MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Transportation
Seventy-First Session
April 12, 2001
The Senate Committee on Transportationwas called to order by Chairman William R. O’Donnell, at 2:01 p.m., on Thursday, April 12, 2001, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was video conferenced to the Grant Sawyer Office Building, Room 4401, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator William R. O’Donnell, Chairman
Senator Mark Amodei, Vice Chairman
Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen
Senator Maurice Washington
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer
Senator Terry Care
Senator Maggie Carlton
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Jon C. Porter, Sr., Clark County Senatorial District No. 1
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Donald O. Williams, Committee Policy Analyst
Micheline N. Fairbank, Committee Policy Analyst
Alice Nevin, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Frankie Sue Del Papa, Attorney General
Robert R. Loux, Executive Director, Agency for Nuclear Projects, Office of the Governor
Oscar B. Goodman, Mayor, City of Las Vegas
Myrna T. Williams, Board of Commissioners, Clark County
Shari Buck, City Councilwoman, City of North Las Vegas
Russell diBartolo, Nuclear Waste Division, Clark County
Robert Ferraro, Mayor, City of Boulder City
Fred Dexter, Concerned Citizen
Piper Overstreet, District Representative, Office of the Honorable Shelley Berkley, U.S. House of Representatives
Joe Demma, Constituent Services Representative, Office of the Honorable Jim Gibbons, U.S. Senate
Richard Wilke, Lobbyist, City of Henderson
Stephen J. Cloobeck, President, Diamond Resorts International
Kaitlin Backlund, Executive Director, Citizen Alert
Bill Gregory, Lobbyist, Schwartz Investment Partnership
John Schwartz, Schwartz Investment Partnership
Brian Hutchins, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Transportation and Public Safety Division, Office of the Attorney General
Susan Martinovich, Assistant Director, Engineering Division, Director’s Office, Nevada Department of Transportation
K. Neena Laxalt, Lobbyist, Nevada Propane Dealers’ Association
Peter D. Krueger, Lobbyist, Nevada Fuels Association
Charles A. Silvestri, Lobbyist, Southwest Gas Corporation
Blair V. Poulson, Vice President, Nevada Propane Dealers’ Association
Don Drake, President, Baker and Drake, Incorporated
Sean G. Gamble, Lobbyist, Washoe County District Health Department
Allan Biaggi, Administrator, Division of Environmental Protection, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Andrew C. Goodrich, Lobbyist, Washoe County District Health Department
John P. Sande III, Lobbyist, Western States Petroleum Association
Alfredo Alonso, Lobbyist
James M. Brandmueller, Administrator, Nevada State Energy Office
Russ Law, Chief Operations Analysis Engineer, Operation Analysis, Nevada Department of Transportation
Daryl E. Capurro, Lobbyist, Nevada Motor Transport Association
Jens T. Larsen, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association
Cheryl Blomstrom, Lobbyist, Nevada Chapter Associated General Contractors
Gary H. Wolff, Lobbyist, Nevada Highway Patrol Association
Raymond (Rusty) C. McAllister, Lobbyist, Professional Fire Fighters of Nevada
Steven Horsford, Lobbyist, Southwest Ambulance
Gary E. Milliken, Lobbyist, American Medical Response
Chris Ferrari, Lobbyist, Regional Emergency Medical Services Authority
John Sullard, City Manager, City of Boulder City
Tom Greco, Project Manager, Project Management, Nevada Department of Transportation
Pat A. Zamora, Lobbyist, Clark County School District
Tom Tatro, Fiscal Manager, Management Services and Programs Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety
Virginia (Ginny) Lewis, Deputy Director, Motor Vehicles, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety
Chairman O’Donnell opened the hearing on Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.R.) 11.
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 11: Urges Congress to direct appropriate federal agencies to prepare environmental impact statement relating to transportation of nuclear waste materials to Yucca Mountain. (BDR R‑1244)
Senator Jon C. Porter, Sr., Clark County Senatorial District No. 1, called attention to the timeline for the Yucca Mountain proposed site for nuclear waste. He presented Exhibit C which contained several articles about Yucca Mountain.
Senator Porter said:
Once the actions and research methods employed to create the Yucca Mountain repository are understood, S.J.R. 11 will become as important as anything Nevada has done in the past or in the future to prevent this project from becoming a reality. I would like to summarize a few key dates for the record:
In 1982, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 which created a site selection process and a schedule for disposal of waste to begin in 1998. In 1983, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) named nine potential repository sites in seven states and, in 1986, the DOE issued final environmental assessments and narrowed the site search to Nevada, Texas, and Washington.
In 1987, Congress amended the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and Yucca Mountain was designated the sole repository at that time. A search for a second potential site ends and for giving up its legal right to object to a repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada is offered annual payments. In 1989, the secretary of energy developed a new strategy calling for waste storage to begin in 2003 and, in 1990, the number of nuclear reactor units in the United States peaked at 112.
In 1991, surface studies began at Yucca Mountain and the government used lobbying and public relations firms to launch a public media campaign to soften public resistance to Yucca Mountain. In 1993, actual construction began at Yucca Mountain. In 1996, bills were pending in Congress for interim storage sites and the DOE must find a site by 1998 and, in 1998, it was determined that water had seeped through the depth of the repository in 50 years. Also in 1998, the DOE failed to meet the interim site selection deadline, many states filed lawsuits, and the DOE declared Yucca Mountain viable.
Senator Porter continued:
In 1999, the DOE released a 1400-page statement finding no potential environmental impacts that would be the basis for not proceeding with the proposed site. In August 2000, experiments conducted by Nevada scientists show the storage cask materials designed to last 10,000 years are susceptible to corrosion and cracking. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission experts have determined many volcanic eruptions could occur in the 10,000-year proposed time and, in 2000, the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects (NANP) said the DOE delay in identifying routes for the transport of waste was to avoid public outcry in Nevada and other states.
In 2001, the DOE investigated allegations of collusion among the nuclear power industry itself and contractors to promote Yucca Mountain. This latest investigation will delay the DOE’s recommendation on Yucca Mountain’s suitability, currently scheduled for June 2001.
This timeline demonstrates a myriad of actions over the last 19 years during which Yucca Mountain has been formally selected by the DOE as the site to present for congressional approval.
This is the point where we as Nevadans find ourselves today. We say what we may about the unfair decisions, which have been made against us on this issue, but the fact remains the current Environmental Impact Study (EIS) being completed by DOE on the suitability of Yucca Mountain, the same 17,000-page study which will make up a major part of the recommendation to Congress and to the President of the United States, only mentions transportation in 130 pages and then it is purely philosophical and in token terms. That is not good enough for the state of Nevada.
The inclusion of a full transportation study, a conscious decision made by the DOE, because in their own words, “We want to quell the expected, enormous public outcry against the transportation of waste,” would then relieve the DOE of having to actually define routes, hold public hearings, alert citizens to the probability of accidents, change property values associated with living near those routes, identify overall economic impacts to businesses located close to these routes, and alert citizens about a number of community health and safety factors associated with those routes.
Senator Porter said:
The DOE has chosen, instead, to perform this route study after the site is chosen. This is unthinkable, irresponsible and unacceptable to the citizens of the state of Nevada. Also unacceptable is the move to be in violation of federal law. Currently, the federal government is violating its own laws. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 clearly states among all federally funded projects, whether it be a school, an office building or a nuclear waste repository, they must include . . . an environmental study of transportation and the impacts on the communities.
Why would the federal government break their own law in this situation? We raise this question today. In 1994, the federal government passed a law stating the federal government must operate under the same laws as those it imposes on the citizens of the United States of America. Yet here they have chosen a site and chosen to break their own laws. Why is that?
I would like to give you my impression of why they are breaking their own laws. The full transportation study has been left out of the EIS because the DOE knows once a study is done, the facts they already know will emerge. The transportation infrastructure for Nevada is not sufficient to carry the waste and the completed study will determine the Yucca Mountain site is not a good alternative for waste storage. Still the experts take short cuts, cutting out items like transportation route studies. They hire public relations firms to try to fool our citizens into believing they have everything under control.
Senator Porter declared:
I am here today to say they do not have everything under control. They have not demonstrated the capability of sound research, and full disclosure of information is at the top of the list. Not only has this been a flawed process but we have a federal law being violated by a federal agency to accelerate the process. I will never believe science should decide, as many politicians will say across this country. I believe Nevada should decide.
I firmly believe a full study of the transportation routes should be done as part of the current EIS study so we will not only begin to address an issue as important as the storage site itself, but we will finally be able to inform our residents of the full impacts they may face next to their neighborhoods, schools, and places of work. The reality is there are only two routes in and out of our southern Nevada valley, Highway 95 and Interstate 15. We do not have an immense highway system with complex roads. Even though there will be a transportation study, we cannot change the fact there are limited routes into the state of Nevada, whether it be rail or highways.
I believe now is the time to act. If we act today, I believe we can stop this transport of waste through our own neighborhoods and, therefore, we can stop it from being permanently dumped in our own backyard.
The resolution itself goes into far more detail. I have chosen to summarize my thoughts on the process but there are number of individuals who are the experts in the field and studies have been done by local governments in southern Nevada. I would like to ask Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa to make some comments regarding the resolution.
Frankie Sue Del Papa, Attorney General, testified in support for S.J.R. 11. Her written testimony is attached (Exhibit D).
Senator Washington commented several bills had been introduced concerning this matter which confused the general public.
Senator Porter said:
I oppose Yucca Mountain being used as a dumping ground. The federal government has broken their own laws. Had they followed their own laws, they would be doing an EIS first as to the transportation routes.
Once public hearings begin across this country, and considerations regarding economics, safety, and health factors are brought forward to these communities, we will be able to create an uproar which will stop this process. The politicians in Washington cannot do it alone and I applaud our delegation for their efforts, but now it is time we bring our community into the process. I am insisting the impact statement on the routes through our communities be finished prior to the site selection. That is the purpose of this legislation.
Chairman O’Donnell asked if the resolution required the federal government to analyze and produce an EIS on the routes they thought were pertinent and safe for transporting nuclear waste. Senator Porter answered there were about 100 pages discussing possible transportation routes. He stated, “I believe transportation is key to our stopping Yucca Mountain from being used as a dump site. I believe in having the public involved, and once they realize the health hazards, they too can be involved in the process of stopping Yucca Mountain.”
Chairman O'Donnell queried if the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 required the Governor to designate the route prior to the selection process or would it require the Governor to address transportation after the site recommendation.
Robert R. Loux, Executive Director, Agency for Nuclear Projects, said there was no requirement in the federal law regarding the Governor’s designation of routes one way or another. He noted it was not addressed in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. Chairman O'Donnell asked if the Governor had the purview to designate the routes and if he could invoke that authority prior to the site recommendation. Mr. Loux answered the authority was derived from the Nevada Department of Transportation regulations and was not linked to the site recommendation. He added, in theory, a Governor could designate a route at any point in time.
Oscar B. Goodman, Mayor, City of Las Vegas, spoke in support of S.J.R. 11 as Mayor and Chairman of the Southern Nevada Regional Coalition. He stated the idea of nuclear waste coming through Las Vegas was frightening. He noted his office was close to U.S. Highway 95 and it was unpleasant to think about the many accidents involving trucks which, in the future, could be carrying high-level nuclear waste.
Mayor Goodman pointed out Mr. Loux had told him in the event of a nuclear spill, even a small amount of radiation could affect a 42-square-mile area. He said the federal government appeared to be trying to name Yucca Mountain as the nuclear waste repository; however, there were rules set in place in order for them to accomplish their objective. He emphasized the EIS omitted any critical analysis of transportation route studies. Based on that, he was unable to accept their representations that the transportation of waste and the site itself were safe.
Mayor Goodman pointed out the government told people the testing of atomic bombs was safe, although today it is known many people were affected by the carcinogens contained therein. He expressed, “We cannot take the word of the government just because they say they are the federal government. The government must give their critical analysis of the transportation issue and allow the citizens of Las Vegas to have input.”
Mr. Loux said he supported the resolution for two reasons: The EIS draft document was deficient because it did not identify nor analyze national transportation routes; second, once the public in other states learned of the routes, they would also be reluctant to continue to push for nuclear waste shipments to a site in Nevada. He emphasized, “Energizing the citizens and communities along transportation routes in the other states is the key to the opposition and likely the key to success.”
Senator Washington asked about the differences between S.J.R. 11 and S.J.R. 4.
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 4: Urges Governor to designate alternate routes for transportation of nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain. (BDR R-1185)
Mr. Loux said:
We are concerned about resolutions which might erode our ability to fully challenge and fully litigate the entire project. In our research, in looking at how other states have handled various projects like this, often the states cause themselves fatal harm in trying to do the right thing when opposing a project. We view the “if/then” resolutions, meaning if the statute is overridden then these things ought to transpire, to be an impediment to our ability to fully litigate, challenge, and uphold the state law prohibiting disposal and storage in the state.
Our concern is we have the ability to fully challenge all of these decisions, but the concern with some of these resolutions is they may diminish the ability to some extent. This resolution does not do that, it is strictly a resolution aimed at the inadequacy of the EIS by the federal government and urges them to do the correct job and talk to citizens along transportation routes in other states about what those impacts might be. We believe this is fundamentally a sound policy.
Senator Washington inquired about combining the two resolutions.
Mr. Loux said:
The law would require the DOE to finalize the EIS before they can make a recommendation. We believe it will be deficient and we want the ability to fully challenge it. The concern is with the “if” part of the resolutions. We want to make sure we have the best ability to challenge, legally and otherwise, all of these federal decisions. Some of these resolutions cause concern because they may impair our ability to move ahead.
Chairman O'Donnell clarified:
This resolution says we want you, “Mr. Federal Government,” to tell us what those routes are and do an EIS on those routes. We want to know what you have selected for the railroad, or for the easement, or for the right-of-way in order to ship nuclear waste to our state.
If the resolution goes forward . . . the federal government will then perform the EIS. They will establish the routes and it will give you the chance to challenge whatever criteria they have used for selecting it; however, once it has been selected, it is what the federal government has chosen for the route, not what the state of Nevada has chosen for the route.
Your hope is if you let them choose the route, then you will have some kind of ammunition to prove them wrong and to prove it should not go here. If we choose the route, then we, according to you, would be “shooting ourselves in the foot” and we would have no legal standing to fight this. The difference is: are we willing to allow it to go your way and have the federal government select the route or are we willing to select the route ourselves.
Mr. Loux said:
We are mixing apples and oranges here. My discussion is on national routes outside of Nevada; they have dealt with the routes in Nevada in the EIS. They have not identified any routes nationally in the EIS and the concern at this point is primarily the national routes. We want the DOE to pick those routes because once they do, the people living around those routes will become upset about it . . . At some point in time, Nevadans want to be in charge of the route selection within the state and I concur with this; but I think it ought to be done after a site selection is made.
It is the difference between the national route the DOE should commit to . . . that allows us to point to the route and say it is coming right through St. Louis, or Omaha; as opposed to the DOE being uncommitted about where it is going to go, which is their desire. They have talked about the national transportation system being the Achilles heel of the nuclear waste program, as they do not want to identify the routes for the fear of what we think will happen.
You are correct about the in-state routes. If the site is selected, Nevadans will want to make those selections.
Chairman O'Donnell pointed out if the EIS was done, according to this resolution, then the federal government would chose the routes and the state of Nevada would not have a say in it.
Mr. Loux said for Nevada routes in the EIS, the federal government has identified a sweep of routes without identifying any one route. He expressed, “I think it is the way it will stay.”
Senator Porter said his purpose was not to argue the merits of another resolution; but to argue the importance of an environmental impact statement and its impact on the community, not only in Nevada but across the country. He remarked the “ifs” and “whens” should be set aside and the current problem of waste traveling through the communities should be dealt with. He acknowledged everyone was opposed to Yucca Mountain and he believed if people were given a chance to voice their opinions, it will not be “when” but “if.”
Senator Porter concluded:
I want to make sure we can use this resolution as a tool. I believe our communities are strongly opposed to Yucca Mountain and do not want this waste traveling through communities across this country.
Chairman O'Donnell said:
I applaud you for bringing this forward; however, we must understand the ramifications for doing this . . . We will take a long, hard look at this but by requesting this EIS, we are asking the federal government to go into communities like Omaha and Phoenix, tell them the whole transportation route which will take this nuclear waste, and tell them the nuclear waste is very dangerous and it will go right by their schools. That argument will stop the transportation of nuclear waste to Nevada; however, in doing that, if it becomes a reality, you have just scared those corridors to death because now they know where all the material is going . . . to our state, which is based on tourism.
Mr. Loux said according to the DOE’s latest calculations, the site recommendation would be made in the federal fiscal year of 2002; or, sometime after October 1, 2001 through September 30, 2002.
Senator Porter pointed out 53,000 residents, 59,000 employees, and 16,000 students were within one-half mile of the proposed route for the transportation of nuclear waste in Las Vegas as proposed in the EIS. He emphasized the economic impact from one trucking accident could cost the community in additional sales, employment earnings, jobs, and less collected for taxes. He said it was important for the community to have input on the EIS and once the community had an opportunity to provide input, it would be one more tool to stop the transportation of nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain.
Myrna T. Williams, Board of Commissioners, Clark County, expressed strong support for S.J.R. 11. She noted in February 2000, the Clark County Board of Commissioners passed a resolution to request the draft EIS be revised because the current draft EIS said there would be no impact to the community. She emphasized the community would be impacted in very significant ways, especially safety and economic factors. She said the EIS should properly reflect the impact on the community.
Shari Buck, City Councilwoman, City of North Las Vegas, said when the EIS came out, it proposed a route through the North Las Vegas beltway. She noted in July 2000, the city commissioned a report by The Lewis Burger Group, Incorporated. The report, “Assessment of the Hazards of Transporting Spent Nuclear Fuel and High Level Radioactive Waste to the Proposed Yucca Mountain Repository Using the Proposed Northern Las Vegas Beltway” is attached (Exhibit E. Original is on file in the Research Library.).
Ms. Buck said:
This obviously has a huge impact on the City of North Las Vegas, the City of Las Vegas, and the Las Vegas Valley. We feel the fact the DOE has not provided a true and realistic report of the detrimental impact to our city and valley is not right. We do not feel we should sit silently by and give the impression this insufficient study is acceptable. Today I am here to lend our support to this bill.
Russell diBartolo, Nuclear Waste Division, Clark County, limited his comments to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act document. He said:
In section 114, of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the State of Nevada, Clark County, and other interested parties may submit impact reports so the President and Congress may consider this in the approval process. Later this year the secretary of energy will recommend approval of Yucca Mountain to the President who will make a recommendation to Congress. At this point, all they have to look at are science and engineering reports dealing with aspects of the site itself; and, they will have a final EIS which says, in effect, there are no significant impacts on Clark County, the State of Nevada, and other affected units of local government.
I think they have made certain assumptions with regard to the studies they have done that preclude the finding of any significant impact. This is a methodological issue and a scientific issue and it is almost impossible, given the way they approached this, that they will find significant impacts. They do not feel economic impacts, costs to local governments, effects on property values, or environmental effects are important.
What we want to do here is, although we know other agencies will be presenting their own reports, and we know Congress will probably put more weight on the federal agency’s report than the DOE’s report which at this point shows no significant impacts, we want to influence it. We want them to take a good sound look at this.
Chairman O'Donnell confirmed the EIS for the transportation corridor was to be completed and included in the Yucca Mountain site recommendation report from the DOE to the President and to the Congress. The report would be sent to the Congress after the DOE determined what the impacts would be. Mr. diBartolo answered this would happen at the same time the secretary of energy made his recommendation to the President. He added it was important to make sure these impacts were recognized; at this point they were not recognized.
Following a question of who would do the EIS, Mr. diBartolo defined:
Under the law, the DOE is finalizing the EIS. We have said the draft EIS is insufficient and incomplete. We would like the EIS to be complete and to show the impacts that could be predicted to actually occur under reasonable assumptions. In addition, the State of Nevada, Clark County, other units of local government in the state, and Inyo County, California, are submitting their own impact reports to be integrated with the state’s report.
Robert Ferraro, Mayor, City of Boulder City, said he supported S.J.R. 11. He expressed agreement with the previous testifiers this resolution was the right thing to do. He urged the committee to take this issue very seriously because it cannot be “put aside.” He added there had to be an environmental impact statement prepared and presented to the public so they would have an opportunity to know about the impact of the transportation of nuclear waste through southern Nevada communities.
Fred Dexter, Concerned Citizen, said he represented the Sierra Club who strongly supported this resolution. He commented S.J.R. 11 was asking for a supplemental environmental impact statement which would require a certain amount of time to prepare. He said, “By demanding the federal government comply with their own laws, we are not giving up our own rights, but simply asking them to follow their laws.”
Mr. Dexter added the Sierra Club had been very concerned about the transportation impacts of bringing the high-level nuclear waste to Nevada. He noted once the national transportation plan was known, it would be to this state’s advantage. He stressed this resolution would buy time which was an important factor.
Piper Overstreet, District Representative, Office of the Honorable Shelley Berkley, U.S. House of Representatives, read the following letter into the record:
Dear Senator O’Donnell, I am writing to express my support for S.J.R. 11 urging Congress to direct appropriate federal agencies to prepare an environmental impact statement relating to the transportation of nuclear waste. I believe this resolution is another loud voice against the DOE’s intent to force Yucca Mountain’s eventual approval.
It is no secret the draft of the EIS for Yucca Mountain is deficient in many ways. Perhaps most striking is the lack of analysis for the transportation of nuclear waste across 43 states. It is my opinion any finding of suitability of Yucca Mountain without this analysis, and without the proper public input, would be ill advised and unlawful. And yet, this is another example of the political machine driving what should be a science-based setting.
I have worked in Congress to stop Yucca Mountain. During my tenure, it has become obvious to me and any honest investigator, Yucca Mountain is an insufficient site to store the nation’s nuclear waste. It has amazed me how easy it has been for proponents of the dump to ignore science and the law. It is my belief this resolution clearly demonstrates the people of Nevada will not be ignored. It shouts loud and clear it is wrong to ignore an issue affecting the health and safety of nearly 53 million Americans.
I would like to thank the sponsors of this resolution, and again indicate my support and hope for a quick adoption. Sincerely, Shelly Berkley, Member of Congress
Joe Demma, Constituent Services Representative, Office of the Honorable Jim Gibbons, U.S. Senate, submitted a statement from Senator Gibbons for the record (Exhibit F). He also read a statement for the record:
Along with other members of Nevada’s congressional delegation, the voice of the Nevada legislature is vital in expressing the concerns of our constituents. Together we have effectively eliminated the use of Yucca Mountain for interim high-level waste storage and sent notice to Congress we will remain “battle born,” committed to the safety of our families, our environment, and our welfare for generations to come.
Unfortunately, some of our colleagues in Washington have selectively short memories; therefore, we must join as sons and daughters of this great state and continue to deliver the message clearly that we will not stand for this federal government aggression. They must adhere to the laws of common decency and provide not only Nevada’s constituents, but also their own, with the voice of reason. Immediate, unanimous passage of S.J.R. 11 will prove once again Nevada remains united in her conviction.
Richard Wilke, Lobbyist, City of Henderson, stated the City of Henderson strongly supported the resolution. He read a letter of support from James B. Gibson, Mayor, City of Henderson (Exhibit G).
Senator Shaffer voiced Senator Porter had his full support for this resolution.
Stephen J. Cloobeck, President, Diamond Resorts International, spoke in support of S.J.R. 11. He thanked Senator Porter and his colleagues for sponsoring this resolution.
Kaitlin Backlund, Executive Director, Citizen Alert, testified Citizen Alert resoundingly supported the resolution because it would hold the federal government accountable. She said, “This resolution sends a clear message from Nevada to people across the country that the final EIS will not address the transportation impact and the federal government needs to be challenged to do what they say they are going to do.”
Chairman O'Donnell closed the hearing on S.J.R. 11 and opened 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, distributed “Proposed Revised Language for Senate Bill 219” (Exhibit H).
John Schwartz, Schwartz Investment Partnership, testified the goal of the bill was to provide a former property owner with a reversionary right to repurchase property which was taken or sold under threat of condemnation. This does not negatively impact the state, he said, as the state would still receive fair market value for the land. Mr. Schwartz explained the suggested changes in language as denoted in Exhibit H.
Brian Hutchins, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Transportation and Public Safety Division, Office of the Attorney General, explained the department was not opposed to the legislation. He read following into the record:
The department believes the fair market value will be determined by the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT). Typically it is done when the NDOT asks for an appraisal on the property and makes a determination the appraisal is accurate. The NDOT would determine whether or not the person does have or is a holder of a reversionary right or whether they are an heir or grantee. This is already provided for in the current law and should be continued in this law.
Whether the property is surplus to begin with or not is to be determined by the NDOT and should continue with this law. The department would advertise when the property is available and it would be up to the holder of any reversionary right to come forward within the 60-day period to claim they do have the right.
Chairman O'Donnell asked if there was a process to allow any citizen to petition the NDOT about a piece of property to determine whether or not the property should be reverted or sold at auction. Mr. Hutchins said the first determination would be if the property were surplus property. He said the current law, and this legislation would not change that, is a person would tell the surplus committee at the NDOT they believed they had a reversionary right for a surplus property and the department would make a determination.
Chairman O'Donnell clarified this law would not help Mr. Schwartz or any other person who had property in an easement which had been taken for an imminent domain situation or as part of their property. It would not help them, he defined, if the NDOT never identified the property as capable of being reverted.
Susan G. Martinovich, Assistant Director, Engineering Division, Director’s Office, Nevada Department of Transportation, clarified there was a process where anyone at any time could make an application to the department to request property be looked at to determine if it were surplus. The department would evaluate it through the surplus property committee and make a recommendation to the director and then to the Board of Directors, Nevada Department of Transportation, for final approval. Mr. Hutchins pointed out this legislation would assist persons such as Mr. Schwartz.
SENATOR AMODEI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 219.
SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS CARLTON AND CARE WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O'Donnell opened the hearing on S.B. 478.
SENATE BILL 478: Establishes certain benefits, exemptions and programs related to certain motor vehicles that use clean-burning fuel. (BDR 43‑137)
K. Neena Laxalt, Lobbyist, Nevada Propane Dealers Association, provided a copy of her testimony for the record (Exhibit I). Ms. Laxalt also distributed a packet containing a letter of support from Senators McGinness, James and Porter; a report entitled, “Alternative Fueled Vehicle Incentives”; and “Proposed Amendments to Senate Bill 478” (Exhibit J).
Peter D. Krueger, Lobbyist, Nevada Fuels Association, urged the committee and the legislature to adopt a fuels policy. He clarified S.B. 478, as amended, would not change the current alternative fuel definition which allowed state and local governments to use reformulated gasoline and diesel as a means to achieve clean-burning requirements. This bill, he continued, would begin the process to create a clean-burning fuel policy. He said, “Passing the bill encourages our citizens to buy and drive vehicles powered by clean-burning fuels.”
Charles A. Silvestri, Lobbyist, Southwest Gas Corporation, read a statement for the record:
Southwest Gas supports efforts to establish incentives for those who invest in alternate fuel vehicles. Vehicles fueled by clean-burning fuels reduce both emissions and dependence on foreign oil.
Southwest Gas presently operates approximately 150 natural gas vehicles in Las Vegas and over 550 system-wide. We have also supported the development of ten natural gas vehicle fueling stations, six of which are accessible to the public. There are over 1500 natural gas vehicles in service in Las Vegas and an estimated 1300 are government vehicles. The Regional Transportation Commission of Clark County is the largest user of natural gas vehicles and owns six of these fueling stations. The $3000 to $5000 additional cost of natural gas vehicles is a deterrent to significant private sector purchases.
Southwest Gas specifically supports section 11 of S.B. 478 which adopts the federal definition for clean-burning fuels. The federal definition would probably be more appropriate because any future revisions to the definition would be included in the statute without having to come back and amend the definition. The federal definition is already accepted in many states.
Blair V. Poulson, Vice President, Nevada Propane Dealers Association, testified in support of S.B. 478 and presented a packet of information about propane (Exhibit K. Original is on file in the Research Library.). He stated the DOE provided grant funds to do motor fuel dispensers that were consumer user friendly. He encouraged the committee to visit one of the dispensers; he also encouraged the committee to support the bill.
Don Drake, President, Baker and Drake, Incorporated, doing business as Deluxe Taxi, Yellow Cab, and Star Cab companies, said his fleet consisted of 180 cabs and 31 were fueled by compressed natural gas. He stated a $1.6 million natural gas station would open soon. He expressed this bill would help to lower the cost of fuel to the public and improve the incentive for people to use compressed natural gas.
Sean G. Gamble, Lobbyist, Washoe County District Health Department, said the department supported this bill because it encouraged the use of alternative fuel.
Allan Biaggi, Administrator, Division of Environmental Protection, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, submitted his testimony for the record (Exhibit L).
Andrew C. Goodrich, Lobbyist, Washoe County District Health Department, testified in support of the amended version of S.B. 478.
John P. Sande III, Lobbyist, Western States Petroleum Association, said the association was neutral on S.B. 478. He called attention to section 11, subsection 1, paragraph (b) “Is not substantially gasoline or diesel fuel.” He noted there were certain reformulated gasoline and diesel fuels which may not be readily available now, but could be shipped upon demand.
Mr. Sande continued:
We recommend you leave in gasoline and diesel fuel as long as they comply with the requirements of clean-burning fuel; however, section 11, subsection 1 paragraph (c) “Is likely to yield substantial environmental benefits” is basically going to be a tax exemption. There is a Supreme Court case in Nevada called Cashman Photo [Cashman Photo Enterprises, Incorporated v. Nevada Gaming Commission, 91 Nev. 424, 538 P.2d 158 (1975)] which states a taxing statute must be very clear and mean what it says. I do not think that definition is sufficient to pass muster as far as the taxing statute because you would be exempting certain individuals and you would not want to have litigation as to what is a clean-burning fuel unless you define “substantial environmental benefits.”
Alfredo Alonso, Lobbyist, representing BP Amoco p.l.c., suggested many of the new generation fuels were, in some cases, even cleaner than the fuels listed in the bill; it was important to include these new generation fuels in the bill because the benefit to the environment would be significant. Chairman O'Donnell asked if those fuels were readily available on the market and Mr. Alonso answered some fuels were available now and some would be available within the next two years.
James M. Brandmueller, Administrator, Nevada State Energy Office, agreed with Mr. Biaggi’s comments. He stated he and Mr. Biaggi had worked very closely to review this issue. He added the definition under the federal statute was established by Congress; there was a protocol whereby new additional fuels could apply for recognition by the DOE. He explained the DOE and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency work closely together to ensure that fuels comply with this program.
Russ Law, Chief Operations Analysis Engineer, Operations Analysis, Nevada Department of Transportation, testified the department had some concerns with this bill. He commented there is a great system of fuel taxation in this state, the exception being government vehicles. He said the alternative fuel issues had been an issue for at least six legislative sessions. He recommended a public policy study be done involving these aspects: energy, pollution, taxes, and their exemptions.
Daryl E. Capurro, Lobbyist, Nevada Motor Transport Association, expressed opposition to the bill. He stated:
Sections 3 and 11 of S.B. 478 would be the only parts of the bill remaining under the amendment suggested by the proponents of the bill. If that is so, the reference in section 3 is inappropriate because all of the fuels are taxed under NRS 366, the tax on special fuel statute. They make reference to NRS 365, which is the gasoline tax law (Taxes on Certain Fuel for Motor Vehicles and Aircraft) . . . I am assuming they meant to cite Chapter 336 of NRS.
Mr. Capurro said he attended a presentation on green diesel technology being applied through a pilot program in the south coast air basin of California. He said using the standards for diesel-burning engines, as set forth by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, diesel-burning engine vehicles would be as clean burning as other alternative fuels vehicles.
Mr. Capurro continued:
It makes no sense to offer a tax break to one set of alternative fuels when the only difference is the definition of clean-burning fuels. This bill would give those fuels a tax break while gasoline and diesel, which are clean burning also, would not have the same tax break.
To narrow the tax base to say that some vehicles will not be taxed for fuel sends the wrong public policy information to the public. I applaud the idea that you need to look at improving air quality throughout the state of Nevada and I think we are moving towards this. I think the new generation of vehicles coming in as of 2002, by law, are going to be far cleaner burning than anything that has been available in the past. We are opposed to S.B. 478 because I see potential problems with the highway fund as a result of the application of this.
Jens T. Larson, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayer’s Association, spoke against the bill.
Cheryl Blomstrom, Lobbyist, Nevada Chapter Associated General Contractors, said she concurred with Mr. Sande’s testimony on gasoline and diesel fuels. She noted the new ultra low sulfur diesel fuel had been pointed out to be as clean or cleaner than other alternative fuels. She indicated support for a statewide energy policy and suggested this issue be examined in that context.
Chairman O'Donnell closed the hearing on S.B. 478 and opened the hearing on S.B. 521.
SENATE BILL 521: Revises provisions concerning use of siren by emergency vehicle. (BDR 43-1474)
Chairman O'Donnell explained this bill allowed emergency vehicles to shut off their sirens in places where the operator deemed it to be safe.
Gary H. Wolff, Lobbyist, Nevada Highway Patrol Association, testified in support of the bill. He expressed this bill is very important as a safety issue for the highway patrol.
Raymond (Rusty) C. McAllister, Lobbyist, Professional Firefighters of Nevada, spoke in support of the bill.
Steven Horsford, Lobbyist, Southwest Ambulance, declared support for the bill. He suggested an amendment to the bill (Exhibit M).
Gary E. Milliken, Lobbyist, American Medical Response, testified in support of the bill.
Senator Jacobsen said he did not support S.B. 521. He said, “I like it the way it is.”
Chris Ferrari, Lobbyist, Regional Emergency Medical Services Authority, testified in support of the bill.
SENATOR SHAFFER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 521.
SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED. (SENATORS JACOBSEN AND CARE VOTED NO. SENATOR CARLTON WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O'Donnell opened the hearing on S.J.R. 8.
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 8: Urges CANAMEX Corridor Coalition and Federal Highway Administration to consider alternative routes for certain segment of CANAMEX Trade Corridor. (BDR R-1245)
John Sullard, City Manager, City of Boulder City, recommended support of S.J.R. 8.
Fred Dexter, Concerned Citizen, said the Sierra Club strongly supported S.J.R. 8. As a resident of Boulder City, he had researched this issue and suggested a change to the resolution which would allow it to easily comply with the congressional mandate for it.
Mr. Dexter said:
My suggestion is on line 28, “as an official alternative to the U.S. Highway 93” . . . Congress passed a law specifying that CANAMEX had to follow the footprint of U.S. Highway 93; this has been set forth by the Federal Highway Administration (FHA) several times as an absolute stumbling block to having traffic go down U.S. 95 across Nevada 163 and Arizona 68 with a bridge at Laughlin. The Sierra Club has asked many times for a study of this.
The City of Boulder City recently passed a resolution also asking the route be studied as a formal CANAMEX route. I anticipate the FHA will set forth an objection because this is not the route mandated by Congress. This is a false argument. The more of CANAMEX kept in southern Clark County, the more fiscal benefit. We should not give up the opportunity right now.
Chairman O'Donnell clarified the City of Boulder City did not want the bypass. Mr. Dexter said the city had passed a resolution saying it does not want the CANAMEX bypass going into Boulder City.
Senator Porter said CANAMEX is a cooperative route through five states which will benefit Nevada. He noted it would bring in 240 new jobs, provide a state-of-the-art telecommunication infrastructure on the corridor, and help Nevada have a competitive edge in recruiting new businesses to the state.
Senator Porter reviewed the proposed route. He noted Boulder City did not support having traffic go through the city and had looked for options to relieve the traffic congestion. He added Laughlin had the infrastructure in place to support the increased traffic and the traffic would bring economic benefits to Laughlin.
Senator Porter distributed an amendment drafted by the Nevada Department of Transportation (Exhibit N). He stated a question had come up about the impact of this on the crossing of the Colorado River at Laughlin. He said there were a number of different projects such as crossing the Colorado River near Hoover Dam, a possible bypass around Boulder City, and improving the corridor into Laughlin. He remarked they were all independent projects and the amendment was specific in the terminology used throughout CANAMEX to consistently encourage the trade corridor to also include the area of Laughlin and Bullhead City, Arizona, in their tourist corridor initiative.
Mr. Sullard clarified the City of Boulder City passed a resolution asking the FHA, through the EIS process, to look at Laughlin as an alternative. He emphasized the city council supported S.J.R. 8.
Tom Greco, Project Manager, Project Management, Nevada Department of Transportation, said he represented the NDOT on the Hoover Dam EIS and the CANAMEX study. He stated the NDOT supported S.J.R. 8 as amended.
Mr. Greco continued:
The CANAMEX corridor is a 60-mile-wide corridor. The economic study addressed everything 30 miles left and right of the highway. The Bullhead-Laughlin area is within 28 miles of U.S. 93 in Arizona. The NDOT does not want to jeopardize the Hoover Dam bypass project. There is $120 million of the $200 million estimated that is secured and the remaining $80 million will soon be available. The one million visitors at the dam and the three million vehicles every year just do not mix and it is a very dangerous situation which needs to be addressed.
Also, I’d like to mention the CANAMEX high priority corridor was designated by a congressional act in 1995 and must be on a national highway system route which would exclude any state route unless the roadway were redesignated a national highway.
Also, the NDOT is midway through a 33-month environmental study of the traffic issues in Boulder City and we will definitely waive the CANAMEX impacts.
Chairman O'Donnell closed the hearing on S.J.R. 8 and announced the committee would recess for 1 hour.
Chairman O'Donnell reconvened the committee at 6:32 p.m. and opened the work session on S.B. 264.
SENATE BILL 264: Provides for issuance of special license plates for support of preservation of history of atomic testing in Nevada. (BDR 43-317)
SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 264.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR AMODEI WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O'Donnell opened the work session on S.B. 323.
SENATE BILL 323: Authorizes issuance of bonds, notes obligations or other evidences of borrowing to finance construction of super speed ground transportation system. (BDR 58-961)
SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 323.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR AMODEI WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O'Donnell opened the work session on S.B. 374.
SENATE BILL 374: Revises provisions concerning duty to erect and maintain signs to designate parking spaces for use by handicapped persons. (BDR 43-710)
SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 374.
SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR AMODEI WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O'Donnell opened the work session on S.B. 220.
SENATE BILL 220: Provides for regulation of off-road vehicles. (BDR 43-148)
SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 220.
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR AMODEI WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O'Donnell opened the work session on S.B. 409.
SENATE BILL 409: Provides for issuance of special license plates to support preserving federal lands surrounding Las Vegas, promoting community stewardship of those valuable resources, enriching visitors’ experience and enhancing quality of life of local residents. (BDR 43-245)
SENATOR SHAFFER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 409.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR AMODEI WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O'Donnell opened the work session on S.B. 520.
SENATE BILL 520: Authorizes optional registration of vehicles for 2-year period and makes various changes in provisions governing imposition and procedure for distribution of vehicle privilege tax. (BDR 43-1171)
Micheline N. Fairbank, Committee Policy Analyst, reviewed S.B. 520. She stated the bill proposed changes to the governmental services taxes, formerly the motor vehicle privilege tax, and research alternatives to accomplish the objectives of the bill while keeping the effect of the bill revenue neutral.
Ms. Fairbank commented she was asked to evaluate alternative variations of S.B. 520 and other potential changes. At Chairman O'Donnell’s request, Ms. Fairbank gave the following proposed changes to S.B. 520: simplify the formula used to calculate the governmental services tax and request an interim study to review and recommend changes to the governmental services tax. A detailed explanation of Ms. Fairbank’s proposed changes is contained in Exhibit O.
Pat A. Zamora, Lobbyist, Clark County School District, concurred with Ms. Fairbank’s statements.
Tom Tatro, Fiscal Manager, Management Services and Programs Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, said changes could be made to the computer system to accommodate the suggested changes.
Chairman O'Donnell reviewed cleanup provisions in the bill.
Virginia (Ginny) Lewis, Deputy Director, Motor Vehicles, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, said S.B. 520 also addressed the 2-year registration renewal option.
SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 520.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR AMODEI WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE).
*****
Chairman O'Donnell opened the work session on S.B. 523.
SENATE BILL 523: Makes various changes relating to licensing and registration of motor vehicles, drivers and instructors. (BDR 43-511)
Ms. Lewis said S.B. 523 did not have an impact on the highway fund. She noted there were two issues: a request to amend the bill to have a placard be affixed to the rear of the vehicle that is clearly visible and legible; and, amend the bill to say only one temporary placard may be issued and one 30-day transactional period is allowed in each contract-of-sale transaction.
SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 523.
SENATOR CARLTON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS CARE AND AMODEI WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O'Donnell opened the work session on S.J.R. 8.
SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.J.R. 8.
SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR AMODEI WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE. SENATOR CARLTON ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O'Donnell opened the work session on S.B. 102.
SENATE BILL 102: Limits amount short-term lessor of motor vehicles may charge lessee for waiver of damages and optional insurance. (BDR 43‑741)
SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 102.
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR AMODEI WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O'Donnell opened the work session on S.B. 118.
SENATE BILL 118: Revises certain provisions governing fees charged by short-term lessors of passenger cars. (BDR 43-708)
SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 118.
SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR AMODEI WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O'Donnell 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)
Chairman O'Donnell gave background on the bill and read Governor Guinn’s letter into the record (Exhibit P).
Senator Care said:
I was looking at the amendment to this bill . . . I am looking at an annotation here, an Attorney General’s opinion [AGO] which says, “fees imposed on public utilities are taxes.” This is under the Nevada Revised Statutes [NRS] 354.59881, which is not Chapter 704, but I do not know but what this is a tax. I do not have the opinion, just the annotation, so, I do not know who wrote the opinion . . . It was AGO 96-17 from 1996.
Chairman O'Donnell speculated it might mean any fee charged to a public utility was defined as a tax. He questioned whether it could be because a tax could be used as a pass-through. He clarified this bill was precipitated because the NDOT did not have a set codified dollar amount in the law for industries to use in evaluating the cost of producing cable or fiber optics in the state.
Chairman O'Donnell said a fee or tax is needed to levy against the public utilities for the use of the public rights-of-way. The money collected would then go to the highway fund, with the use to be determined by the highway board.
Chairman O'Donnell said, “When this issue was brought before us, we asked the industry to meet with all of the parties to get a solution and if you could not come up with a solution, then we would come up with a solution.”
Senator Carlton inquired about the amendment which had been submitted for this bill. She expressed opposition to the commission and supported the universal service fund. After a short discussion, it was decided to hold this bill for the April 16 committee meeting.
Chairman O'Donnell closed the work session on S.B. 195 and opened the work session on S.B. 478.
SENATE BILL 478: Establishes certain benefits, exemptions and programs related to certain motor vehicles that use clean-burning fuel. (BDR 43‑137)
SENATOR SHAFFER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 478.
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR CARLTON ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE. SENATOR WASHINGTON WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O'Donnell opened the work session on S.B. 56.
SENATE BILL 56: Revises composition of board of directors of department of transportation and of certain regional transportation commissions. (BDR 35-68)
Senator Amodei reported the S.B. 56 subcommittee met and proposed the following: creation of a permanent oversight committee for transportation purposes patterned along the general lines of the authority used in North Carolina; there would be four members from each house appointed by the leadership of the respective houses; meetings at the call of the chair; funding source would be the highway fund. Senator Amodei stated a motion was made by Senator Carlton, seconded by Senator Washington and passed unanimously to create an interim oversight committee on transportation issues.
SENATOR AMODEI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 56.
SENATOR CARLTON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR WASHINGTON WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O'Donnell opened the work session on S.B. 415.
SENATE BILL 415: Requires Legislative Auditor to conduct audit of Department of Transportation and Board of Directors of Department. (BDR S-964)
Ms. Martinovich clarified the issues regarding the status of the super projects. She provided an exhibit entitled, “Nevada Highway SuperProject Program” (Exhibit Q).
Senator Amodei said:
In the event that any of the remarks made during the hearing on this bill gave offense . . . Hopefully it will be taken in the spirit in which it is intended and with the challenge the NDOT faces and with the challenges the Board of Directors of the Nevada Department of Transportation faces, with phenomenal needs in a very fast growing state and nowhere near enough resources to meet those needs, the processes by which decisions are made to do projects or to not do projects, to schedule and to stage projects, or to move projects around in work programs are things I think we cannot be informative enough as to how those things go.
It happens to be my personal opinion we can do better. It does not translate to an opinion that anybody needs a public flogging or public dressing down in the NDOT or the Board of Directors, Nevada Department of Transportation. However, I think we are capable of doing a better job of communicating with those we all serve about how we make our decisions and how we adjust our decisions when circumstances force those decisions to be adjusted.
I will say, for the record, much of my influence in getting involved in these issues has come from discussions with people whose intentions are all excellent and are within the NDOT. So if anybody thinks this is an affront or an attempt to embarrass or degrade any employee of the NDOT, or any member of the Board of Directors, Nevada Department of Transportation, I can tell you . . . it is not. It is something I think we can work together and come out with a better process and a better product for all folks involved.
SENATOR CARLTON MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 415.
SENATOR AMODEI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR WASHINGTON WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Mr. Hutchins requested Senator Amodei’s remarks be included for the record so the department will know the scope of the audit.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:16 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Alice Nevin,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator William R. O’Donnell, Chairman
DATE: