in the law. These measures would eliminate the loophole. Regarding the minimum cost, there was no opposition once it was understood in the Assembly, and it passed unanimously.
I do not know if you were shown any pictures once this bill reached the Senate. If you saw any pictures of traffic intersections and the examples I used, one was Lone Mountain Road, east of Jones Boulevard. The natural terrain and the road go up a hill where the posted speed limit is 45 mph. At the traffic light there is a traffic guard, but the light turns green before the children get across the street and they are nearly run over. For example, this was an exempt area for five years because it was dangerous for children crossing the walk to the Ernest May Elementary School.
Because of the budget constraints and the lack of action by this Legislature or previous legislatures to provide adequacy to the Clark County District School and other school districts, they have cut back on buses and the children are walking in dangerous locations. Again, this would simply take a loophole out of the law which says the speed limit during the hours the children are crossing would be 25 mph, as state law requires, rather than 45 mph. I can cite you intersections at Eastern Avenue and Sierra where a young man was ran over. I can cite you other intersections throughout the valley.
Chairman O’Donnell:
Does this in any way preclude the legislation that occurred two years ago where the Legislators allowed the school zones to have two posted time periods, one in the morning, one in the afternoon, and when children are present?
Assemblyman Collins:
No, sir. This would not change the time of day posted, which is an agreement between the school districts and local governments. In some parts of the valley or in some parts of the state, the only time drivers have to slow down is when children are present. In other parts of the state, it is from 7:15 a.m. to 8:45 a.m., and from 2:15 p.m. to 3:40 p.m. This would not be changed at all by this bill.
Senator Jacobsen:
What would the portable sign read? Would it say school zone? Would it say speed limit?
Assemblyman Collins:
The crossing signs and the school zone signs are already in place. This addition would only require the speed limit to be no greater than 25 mph, which is the current state law during the hours specified by local government and the school district.
Tom McGowan, Concerned Citizen:
I concur with the position articulated by Assemblyman Collins. The uniformity is a step in the right direction, a very important step. And I believe the rest of the laws apply in the assurance of transportation of civilian schools. We need to encourage all drivers in the state of Nevada to take a more responsible stance with regard to all children and the laws that protect them in their school zones. And also, the issue of having those signs uniformly visible, particularly during specified hours when the children are actually in the school, on route to it or from it, or during school activities. It is important to specify this very clearly to maintain these standards. This city (Las Vegas) is growing a mile a minute, and we are getting more and more children, more and more schools, and more and more cars. This issue will not go away.
Chairman O’Donnell:
We will close the hearing on Assembly Bill 7 and open the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 219.
SENATE BILL 219: Requires board of directors of department of transportation to relinquish portions of certain state highways to county or city under certain circumstances. (BDR 35-476)
Bill Gregory, Lobbyist, Schwartz Investment Partnership:
We do not wish to make a presentation on the existing S.B. 219, but with your permission, Mr. Chairman, we would recommend new language (Exhibit C) that would replace S.B. 219, which I understand has been withdrawn by the bill sponsor.
Chairman O’Donnell:
Have you talked to leadership regarding this?
Mr. Gregory:
Yes, sir, I have talked to Senator Raggio about the issue.
Chairman O’Donnell:
Tell us what the new amendment (Exhibit C) does.
Mr. Gregory:
If I might give you just a little background on why we are here today, then address the language, and then I will turn the presentation over to Mr. Jonathan Schwartz.
In 1994, my client had approximately 42 acres taken or purchased through threat of condemnation by the Nevada Department of Transportation. Only approximately 6 acres of the 42 acres were utilized, leaving between 33 and 34 acres remaining. Quite simply, what we are trying to do and what this language would do is, it would say, “If in fact land is taken through condemnation and it is not utilized, the owner would have reversionary rights or the first right to repurchase that property.” From a fairness standpoint, we do not see a difference between, “If your land is taken and not utilized or if your land is taken and a small portion of it is utilized and there is land remaining.” The language would say:
When the property has been acquired or it is not needed for highway purposes, then the former owner would have reversionary rights and the first opportunity to purchase that property, rather than it going into auction. If he (the former owner) did not elect to do so, then it would go to auction.
Mr. Gregory:
The current law says if the property is not utilized you have that reversionary right. We think there is not much difference in if the land is taken and a portion of it is used and there is remaining land. So this is quite simply what our objective is with this amendment.
Chairman O’Donnell:
It seems reasonable. One of the comments made to me was if this were the case, then it would be less likely for someone to bid on the land, knowing full well the land was subject to purchase by someone else at the bid price. Can you address that?
Mr. Gregory:
I think the way the process would work is we would be given the first opportunity to purchase the land. We would either elect to do so, and the land would be at current market value today and we would either proceed with this process or we could elect not to, then it would go to the bid process. At that point, if we decide not to exercise the reversionary rights, this should not impact the bid process.
A. Jonathan Schwartz, Esquire, Milton Consulting Incorporated:
I just want to spend a few minutes describing why we think you should be in favor of this amendment. As a property owner, when your property is taken by eminent domain and you are forced to sell it under threat of condemnation, you are forced to go through a tremendous ordeal and you are forced to experience a tremendous disadvantage in having your land taken. With respect to us, it is certainly our intention to develop this property. We purchased this land in 1979, we wanted to hold the property and develop it at some time. It was certainly never our intent and I do not think it is any property owner’s intent to have their land taken by the state.
Our state is growing quickly. We recognize sometimes these things occur for the public good. However, all this legislation achieves is to mitigate the negative effect upon the property owner, which I think the state should do, in that the property owner is provided a reversionary right to purchase the land back. The state is not disadvantaged to any degree because they are receiving a fair market value for the property today. It simply mitigates the negative effect of the ordeal and the circumstances the property owner is placed under and I believe this is what the state should do. They should mitigate the negative effect placed upon the property owner.
Senator Amodei:
When you say it would be repurchased for a fair market value, how would that be determined?
Mr. Gregory:
That issue has to be determined at some point. As I was thinking over this issue, my suggestion would be the way the legislation is currently drafted, the former property owner has to purchase it within 60 days for fair market value. I would suggest some sort of expedited administrative procedure to arrive at a fair market value within the 60-day period.
Senator Amodei:
You have indicated in your earlier testimony, that in the present law if the parcel is not used at all, it is available for repurchase. Is this the existing law?
Mr. Gregory:
That is what I understand.
Senator Amodei:
Has any of this information (this proposal) been coordinated with any members of the state board of transportation?
Mr. Gregory:
Recognizing it was a state agency we were dealing with, I did present the case to the Governor. The Governor did indicate to me he felt it was very fair and, if this passes through this body, then he would sign it. He felt what we were asking for was fair.
Senator Care:
As I understand it, what the amended language says is the former property owner still has a remedy, if remedy is the appropriate word under the existing statute. We are changing a couple of things here today. Let me ask any of you this: the language, “When the property has been acquired and either . . .” what follows is, “the proposed purpose for which it was acquired is later abandoned by the department,” this has been taken out. Currently, it reads, “property is not needed for highway purposes.” What is the distinction? What would be “not needed for highway purposes,” as opposed to “abandoned by the department” for a reason, or its original purposes, or is there any difference?
Mr. Schwartz:
My belief is the distinction is simply a matter of abandonment if the owner does not use any portion of the land. If they take land for whatever reasons and decided they did not need it.
Senator Care:
Well, that would make sense because within the next subsection it indicates “part of the property,” which means some of it was used. Then we would strike the language “That a department determines that the property was acquired for less than its fair market value.” Does that ever happen, or is this language applicable to anything?
Mr. Schwartz:
I think that was part of our problem with the legislation. It could never be applied the way it is drafted. We are amending it in order to clarify this so even if it says “used a portion,” you can still repurchase the remaining portion and salvage it.
Chairman O’Donnell:
Mr. Stephens, please come forth to state your case.
Tom Stephens, Director, Nevada Department of Transportation:
I have prepared testimony for the record (Exhibit D) on the original language relating to S. B. 219. Basically, this bill is identical to Assembly Bill 175, which is being processed in the Assembly transportation committee presently. There has been one hearing on it. The Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) is opposed to the bill. It is a way for local governments to acquire state highways and require the state to pay for all of the costs over the years to keep the state highways. However, we are not opposed to the local government taking over local streets. We had a meeting this morning with all of the Public Works’ Directors in southern Nevada and this is where this bill came from. We are working on a list of streets which we can transfer by mutual agreement, and this can all be done by the NDOT transportation board as it has been done a number of times in the past.
ASSEMBLY BILL 175: Requires board of directors of department of transportation to relinquish portions of certain state highways to county or city under certain circumstances. (BDR 35‑820)
Chairman O’Donnell:
Are you talking about the existing S.B. 219?
Mr. Stephens:
Yes, if you want me to go to the amended bill or the one being proposed for amendments, I could speak briefly. But if you have some interest in the existing one, I have all kinds of documentation.
Chairman O’Donnell:
No, we do not.
Mr. Stephens:
I have not been given the opportunity to see the amendments. I did not know of their existence until a short time ago when I received a telephone call from the Nevada Department of Transportation’s attorney.
I understand this is in regards to the Schwartz property, and this is a piece of property, I believe, the department paid $9 million for and which is approximately 40 acres, located at Ann Road and US 95 North, in Las Vegas. We used 8 acres for the Rancho Drive and Ann Road interchange, the big interchange complex near the Santa Fe Station hotel. We added drainage and did a number of things, including streets. The remainder, as I understand, is appraised at approximately $12 million or perhaps more. Remember, we have done a lot of improvements and a numbers of years have passed since we acquired the property. We are ready to auction the property. The property is now divided into two or three parcels, depending on how you look at it, because there is a city street which cuts through the middle of it. We have been approached by several attorneys for the Schwartz property to do a direct sale. Our attorney felt this could not be done under current statute. What the relative benefits are, going to an auction or whether the state gets more money for direct sale, and the equity arguments mentioned earlier, I guess it very well may be a wash for the state either way, with the amount of money and the number of years involved.
We have not examined the bill or looked at that issue, so we would like the opportunity to provide you with some of the information on it. There may be some details that put the state at a disadvantage. This needs to be analyzed legally, and we need to look at it to see what the details are and what is needed to change it. Even though we did not object to the bill, we might object to a word here or there, and we would like to bring it into context, so the intent, as it was presented to you, is exactly what is going on.
For example, not getting the property at the value it was seven years ago, before anyone did any improvements, when we built the interchange, that would be very damaging to the state. As far as the question that came up on how we process property, generally, to find a piece of property is no longer needed, we have a surplus property committee in the department made up of technical experts who look at it and look at future needs of the department. They determine if a parcel would be used for highway purposes in the future and then that property would be put into surplus. It usually gets an appraised value. Then it goes to auction, but it can be sold to an adjacent property owner, if this is the only property owner who would likely use it. This is one of the things you need to analyze, what it means for highway purposes that are no longer needed.
We still want to retain the right to decide which parcels of property are no longer needed. We do not want to get involved in a court case again with the Schwartzes over what fair market value is or whether the properties are needed for highway purposes. This is one of the reasons we would have to look at the language before we can take a position on the new bill. I believe we can do this very quickly and provide you with a written analysis.
Chairman O’Donnell:
Here is what I would like to do. Technically, this is an anomaly in the legislative process as we know it today. Years ago, we were able to do this. But for this particular purpose, what I would like to do is have this bill voted out of committee, amended, reprinted, and re-referred to the committee. So everybody has an opportunity to make comments and get the necessary information back to the chairman. I know you (Mr. Stephens) are at a disadvantage not seeing the amendment, not knowing what it does, and I do not think this fair to the public or fair to you either. This would be my recommendation.
There also is a request from the City of Las Vegas, who requested the original bill, and on top of the bill, the language says requested by the City of Las Vegas. That particular language needs to be stricken from the bill, as well.
Senator Care:
Mr. Stephens, you said you do not want to get into litigation with the Schwartzes again. Is there some active litigation over this?
Mr. Stephens:
Yes, it was condemnation, originally. I do not know what the details were.
Senator Care:
Is there an ongoing litigation right now?
Mr. Stephens:
No, I believe they have had an attorney who has discussed this matter with our attorney. They have been trying to take a look at this issue, but I do not believe we ever saw any language to change the law, and I do not believe we have done any analysis to see if there would be any great disadvantage to the state. If we are talking about 20 percent less, if we do a direct sale, then it should be an auction. The fact the property is in three parcels now makes it more valuable. There are a lot of monies involved in this particular piece of property.
Senator Care:
My concern is this legislation does not have some impact on the current litigation and this is what I was pointing out.
Mr. Stephens:
None on this particular current litigation for the sponsors of the bill. I do not know whether it has any impact on any other current litigation.
Senator Care:
The argument of fair market value, let us just put it aside. The state does not really care to whom it sells the surplus or the unused land. Is that not a concern?
Mr. Stephens:
No, as long as we are able to time it when we are transferring it. This property could have been put out to surplus several years ago, but the City of Las Vegas asked us to hold it so they could come up with plans to put Buffalo Drive in the middle of this piece of property. This is the big access to the North Town Center. Buffalo Drive is one of the biggest accesses. Today, they have actually moved Buffalo Drive over and placed it in the middle of the property.
We held off doing anything with the property until they could determine the alignment in the middle of the property. We gave them the alignment for highway purposes, and the reason we did is because we appraised the property as one piece. Then we appraised it with the division, and it actually appraised for more with the division. So there would not be any loss to the state. We did hold up the sale for approximately two years now, since that occurred. We certainly would want to decide the timing of when the property would return to the private property owners.
Chairman O’Donnell:
In this allodial way of owning property in this country, it is normally owned by private people and the public only gets the land, and I would say, collectively, all of us, only because of a common need for the general public. When people purchase land, they purchase it with an expectation of price. I, as a real estate broker, understand even raw land that may be close to a designated freeway has a higher-than-normal price, only because of the expectation the freeway will be there, so even in the offset, people are aware of the value of the land long before even the freeway gets there.
My question would be, if you only needed 8 acres, was the condemnation of 8 of the acres, or was the condemnation of the 40 acres necessary for the construction of the freeway?
Mr. Stephens:
We need to have the attorney here to explain the heart of your question, which is, basically, why would you want to do a total take, when you can do a partial take. I will give you a lay reason. The property owner will contend the damage caused by taking the 8 acres is to devalue the entire parcel, so we would end up paying for the whole parcel anyway, and it is to the benefit of the state to take the entire parcel and then resell it.
There are different arguments made, first by people who were defending condemnation, then by the people who are reselling the property who would say, “Hey the freeway is nearby and this is wonderful.” They would make the argument, “Oh, this incident is going to hurt us, and this is awful, and this is going to damage the rest of the parcel.” So we usually end up paying a very high value for the property and we are rarely able to resell it for more money on a per acre basis than we paid on a per acre basis. This is an exception.
Chairman O’Donnell:
So, you actually have made money on this deal.
Mr. Stephens:
It looks like we are going to make some money on this deal, but again, we have put a lot of improvements into this property and we have held onto it for a number of years.
Chairman O’Donnell:
But you would have made those improvements whether the property is there are not. If you only had the 6 or 8 acres you would have made the improvements anyway.
Mr. Stephens:
I think I have gone to the extent of my knowledge on this issue. We would be happy to have an attorney who is involved with this matter explain this particular parcel and others we do total takes on.
Chairman O’Donnell:
I think it is reasonable to have the bill reprinted and brought back to this committee and then give you a fair shot at it. I think that is only fair.
Chairman O’Donnell:
Mr. McGowan, do you have a comment on this bill?
Mr. McGowan:
Yes, very briefly. Not withstanding the position eloquently stated by the Nevada Department of Transportation, the state should not arbitrarily be given the right to virtually option private land pending possible subsequent use, devoid of a prior master plan. Nor should it engage in any activity potentially invocative of the appearance of speculative “land-banking.” The amended bill is reasonable and it merits wholehearted committee support. The bottom line is there should not be land grants on the “if-come,” not private land.
Daniel C. Musgrove, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas:
We appreciate your comments and we would support your intent for the bill to be amended, reprinted, and re-referred to committee so it would reflect the new language submitted by Mr. Gregory, and then removing all references to our previous language and any references to the City of Las Vegas.
Chairman O’Donnell:
Committee, let us take a look at S.B. 219. What I would like to do with this is amend the bill, and then re-refer back to committee, in other words vote it out of committee, amend it, vote it out without recommendation, then re-refer back to committee so we can give all the parties a fresh look at it, so we can be fair about each and every issue we deal with in the transportation committee.
Senator Shaffer:
Mr. Chairman, how long do you think this is going to take? Will we run out of time?
Chairman O’Donnell:
We could move the bill within a day, once we get it back, or in one meeting. But I see what your concern is and I can appreciate that. The bill would not be lost in terms of bringing it to a vote, and if there is not a vote, then it will be lost. If this process is amendable to the committee, then we would send it directly to the floor. I think it is only fair that Mr. Stephens deserves the option to have his attorneys look at it.
SENATOR SHAFFER MOVED TO AMEND AND RE-REFER S.B. 219 TO THE COMMITTEE.
SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Donnell:
We open the work session on Senate Bill 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)
Mr. McGowan:
Inadvertently, I believe you omitted public comment, which was agenda itemized on your last meeting. I would not mind inferring if you choose to add to S.B. 119, but ordinarily that would be included in your meeting.
Chairman O’Donnell:
Would you like to make some public comment?
Mr. McGowan:
I have a brief question and a comment. My question is directed to Senator Maurice Washington, who may respond at his discretion and convenience. How many railroad crossings are there in Sparks, Nevada?
Now, my comment is directed to Chairman O’Donnell and the committee at large. The state of Nevada could obtain north and south railroad assistance to the development statewide anytime you want it, but not in the way the transportation committee has been attempting to get it. If you want to know how, you may, in your discretion, on the itemized agenda, have 1 hour of presentation, query, and an in-depth discussion hearing. Any information will be provided to you pro bono.
In conclusion, also relevant to issues of transportation, there is no reason why the state of Nevada cannot become the world headquarters for the generation of an abundance of “safe, clean electrical energy devoid of toxic radionuclides,” throughout the third millennium, and the benefits of that program are measurable not in millions or billions, but in trillions, which may get your attention. I request that the verbatim written text of my public comment be included in the minutes of the meeting (Exhibit E).
Donald O. Williams, Committee Policy Analyst, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau:
I will read from a prepared document, “Work Session from the Senate Committee on Transportation,” March 27, 2001 (Exhibit F):
This measure requires the Taxicab Authority to establish a program for transportation by taxicab of elderly persons and permanently handicapped persons in certain counties. A representative of the American Association of Retired Persons testified in support of the bill. Representatives of Baker and Drake, Incorporated (Yellow Cab Company), in Sparks, Nevada, testified in support of the bill and proposed an amendment to extend the provision of the bill to include Washoe County and taxicab drivers.
Chairman O’Donnell:
Is there a representative here for Baker and Drake, Incorporated? This amendment was presented by Mike Reed (Michael R. Reed, Lobbyist, Baker and Drake Incorporated). What disturbs me about this language is the broker is responsible for only his own acts and is not responsible for his employees. Originally, the language said, “The broker is responsible for his own acts and those of his employees or agents who are not motor carriers.” This is a departure from the norm and it basically leaves the broker harmless. I am not so sure you want to do that.
Paul J. Christensen, Las Vegas, Chairman, Transportation Services Authority, Department of Business and Industry:
Senate Bill 119 affects the Taxicab Authority and not us. The amendments become problematic because they are proposed by the company in Reno who leases the taxicabs, who also has proposed an amendment to S. B. 270, which will be heard this Thursday. Getting back to S.B. 119, when you apply the amendments in areas other than the over 400,000 bracket, which basically is the Taxicab Authority, it would require the following: We are not a 24-7 (24‑hour, 7-days-a-week) operation and you would have to have additional employees in the north operating this system. To operate this system, you would have to have a dedicated phone line with somebody answering it 24 hours a day. You would have to have a database of pre-registered seniors and handicapped people who are eligible to use this; otherwise, the dispatcher would get phone calls for taxicabs from people claiming they are under this program, but who are not eligible.
The cost, as near as we can figure, would be approximately half a million dollars. This is unique to southern Nevada and northern Nevada has a unique system we are trying to keep because the needs in northern Nevada are not the same as those in southern Nevada. The funding is not the same; they run taxicabs for roughly $2500 less a year in northern Nevada.
SENATE BILL 270: Makes various changes to provisions governing fully regulated carriers. (BDR 58-553)
Chairman O’Donnell:
How much do you think this is going to cost?
Mr. Christensen:
It would cost approximately half a million dollars a year.
Chairman O’Donnell:
It would cost that much to answer the telephone 24 hours a day?
Mr. Christensen:
Yes, you would also have to establish the database and who is eligible for the service and this would require additional staff to operate this system.
Chairman O’Donnell:
I see what you are saying.
Mr. Christensen:
We are short of employees in the northern Nevada office. What we have now is three investigators, a commissioner, and a management assistant; this is the total sum of our office. Now, if this was added to it, the management assistant would be precluded, she would then have to double her workload and work 24 hours a day.
Dave Kimball, Las Vegas, Deputy Commissioner, Transportation Services Authority, Department of Business and Industry:
The biggest problem we have seen has been the staffing for such a requirement. In that staffing, you would have the individual required to be near the telephone, and we cannot use an investigator because this would interfere with his normal workflow. He could not be an office person because he would have to work this system 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and holidays.
The other part of the bill is a follow-up. When there are any problems or complaints, they would go to the complaint department and this is what the investigators would track. In order for the Taxicab Authority to operate this process, it would very much consume the office on a normal basis, let alone, having a 24-hour telephone line.
The other part of this bill is someone submitted it with no idea where the funding would come from, and it was supported and submitted with an amendment by the Baker and Drake, Incorporated, a taxicab company.
Chairman O’Donnell:
We do that all the time.
Mr. Kimball:
Usually, the industry would normally have to figure out some way to be able to fund it. It would be interesting to see if Baker and Drake, Incorporated, would be here to figure out how they would provide the funds for this bill.
Mr. Christensen:
Let me add, on S.B. 270, I do not know whether you have gotten the list of the amendments submitted. One of the amendments submitted would drop the cost of taxicabs to $37 a year, and then increase the requirement for funding on the Transportation Services Authority. This would be an impossible situation.
Chairman O’Donnell:
Well, Senator Shaffer, do you have any thoughts?
Senator Shaffer:
When I submitted this bill, I had no idea northern Nevada wanted to get involved with this process. We are dealing with a different scenario. I can understand what Mr. Christensen is talking about.
Chairman O’Donnell:
We see this bill as an opportunity for the northern Nevada people to get out of some responsibility and not deal with the elderly and handicapped issues. I do not think that was the intent. I believe the intent was to get out of the responsibility by slipping in this amendment requiring the agents to take full responsibility for their actions.
A. R. (Bob) Fairman, Representative, Budget Chauffeur Drive and No Stress Express:
We pick up the sick and elderly no matter when and where. We have a greater range, with over 100,000 square miles to cover, and we take people to the hospital and medical appointments all the time. I do not see where this bill would come in handy unless maybe within 2 years, when Washoe County is populated with over 400,000 people. I do agree with the staff at the Transportation Services Authority, this is a bill that will not fly. It would be kind of hard to find out if a person is elderly or handicapped and keep track of it.
Chairman O’Donnell:
That is going to be difficult.
Mr. Fairman:
With our taxicab, we do not have any type of special seating. We have to lift the people up and put them inside the taxicab to take them to their destinations.
Chairman O’Donnell:
I can see some real problems with this bill. This could be monumental in terms of cost and when you increase the cost, you are affecting the very people you are trying to help. So, you increase the rates for the elderly and handicapped people.
Mr. Fairman:
That is correct, sir, and also we have a one-tier rate in the state of Nevada, so you cannot give a discount and you have to service the public, anyway.
Chairman O’Donnell:
What you are telling me is we could be doing “good for no good.”
Mr. Fairman:
That is correct, and the Transportation Services Authority rules say we have to take every call, no matter what the calls are.
Chairman O’Donnell:
Senator Shaffer, could you tell me what was the importance behind the bill? Was there a certain instance where something had happen?
Senator Shaffer:
The district I represent, the Clark County Senatorial District No. 2 in the northeastern portion of the valley, has approximately 200,000 people. There are people who are not within walking distance of public transportation, and some of them are not physically able to walk to bus stops or to the nearest public transportation stop. After campaigning the last time and talking to people, there seems to be a trend in certain areas, where the people were not being served with even public transportation. I would think there are people without any type of physical impairment who are also not being handled properly. If people call for a taxicab and if it is not in a selected area, and the driver does not want to drive there, he will not go there. They would drop senior citizens off at a senior center and the seniors might have to stay there until 11 p.m., before they could get home.
Chairman O’Donnell:
I would have to agree with you. I order a taxicab at Jet West so I could get my truck over at the airport. I could not get a taxicab to show up. I waited there for a half hour. Maybe that is the problem.
Mr. Fairman:
As you know in Las Vegas, most of the business comes out of the airport, same as in Reno. But in Las Vegas, they have a carrier they zone on the north side of Las Vegas and the south side of Las Vegas, so they could cover the whole state because most drivers would like to go where they could make the money to pay for their leases or make payments.
Chairman O’Donnell:
I understand it has to change. I understand there is a move from the Taxicab Authority to make a change, so the zones would go away.
Mr. Fairman:
You are not going to get service, no matter if this bill passes or not.
Chairman O’Donnell:
Committee, what would you like to do?
Senator Shaffer:
I think I will send out approximately 150,000 letters saying, “If you are disabled and/or elderly, and you cannot make it to a bus stop, just forget it and stay in bed.”
Mr. McGowan:
I will read from my prepared testimony (Exhibit E):
As a senior citizen, a disabled American veteran, and a patient of the Veteran’s Administration Medial Centers who has consistently been refused and accepted as a fare-paying customer in the City of Las Vegas and throughout Clark County, I strongly support S.B. 119. I recommend and request the committee to immediately and unanimously pass it.
Senator Care:
Obviously, there is a problem with transportation for senior citizens and handicapped people. If there could be a way, if the sponsor would be willing, to simply indefinitely postpone S.B. 119 and bring this entire matter up again when we have the hearing on S.B. 270 this Thursday. It is obvious we have to address this issue this session.
Chairman O’Donnell:
That is admirable, and what we probably should do is to hold the bill until we hear the Transportation Services Authority and Taxicab Authority’s bill to find out exactly what is going to happen and maybe we can correct this through the new bill. I think that is a very valid point.
Bob Flaven, Las Vegas Chief Investigator, Taxicab Authority, Department of Business and Industry:
I would like to say I am speaking on behalf of Bob Anselmo, (Robert G. Anselmo, Administrator, Taxicab Authority, Department of Business and Industry). We are opposed to this bill, regardless of what was just said. Certainly, if he (Mr. McGowan) was refused service from a central hotel from five taxicabs, those five taxicab drivers would have been cited for refusing to transport an elderly person. The gentlemen should call the Taxicab Authority and complain. I doubt he has done that.
I would also like to say the impact to the Taxicab Authority would be $300,000 a year or more, and I do not understand how the Transportation Services Authority could charge half a million dollars, having the whole state. We would have to hire 10 new employees to work 7 days a week, 24 hours a day. We would have to get more office space, and have two supervisors supervising these people. To have equal and fair distribution to all taxicab companies when the calls come would be in conflict with some of the taxicab owners’ certificates because some of them are unable to service all of these areas. They all have different certificates of necessity and convenience.
Certainly, part of the problem has been solved by us. At the last board meeting, the board voted to start a new taxicab company, who will serve all the areas from west of Interstate 15 in Las Vegas. I was unaware of the problem in the northeast section and if someone would come to the board and complain that they cannot get services in the area, there would be an opportunity for another taxicab company to set up, if they could prove there was a need in those areas.
As you well know, the Taxicab Authority gives $350,000 a year, and sometimes more, to the Aging Services Division (Department of Human Resources), to give people like the gentleman who just testified half-fare taxi service. We sell these coupons to the Division of Aging for one dollar and they only pay fifty cents for it. That is one of the things we do in Las Vegas.
The fair and equitable would have to be worked out also, because when you have a person in Mesquite who is a taxicab owner and a call comes in from Laughlin, we could send that taxicab from Mesquite 225 miles to Laughlin to bring that person to the grocery store and then return 225 miles. I do not think this would be fair to the companies and I am here to say we are opposed to this bill.
Chairman O’Donnell:
We will hold this bill until we hear S.B. 270 then we will act upon it after that period of time.
Chairman O’Donnell:
There being no further business, this hearing is adjourned at 2:40 p.m.
Joan Moseid,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator William R. O'Donnell, Chairman
DATE: