SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

MINUTES OF THE

SENATE Committee on Transportation

Seventy-First Session

April 10, 2001

The Senate Committee on Transportationwas called to order by Vice Chairman Mark Amodei, at 1:47 p.m., on Tuesday, April 10, 2001, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. This meeting was video conferenced to the Grant Sawyer Office Building, Room 4401, Las Vegas, Nevada. 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 Alice Constandina (Dina) Titus, Clark County Senatorial District No. 7

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Donald O. Williams, Committee Policy Analyst

Joan Moseid, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Drennan A. Clark, Solicitor General, Litigation Division, Office of the Attorney General

Mae Sader, Concerned Citizen

Russell diBartolo, Concerned Citizen

Lou deBottari, Concerned Citizen

Kaitlin Backlund, Executive Director, Citizen Alert

Robert R. Loux, Executive Director, Agency for Nuclear Projects, Office of the Governor

William Gary Crews, CPA, Legislative Auditor, Audit Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau

Jeff Fontaine, Deputy Director, Nevada Department of Transportation

Gardner F. Gillespie, Lobbyist, Cox Communications

Stephanie Tyler, Lobbyist, Nevada Bell

Dan R. Reaser, Lobbyist, Nevada Bell

Karen L. Pearl, Lobbyist, Nevada Telecommunications Association

Robert S. Hadfield, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties

Thomas J. Grady, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities

James J. Spinello, Lobbyist, Clark County

Frankie Sue Del Papa, Attorney General

James A. Polito, Ph.D., Bureau of Consumer Protection, Office of the Attorney General

Brian Hutchins, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Transportation and Public Safety Division, Office of the Attorney General

Paul J. Christensen, Chairman, Transportation Services Authority, Department of Business and Industry

Gary E. Milliken, Lobbyist, Yellow-Checker-Star Cab Company

Michael R. Reed, Lobbyist, Baker and Drake Incorporated

Michael K. Sullivan, Lobbyist, Nevada Limousine Coalition

Billy Arnold, Owner, Executive Coach and Carriage

Steve Cunningham, Nevada Limousine Coalition

Ben Graham, Lobbyist, Clark County District Attorney

Vice Chairman Amodei opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 361.

SENATE BILL 361: Imposes certain restrictions on transportation of certain hazardous waste and requires state environmental commission to impose certain requirements on storage of that waste. (BDR 40-1246)

Drennan A. Clark, Solicitor General, Litigation Division, Office of the Attorney General, introduced Marta Adams, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, who is part of the Yucca Mountain team. He then directed his remarks to Senate Bill 361 and Senate Joint Resolution 10 and submitted written testimony for the record (Exhibit C) against the passage of both the bill and the resolution.

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 10: Urges Congress to require implementation of certain safety precautions if Federal Government locates repository for storage of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel in Nevada. (BDR R-1247)

Mr. Clark voiced the state of Nevada is at a critical juncture in its opposition to the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. He commented there is no need to enact Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.R.) 10 and S.B. 361 at this time and, in addition, the language of S.B. 361 is inconsistent with existing state law. Continuing, he asked for the defeat of both S.B. 361 and S.J.R. 10 in committee.

Mae Sader, Concerned Citizen, and student at Truckee Meadows Community College High School, stated she was opposed to the nuclear waste repository but believed this bill to be important should the repository become a reality. Speaking on the transportation aspect of S.B. 361, Ms. Sader said the bill would make it unlawful to transport high-level nuclear waste within 10 miles of a city or incorporated town with a population base of 300,000 or more people. She noted an accident could cause a release of invisible, odorless, and tasteless clouds which would be carried downwind to contaminate anything it comes into contact with. She opined if an accident were to happen, it is important the least amount of people be affected.

Ms. Sader said a severe accident could contaminate 42 square miles of land which is larger than the size of metropolitan Las Vegas. Such an accident would take more than a year to clean up and cost hundreds of millions of dollars in a rural area; the cost would be many times greater in an urban area, she said. Further, Ms. Sader said travel routes being discussed would take all of the waste from the entire country right through Las Vegas, where the population is over 1 million people.

Ms. Sader continued accidents involving the transportation of nuclear waste could result in the release of radioactivity in heavily populated areas of southern Nevada as well as in other densely populated areas of the country such as Sacramento, Los Angeles, Denver, and Salt Lake City. Also, she added, it is thought a higher rate of cancer could occur in people traveling near the trucks transporting the high-level nuclear waste. This could be avoided by keeping the trucks away from the major cities where traffic is heavy, she explained.

Ms. Sader suggested adding an amendment to the bill regarding monitoring the casks while the waste is being transported. She noted S.B. 361 requires, in section 3, monitoring the casks at their repository sites with safety precautions for retrieval, repair, and replacement; however, there is a higher risk during the transportation of the casks. She noted in her research she found as many as 72 reported incidents involving surface contamination and 8 incidents where radioactive material had leaked from the cask.

Senator Jacobsen asked Ms. Sader if she would like to tour Yucca Mountain and she replied she had been invited by the U.S. Department of Energy.

Russell diBartolo, Concerned Citizen, stated Myrna Williams, Board of Commissioners, Clark County, asked him to personally express Clark County’s opposition to this bill. He presented his prepared testimony for the record (Exhibit D).

Senator Shaffer pointed out S.J.R. 10 was an attempt to broaden the statutes with some very important safety issues and put some distance between the populated areas and population where high-level nuclear waste would be stored. He noted primarily this resolution addressed the storage of high-level nuclear waste within the state of Nevada, not any specific location. He pointed out if Congress agrees to permit the storage of high-level nuclear waste in Nevada, then this legislation is a safety precaution with the citizenry in mind.

Senator Shaffer said S.B. 361 came about because the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has hired a law firm, under a $20 million retainer, to defend the storage of high-level nuclear waste in Nevada. There are a lot of questions to be answered, he said, when there is a $20 million retainer just to retain a law firm. After talking to many of his constituents over the past summer, he determined there is a fear of the unknown. He emphasized if people do not know the danger of high-level nuclear waste or cannot visualize what could happen, naturally they are going to be afraid of it. He stated after serving on the oversight committee for high-level nuclear waste, he and his colleagues on the committee have tried to become knowledgeable on the storage of high-level nuclear waste.

This bill, S.B. 361, would put a few safety factors into the statute, Senator Shaffer continued. Further, he said there is a disclaimer that the provisions of this act, “must not be construed in such a manner as to indicate that the Nevada Legislature or the state of Nevada explicitly or with implied consent agrees to the location of the repository for the storage of high-level nuclear waste. He concluded he was not promoting high-level nuclear waste by putting this measure in the statutes, but wanted these safety factors in the statutes.

Lou deBottari, Concerned Citizen, read aloud his written testimony and presented it for the record (Exhibit E). Mr. deBottari commented just as with S.J.R. 4, S.J.R. 10 gives the impression if the U.S. Department of Energy does certain things, the citizens of Nevada will be less concerned.

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 4: Provides notice of disapproval to Congress if Yucca Mountain is recommended as site for repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. (BDR R-1159)

Mr. deBottari continued S.B. 361 significantly waters down S.J.R. 6.

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 6: Urges Governor to designate alternative routes for transportation of nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain. (BDR R-1185)

Mr. deBottari said, “We should not show any division from our goal of showing Congress and the DOE that they made a mistake in selecting Yucca Mountain as the outhouse for the nuclear energy waste.”

Senator Shaffer asked if Mr. deBottari thought it was ridiculous to put into a law that it is illegal to store high-level nuclear waste in the state of Nevada. Mr. deBottari answered he thought it was already in the statutes. Senator Shaffer repeated, “Do you think it was ridiculous to put it in the statute?” Mr. deBottari said “No, but this is setting standards that if you do have it you are going to have this standard and I think that is showing a sign of backing down.” Senator Shaffer said, “I believe it is setting a standard that Nevada wants to see take place.” Mr. deBottari answered, “I believe you will have plenty of time after the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) is finished and $20 million dollars is not a lot of money to Las Vegas.”

Senator Shaffer commented further the $20 million was the retainer and the people in his district, approximately 200,000 people, would love to have $20 million at this time. Mr. deBottari concluded, “I have seen this approach used in the past, where different government agencies say if you sue this agency you will be responsible for their expenses. I believe it is a scare tactic and is not necessary at this time.”

Kaitlin Backlund, Executive Director, Citizen Alert, testified in opposition to S.B. 361. She commented Citizen Alert has been working on this issue for over 25 years in this state. “Our commitment is to educate and inform Nevadans,” she said, “about the effect of this project and about the nuclear waste management issue.”

Ms. Backlund continued:

I am particularly appreciative of your commitment to talking to your constituents. I do believe you are correct that Nevadans are lacking good information about this project’s impact, to the extent that this committee, Nevadans, and the people in this country do not have the most accurate or up-to-date information available to them. This is because all of you, as well as all of the members of Citizen Alert who are kept informed on a regular basis, do not have anything more than an insufficient document, the draft EIS which was delivered by the Department of Energy.

The draft EIS did not adequately cover the transportation impacts, did not define specific routes, or define things so communities could prepare themselves to educate the people about what could possibly happen as a result of this project going forward.

The Department of Energy recently released the 2002 budget in which funds are allocated for a site-recommendation process. This is the first known legal documentation which indicates a site recommendation will not be made in 2001.

Ms. Backlund concluded she strongly supported Mr. Clark’s comments and urged the committee to defeat this legislation.

Senator Shaffer said it is healthier when you can provoke thought on an issue like this because many times people walk around it or are afraid to talk about it. He stated, “I am not a proponent of high-level nuclear waste being stored in Nevada. If we could just get the people thinking about this I am happy.”

Robert R. Loux, Executive Director, Agency for Nuclear Projects, Office of the Governor, congratulated Senator Shaffer for bringing these issues forward for discussion. He said we have been looking at these issues for any number of years. He questioned the scientific basis for establishing no more than 4 millirems from groundwater and 15 millirems from the facility and said perhaps the place to start was at 0 millirems.

Mr. Loux discussed the safe retrieval issue saying scientists are not convinced this is a safer mode than leaving it in the repositories. His agency, at this point, was not ready to come to a conclusion on this issue. Continuing, he opined the transportation issue would be very difficult if not impossible to enforce because federal law allows shipments to go through populated areas.

Senator Shaffer asked what would happen if the federal government got out of the picture and private contractors were used instead. Mr. Loux answered:

When the federal government is involved, for example at Yucca Mountain, the government would take title to the material at the gate. Therefore, any sort of taxation scheme or any sort of fees are clearly not going to be considered relative to the federal authority. However, at the federal level, many of the same if not all of the same federal statutes would apply. States are generally preempted in the areas of health and safety relative to nuclear regulation . . . The transportation regulation at the U.S. Department of Transportation would be the same regardless of the carrier. There are certainly some differences and some distinctions separating them but clearly much of the federal regulations would still apply.

Senator Jacobsen asked if there were anything more the state should do and Mr. Loux said once S.J.R. 6 was passed, earlier this year, he felt there was probably not a lot more to do. He commented it is illegal to store or dispose of the nuclear waste in the state, and, until a final decision is made one way or another, the Legislature has done all it can do. Senator Jacobsen said we have nuclear powered ships at sea today and asked who is responsible for those ships? He asked how do we determine whose responsibility this is? He stated, “We cannot say ‘go away’ because it will not happen. I believe we still have to address this subject.”

Mr. Loux said he supported those comments and he believed there is a need for a geological repository somewhere in this country because there is a problem with disposal of the waste. He said he believes we are doing the country a service by trying to prevent them from picking a bad site. Our major concern is, he stressed, seeing a number of legal and other battles ahead and believing we should be concerned that actions taken now might come back at us later.

Senator Jacobsen said the state must put forth the best effort possible to protect our own people. Continuing, he said the state has a responsibility to protect citizens and also has a responsibility to take care of the things we create. He added the public needs to be aware that Nevada is not a guide of its own destiny with 87 percent of our land being federal land.

Vice Chairman Amodei closed the hearing on Senate Bill 361. He announced Senate Bill 408 and S.J.R. 10 have been withdrawn.

SENATE BILL 408: Requires Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety to enter into certain interlocal contracts to provide services for registration of motor vehicles. (BDR S-1101)

Vice Chairman Amodei opened the hearing on S.B. 415 and turned the gavel over to Senator Jacobsen to serve as acting Chairman.

SENATE BILL 415: Requires Legislative Auditor to conduct audit of Department of Transportation and Board of Directors of Department. (BDR S-964)

Senator Alice Constandina (Dina) Titus, Clark County Senatorial District No. 7, testified she wanted to advocate for a legislative audit of the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT). She said this would not be a full-scale audit but rather one to focus specifically on the planning and selection process for projects. She said, “I believe that is where the problem lies.”

Senator Titus said the NDOT is an agency with tremendous resources and corresponding power, and decisions made by the NDOT greatly affect the economy and the quality of life throughout our entire state. Their decisions impact commuters in the south, farmers across Nevada, and tourism in Carson City. The agency controls hundreds of millions of dollars in bonds, she noted, in federal funds, and in Nevada gasoline taxes, among other sources. Yet the agency is largely non-accessible and unaccountable to both the public and the Legislature. She said, “We have very little oversight of the agency’s decisions regarding expenditures and the projects they fund.”

Senator Titus stated numerous polls show increased traffic is the number one concern of the general public in the southern Nevada area because of the incredible growth over the past several decades. She emphasized traffic problems are endemic in Clark County with the freeways and the beltways constantly under construction. Roads are overcrowded, she stressed, before they are even completed.

Senator Titus called attention to the building of an extension between Washoe Valley and Mount Rose as the NDOT’s apparent number one super project statewide. She stressed the need for such an expanse of bridge is questionable. She said, “Clearly we need to get a handle on how decisions are made by the NDOT, about which projects to fund, how much to fund them, and when to fund them.”

Senator Titus continued:

Are the right priorities being set based on generally accepted transportation-user-benefit analysis? Are political strings being pulled? Is there cronyism or favoritism occurring in the selection and the aggressive pursuit of a certain project over others? Perhaps not, and I certainly hope not, but in politics perception is often reality.

We need to do this audit and establish some internal NDOT procedures and guidelines to assure the taxpayers of Nevada this sort of thing is not occurring. We need to guarantee proposed projects are evaluated and a rationale which looks at such factors as initial life-cycle cost, cost of delays to transportation users which are expected to occur because of the project, expected travel-time savings, expected accident-reduction savings, expected maintenance cost savings, expected vehicle savings, and estimated traffic volumes in relation to other projects.

Senator Titus continued, until 1993, the NDOT produced a work program plan which included detailed information and tracked the progress of particular projects. She indicated this was submitted, along with their statewide transportation improvement program, and could be used to effectively monitor activities of the agency. This report, however, is no longer compiled, she stated, and it is very difficult to gain access to needed information about their decisions.

Senator Titus maintained the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) is no substitute for this work program because it is often amended. In fact, she said, the director of the NDOT has allegedly referred to it on occasion as a fictitious document. She commented this obviously undermines any long-range planning and allows politics to be inappropriately interjected into the decision-making process.

The Carson City bypass, Senator Titus said, appears to be a project which has been caught up in the changing-priority process. She remarked it is now apparently taking a back seat to the Mount Rose project despite funding for the Carson City bypass having been committed by the locality via the 5-cent gas tax for 19 years and, despite multiple assurances by the agency to the city that this was not going to occur. She added the problem of changing priorities is exacerbated because some of the program changes are simply internal decisions, while others have reached the highway commission where they are often simply rubber-stamped.

Senator Titus noted, “The highway commission [Board of Directors, Department of Transportation] is a body that meets for only a short period, periodically, and with all due respect to the Attorney General and the State Controller, highway policy is not really their expertise, yet they are making the decisions.”

Senator Titus concluded by urging the committee to allow the Legislative Council Bureau to conduct an audit of the NDOT. She also recommended a $10,000 budget with which to accomplish this task. Highways are the arteries and veins of this state, she said; they carry the lifeblood of our economy, connect our communities, and provide our citizens with access to work, school, and recreation. She declared, “Let us be sure the decisions concerning our roads and highways are done based on good planning, reliable information, and comprehensive analysis; not on bad politics.”

Senator Mark E. Amodei, Capital Senatorial District, testified it had been a long time since audits were done. He noted he did not want to “bash” the NDOT, as there were many fine people, at all levels of this organization, doing a great job without enough resources. He stated it is time to have a look at the processes by which the decisions affecting every district in the state are made. He added his concern with this issue was the state has evolved over the last 20 or 30 years and with that evolution, he said, comes a need to take a look at how decisions are made which affect every individual Nevadan’s quality of life.

Senator Amodei stated:

There is not enough money to do all the projects requested. In Clark County, even with the assistance of local funding, the gridlock is something that looms as a problem every year. Here in Carson City, it is not fun to try and drive around in this rural town of just over 52,000 people. If you travel around in Washoe County in the Reno-Sparks area and have the opportunity to try and negotiate the spaghetti bowl during the rush hour, you will know it can be a very difficult experience.

This is not about the fact of having enough money to build everything people think should be built. It is about how we make the decisions that decide how our very precious and scarce resources are going to be spent and how we keep the public informed on the decisions made. Yes, it is also about once those decisions are made and how we inform people if contingencies come up that have an effect on those decisions which have been made.

Senator Amodei continued, saying he had spent a large amount of time talking with people about transportation issues, including the misunderstandings and misconceptions. He stated it would do us all a great service if the rules by which priorities are assigned and decisions are made, and priorities are changed and decisions are revisited, be available to everyone so everybody knows the playing field. He said, “We need to know how someone would get to first, if they got called; how they got to second on a steal or if they got to third on a passed ball . . . if you would indulge me in a spring training baseball analogy for the moment.”

Senator Amodei clarified 2 weeks before the session started, in the pre-budget hearings, the NDOT rolled out what was almost a $750 million annual budget. He noted, by comparison, other departments or divisions within this state have budgets which are one-third that size. He added he thought the need existed to get the Legislature, the body responsible for making the tax decisions which fund a large part of the budget, to look at this matter. He commented, “There is a need for a better feeling of how decisions are made, why they are made, what the objective criteria applied was in those decisions, and then if it becomes time to a change those decisions, what process would be brought to bear.”

Senator Amodei reiterated this was not an attempt to “witch hunt” the people at the NDOT; instead, it was an attempt to find out what processes are being used and if improvements should be made. This is something we owe our constituents, he said, and it is something which has not been done for a very long time, but needs doing.

Senator Amodei emphasized he had a concern, if this bill passes, about whether or not the auditor would receive the cooperation of everybody in the department. He added he had this concern because he had received reports that the NDOT did not encourage an open communication policy with members of the Legislature. He said he hoped this committee would indicate a strong desire to get the largest possible participation and input from the people who work at the NDOT, in order to achieve the objective of making transportation decisions in an open public fashion with criteria everybody understands.

Senator Jacobsen said this is really a fact-finding issue. He stated almost every department has their audits available. They would say you are welcome to have a copy of that audit, he noted, and it contains recommendations as to how to better handle issues.

Senator Washington asked when the last an audit was actually done on the NDOT and Senator Titus answered this is a specific audit. She noted this is not a general audit but a specific audit to look at the planning and the selection process primarily. She declared the public needs to know how decisions are made or where the money would be spent.

Senator Washington asked if this was a one-time audit request and had an annual or biannual audit been discussed. Senator Amodei replied that question would be answered in the subcommittee meeting following this meeting.

Senator Titus said once an auditor looked at this process, they would recommend something like the work program be done, perhaps annually as in the past. This would be sort of an audit, she said, at least in terms of reporting what the projects are and what the progress is on the projects. She pointed out she believed this process was stopped in 1993 but should be done how.

Senator Washington agreed with Senator Titus. He noted there were a couple of projects in his district which took a long time to complete and he felt if there were established timelines and expectations, it would be very nice. He added he and his constituency made numerous calls, wrote letters, and held neighborhood meetings to discuss the projects which kept going on and on and it would have been nice to know how the projects were prioritized and funded, and when the anticipated completion dates were.

William Gary Crews, CPA, Legislative Auditor, Audit Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, said an audit such as this generally comes from two different directions; either from the Legislative Commission as a special request or is directed by the Legislature through legislation which requests an audit be conducted. He stated two audits had been done at the NDOT over the last 10 or 12 years. The last one was in 1996, he added, and did not audit highway projects.

Mr. Crews said S.B. 415 provides for an audit of the decision-making process for long-term and short-term projects and would take a look at the rights-of-way acquisition disposition and management of the rights-of-way assets. He stated this bill does require a report back to the Senate and Assembly committees on transportation during the next session prior to going to the audit subcommittee of the Legislative Commission. He noted normally audits are presented to the audit subcommittee of the Legislative Commission, and then to the Legislative Commission for their approval.

Mr. Crews described the steps which would be taken during the audit. He noted the $10,000 denoted in section 2 of the bill was for travel and small operational costs related to this particular audit. He explained the personnel costs for staff salaries and other miscellaneous expenses would be absorbed in the Legislative Counsel Bureau budget. He added, “If it is the committee’s desire for us to move forward with the audit, we will be glad to do it.”

Senator Jacobsen turned the gavel over the Chairman O’Donnell who then asked for additional testimony for or against S.B. 415.

Jeff Fontaine, Deputy Director, Nevada Department of Transportation, said the agency would like to go on record as opposing the part of the bill on the appropriation of the highway fund, because it is a non-budget appropriation.

Mr. Fontaine described the current procedure for project prioritization. He assured the committee there was no order or policy to suppress opinions of the staff or management at the NDOT. He reiterated no one has been instructed to withhold information and if this audit bill is approved, the NDOT would fully participate in the process.

Chairman O’Donnell asked about the NDOT’s budget and Mr. Fontaine said he did not have the exact figures but it was as Senator Amodei had said, approximately $750 million. He noted the capital improvement program, the bulk of the expenditures last year, was approximately $380 million and this included construction contract payments to the contractors, the cost for rights-of-way acquisitions, and payments to consulting engineers who helped with the design and inspection of projects. He stated the remainder of the budget was for personnel, operating, and travel.

Chairman O’Donnell maintained the audit cost of $10,000 will not “break” the NDOT and Mr. Fontaine agreed.

Senator Jacobsen asked for information on the number of employees and divisions statewide. Mr. Fontaine said there were approximately 1700 permanent full-time employees statewide. He gave a short description of the four major divisions within the organization, stating the largest division was the engineering division; but there was also an operations division, an administrative division, and a planning division. He said there were three geographic districts headquartered in Las Vegas, Reno, and Elko, with major maintenance stations located throughout the state.

Chairman O’Donnell closed the hearing on S.B. 415 and opened the work session on S.B. 195.

SENATE BILL 195: Revises provisions governing issuance of certain permits to occupy or encroach upon state highways or rights of way. (BDR 35-932)

Gardner F. Gillespie, Lobbyist, Cox Communications, testified the earlier version of S.B. 195 contained language related to regulatory issues. He stated at the Governor’s request, and with the understanding there was an agreement with the NDOT regarding what regulations it intends to sponsor, the regulatory provisions had been taken out of the bill.

Stephanie Tyler, Lobbyist, Nevada Bell, gave a brief background of the bill and presented an amendment (Exhibit F) proposed on behalf of Nevada Bell. She said the amendment would create a mechanism to provide funding for targeted projects put forward by an advisory committee made up of representatives from the university, the Bureau of Consumer Protection, rural telecommunications, the Governor’s appointee, and two legislators.

Ms. Tyler noted the funding process would be a per mile fee assessed on the long-haul communication provider companies which do not provide service in this state. They are using our rights-of-ways to get through the state of Nevada as well as local telephone companies such as Nevada Bell, she said. This would be a per-mile charge, she explained, capped at 5 percent of the gross revenues in each county and offset by local franchise fees.

Chairman O’Donnell asked, “Gross revenues of what?” Ms. Tyler answered gross revenues of the telephone provider in the particular county. Chairman O’Donnell asked for more clarification. Ms. Tyler replied a tax return is filed each year which would reflect the amount currently paid to local jurisdictions. It was felt there needed to be equity among providers so all providers would be assessed with no favoritism to one particular technology over another.

Ms. Tyler noted there is a component of this legislation that would look into the study of other funding options. Further, she said the industry was challenged to come forward with a fair and equitable proposal which would create a funding solution. She emphasized this was the intention of the amendments to the bill.

Dan R. Reaser, Lobbyist, Nevada Bell, said there are only two provisions of the proposed amendment (Exhibit F) which were in the original bill. He explained the changes and said the bill sets up a Nevada technology fund intended to support construction and installation of a telecommunications infrastructure to enhance telecommunication services in rural and non-rural areas in the state. He commented, “This bill will put things in the ground that people need.”

Mr. Reaser said this provides for a coordination with the existing public utility commission universal service fund which could provide monies for operating costs, if necessary, to allow those infrastructures to be used in the rural or non-rural areas which are underserved or have special telecommunications needs.

Chairman O’Donnell asked what areas there would be other than rural and non-rural. Mr. Reaser answered, “None,” and said originally this piece of legislation was only directed at rural areas but it was decided there might be some educational needs in non-rural areas so it was revised to include that concept.

Mr. Reaser explained the suggested changes in Exhibit F. He said it was important to keep a level playing field among all of the companies and counties to be consistent with the statutory scheme in Chapter 354 of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). He noted to the extent a full franchise fee is paid already, a credit would be issued against the franchise fee so there is not a double collection of the 5 percent franchise fee by the county or the city of these fees as well.

Senator Carlton asked if the fees would be justified before the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada and passed through to consumers of the state. Mr. Reaser said this is the current mechanism used for all of the franchise fees permitted by state law and these taxes would appear on the bills of ratepayers.

Senator Carlton said regarding establishing this advisory committee, whenever something like this is done, there is usually a fiscal note attached. She queried the avoidance of a fiscal note or if that will be addressed at a later date. Mr. Reaser answered there is a provision to pay advisory committee expenses out of this fund, thereby eliminating the need for a fiscal note.

Senator Carlton clarified there was a statement made earlier regarding these funds which were to be used to build things and support this advisory committee. She noted these same funds, which will support the committee, would also be passed on to the consumers. Mr. Reaser answered yes.

Senator Care commented when this bill was heard previously the word “extortion” was used by testifiers. He asked for additional information on this issue.

Ms. Tyler said this was a lengthy process and she felt comfortable procedural issues could be addressed in regulations. She noted this would allow more flexibility with the process and as the technology changed, and the market changed, these issues could be addressed through the regulations.

Chairman O’Donnell asked for clarification of the difference between a fee and a tax. He remarked, “Why can’t we just call it what it really is? It is a tax on utilities that is passed through to the consumer.” Ms. Tyler agreed.

Chairman O’Donnell asked if the amendments had been circulated. Ms. Tyler said it was given to members of the industry and numerous people in the audience.

Senator Washington asked about the maximum franchise fee obligation and Mr. Reaser answered the maximum franchise fee obligation, under Chapter 354 of NRS, is capped at 5 percent. He clarified this is gross revenue based on intra- (inside the) state telecommunications revenues earned by that company. He noted Chapter 354 of NRS allows any city or county to adopt a franchise fee ordinance and scheme, although some rural counties have not adopted a fee.

Senator Washington asked if the fee went to the state General Fund and Mr. Reaser replied the fee goes to the general fund of the city or the county that imposes it.

Chairman O’Donnell asked for clarification of section 15, subsection 4, of Exhibit F. He asked, “If the fees are $150,000 to allow use of the rights-of-way, would the $150,000 be deducted from the 5 percent normally paid to the county?” Mr. Reaser answered the intent of this legislation was that it would not be deducted but he clarified it could not exceed the 5 percent.

Chairman O’Donnell asked if Clark County had imposed the full 5 percent and Mr. Reaser and Mr. Gillespie gave different answers. After a short discussion, Chairman O’Donnell summarized telecommunication companies are at 4 percent, Cox Telecommunications is at 5 percent, and the $150,000 would come from county revenues to make up the 5 percent.

Mr. Gillespie clarified the intent of the legislation is to make it clear if the county is already at the maximum allowed, there would not be a fee to go to the state. He added the proposed advisory committee would discuss this question between now and the next legislative session.

Karen L. Pearl, Lobbyist, Nevada Telecommunications Association, said she represented the small telephone companies with between 170 to 50,000 access lines. She stated the Nevada Telecommunications Association (NTA) supported S.B. 195 as amended with qualification. The rural telephone companies today donate a lot to their communities, she stated, both in gifts to the communities and other ways such as high-speed access to the school libraries. Commenting further, she said these small companies believe they are already giving a fair and equitable amount in telecommunication technology.

Ms. Pearl said any fee imposed on the public utility would be passed on to the customers and rural customers might then pay a disproportionate amount in comparison to the higher population areas. For example, she said, $100,000 spread between 100,000 customers is a minimal cost, but $100,000 spread between 1000 to 10,000 customers means those customers would pay much more. She mentioned it had been made clear to the NTA that some sort of funding mechanism should be established. She noted the NTA supports the bill, but would like to see more thought given to the small companies.

Chairman O’Donnell asked Ms. Pearl if someone told her there had to be funding and Ms. Pearl replied it has been made clear through conversations with the Governor’s staff. She added we understood there should be a telecommunications fund.

Robert S. Hadfield, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties (NACO), said he did not have an opportunity to be involved in the previous discussions and hoped to be involved in the dialog from this point forward. He said the NACO would like representation on any interim committee which is created, since it is an existing source of revenue for local government, whether they have opted to utilize it or not.

Thomas J. Grady, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities, said Frankie Sue Del Papa, Attorney General, had made numerous calls to both the NACO and to his office to provide information. He noted the NDOT negotiated with Williams Communications to come across the state, at no fees at all, and now they are trying to cut into our fees. He continued it was felt that the Williams Communications project could have been of great benefit to rural Nevada but there was no chance to participate in the process.

Mr. Grady commented during the last legislative session a franchise fee was agreed upon and some entities have not reached the 5 percent cap because they could only institute so much every 2 years. He emphasized the feeling is this may have a fiscal impact. He added, “We are not included in this new amendment and we would like to be so we could protect the interest of our local governments.”

James J. Spinello, Lobbyist, Clark County, said the county would like to request if an interim committee is formed there would be representation from local government, specifically from Clark County. He commented Clark County had extensive experience in the process of developing a rights-of-way ordinance, with a whole structure for how the rights-of-way are managed, and how access is allowed to the various users. He explained requests have been received from all over the country for copies of the county’s ordinances and they are used as models. He pointed out the county had good relationships with the industry and was able to work out all of the differences encountered over time. He repeated the ordinance structure is a good framework and he would recommend it to the state.

Chairman O’Donnell asked for a review of section 18 of S.B. 195. Mr. Gillespie said the purpose of the study committee is because some of the state rights-of-way are within the jurisdictions of local government. It was felt that in view of this issue, he explained, it would be appropriate to have an interim study committee look at it. He added he did not believe it was appropriate to mention taking revenues from local governments without this issue being fully aired.

Frankie Sue Del Papa, Attorney General, said she served on the highway board, (Board of Directors, Nevada Department of Transportation). She said she listened to comments made by Senator Titus on S.B. 415 and she felt the people at the NDOT were not non-accessible or unaccountable. She commented the NDOT is made up of state employees who work very, very hard for this state.

Ms. Del Papa said the proposal just heard does not reflect what is in the best interest of the people of the state of Nevada. In a brief historical analysis, she added, until 1989, the Federal Highway Administration prohibited all utility access on freeway rights-of-way. She explained the Federal Highway Administration had spent billions of dollars to acquire these rights-of-way and until 1994 all 50 states prohibited utility installation, for instance, on freeways. She testified with the explosion of the telecommunications industry, in the 1990s, the industry expanded.

Ms. Del Papa said the Federal Highway Administration encouraged states to consider the pros and cons of including the shared-resource concept. She explained an amendment will be proposed to address the utility accommodation policy. She noted the amendment is fair and reasonable to all parties and has public safety as a consideration. Further, she added, there is a need for a mechanism that provides fair and just compensation for rights-of-way.

Chairman O’Donnell said he thought he had an amendment that was agreed upon by the administration. He asked, “Are you proposing a new amendment?” Ms. Del Papa said she had been provided with Exhibit F a few minutes ago. She continued, saying she could not represent the Governor’s position with reference to this particular amendment, but she also said she knew last Friday the Governor voted for the concept that there would be value given to the rights-of-way and there would be a fair and just compensation package proposed.

Ms. Del Papa said the Governor left it up to this body to come up with a fair proposal. She voiced earlier the Governor had taken the position this matter could be dealt with through the regulatory process. She suggested this position still holds for the permitting process and this process, as well. She stated the fairest thing to do would be to give the authority to the NDOT through regulations.

Chairman O’Donnell asked:

How did this amendment get here with statements made by the proponents that they met with the Governor and the Governor told them this is what is needed? Now you come here with another solution which will contradict this one. And the Governor left it up to us to decide which is the right one to go with?

Responding, Ms. Del Papa said she could not speak for the Governor. She said the Governor’s position was it is up to this body to ultimately decide the compensation and policy determination.

James A. Polito, Ph.D., Bureau of Consumer Protection, Office of the Attorney General, submitted written testimony entitled, “Fund for Universal Technology, Proposal of the State Working Group” and a proposed amendment to S.B. 195 (Exhibit G). He stated he would present a different prospective and different approach to the compensation issue for rights-of-way.

Chairman O’Donnell queried this amendment does not have anything to do with the table other than it says the department shall adopt regulations determining the amount of the assessment. Dr. Polito answered the amendment says it must determine the assessment and gives the principles that must be embodied. Further, he stated the connection is this is an example of one way you could reflect those principles enumerated.

Chairman O’Donnell queried if he had corrected the parameters of the assessment. Dr. Polito said he wanted to give an idea of how it would look if actually enacted. Chairman O’Donnell clarified the numbers are not hard coded in the law and there would be a determination made by the Board of Directors, of the NDOT. Dr. Polito said, yes, through the regulatory process.

Chairman O’Donnell asked if anyone were present who knew if the Governor signed off on this amendment. Ms. Del Papa said she was personally unaware of a sign off on the industry proposal (Exhibit F). Chairman O’Donnell repeated, “Has the Governor signed off on this proposal?

Ms. Del Papa answered:

No, the Governor has not signed off on it and the only position the Governor has taken, that I am formally aware of, is the position as a member of the highway board (Board of Directors, NDOT) wherein he voted to indicate the right-of-way has value and there should be a fair and just compensation procedure established in that regard. Earlier, if you recall, it was represented, I believe inaccurately, although again I cannot speak for him, it was represented that the Governor thought if this body chose to do so, a fair way to do this was through the regulatory process. This would give the NDOT authority to come up through the regulatory process, and allow the department to determine fair and reasonable compensation for use of the highway rights-of-way, pursuant to the NRS. The regulations would be developed and the proceeds would go towards a universal technology fund.

Chairman O’Donnell said at the first hearing on this issue, there was testimony about a real need to look closely at the way the NDOT was requesting money from certain carriers. Continuing, he said there appeared to be no real regulation; it was sort of a matter of “What can we get out of these guys?” Then, he added, the bill came to us stating money should not be extorted out of these companies. Now, he concluded, there are amendments.

Ms. Del Papa declared the NDOT did not deserve the “beating” it received in earlier testimony. She continued these are our friends and our neighbors who work very hard for the people of this state. She opined if the industry had spent as much money on their engineering as they had spent on the lobbyists they had working this bill, they would not have encountered some of the delays they encountered in the past.

Attorney General Del Papa continued there is another side to this story and it was not told very well at the first hearing. She said when words like “blackmail and extortion” are used, it is ridiculous. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 contemplates a shared-resources agreement, she stated, and the example used was Williams Communications. Ms. Del Papa clarified the university system will tell you what a good deal their agreement was with Williams Communications because it provided things the state would not have received otherwise.

Ms. Del Papa maintained there are stories to tell about procuring the agreement with Williams Communications and the rights-of-way. She expressed under the federal law, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and the Federal Highway Administration, these shared-resource agreements are for the good of the state. Further, she said the ultimate beneficiaries of this agreement are the education system, rural telecommunication, the libraries, and the ability to do telemedicine. She urged the committee not to go with the suggested amendment in Exhibit F because it would be better to give the authority to the NDOT.

Chairman O’Donnell replied it has been five or six weeks from the first time this committee heard S.B. 195. He declared the committee asked for some type of action and it did not occur. When there are taxes, he pointed out, a fee is charged to a utility holder and they pass that tax or fee on to the rate base. He continued this means the ratepayers pay the fee, in order to get the easement or right-of-way, then they take the fee and they pass it on to every single subscriber with a phone, cable modem, or some type of communications device. He voiced the issue here is who rightfully deserves to pay, who rightfully deserves to control, and who pays. Chairman O’Donnell stressed:

That is the bottom line. The question here is do we want to use the right-of-way as the mechanism by which we can extract more money from taxpayers by charging them a fee, so that we can tack it on to their phone bill? In a revolving way, this all comes back to you and me and how much we pay for our phone service.

Dr. Polito said under the state working group proposal (Exhibit G), it is not necessarily viewed as a pass-through to the customers which would appear as a line item on the customer bill. He stated it would be a cost of business, and economics tells us when it is a cost of business, a portion will be passed on to the consumers. He acknowledged also a portion would be borne by the company, so it is not necessarily accurate to view the state working group proposal as a 100 percent pass-through to taxpayers.

Chairman O’Donnell said in business the bottom line is determined by the margin on the cost of the items sold.

Brian Hutchins, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Transportation and Public Safety Division, Office of the Attorney General, handed out and referred to a prepared report entitled “Franchise and Telecommunications Laws” (Exhibit H). He commented on the differences between the two plans and proposals.

Mr. Hutchins said the Board of Directors of the NDOT did agree the rights-of-way the department holds have value and there should be fair and reasonable compensation for them. He referred to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 explaining it was another federal statute which demonstrated the federal government believes states must obtain compensation. He read from section 156, Title 23 of the United States Code: “When private lines are allowed into the rights-of-way then the federal statute requires that the states charge as a minimum fair market value.” He stated page 1 of Exhibit H has a section on the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which tells what it requires and it has left the states to determine what fair and reasonable compensation is.

Mr. Hutchins pointed out the difference was in the “franchise fee” which was discussed in the proposal by the industry (Exhibit F) and the other proposal presented by the state working group (Exhibit G). He called attention to the explanation of franchise fee in Exhibit H. He said, “A definition of franchise fee includes any tax, fee, or assessment of any kind imposed by a franchising authority or other governmental entity on a cable subscriber, or both, solely because of their status as such.”

Mr. Hutchins commented Exhibit H gives a clear explanation of state law as it exists now. He added it shows who has authority to grant franchises and to allow franchises to construct utilities in the streets and alleys along the public roads and highways of the counties and cities. He added there is no reason to pit the state against the local governments in an attempt to split the franchise fees. He continued to address the franchise issues, discussing what was best for the state at this point.

Chairman O’Donnell said he could see commonality in the proposals. He noted the major difference seemed to be the fact that Mr. Hutchins’ presentation (Exhibit H) did not give a definitive number or a dollar amount in the law; no fee attached to it. Commenting further, he said the issue is whether to codify a certain dollar amount in the statute or whether to leave it up to the department to determine what the number should be.

Dr. Polito stated there is also a significant difference with respect to the cap under the industry’s proposal (Exhibit F). He noted if a 5 percent franchise fee is paid, they will not pay any additional assessment. Continuing, he said under the state working group proposal (Exhibit G) you would pay and this is a primary obstacle. He explained the industry feels franchising licensing fees are adequate compensation and they should not be required to pay any additional fees for state highway rights-of-way. He repeated the state working group proposal contemplates additional compensation for state highway rights-of-way.

Chairman O’Donnell asked whether the federal cable act allowed charges of more than 5 percent for tax or franchise fees.

Mr. Gillespie said the cable act states franchise fees may not exceed 5 percent and it defines franchise fees by using the terms “fees and taxes.” He added to the best of his knowledge, the only contemplation is that telecommunications companies and cable operators would pay this fee but not other similar users of rights-of-way such as power companies who currently occupy the state’s rights-of-way in Las Vegas and Clark County.

Dr. Polito responded by saying that was not an entirely accurate presentation of the state working group proposal (Exhibit G). He stressed the state working group proposal fully understands what the franchise fee is. He referred to Exhibit H saying this would be an assessment of general applicability on all utilities, not a franchise fee.

Mr. Gillespie said he had not seen Exhibit G but when this issue was discussed item for item, the state has been taking the position that these issues should apply only to telecommunications companies and cable operators.

Dr. Polito responded this proposal was presented to the Board of Directors of the NDOT at its last meeting and industry representatives had a chance to see the proposal, but not necessarily the supporting legislation.

Chairman O’Donnell asked if the proposal was adopted by the transportation board and Dr. Polito answered the general principle that the right-of-way is of value. He added legislative authority should be sought to obtain compensation and recognition of the value which was adopted. He stressed again, the industry and Mr. Gillespie had seen the state working group proposal (Exhibit G).

Attorney General Del Papa inserted what had been reported to her was the Governor had not signed off on the industry’s proposal (Exhibit F).

Chairman O’Donnell interjected the reason why this question was asked is because the Governor has made it very clear he is adamantly opposed to any fee or tax increase. He added when this is deliberated, if there is a fee or a tax, it is necessary to find out whether the Governor would support it.

Chairman O’Donnell closed the work session on S.B. 195 and opened the work session on Senate Bill 270.

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

Paul J. Christensen, Chairman, Transportation Services Authority (TSA), Department of Business and Industry, testified in response to a question by Chairman O’Donnell regarding how to separate out Clark County for specific legislation. Mr. Christensen said the only way would be to use population numbers of over 400,000. He referred to a suggested amendment from Broadbent and Walker, Incorporated (Exhibit I).

Gary E. Milliken, Lobbyist, Yellow-Checker-Star Cab Company, said this amendment was drafted because of discussion at a prior meeting concerning the allocation system. He said the main point of Exhibit I is to determine allocation methods.

Chairman O’Donnell asked when the allocation could start and Mr. Christensen replied it could start on July 1, 2002. He added there was some controversy on the start date but he preferred the July 1, 2002, date to allow time to establish a system and collect the fees to get started.

Chairman O’Donnell said by July 1, 2002, there will not be an allocation to be concerned about because carriers will have as many traditional or livery limousines as they can possibly get.

Mr. Christensen noted section 29.1 of Exhibit I suggested “This act becomes effective upon passage and approval.”

Chairman O’Donnell asked Mr. Milliken if his client really wanted allocation to regulate this industry and Mr. Milliken replied yes, this amendment will work to regulate the industry.

Chairman O’Donnell suggested two things: an agreement to prohibit additional limousines as of the passage of the bill, and the allocation process would start July 1, 2002. Mr. Christensen agreed but said there was one other issue to consider in section 28 of Exhibit I, the definition of bus. He said it was his understanding there would be testimony saying the definition is too strict. Commenting further, he said the reason it is in the amendment is because there are vehicles being used as buses so the TSA tried to close the loophole.

Chairman O’Donnell asked for clarification and Mr. Christensen referred to section 28 of Exhibit I saying this is a new section. He explained the federal register was consulted as to the definition of a bus and several definitions were found. He stressed it would strengthen the bill if it were amended to say, “Sixteen or more passengers including the driver.”

Michael R. Reed, Lobbyist, Baker and Drake Incorporated, submitted a copy of prepared amendments to S.B. 270 (Exhibit J). He defined the amendments were an attempt to assure the driver has some responsibility and to make it very clear the carrier or the certificate holder is not attempting to avoid any of their responsibilities.

Chairman O’Donnell asked if the TSA had seen this amendment and Mr. Reed answered they had agreed to it. Chairman O’Donnell stated this would further isolate the operator from the driver in terms of the liability and responsibility. He commented the TSA is inviting, and the public will probably see it in the next two or four years, the prohibition of leasing of cabs.

Mr. Reed answered that is why paragraphs were specifically put into the legislation clarifying the certificate operator does not escape the regulatory responsibility.

Michael K. Sullivan, Lobbyist, Nevada Limousine Coalition, introduced Billy Arnold, Owner, Executive Coach and Carriage; and Steve Cunningham, representing the Nevada Limousine Coalition, both from Las Vegas. He submitted a copy of prepared amendments (Exhibit K), and expressed support of the original S.B. 270. He added he could not support an effective date before July 2002 because this is a sweeping change in the industry. He explained the businesses are based on plans of growth, at a certain rate, and he needed to make sure the certificates would be honored as they currently stand.

Mr. Sullivan suggested a provision for a temporary driver permit which would allow competition for a contract along with the big companies.

Billy Arnold, Owner, Executive Coach and Carriage,said it would take from 15 to 25 cars to service a large hotel, depending on the type of service needed. He commented he felt very fortunate to have a license in the state of Nevada, especially in Las Vegas and he agreed with the July 2002 effective date.

Chairman O’Donnell asked about the number of cars Mr. Arnold had initially. Mr. Arnold replied six when he received his license in August of 2000. Chairman O’Donnell asked how many cars were allowed. Mr. Arnold said six. Mr. Sullivan said Mr. Cunningham has the largest number of cars in the coalition, with 20 to 25 cars; most others had from 2 to 6 cars. He stressed, “We are facing allocations and we would like to make sure we will be able to grow.”

Chairman O’Donnell said the allocation process has worked very well over the years. Mr. Arnold said he was personally for the allocation system. He commented he went into this business to make a great investment and earn a living for his family. He stressed, “All of the measures in S.B. 270 are great, but we deserve a chance to grow with the other companies.”

Steve Cunningham, Nevada Limousine Coalition, said with regard to S.B. 270, he believed the smaller companies were not necessarily in favor of it. He said the problem is there is not enough enforcement in Las Vegas because the TSA is under-funded and does not have enough agents to enforce the existing rules. He explained the issue was some companies have drivers that do not actually work for them and these drivers have to fend for themselves. He said an allocation system may be the answer; however, if there is an allocation system, there are certain caveats he would suggest to protect the smaller companies.

Mr. Cunningham continued one of the caveats would be a current temporary allocation system where a small company would have the ability to rent a similar vehicle on a one-to-one ratio during certain periods of time when there is an increase in business. For instance, today he had a Pepsi Cola group which requested sedans only and he needed to rent sedans temporarily, and he used six other companies in order to cover the orders for the group.

Mr. Cunningham agreed with Mr. Christensen that some companies were using oversized sport utility vehicles. He explained the standards within the coach builder industry allowed coach builders to build vehicles up to 120 inches beyond the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) length of the car. He noted General Motors allowed up to 130 inches beyond the OEM for limousines. He said he did not see why there needed to be verbiage added to the amendment which so narrowly negates the ability of transportation companies to service their clients. He stressed this was an opposing point of view and he would like to see a way to find some common ground to work together on this issue.

Mr. Christensen remarked the reason why this definition was used was because of the number of vehicles which came before the TSA for licensing as buses. This would take them out of the regulatory categories and putting them under a nonregulated category under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21^st Century (TEA-21).

Chairman O’Donnell asked Mr. Cunningham if he had vehicles in his fleet under the TEA-21 and he replied yes, and he agreed with Mr. Christensen’s comments about vehicles on the streets presently which are not being properly certificated for the gross vehicle weight (GVW). He added the coachbuilder he used changed the suspension, the springs, and upgraded the tires and the rims. In fact, he stated, the GVW is listed on the doorpost as upgraded and it can accommodate the additional weight of the passengers.

Senator Washington asked if the committee imposed the allocation on the taxicabs, would it be in violation of the Fair Trade Act. Mr. Christensen said one of the reasons you are seeing the allocation in the amendment written the way it is written is it has already been adjudicated. He said he believed it has been cleared through the federal government and had stood the test over the years.

Senator Washington asked if the allocation process would be open to anyone who would like to participate or be a part of the industry. Mr. Christensen said he did not write the amendment, and if he had he would have a certain number for newcomers. Mr. Milliken said his interpretation was that it was across the board.

Senator Washington asked with the certain number of slots available in the allocation process, would a newcomer have to do an application to get into the industry. Mr. Christensen answered the law is still the law. He noted in S.B. 270 a newcomer would still be required to make an application. Commenting further, he stated it does not lock the door and it does not mean the people currently in the limousine business would never get another limousine.

Senator Washington pondered whether this might produce lawsuits. Mr. Christensen said the language is copied from the taxicab rules. They have just allocated a new taxicab company in Las Vegas, he said, and it is still possible to get in. He said he believed if you cut the process off there will be a real problem.

Chairman O’Donnell said he thought the issue was because you cannot have an allocation process and you cannot have a restriction on entering the market, if you do not have an allocation process, because they go hand in hand. He added you cannot say, “We do not care after you get your certificate how many limousines you have because public conveyance is not an issue; but before you get your certificate it is a closed door because public conveyance is an issue. It does not make sense.”

Mr. Christensen said another issue to consider was when there is an applicant, it must be considered whether he is financially able to get through the process. He noted if an applicant is only financially able to run six limousines and this is all he is asking for because this is all he has money for, then this would put him into the allocation process. He cannot come in later and try to change his certificate to unlimited. He added the TSA had that occur and this is not what this process is designed to do.

Senator Care disclosed Mr. Sullivan was his campaign consultant and he would abstain on the votes regarding S.B. 270.

Senator Amodei asked about the objection to the date change. Chairman O’Donnell explained the only issue was to make the effective date July 1, 2002, to give time to draft the regulations, collect the fees, and to do the necessary paperwork. He defined the only issue he had was to make sure there were no allocations beyond passage and approval of the bill by the Governor.

Chairman O’Donnell asked Mr. Sullivan if he had incorporated his amendment into Mr. Broadbent’s amendment which was Exhibit I and Mr. Sullivan said, yes, we would like the system to stay as it is until July 1, 2002.

Chairman O’Donnell clarified the system as it is allows allocation up to a certificated year. Mr. Christensen said that depends on which licenses; some licenses have an allocation in their certificate restricting them to a certain number of limousines. He stressed he was concerned about the bus definition.

Senator Carlton said she remembered during earlier discussions there were provisions in S.B. 270 aimed specifically at the drivers. She said some of those provisions were to be removed and she asked if it had been done. Mr. Christensen said that was satisfactorily worked out with Mr. Drake and was a part of his amendment.

SENATOR AMODEI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 270.

SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR CARE ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE.)

*****

Chairman O’Donnell opened the work session on S.B. 288.

SENATE BILL 288: 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. (BDR 43-468)

Ben Graham, Lobbyist, Clark County District Attorney, said a hearing was held to try to bring reckless driving into the same area as driving under the influence, covering roads or private parking lots which have access to highways. He went over the bill and suggested deleting all of sections 1 and 2.

SENATOR AMODEI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 288.

SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Chairman O’Donnell opened the work session on S.B. 414.

SENATE BILL 414: Provides for limited issuance of special license plates to commemorate 100th anniversary of founding of City of Las Vegas. (BDR 43-1064)

SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 414.

SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Chairman O’Donnell opened the work session on S.B. Bill 503.

SENATE BILL 503: Increases service charge assessed by department of motor vehicles and public safety for checks dishonored upon presentation for payment. (BDR 43-1312)

SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 503.

SENATOR AMODEI SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Chairman O’Donnell opened the work session on S.B. 522.

SENATE BILL 522: Clarifies certain provisions concerning administration of money in state highway fund. (BDR 43-566)

Donald O. Williams, Committee Policy Analyst, Research Division, Legislative Council Bureau, said Senator Care had asked about section 2, subsection 4, of the bill and wanted to know why it was changed. He stated the Legislative Council Bureau legal counsel advised him the existing language was an error that needed to be changed.

SENATOR AMODEI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 522.

SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Chairman O’Donnell opened the work session on S.B. Bill 524.

SENATE BILL 524: Authorizes electronic submission and storage of documents relating to vehicle registration. (BDR 43-1222)

SENATOR AMODEI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 524.

SENATOR CARLTON SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Chairman O’Donnell opened the work session on S.B. 525.

SENATE BILL 525: Revises provisions governing issuance of replacement license plates. (BDR S-1223)

SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 525.

SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Chairman O’Donnell opened 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)

Senator Care suggested all cab companies be required to give out a number to call in the event of a complaint. He noted that way complaints of elderly and permanently handicapped persons could be monitored.

SENATOR CARLTON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 119.

SENATOR AMODEI SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:57 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Alice Nevin

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator William R. O'Donnell, Chairman

DATE: