MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Transportation

 

Seventy-Second Session

April 29, 2003

 

 

The Committee on Transportationwas called to order at 1:43 p.m., on Tuesday, April 29, 2003.  Chairwoman Vonne Chowning presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada, and via simultaneous videoconference, in Room 4401 of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Las Vegas, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Guest List.  All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

 

Note:  These minutes are compiled in the modified verbatim style.  Bracketed material indicates language used to clarify and further describe testimony.  Actions of the Committee are presented in the traditional legislative style.

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mrs. Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall, Vice Chairwoman

Mr. Kelvin Atkinson

Mr. John C. Carpenter

Mr. Jerry D. Claborn

Mr. Tom Collins

Mr. Pete Goicoechea

Mr. Don Gustavson

Mr. Mark Manendo

Mr. John Oceguera

Mr. Rod Sherer

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

Mr. Ron Knecht, excused

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

None

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Marji Paslov Thomas, Committee Policy Analyst

Nancy Elder, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Jacob Snow, General Manager, Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) of Southern Nevada

Bruce Woodbury, Commissioner, RTC of Southern Nevada

Danny Thompson, Executive Secretary-Treasurer, Nevada State AFL-CIO

Curtis Myles, Deputy General Manager, RTC of Southern Nevada

Derek W. Morse, P.E., Deputy Executive Director, RTC of Washoe County

Grant Sims, RTC of Northern Nevada

John Madole, Associated General Contractors, Nevada Chapter

Richard “Skip” Daly, Business Manager, Laborers, Hod Carriers, Cement Workers & Miners Union, Local No. 169

Sandra Avants, Nevada Transportation Services Authority (TSA)

Bruce Breslow, Commissioner, Nevada TSA

Don Soderberg, Chairman, Public Utilities Commission

Kimberly Maxon Rushton, Nevada TSA

Roy Street, Reno-Sparks Cab Company and Yellow Cab Company

Barry Elwood Jones, Carson Valley Movers

Clark Whitney, Quality Towing

Joseph Dahlia, Nevada Taxicab Authority (NTA)

Rick Boxer, Nevada Taxicab Authority (NTA)

Carol Sala, Division for Aging Services

Mike Sullivan, Whittlesea Bell Taxicab Company

Gary Mulligan, Yellow-Checker-Star Transportation

Ann Elworth, Nevada Taxicab Authority (NTA)

 

Chairwoman Vonne Chowning:

Good afternoon, everyone, and to the people in Las Vegas.  Mr. Goicoechea has to attend a Senate Committee meeting and will return.  Please mark Mr. Knecht absent and excused, and mark the others present as they arrive.

 

 

Senate Bill 237 (1st Reprint):  Carries out certain advisory questions relating to funding for regional transportation. (BDR 32-942)

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Good afternoon.  Please state your name for the record and proceed.  We will hear the Clark County witnesses first, and then those from Washoe County.  First, will be Jacob Snow from the Clark County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC).  We heard presentations from both Washoe County and Clark County earlier, so we don’t need quite as much detail today.  However, we would like a recap of the costs and the benefits to the public of the main provisions.

 

Jacob Snow, General Manager, Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) of Southern Nevada:

[Jacob Snow introduces himself for the record.]  To my left is Curtis Myles, Deputy General Manager, RTC of Southern Nevada, and to my right is Danny Thompson, a member of the RTC Community Coalition, who played a major role in fashioning the Ballot Question 10, and who worked with us for about 1½ years on the program we brought to the public.  With us [by videoconference] in southern Nevada is my boss and Chairman of the RTC, Bruce Woodbury, and Penny Lynch of the RTC staff.  We’d like to begin with Chairman Woodbury’s remarks, Madam Chairwoman.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

It would be a pleasure.  We thank you for all of your years of dedication and work towards alleviating the transportation problems in southern Nevada.  One legislative session, when Nevada was the only state legislature in the country still working on the Fourth of July holiday—before the ballot question that limited us to 120 days—Commissioner Woodbury was kind enough to join a few of us who were still working out the details of a monorail bill.  We remember and appreciate that kind of cooperation from the Commissioner.

 

Bruce Woodbury, Clark County Commissioner, and Chairman of the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) of Southern Nevada:

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. [Mr. Woodbury introduces himself for the record.] 

 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify in favor of S.B. 237, which is extremely important to the future of Clark County and Washoe County.  We are pleased that this legislation has been combined into one bill and includes the voter-approved Transportation and Air Quality Improvement Funding Plans for both counties.

 

In 1990, voters approved a ballot question for major transportation funding, and, in 1991, the legislature responded by passing authorizing legislation.  Despite the most ambitious public works program in the history of the state of Nevada, on the part of Clark County, the RTC, and the NDOT, our congestion is becoming worse because of unrelenting drought, population pressures, and the number of motor vehicles on our roadways.  We continue to face significant challenges with our air quality.

 

[Bruce Woodbury continued.] Two years ago, we asked a large number of concerned citizens representing business, labor, environmental groups, transit users, and a broad cross-section of the community, to form the RTC Community Coalition.  The RTC Community Coalition spent over a year defining solutions and the methods of implementing those solutions to meet traffic congestion and air quality challenges.  Those recommendations included:

 

·        A multi-model integrated system of transportation improvements and air quality programs

·        Adding hundreds of miles of high-speed roadways and freeways

·        Major mass transit enhancements

·        Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)

·        State of the art traffic signal synchronization

·        Increased funding for air quality program implementation and enforcement

 

The RTC Community Coalition concluded that, without these additional programs and improvements, we are facing a future of almost total gridlock in Clark County.  The Clark County electorate was asked to consider a proposal and to decide if it was worthy of a funding increase, as spelled out in Ballot Question 10, in the election of November 2002.  On the proposed legislation, which essentially is Ballot Question 10, Clark County and Washoe County citizens voted “Yes” on S.B. 237, which evolved out of Ballot Question 10, is supported by the following groups:

 

·        All of our local Chambers of Commerce

·        Organized labor

·        The Nevada Resort Association

·        The Nevada Homebuilders Association

·        Different contractors’ groups

·        Ten advisory boards

·        Numerous other community organizations

·        Both of the major newspapers.

 

The funding authorized by Ballot Question 10, which is included in S.B. 237, would generate approximately $2.7 billion over the next 25 years, in addition to existing revenues.  It will also generate another $3 billion in federal funds from local matching dollars that we would not otherwise receive.  Estimates are that the average citizen will pay only about $1.25 per month.

[Bruce Woodbury continued.] Madam Chairwoman, let me emphasize one very important point about S.B. 237.  This legislation does not raise taxes; it only authorizes the Clark County Commission and the Washoe County Commission to hold public hearings and then to make that decision for their communities.  So, we are here to speak in favor of this vital legislation, already approved by the voters in both counties, to require the county commissions to determine whether or not to follow the mandate of the people.

 

Madam Chairwoman and members of the Committee, if you allow this to come forward, I will be voting “yes” to implement the funding, as recommended by our community coalition, to preserve and improve our quality of life, and to protect our local economies.  I respectfully request your approval of S.B. 237.  Thank you again for this opportunity to speak to you.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Thank you, Mr. Woodbury.  Who will walk us through each of the components within the bill that would make up the $2.7 billion?  Jacob Snow?  Thank you. 

 

Before we begin, if anyone has questions for Commissioner Woodbury, please ask them.  I don’t know if Mr. Woodbury will remain for the entire meeting. 

 

Jacob Snow:

I will cover the various funding sources in a brief overview, but, with your permission, first we’d like to have Danny Thompson give his perspective on the process.

 

Danny Thompson, Executive Secretary-Treasurer, Nevada State AFL-CIO:

I had the honor to serve on the Southern Nevada RTC 3 Committee that studied this problem for about 1½ years, and came up with a solution that ultimately the voters approved by 53 percent on the final ballot.  Today, in Clark County, there are 195 miles of streets and roads that are in absolute gridlock.  By the year 2025, we will have 2,300 miles of roads in southern Nevada that you won’t be able to travel on.  I know where about half of the 195 miles are today, including the Sunset Road near the Galleria Mall, which is almost impossible to traverse on any given day.  During the first meeting, Jacob Snow showed a chart illustrating the yearly increase of southern Nevada traffic volume, if we did nothing.  Each slide got redder and redder until, at 2025, it was just a big red blob.  This is not a bill we need to pass; this is a bill we have to pass. 

 

Many people have spent a great deal of time studying this problem, and now we have a solution.  This is a win-win-win deal.  The voters have approved it, and all we need now is legislative approval.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

I’ve been told that every day we do not pass S.B. 237, we are losing about $1 million every single day.  The delays, gridlock, accidents, and frustration contribute to that $1 million, although I don’t know if anyone has figured out a cost for the accidents.  One of the benefits we will hear about today is the synchronization of the stoplights, which would improve public safety. 

 

Are there any questions for Mr. Thompson?  No questions.  Thank you for your service on the committee.

 

Jacob Snow:

We contracted with The Road Information Program (TRIP), a Washington, D.C., based transportation advocacy organization, to come to our community last summer.  They studied our traffic situation for several months and compiled a report called “The Cost of Traffic Congestion in Las Vegas:  The Region’s 15 Worst Traffic Jams and the Steps Needed to Relieve Traffic Congestion.”  This was after Mr. Thompson and the RTC 3 Committee had come forward with their recommendations.  I want to share with you what the steps needed to relieve traffic congestion are as listed in the report, which was also based on information from the Texas Transportation Institute at Texas A&M University. That TRIP report states:

 

Relieving traffic congestion in Las Vegas will require a comprehensive approach.  First and foremost, effectively increasing the transportation system through expanded road and highway capacity; improving traffic flow and system efficiency through better traffic signal coordination; programs to reduce the number of peak-hour vehicle trips, including ride-sharing programs; and improved transportation in the form of providing an alternative to just single-occupant vehicle travel, such as improved transit systems, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.

 

All of the elements I just enumerated from the TRIP report had been previously recommended by the RTC Community Coalition and represented a balanced and cohesive program.  However, it took us 1½ years to work out the right balance and the right funding to support the program. 

 

Here’s a quick breakdown of the funding sources for the $2.7 billion.  There will be four main revenue sources for S.B. 237:

1.  A $.25 increase in sales tax will generate $2.2 billion in revenue.

 

[Jacob Snow continues.]

 

1. Currently, we receive $500 for every new residential unit constructed, as a development tax on impact fees that goes to cover transportation expenses.  That fee will increase to $650 per residential unit and will gradually increase to $1,000, where it will be capped at $1,000 per residential unit in 2020.  The same strategy holds true for commercial and industrial developments, although the impact fees are on a different scale because the impact fee is applied on a square foot basis.  Currently, the impact fee is $0.50 per square foot for hotel/casino/resort or commercial/industrial development.  That would increase to $0.65 per square foot and would gradually increase to be capped at $1.00 per square foot in 2020.

 

2. Tourists and visitors, who contribute to the problems, such as air quality and traffic congestion, will also help defray the costs through an existing tax of $0.01 per gallon on Jet A fuel, which would raise roughly $140 million over 25 years.

 

3. An existing property tax, which was approved in the 1987 Legislature, will allocate about $300 million towards this program.  That tax has already been approved by an interlocal agreement by all of the entities in southern Nevada.

 

I would like to conclude by extrapolating on what Commissioner Woodbury said.  The $1.25 per resident per month cost would equal about $15 per year.  Also, in the TRIP report, they indicate that traffic congestion in Las Vegas on key streets and highways already costs commuters as much as $1,000 annually in wasted time and fuel.  We are asking the citizens of Nevada to pay $15 per year to solve their $1,000 per year problem. 

 

I promise you, Madam Chairwoman and Committee, if we don’t take action now, as Danny Thompson indicated, that $1,000 per year is going to grow, and it will not be a linear progression.  It will be an exponential progression because we’ve seen it all around the country.

 

I would like to conclude by saying that 1/8 of a cent of the $0.25 sales tax will sunset in the year 2028, or when they raise $1.7 billion from the sales tax, whichever comes first.  That language was part of Ballot Question 10, which has already been approved by the public.

 

It is obvious that we all have a sense of urgency about this program and about S.B. 237.  I appreciate the Committee taking time to learn about these issues.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

I assume that the redirection of the property sales tax would not be for the entire amount.

 

Jacob Snow:

That’s correct.  Regarding the redirection of the $0.05 per $100,000 capital improvements tax, only $0.02 of the $0.05 per $100,000 will be redirected to transportation.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Of the $0.25 increase in sales tax, half of that will sunset in 2028 or when $1.7 billion has been collected.  In addition, we have a $0.01 per gallon tax on Jet A fuel, and $0.02 of a total capital improvements tax of $0.05 per $100,000 will be redirected to transportation.  Those are not new taxes.  We have the development tax increase, which is new and gradually goes up until capped in 2020. 

 

On the development tax portion, did developers and builders agree to that?  Was there a consensus on that?

 

Jacob Snow:

Yes, there was.  We had representation from the Southern Nevada Home Builders Association on the RTC 3 Committee.  Irene Porter participated and testified in favor of this bill in the Senate. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Are there any questions on the funding portion before we go into the benefits of S.B. 237? 

 

Assemblyman Sherer:

I did not get to vote in the Clark County election, so I was wondering what was the actual wording of the ballot question, and what was voted on.  Did you describe how the three different kinds of taxes would be raised? 

 

Jacob Snow:

We just outlined the information I just provided to you. 

[Jacob Snow continued.]  We outlined what items the money would be spent on.  Those items included traffic signal synchronization, Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) for freeways, air quality improvements, additional streets and highways, finishing the beltway in 10 years as opposed to 30 years, funding additional roadway improvements in the form of super-arterials, improvements to transit systems, and specific monies for transit services specifically dedicated for seniors. 

 

Then we outlined the four funding sources that were involved; some were existing taxes, and some would be new taxes.  We talked about when the various sources would sunset and the program’s time frame.  We outlined what the benefits would be in terms of additional federal, and possibly state, participation in the program.  We have gone to the voters twice in the last 12 years, and they have been paying for their own transportation improvements out of their own wallets, which helps us tremendously in competing for additional federal dollars at the federal level. 

 

Our congressional delegation and members of congress from around the country have visited us.  We just had the ranking member from the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee visit.  He was so impressed with the planning, with the forward-thinking nature of the community, and with the commitment that we have made to transportation.  That will help us tremendously, especially as we are gearing up for a reauthorization of a six-year transportation bill.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

I’m sure that Nye County will need some of this someday.

 

Everyone who serves on this Committee has to travel in Washoe County and in Clark County, because of meetings and other legislative duties.  S.B. 237 will affect legislators’ lives, too.

 

I wanted to go into the benefits of S.B. 237.  Are there any other questions first?

 

Assemblyman Mark Manendo:

I have a quick question regarding the “CIVIS bus.”  [The CIVIS bus is a rapid transit vehicle with four wide doors and a low floor, allowing for fast and easy boarding and greater accessibility. It is manufactured by Irisbus of France.]  Was part of the Ballot Question 10 dealing with the purchasing of the busses?  I would like to understand that a little more.

Jacob Snow:

We call it the “Metropolitan Express Program,” but the generic name for the vehicle is a “CIVIS vehicle.”  We advertise it to the community as a technology that is very cost-effective, innovative, and provides a much higher quality of service than can be provided with the “cat bus” (catalytic converter) that is currently on the streets.  It was very well received by the community.  The CIVIS vehicle will be fully functional and operational by December 2003.  I am 100 percent convinced we will have a very positive response. 

 

With regard to future expenditures on that particular type of technology, we haven’t made any commitment to using or buying the CIVIS vehicles.  What we have committed to do is to test the technology.  We are part of 10 cities around the country participating in a demonstration program for “bus rapid transit.”  We have gone to the community and said we would like two additional corridors for this type of technology to operate in, but we have not made any commitments to using CIVIS vehicles in the future.

 

Assemblyman Manendo:

For clarification on the Ballot Question 10 that passed, at least in Clark County, is there funding for that particular mode of transportation?

 

Jacob Snow:

Funding was set aside for two additional bus rapid transit lines, but no funds were dedicated to purchasing additional CIVIS vehicles.

 

Assemblyman Manendo:

Is there currently, from the vote of the people, any funding for that kind of bus?

 

Jacob Snow:

Not a dime.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Thank you for that clarification.

 

I think you have outlined the benefits to the public of S.B. 237.  I understand that 425 miles of high‑speed lanes will be built.  Correct?

 

Jacob Snow:

That is correct.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

And other benefits of S.B. 237 would include expansion of the construction of the beltway, new busses, new routes, coordinated traffic lights, more ITS, including the Amber Alert messages, which passed out of the Assembly this session, and also light rail in the future.  Correct?

 

Jacob Snow:

That is correct.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Good.  That sounds like a great number of benefits to the public.

 

Jacob Snow:

I think you’ve summarized my testimony better than I could have today, Madam Chairwoman.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Thanks to your staff, who worked with me yesterday, and to the previous presentation.  Are there any other questions?

 

Curtis Myles, Deputy General Manager, RTC of Southern Nevada:

[Curtis Myles introduces himself.]

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Have you worked for RTC all along, through the ballot question and the funding proposals?

 

Curtis Myles:

I came to the RTC in May 2002.  I was with Jacob Snow at the airport for 11 years or more.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

You came on board during the tough times.

 

Curtis Myles:

Yes.  The bus strikes started the day I started.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

If there are no more questions regarding the Clark County presentation, I will close that portion of the hearing.  Welcome, Washoe County.  Please come up and identify yourselves for the record.

 

Derek W. Morse, P.E., Deputy Executive Director, RTC of Washoe County:

[Mr. Morse introduces himself.]  With me today are a number of others who were involved with S.B. 237.  To my left is Mr. Grant Sims, Chairman of the Blue Ribbon Committee, which was an integral part of drafting S.B. 237.  On my right is Mr. John Madole, from the Associated General Contractors (AGC), and we’ll bring up a few more folks in the audience in a few minutes.

 

[Derek Morse continues.]  I would like to give a brief historical perspective on S.B. 237 as it pertains to Washoe County.  This bill is a major milestone in an effort that began almost a decade ago. 

 

Washoe County and Clark County have been very concerned about the impacts of growth and travel in our communities, and, particularly, the impact on our quality of life.  One key to maintaining our quality of life is deciding what to do about transportation.  Transportation is a vital element in maintaining a strong economy.  It allows us access to all the wonderful recreation opportunities, art museums, and other places.  Transportation has a great impact on air quality and on the safety and security of our children and ourselves.

 

We began working years ago within our community to cast out into the future and envision what we wanted in terms of transportation and quality of life, and how they might work together.  The ambitious project we have nurtured was the creation of our latest long-range Transportation Plan, which extends to the year 2030, and putting it together was a 2½-year effort. 

 

The Transportation Plan was guided by representatives from all citizen advisory boards and neighborhood advisory boards.  Everyone was at the table, and we came up with a comprehensive plan that did not address just roads.  The plan addresses the following:

 

·        Public transit

·        Roads

·        Pedestrians

·        Bicycles

·        Movement of children in the community

·        Policies and issues

·        Specific community projects in the future

 

This plan will help preserve the quality of life we all enjoy here.

 

The problem is this:  To accomplish everything in the plan through the year 2030, it will cost $5.4 billion, and the available resources are estimated at $4.6 billion, which leaves an $800 million shortfall. 

 

At that point, we asked ourselves, “What do we want to do?”  If this is what we want, we have to find a way to eliminate the shortfall and fund the gap.  That was the reason the RTC established a “Blue Ribbon Committee,” chaired by Grant Sims.  We asked them to look at the plan, at the funding, at all potential revenue sources for bridging the gap, and then to prepare a proposal that would address the $800 million shortfall.  After nine months of work, the Blue Ribbon Committee came up with a four‑part proposal.

 

[Derek Morse continues.]  The first part of the proposal had to do with developer impact fees.  In Washoe County, we currently collect close to $2,000 for each new home that is built, and the money goes to constructing roads that are necessary because of the new development.  Those funds cannot be used for maintenance or for anything other than new roads needed because of new construction.  However, it is a substantial amount of funding. 

 

By law, the developer impact fees are adjusted for inflation and are recalculated every three years.  In the intervening three years, they lose purchasing power due to inflation at about 2 percent to 4 percent per year, which adds up.  Since we want to make sure new development continues to pay for its share of the impacts on the community, in terms of traffic and transportation, we worked with the builders, and with many others, and came up with the idea of adjusting the impact fees between the customary triennial recalculation to capture the lost purchasing power.  This adjustment will generate about $20 million through the year 2030. 

 

As the second part of the proposal, the Blue Ribbon Committee looked at fuel taxes, which were the major source of funding for roads at our level of government and for the state.  Fuel taxes are flat taxes that are also eroded yearly by inflation.  We are losing 2 percent to 4 percent of our purchasing power, which puts us in the hole today.   Because of inflation on fuel taxes and because of the impacts of increased fuel economy in vehicles, we collect       65 percent less today, in real dollars, for each mile driven in Washoe County than we did 50 years ago.  This is a story that is the same in virtually every state across the country, and it has put us in a very deep hole in Washoe County.  So, how did the Blue Ribbon Committee address that?

 

They came up with a mechanism that would recover lost purchasing power each year by what we call “indexing.”  Indexing is a slight adjustment to local fuel tax rates, and the actual mechanisms are outlined in detail in S.B. 237.  With the many caps and controls on that process, the adjustment for this year, if we were to implement indexing this year, about 4/10 of $0.01 per gallon, would be added to the price of fuel.  That would be just enough to cover the cost of lost purchasing power.  It is also a very powerful tool over time to help us accomplish what we need to in the community.

[Derek Morse continues.]

 

The third element of the Blue Ribbon Committee package was 1/8 of a $0.01 increase in the sales tax.  This is extremely important for two reasons:

 

1. Sales tax is the only funding source we have, other than revenues from the fare box, to pay for public mass transportation.  Since we have a balanced plan for the community, public transportation is a very important element.

 

2. The sales tax will be split 50-50 between transportation and roads.  It provides us with immediate funding to start working on the backlog of preventative maintenance and rehabilitation projects in our community.  In 1990, the backlog was $110 million.  In 2004, the backlog will be $242 million.  By 2030, if current trends continue, the backlog will be $1.6 billion, which is a crushing number that we do not want to hand down to future generations.

 

The fourth part, which is not in the bill but is very important, is efficiency.  We began some efficiency programs back in the early 1990s that have saved taxpayers millions of dollars through increased productivity.  The Blue Ribbon Committee wanted all governments in the region to continue those programs and to expand them wherever possible.  It is a sizeable element, and we are counting on productivity savings to fill the gap.

 

All together, we expect the funding measures will generate $744 million through the year 2030, and including efficiencies, that they will cover the $800 million budget shortfall.  

 

We have a plan.  Now, how do we implement the plan?

 

The first step was to make sure that citizens support the plan, so we put it on the ballot.  Question WC2 on the general election ballot in November 2002 passed by 57.4 percent of the voters, a very strong turnout that showed strong support across the board.  Those funding measures were rolled into S.B. 237 along with the Clark County measures.

 

Concerns were raised by some groups who have come forward in Senate Taxation Committee.  We felt they had legitimate concerns, particularly regarding the indexing provisions, although many controls were already included in the legislation.  They asked if we could do more, so they would have a chance to periodically review what was happening with indexing, and to express their views to the community.  Consequently, today we are presenting a friendly amendment (Exhibit C) to Section 3, subsection 3, of the bill that would add some reporting mechanisms and some review mechanisms to the responsibilities of the RTC Board.  We support these amendments as proposed, and we believe they will help the process.

 

[Derek Morse continues.]  Let me close by saying that S.B. 237 is extremely important to our community.  It is something that will help us preserve our quality of life, and we urge you to act promptly on this bill.  As pointed out earlier, time is money, but not just money.  It is lost opportunities, and just as importantly, it is lives and the safety of our citizens.  Congested, crowded roads in poor condition are inherently unsafe roads.  We want to make those repairs as quickly as resources will allow.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Is there a sunset provision in Washoe County’s portion, similar to Clark County’s sunset clause? 

 

Derek Morse:

There are no sunset provisions per se, although, there are other mechanisms that will accomplish the same thing.  At any time, the Washoe County Commission can go back and remove these impositions and mechanisms.  It is within their authority to do so.  Every year, we intend to report to the community what was provided by the tax money collected, to show we have fulfilled the promises of the Transportation Plan through year 2030.

 

I fully expect, with the active involvement of the citizens in our community, that, if they feel we are substantially falling short of our goals, they will take action to cease the tax collections.  I think that would be the right thing to do, if we fail to accomplish what we set out to do.

 

There is no sunset provision, but there are adequate mechanisms to remove those taxes if they do not function as planned.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

I think the people will be receptive to that, and it is up to them to be vigilant to make sure that those things happen.

 

Assemblyman Collins:

If the bill is worth $1 million per day, is this amendment worth that much money?  Can it be done by ordinance at the county level?

Chairwoman Chowning:

In Clark County they would be losing $1 million per day.  Proportionately, in Washoe County, it would be worth that much, but not cost $1 million per day.  So, your question was how much would Washoe County be losing per day by not passing this bill?  Is that your question?

 

Assemblyman Collins:

Yes.

 

Derek Morse:

I appreciate that sentiment.  We have worked very hard with many folks interested in this legislation to make sure that all the concerns were addressed. We want to keep that faith, if you will. 

 

We would like to see the bill move forward with this amendment included.  The few days that the amendment might cause to be lost are probably not going to be a problem because there are statutory time limits and things that must be done before the actual taxes can be imposed.  There are ordinances that must be written and passed at the county level.  There are deadlines for getting documents to the Department of Taxation and to the Department of Motor Vehicles.  Moving the amendment forward will not appreciably slow down that process.  We would like to see the amendment move forward with the bill.

 

Assemblyman Collins:

Since this bill becomes effective upon passage and approval, I’m sure local governments are getting prepared, so that, upon passage, they will be ready to hold hearings immediately.  I did not want to delay this bill if it was something that could be handled by local ordinance. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Are there any other questions?  Many people have said they want to speak, and we need to hear three other bills within an hour.  We would appreciate it if people could please make their remarks quickly.

 

Grant Sims, Chairman of the Blue Ribbon Committee, RTC of Northern Nevada:

[Mr. Sims introduces himself.]  The key point I wish to make today is to call attention to the public process that this legislation embodies.  Starting with the Transportation Plan, and with what we identified as critical improvements that are necessary to the road network, including mass transit, all that was accomplished mainly by citizens working with RTC staff.  The funding mechanisms that were identified as fair and equitable, as well as stable revenue streams, were compiled by a group of 34 community leaders from school districts, senior citizens, the construction industry, builders industry, labor, and environmental groups:  It was a clear reflection of the public will.

 

[Grant Sims continues.]  The vote on WC2, which showed 57 percent of strong public support for the measure, was almost a landslide.  Usually 60 percent to 40 percent is a landslide.  My point is that S.B. 237 really does have the support of the public in terms of content, funding mechanisms, and in terms of support for the tax increases.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

The benefits to the public we heard from Clark County.  Are there any specific differences you want to address?

 

Grant Sims:

Certainly, if I brought the maps from Washoe County, they would look just like the Clark County maps.  You project over time, and everything turns red if we don’t do something.  I would like to draw attention to two other facts.

 

I talked about the shortfall, which is extremely important: $1.6 billion by the year 2030 in broken infrastructure that we’ll be saddling our kids with.  No one wants to do that, and we can stop it now. 

 

Finally, air quality is important.  We see our beautiful valleys in northern Nevada and want to preserve them.  This bill is fundamental to doing that and is critical to the quality of life of the community.

 

John Madole, Nevada Chapter, Associated General Contractors:

[Mr. Madole introduces himself.]  Mr. Morse and Mr. Sims did such an eloquent job that all I can say is that I served on the Blue Ribbon Committee, and we support the bill.  I ask for your support and approval.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

The rest of the folks who wish to speak in support of S.B. 237, please come forward.

 

Richard Daly, Business Manager, Laborers, Hod Carriers, Cement Workers & Miners Union, Local No. 169:

We spent a lot of effort and time working on this legislation, and we strongly support the bill.  I’m hoping our legislators from northern Nevada, who might not have voted on the Washoe County bill, will take a positive view of it and recognize that the same problems might come to their communities someday, and they may need the same kind of support. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Does anyone wish to speak either for or against S.B. 237?

 

Assemblyman Oceguera:

I think the public has spoken and all parties have agreed.  The proposal seems well-thought-out, and, most importantly, so does the funding needed to support and enhance our transportation systems. 

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN OCEGUERA MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 237.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Assemblyman Collins:

I don’t like the amendment, but I’ll support the bill.

 

Assemblyman Gustavson:

Most of you know my stand on taxes.  Although the gas tax is one tax we’ve had a problem with for many years, I really do agree with this proposal.  Voters have overwhelmingly supported this proposal, so I will be supporting it.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

I support the bill, as well.  It has been well-thought-out by a wonderful group of citizens, business, labor, and regular public from both ends of the state. 

 

I want to remind the Committee that our vote here is not the end of the process, because the final enactment must be completed by the county commissioners in Clark and Washoe Counties.  It is part of a three-legged stool:  the public has spoken, the Legislature will speak, and, finally, the county commissioners of the two counties must give their approvals.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED.  (Assemblyman Knecht and Assemblyman Claborn were absent for the vote.)

 

I am closing the hearing on S.B. 237 and opening the hearing on S.B. 192.

 

Senate Bill 192 (1st Reprint):  Makes various changes to provisions governing certain motor carriers and drivers. (BDR 58-537)

 

Sandra Avants, Chairwoman, Nevada Transportation Services Authority (TSA):

[Sandra Avants introduces herself.]  With me today are Commissioner Kimberly Maxon Rushton and Commissioner Bruce Breslow.  We came to testify today on a new public safety bill, S.B. 192 (Exhibit D).  Several individuals intend to present amendments.

 

[Sandra Avants continues.] 

 

Our bill has three main issues:

 

1. The most important issue is the authority to impound and tow household goods movers’ vehicles.  As you know, there has been a national problem with people who have lost furniture or sustained damage, because they have unwittingly dealt with an illegal company.  We currently have the authority and the responsibility to impound illegal operators of limousines and taxicabs.

 

2. At the request of the industries we regulate, our second priority is to license drivers and to perform criminal background checks on them.  This has been successfully done for the taxicab industry in Clark County and in northern counties.  We would license a driver and run a background check.  However, by also issuing a permit, we would be able to track where the individual was working.  Then, when the employee moves to another company, the new employer will know his background and driving history.

 

3. In order to facilitate this legislation, and to fund it, we have put together a budget based on a $200 fee per limousine to the industry.  In general, we have heard nothing negative, and we believe the industry supports this.  I understand there are people here today to voice their comments.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

When you said “a fee to the industry,” did you mean a “fee charged to the industry?”

 

Sandra Avants:

Yes.  Per limousine.

 

After that, there will be certain fees, a driver’s license fee of $50, which will not be compensation.  We feel it is essential that we bring the drivers into the fold, and that we do the criminal background checks.  Between the $200 fee and the $50 fee the driver pays, we believe we will be able to cover that cost. 

 

In addition, we request that the annual tow fee be increased from $36 to $75.  Currently, taxicabs pay $75. 

 

[Sandra Avants continues.]  That is a brief outline of our bill.  Commissioner Breslow has some facts and will explain this in more detail.  If you wish to know more about the fee increase, Commissioner Breslow would like to speak to that matter.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

We really should go through all of the fees and dollar amounts in the bill at this time.

 

Sandra Avants:

I will start from the beginning, which is Section 5, and which includes the $200 fee per vehicle for fully regulated carriers, other than taxicabs and tow trucks.

 

Commissioner Breslow, Commissioner, Nevada TSA (Transportation Services Authority):

Last legislative session this Committee approved a $350 vehicle fee.  A large section in the bill having to do with driver conduct became controversial, even though it was approved by this Committee and by the Senate.  It was not voted on, so we have started over. 

 

The entire driver conduct section, which was so controversial, has been omitted, and the fees have been reduced because of the business atmosphere in the industry, the new taxes, September 11, and these impacts.  We have tried to cut back S.B. 192 to a bare-bones bill.

 

Sandra Avants:

One additional fee that has not been charged before is an annual renewal fee of $50 for the driver’s permit, which is in addition to the original driver’s permit fee of $50.

 

In Section 16, the current application fee is $200, and we’re asking that it be increased to $400.

 

In Section 16, the fee for a modification of a tariff would increase to $100, and the fee for filing documents that require public notice would increase to $75.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

The increase from $36 to $75 for the tow truck is in Section 27?

 

Sandra Avants:

Yes.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Committee, do you have all these fees now? 

 

There is Section 5, the $200 fee per limousine.  In Section 6, there is the $50 for the original driver’s permit and $50 for the renewal fee.  In Section 16, there is a $100 fee for an application to modify a tariff, and for any other application, a $400 fee.  Section 27, the existing fee for each tow car is $36, and that has been raised to $75.

 

Commissioner Breslow:

To put this into perspective for the Committee, the TSA budget is about $1.9 million, and 96.8 percent of the funding comes from the Highway Fund, which are federal dollars that have been directed to the state (Exhibit E). 

 

There are no General Fund monies in that budget.  Currently, only 3.2 percent or $69,000, out of a total budget of $1.9 million, comes from user fees.  There have not been any fee adjustments in quite some time.  The limousine industry has never paid any fees to the state of Nevada for the regulation, investigations, and public safety services that they provide.  Therefore, we feel these fees are justified and will enhance the benefits to and safety of the public.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Is the proposal to reduce the Highway Funds that are currently being used? Will the amount of federal Highway Funds we receive stay the same?

 

Commissioner Breslow:

We have a zero-based budget.  We are not asking for additional money from the Highway Fund, but we need to be able to do background checks and permitting.

 

The main example of why we need to do this occurred a couple of years ago, when a gentleman was released from death row, John Mazen.  While he was waiting to be re-arrested, he became a cab driver.  We currently have no way to check on the backgrounds of those who drive taxicabs.  We felt this was an important public safety issue.  The public has demanded it.  The media has followed up on that.  We are back again asking to be able to do that, and in order to do it without asking for more Highway Fund monies and without asking for more General Fund monies, we are asking the industry to raise fees.

 

After working with the industry for over three years, we have arrived at numbers they can support.  This legislation will provide 3.5 administrative personnel, 2 vehicle inspectors, 1 technical manager to oversee the process, and 1 auditor.  The agency currently does not have an auditor, and we have explosive growth in this industry, especially in the limousine industry, which went from 4 companies to 28 companies, and from 250 limousines up to 835 limousines, over the last few years, in Clark County alone.  The limousine industry has graciously recognized that fact and actually volunteered the figure of $200 per vehicle.  The original $350 fee also came from the limousine industry, and we appreciate their wanting to help remedy some of our budget problems.  We know we cannot just ask for more dollars from the Governor or from the Legislature.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Let me ask about these positions again because the original budget, which I have here, was built on a $350 fee times 950 licensees, which would generate $332,500 in revenue.  Since it came to us from the Senate, the fee has been lowered to $200.  Instead of 950 licensees, it says 1,000.   Figure $200 times 1,000 = $200,000.   There is a difference. 

 

How many positions overall are being requested, and how many are new positions?  Do you anticipate asking that the budget be changed?

 

Commissioner Breslow:

We have provided an amended version of the “E-500 Financial Analysis,” (Exhibit E), which is based on the lowered $200 fee, and which would employ fewer personnel.  We are asking for 7.5 new employees to support our operations:  3.5 are administrative, 2 are officers/vehicle inspectors, which will allow the investigators to return to patrolling the streets.  The budget also includes 1 technical manager to oversee the process and 1 auditor, for a total of 7.5 new positions.

 

We have applications from 17 new limousine companies that were filed in the last few months.  It is a very dynamic industry. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

I appreciate your handout because there are many dollars being requested.  We need to know what the justification is, and, of course, the accountability. 

 

Assemblyman Claborn:

How long have these fees been in existence?

 

Sandra Avants:

Our agency was established on October 1, 1997, and the fees were in place at that time.  Prior to that, when we were part of the Public Utilities Commission (PUC), I don’t know the history.

Assemblyman Claborn:

Does that mean you have not had any increases in funding since then?

 

Sandra Avants:

As far as fees, we’ve had exactly one increase, and that was when taxicab fees went up from $36 to $75.

 

Commissioner Breslow:

That increase was previously allocated by the Legislature, but we had never moved to charging the larger amount, in order to be able to regulate them.  Working in public workshops north and south, and with industries statewide, we raised the fees to the $75 amount, but we have never come to the Legislature to increase fees.

 

Assemblyman Claborn:

You’ve been working under a tight budget, as well.

 

Sandra Avants:

Exactly.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Would anyone from the PUC like to come forward and provide some background for the Committee?  If you could tell us how it operated prior to becoming a separate entity, and about the formation of the TSA, that would be appreciated.

 

Don Soderberg, Chairman, Public Utilities Commission (PUC):

[Mr. Soderberg introduces himself.]  I was a commissioner with the old Public Service Commission (PSC) when that agency handled the current regulatory responsibilities of both the PUC and the TSA.  When I was appointed by Governor Miller in 1995, I thought that the first thing people would want to discuss would be electric restructuring, which was starting to surface as an issue.  What most people talked to me about was that the Public Service Commission was not doing an adequate job in the passenger transportation area because its focus was geared towards the utility industry.  The passenger transportation industries were always treated like a “poor stepsister.”  In 1997, I guess those voices became louder, and the Legislature split the agencies and created the TSA.  Based on my request, Governor Miller made me one of the first Commissioners of the TSA.  It was an exciting time. 

 

What we found out, however, was that it was great to have the focus, because that’s all we did, but there were a number of gaps in the law.  Because the regulatory programs from the PSC days were lower priority, and we began to identify some of the things that are before you today, such as the necessity to license drivers.  We can filter out some of the people who would be doing things you would not want when they are carrying around our family members.  We need the ability to have enough enforcement officers on the street, to enforce the laws to protect the public, and to serve the regulatory community that has been trained in state requirements.  When we first started out, it was very hard to tell people they should abide by the statutes, because many people were from California and had not been certified by the state and had not complied with the statutes that were passed in Nevada.  They were able to flourish and do very good business, especially in southern Nevada, because there was no one there to enforce state law.

 

[Don Soderberg continues.]  The third thing that needs to be done in this area is to have some sort of overall limit on what you have on the street.  We’ve always thought and been taught, in the American way, that competition is good.  What you discover, looking at passenger transportation, is that competition between companies is good, but competition on the street between various drivers turns into behavior that is not acceptable or not desirable. 

 

I hear this story often, but it hit me most when I had just been appointed to the TSA.  I was visiting a friend in Chicago and called for a cab.  I did not want to miss my flight.  The cab rolls up, and then another cab 20 seconds later.  The two gentlemen proceed to get into a very intense argument on whose fare it is.  In the meantime, I just want to get to the airport and don’t want to be late.  Those are the types of behaviors you don’t want to have, and the kinds of behaviors that flourish when there are too many drivers on the street for the market to support.  They become very competitive, just in order to make a good wage.

 

What I see that the TSA has brought before you this session is a bit scaled down from what you approved last session, but it is the core of what is necessary to do the job right.  It is long overdue.  We identified this back in 1997, and I think we are now at a crossroads.  The faith in the regulatory system from those who comply with the law is probably at its limit, and some of the practices that we don’t want to happen have happened.  It is time to give the agency the tools it needs to do that.

 

I understand that the budget numbers and the number of positions that TSA presented were scaled back.  I am impressed because I did not think, back in 1997, that this could be done with such few people.  It appears that, with more efficiency, a good work ethic, and common sense, they have been able to whittle down the cost to the industry and to the public for the same amount of regulatory operations. It seems that you are getting more “bang for the buck” now than when I was there a few years ago.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Are there any questions?  Thank you for that background.

 

You said there were 7.5 new positions.  How many positions total?  The Committee needs to know how many of those are investigators in the enforcement arena, because that seems to be the main reason for the funding.

 

Commissioner Breslow:

Our agency has 22 people total, including 9 enforcement staff:  3 for northern and eastern Nevada, and 6 for southern Nevada.  That number has not changed since we came into existence.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

You have 7.5 new positions.

 

Commissioner Breslow:

That would increase the total agency staff from 22 to 29.5.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

The enforcement positions are 3 in the north and east, and 6 in the south.

 

Commissioner Breslow:

Current total enforcement officers equal 9.  This bill would add 2 new enforcement officers, which we would call vehicle inspectors, because the position is a lower grade and, with the reduced $200 vehicle fee, we needed to find a way to do that.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

The total number of enforcement officers would be 11?

 

Commissioner Breslow:

We have 9 currently, and this bill would add 2 more.  Correct.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

Previously, you have regulated tow truck operators.  Is that correct?

 

Sandra Avants:

Yes.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

Now you will just incorporate regulating the moving vans, or have you always had jurisdiction? 

Sandra Avants:

No. We’ve always had the jurisdiction and the authority to fully regulate household goods movers.  We are requesting the authority to impound illegal operators, illegal household goods movers, and illegal towing companies.

 

Commissioner Breslow:

We did not have the teeth that we do with taxis and limousines to be able to enforce it.  It was so lucrative to open up a quick moving company and start doing business, that people would get a $50 fine or $500 fine, and either pay it or ignore it and keep on working.  Until we have the ability to impound the vehicles they use, we can’t stop them or get them off the street.  In the Clark County yellow pages, you will see several pages of moving companies, but only about 12 are legal in Nevada.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

Section 28 says, “By any person and entity, transportation of passengers or property . . .”  When I hear property, I see it being expanded beyond household furniture because, technically, whether it is commodities for a store . . .

 

Commissioner Breslow:

We do not have regulatory authority over anything except for the industries that are fully regulated here.  The tow truck industry has been deregulated.  We only regulate the maximum fee they can charge for a nonconsent tow, and we oversee their safety and insurance.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

Then you would go to a tow truck operator, say in Eureka or Austin, and he could petition you for an application, and you would inspect his vehicle?  How does that work?

 

Commissioner Breslow:

A vehicle always has to be inspected for safety purposes, especially when it is first put on the road.  There are federal regulations that determine the size of the truck and the load it can handle.  

 

Working with people like Clark Whitney, who represents about 15 different companies in the towing industry, we’ve reviewed the tow regulations 3 different times in the last 4 years, to make sure we can address the concerns of the industry, as well as the public.

 

Assemblyman Collins:

Some of my concerns are, on page 18, that the bill allows imprisonment rather than just a fine, and the fee increases from $10 to $75 for document filing.  All the fees increased significantly, but I’ll let others initiate that discussion on the fee structure. 

 

As I brought up earlier, I think that during the National Finals Rodeo, there were more limousines in Clark County than in Los Angeles.  All the 800-950 limousines are there.  Plus.  Somebody is cheating.  The point is, how many law enforcement officers are out there on the road, pulling them over and verifying their credentials and not just going to parking lots inspecting cars while they are being washed? 

 

Also, those drivers who drive both taxicabs and limousines, do their certificates or permits allow them to go back and forth between the TSA and the Nevada Taxicab Authority (NTA), because some of the same companies own both, without having to pay double or fees every week, or whatever?

 

Sandra Avants:

The first question was about the raised fee from $10 to $75.  The original $10 fee was actually $10 per page.  Now it’s being raised to $75 per complete document.

 

Commissioner Breslow:

Many of the documents were 10 to 100 pages, and it could get very expensive. This was a way to create balance.

 

Sandra Avants:

Sections 17 through 20 would be conforming language that was put into the bill by the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), which is per federal law.

 

With regard to your question about working for both taxicab and limousine companies, and we all know that many limousine companies are owned by taxicab companies, we could certainly work with the NTA to solve.  The Acting Administrator of the NTA is here today.  I would not mind working out reciprocity on permits with them at all.

 

Regarding the National Finals Rodeo, probably almost everything that could operate that night was at the National Finals Rodeo.  Along with the legal, certificated limousines, there are many illegal operators.  We do work diligently during all major events and adjust all of our investigators’ hours so that they are there during the hours that the events occur. 

 

Further, we work with the Thomas and Mack Center, introducing drivers to the system, telling them what the rules are, to prevent them from receiving citations or getting their companies in trouble.  That process was implemented by our Transportation Manager.

 

[Sandra Avants continued.] Regarding how many officers are on the road and are not inspecting.  Currently, we have no vehicle inspectors.  We currently have 6 officers in the south, and 3 officers in the north.  People take vacations, become ill, so there are probably at least 5 in the south and 2 in the north on any given day.  Our investigators also receive Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) training.  The officers answer complaints from the public, do background checks for applications, observe and implement their own investigations, and will inspect vehicles.

 

Assemblyman Collins:

How many law enforcement officers were on the Thomas and Mack property two hours before and two hours after the National Finals Rodeo, last year, documenting illegal limousines?  For example, how many citations were issued to those limousine owners?  How many arrests, fines, fees, and so on?  Do any of your people work around the clock?  Do they cover 24-hours of the day?  Do they all work daytime shifts?  I could mention more issues at the Convention Center, where your folks should be there working. 

 

That’s the whole point.  If we are going to expand, we need to make sure that you produce like other agencies.  We will not just try to give you money so you can have a bigger office.  We want some results, as in fines.  We used to get reports of all the actions and fines.

 

Sandra Avants:

Most of our best citations for impoundment and to illegal operators, companies, and drivers occur at the Convention Center and at the Thomas and Mack Center.  Our officers are out there during all special events, and we work weekend swing shifts to cover those events.  We work our six investigators very hard.

 

Regarding the fines you remember, you directed our agency to look hard at that and to try not to assess too many fines in the $10,000 range, which was common years ago.  We have listened to the Legislature and are more compliance-oriented now.  We want to bring people into the fold, to educate them, and we want compliance.  Our fines are much reduced, but they are significant.

 

Commissioner Breslow:

When we have the National Finals Rodeo and other events, our Director of Enforcement and Manager of Transportation, flies investigators from northern Nevada down to Las Vegas to assist and to run sting operations.  With only 9 enforcement officers total, they get to know those faces.  Looking at the Activity Form (Exhibit F) . . .

 

[Commissioner Breslow continues.]  Our staff keeps in touch with the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors’ Authority, as well as the Reno-Sparks Convention and Visitors’ Authority, with the convention catalogues, so that we keep a calendar that matches when the big events are in town.  Likewise, when we have Hot August Nights in northern Nevada, they will send southern Nevada staff up there to assist. 

 

Frankly, our investigators do a great job covering the entire state.  So far this year, we have a total of 8,660 contacts, interviews, document investigations, enforcement investigations, written warnings, citations, arrests, impoundments of vehicles, agency assists, vehicle safety inspections, written mechanical orders, and vehicles put out of service.  The total number of 8,660 is just for this year.

 

We work with the NTA, and there was part of this bill that the LCB added, that would take away impound authority from the NTA, to help us.  On the Senate side, with helpful testimony from the NTA, we convinced the Senate to keep that in because they assist us at big events and on high-volume days.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

I would like to thank the agency for providing this handout (Exhibit F) for us.  I asked for this breakdown, but what I don’t see here is what investigations have been done in different parts of the state.  We just have a cumulative total, and I don’t know where all these investigations, citations, or inspections have been done in what counties, and how many per capita.

 

Commissioner Breslow:

We could not get that information in time, since you asked for it just this afternoon.  However, I review monthly reports by each officer, and it is in proportion.  They generally do the same amount of work, whether in the north or in the south.  In the north, they perform different duties, because they also regulate taxicabs.  In Clark County, the agency does not regulate taxicabs.  We would be glad to get you that information as soon as possible.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Thank you.  It would be helpful if you could provide that information in the next couple of days.  We won’t take a vote today.

Assemblyman Collins:

I think we should get some more specific information before we vote.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

We’ll get more information on the investigations and citations.

 

Assemblyman Collins:

For example, do they go to the parking lot and see all the vehicles being washed, as opposed to observing them on the road during the hours they are getting maximum use, which would be from 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. until 2:00 to 4:00 a.m.  Like some other agencies we deal with on this committee, we need practical results.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

I think you understand.  In the next couple of days we need additional information before we can vote on the bill.

 

Assemblyman Gustavson:

I would like to go back to the filing of public notice documents, where the fee changes from $10 to $75.  It does not refer to a per page fee at all in the bill.  It says for a document.  How can we verify that?

 

Sandra Avants:

If that needs to be amended, we will certainly amend it to be more descriptive.

 

Assemblyman Gustavson:

Thank you, Ms. Avants.  I notice you are charging different fees for tow industry operators than for limousines when you regulate both the same.  Why would you not charge the same fee for each operator or vehicle?

 

Sandra Avants:

We entered into a very convoluted process.  Originally, we had concluded that the $350 was what we needed to do a good job.  Then, with the tragedy of September 11, 2001, and the failing community economy in both the north and south, that’s when the limousine industry told us they could not pay $350.  We know we need this information, we need background information on drivers, and regulation, but we are distressed and can only pay $200.  That fee was determined economically.

 

As you know, the taxicab industry in the north is also suffering.  They pay the $75 fee, which we feel is the maximum that the industry can pay.  The tow industry paid $36, so we are not increasing the fee to $200 for them, but only to $75 because they are not fully regulated.  They have been partially deregulated.

 

Assemblyman Sherer:

You say that the industry generally supports this.  There are many carriers out there.  How many are in support, and how many are against?

 

Sandra Avants:

I don’t have those figures.  Prior to becoming chairman, the former chairman met with the industry, which was substantially represented but not completely.  When I say substantially, I mean in terms of numbers of vehicles.  The larger companies did meet with the former chairman, and that’s when they decided that the $200 fee was acceptable to them, and they could support it.  Obviously, there are many people in the industry, such as small companies, who have not indicated whether they are pro or con.  There are several lobbyists here that represent a significant portion of the industry.  Presumably, they would be in support of the $200 fee.

 

Commissioner Breslow:

Of the 840 limousines, 40 of them are not in Clark County.  When we originally set up this budget with a $350 fee, the fee was only $75 for limousines outside of Clark County.  When the fee was reduced to $200, in order to be able to fund the budget, however, we made that fee apply to all limousines.  The original desire, however, was to have Clark County pay the higher amount of $350, and for limousines located outside of Clark County to pay $75.  Of the 40 limousines that are not in Clark County, 30 of them belong to two large companies.

 

Assemblyman Sherer:

Do you also license the taxicab drivers?

 

Sandra Avants:

Currently, the rural counties are licensing drivers.  We don’t license them at this time.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Please follow up on whether the drivers can go back and forth, as Mr. Collins asked.  In other words, can they drive both taxicabs and limousines?

 

Sandra Avants:

No.  However, it is a very good idea and is something we can work on with the NTA (Nevada Taxicab Authority).

 

Assemblyman Sherer:

When you provide the report to the Committee, could you also add a breakdown on the fines?

 

Sandra Avants:

Yes.  We’ll be happy to show you our fine history and the unpaid balances and the actual fines we have received payment for, and give you a breakdown.  As you may know, they are in a separate account, account number 3923, which is separate from our base fund.  There are many legal restrictions on the use of those funds.

 

Kimberly Maxton-Rushton, Commissioner, Nevada Transportation Services Authority:

[Ms. Maxton-Rushton introduces herself for the record as Commissioner and former Chief Deputy of the Attorney General’s Office.]  The most significant part of the bill is the authority to impound household moving vehicles, because, about a year ago, the problem became a national phenomenon.  Several people were calling our office and attorney generals’ offices around the country complaining that they had become victims of illegal movers.  People were taking their household goods, taking their property, their valuables, and holding them hostage for higher charges than had been agreed to.  The complaints were referred to the Bureau of Consumer Protection, as well as to the Criminal Division of the Attorney General’s Office.  They started investigations in cooperation with the TSA and instituted some criminal proceedings.

 

The importance of this part of the bill is that it allows the TSA, as the regulatory body, to go out and immediately seize the vehicle and impound it.  As Commissioner Breslow earlier mentioned, most illegal operators were ignoring the fine, or simply paying it as a cost of doing business, and continuing their illegal activities.

 

This aspect of the bill is very important to the welfare and public safety of citizens of the state of Nevada.  We need this regulatory authority to impound those vehicles, as well as the vehicles of illegal operators of taxicabs, tow trucks, and limousines.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Who is funding that portion?  In this bill, we have a significant portion of funds coming from the limousine industry.  We have $75 fees per vehicle coming from the tow truck industry.  If there is impounding of the household goods movers’ vehicles, but no fees are assessed to cover the costs, are these other industries subsidizing the enforcement on household movers?  Will the Highway Funds fund it?  I agree it is a problem, but it looks like these other industries will pay to enforce the laws.

 

Commissioner Maxton-Rushton:

Actually, there is a $200 fee paid by household movers.  They pay for the enforcement, so no additional fees need to be assessed.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

So, the $200 fee exists and is not part of this bill?

 

Commissioner Breslow:

It is part of this bill.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Where is the $200 fee in this bill?

 

Commissioner Maxton-Rushton:

It is noted in Section 5, which grants the TSA a user fee of up to $200 per vehicle for all fully regulated carriers, which includes taxicabs, tow trucks, household goods moving companies, limousines, and per capita vehicles.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Thank you for answering that question.  I have one more question about the driver’s permits.  The NTA will be charging, according to the increase in the bill we will hear today, $40 and $10 for a renewal.  So, why is the fee $50 for the initial driver’s permit, and an additional $50 for a renewal?  Why the difference, and why is it the same each year?

 

Commissioner Maxton-Rushton:

In response to your earlier question, I spoke with the NTA to ask them exactly what their fees were based on.  There is a $45 fee imposed against all agencies that do background checks, mainly for the fingerprinting and use of the FBI’s Central Repository to perform the background checks.  In addition, we subscribe to a service called SCOPE, which is limited to southern Nevada, and that service performs criminal background checks on individuals who have been cited or arrested within Clark County, as well as on those who are registered felons in Clark County.  The FBI checks through the Central Repository and provides us with a more thorough background check that is multi-state based. The Nevada Taxicab Authority pays a $45 charge for utilizing the FBI’s Central Repository.  It is a separate payment that is part of the fee increase they are requesting today.  Part of NTA’s $50 fee is paid directly to the FBI for use of the Central Repository for background checks, and the other $5 will be used for incidental costs.

 

[Commissioner Maxton-Rushton continues.]  With respect to the renewal cost, every year they provide a statewide card to the drivers.  This is as a favor to the drivers because, similar to the gaming work permit that was passed last session, we’ve attempted to provide a uniform, statewide card that allows them to simply renew it and go about their business, instead of having to apply to various municipalities and pay all those fees, which, in most cases, total over $75.  We are actually reducing their overall fees.  The $50 is an amortization charged biennially, because we base our budget on a biennial basis.  It was actually costing TSA about $100, so we are not making any money on that.  We are simply passing on to drivers what it costs us to do background checks every other year, to generate the card, to process the paperwork, and to hire the necessary personnel.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

The driver will not have to pay anything more to any local entity but will simply pay TSA $50, but the background check will only be done every other year, not every year.  Do you still feel that the $50 has to be charged for the renewal?

 

Commissioner Maxton-Rushton:

They earlier indicated there would be a flat $45 fee, so the remaining $55 would go for the processing of the card, the materials, paperwork, and for the SCOPE system background check.  As I indicated earlier, because we build our budget on a biennium basis, we looked at the flat cost over two years.  It was $100.  In lieu of charging $100 up front and allowing free renewal, we decided it was easier and more cost-efficient to break it into two $50 payments.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

I understand your justification for the $50 charge each year.  Are there any other questions?  [No questions.] 

 

At this time, we need to hear the two NTA bills.  I would like to continue the hearing on S.B. 192 on Thursday.  If anyone cannot be here on Thursday, please come forward now.

 

Sandra Avants:

We thank you, Madam Chair.  We’ll see you on Thursday.

 

Roy Street, Owner, Reno-Sparks Cab and Yellow Cab Company, Reno:

[Mr. Street introduces himself.]  I’m here today to speak in support of S.B. 192, because I won’t be able to come back Thursday.

Barry Elwood Jones, Owner, Carson Valley Movers:

[Introduces himself.]  I have some issues I think the public needs to be aware of.  A percentage of the $200 fee should be put toward public awareness, possibly for an ad in the phone book.  The public does not know that movers are unregulated, or which companies are illegal and which are not, because they are confused in the phone book.

 

This should be addressed in legislation, because it will not be addressed by the TSA.  Nothing in S.B. 192 includes this need.  I stated, during the Senate hearing, if someone has to enforce the law and there is no public awareness of the law, people need to become aware of the law and to learn how to protect his or her household goods.

 

In the early 1990s, there were approximately nine enforcement officers in northern Nevada.  Today, I know of two officers, but I don’t know where the third officer is.  When I call their office, I receive respect and response as far as communication with the officer.  Nevertheless, when I voice a complaint out in the field, it is hard to tell if they have followed up on the complaint, because the Attorney General’s Office has not enforced illegal moves of household furniture since I went into business in 1989. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Could you state your name again?

 

Barry Jones:

Barry Elwood Jones, Owner, Carson Valley Movers, in Carson City.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Would you please sign in for the record?  Thank you.  So, are you speaking in favor of the bill?

 

Barry Jones:

I’m speaking in favor of the bill, but I think that the money that they take in should be used in the areas of law enforcement and public awareness and to give teeth to what we pass as law today.  In the past, you passed laws that I try to abide with.  Nevertheless, illegal moving companies ignore it, and we have no recourse.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Would you provide your statements in writing, and then we will review them?

Barry Jones:

I’ll provide a dozen copies before Thursday.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Thank you.  I think what you are saying is that there should be more public education.

 

Barry Jones:

I think 5 percent of the $200 should go towards a phone book ad, or public awareness of some kind.  TSA needs to inform the general public, because I, as a mover, am informing my customers, at my expense, on my time, what to do and what not to do to protect their household goods.  I don’t feel that is my job; I think it is the state’s job if we are going to be regulated.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

That is very interesting.  I thought you meant Public Service Announcements (PSAs) on television, but actually, when citizens look in the Yellow Pages, if there was an educational ad or page, that is a good idea.

 

Barry Jones:

They should also list the interstate movers and intrastate movers separately.  When you look in the phonebook, the illegal movers pay for the biggest ads and pay the fines.  Also, I would really like to see the list in the Attorney General’s Office of cases in which they have assisted in the prosecution to protect the public in the last five years.  I don’t think we would find any.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Please put that in your statement, and I’ll guarantee we will follow up on that. 

 

We have had other attempts to regulate the yellow pages, but it is very difficult, and we seem unable to do that.  People advertise falsely in the yellow pages, and even with specific complaints to the Attorney General’s Office, when a new directory comes out, the same fraudulent advertising appears again. 

 

Your suggestion about an ad in the yellow pages is a very good suggestion.  We’ll ask what TSA’s goals are in that regard.

 

Barry Jones:

I’d like to add that I’m in support of the bill, but I think they need the “teeth” of the impound provision.  If not, those doing illegal moves will just go about their daily routine the following day, and I will have to pick up the pieces the next time they move.  Repeatedly, I do this.

Chairwoman Chowning:

We see that in other businesses as well.  Good business persons seem to suffer because of bad business persons.  Thank you for being one of the good ones.

 

Mr. Whitney, did you want to speak now or wait until Thursday?

 

Clark Whitney, Quality Towing:

[Mr. Whitney introduces himself.]  I represent 12 other towing companies in the southern Nevada area.  I could change my schedule and get another flight up next Thursday, if that’s necessary. 

 

After I testified on S.B. 192 at the Senate Transportation Committee hearing, the TSA graciously consented to add an amendment that I proposed.  Since then, they have opened a docket, and workshops have been scheduled addressing the concerns of the industry I represented in that hearing.  They took action immediately, and I’ve had many conversations with the TSA.

 

At this time, I feel our concerns have been addressed and will continue to be addressed in the future.  Therefore, I request that the amendment be taken out of the bill because the language is no longer necessary.  The amendment language is located on page 9 of the bill, lines 19 through 25, or Section 17, subsection 6.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Mr. Whitney, we ask that you submit that request in writing, please.

 

Clark Whitney:

May I e-mail or fax it?

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

You may e-mail or fax it to our Committee Policy Analyst, Marji Paslov Thomas, who will give you the e-mail and fax information.

 

You are speaking in support of the bill on behalf of how many companies?

 

Clark Whitney:

I’m speaking on behalf of 12 other towing companies. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Is that in southern Nevada?

Clark Whitney:

Southern Nevada.  And Milney Towing in northern Nevada.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Are you listing the names of those other companies?

 

Clark Whitney:

I will do so on the written document.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Can everyone else come the next time we post the agenda?  I don’t know if we can meet again on Thursday, because we would not achieve the 3-day notice period.  It will probably be next Tuesday.

 

We will close the hearing at this time on S.B. 192, and we will quickly go through two very simple bills.  I will open the hearing on S.B. 288.

 

Senate Bill 288:  Increases fees for compensable trips of taxicabs and driver’s permit to operate taxicab. (BDR 58-1251)

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Please state your name for the record and tell us what this bill would accomplish, why this increase is being requested, and if it is in your budget.

 

Joseph Dahlia, Supervisory Compliance Investigator and Acting Administrator, Nevada Taxicab Authority (NTA):

[Joseph Dahlia introduces himself.]  To my left is Ann Elworth, our Deputy Attorney General, and to my right is Rick Boxer, Budget Analyst, NTA.  By statute, the NTA operates strictly out of Clark County.  We are self-funded and draw no funds from the General Fund. 

 

In S.B. 288, we’re requesting three things:

 

1. Fee Increases.  Each time a taximeter is turned on, the agency receives 15 cents.  What we are asking for in S.B. 288 is that the 15 cents be increased up to, but not to exceed, 20 cents.  We are asking that each taxicab driver pay the administration cost of $40 for an original driver’s permit.  We also request a $10 fee for each subsequent renewal of a driver’s permit.

 

2. Senior Transportation Program Funding.  Currently, the NTA funds the Senior Transportation Program in Clark County.  It is used extensively and is an outstanding program.  It gives back to the community, gives back to the senior citizens, and gives back to the physically challenged.  We allocate $278,000 annually.  If S.B. 288 is passed, we propose to donate an additional $100,000, which means that every year we will give $378,000 to the subsidized transportation program.

 

[Joseph Dahlia continued.]

 

3. Increase NTA Staff.  We would like to bring three additional staff members on board: an additional auditor to monitor the companies to make sure they comply with the law, and, for safety, comfort, and convenience, two additional dispatchers to staff the security system in the front office.  We operate 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, and 365 days per year.  When someone has a problem, he/she calls us.  We respond.  They used to go through the Highway Patrol or the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police.  However, by handling it ourselves, we can usually respond anywhere within the city limits or in the Las Vegas Valley within 30 minutes.  With the additional 5 cents, we could hire two more security officers/dispatchers to assist in handling the calls, and one additional auditor.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Regarding the increase in driver’s permit fees, is it on page 2, line 41?

 

Joseph Dahlia:

Yes.  We have not sought any kind of raise whatsoever.  This would offset the cost of the materials, and of the time and labor involved with the initial processing of the driver’s permit.  The initial processing of a driver takes about 45 minutes.  We have to take fingerprints, send them to the FBI, and then run a background check on SCOPE.  Right now, we have roughly 4,577 licensed cab drivers in Clark County.  We have 1,666 taxicabs on the road in Clark County.  Every year, when they come in to renew the license, after the initial cost, we check to make sure their medical cards are current, that they have no outstanding traffic warrants, and that their driver’s licenses are not suspended.  We make sure they have no convictions under NAC 706.516, which would cause them to be eliminated from driving.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

You are not doing the in-depth background checks, as presented by the TSA?

 

Joseph Dahlia:

Yes, Madam.  The in-depth background check is performed on the initial application, when we take the fingerprints, which go to the State Repository and to the FBI.  Then every year thereafter, when they renew the driver’s license, we run SCOPE to make sure they have no outstanding warrants and no convictions for anything related to moral turpitude or narcotics offenses.  We also mandate that they attend a safety class, to be aware of what is going on in Clark County.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

You can accomplish that for $40 and $10 renewal fee, instead of $50 and $50 renewal fee?

 

Joseph Dahlia:

Yes, Madam Chair, we can.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Very interesting.

 

Joseph Dahlia:

We pass the cost of fingerprints off to the driver, which is $45, which is charged to us by the state.  The driver must bring in a check for $45 made out to the state repository.  Then, they pay the agency $40 for the processing fee.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

So, essentially, they are paying $85?

 

Joseph Dahlia:

Yes, Madam Chair.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Thank you for clarifying that.  Is this built into your budget?

 

Joseph Dahlia:

Yes, Madam Chairwoman, it is.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Any questions?  None.  Any other statements?  Mr. Boxer, would you like to make a statement, since you are the Budget Analyst?

 

Rick Boxer, Administrative Services Officer and Budget Analyst, NTA:

[Mr. Boxer introduces himself.]  Yes, Ma’am, this is built into our budget, as in “E-500 Financial Analysis” (Exhibit E).  If this bill should pass, it will be combined with our base budget.

Chairwoman Chowning:

We appreciate that about the Senior Ride Program, because we were told that sometimes senior citizens have been left because taxicabs did not show up.  Last session, Senator Shaffer put in a bill for an “800” telephone number to help alleviate that problem.  Still, how can that be enforced, and how do we make sure they really are picked up?

 

Joseph Dahlia:

Each month, the taxicab companies send this office a list of how many requests they have had from senior citizens.  We also make it very public that we operate 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.  If we get a complaint from anybody in the county, we respond.  They do not have to come to us.  We actually take the complaint, and we take action on it immediately.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Excellent.  Thank you.  Does anyone else want to speak on S.B. 288? 

 

Carol Sala, Administrator, Division for Aging Services:

[Ms. Sala introduces herself.]  I have provided my written testimony (Exhibit G) to staff, so I will not read the entire statement.  The Division for Aging Services supports this bill.  If this bill does not pass, the Senior Ride Program will no longer exist in our budget because the NTA’s reserve will fall below what they are allowed to transfer to us.  I have figures on how many people we have served and what kinds of rides we provided in my written testimony, so I will not take any more of your time.  I just wanted to go on record supporting this bill, because we would like to see the program continue.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Thank you for providing your testimony in writing.  We will review that.

 

Mike Sullivan, Whittlesea Bell Transportation:

[Mr. Sullivan introduces himself.]  I just wanted to go on record that we are in full support of this bill.

 

Gary Mulligan, Yellow Checker Star Transportation:

[Mr. Mulligan introduces himself.]  You will notice in the package submitted by Joseph Dahlia a letter (Exhibit H) from Yellow Cab endorsing this legislation.  We need additional money for the Senior Ride Program, and we think this is a very good idea.

Chairwoman Chowning:

Thank you for bringing those statements (Exhibit H), because it is important for us to know whether the people who will have to pay the increased assessments are in support of them.  Thank you. 

 

This legislation would only affect Clark County because it would apply to the NTA.  We will close the hearing on S.B. 288 and open the hearing on S.B. 476.

 

Senate Bill 476:  Makes various changes relating to regulation of taxicabs. (BDR 58-538)

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Please come forward and tell us why you think that the terms of the members should change.

 

Ann Elworth, Deputy Attorney General Office, on behalf of the NTA:

[Ms. Elworth introduces herself.]  S.B. 476 is more of a housekeeping measure than a change in the terms.  As the statute is currently written, a member can serve no longer than six years, which equals two three-year terms.  That would not change.  It would simply allow the member to remain on the Board until replaced at the direction of the Governor.  This is allowed in the General Boards and Commissions Section of the Nevada Revised Statutes.

 

The problem is that, on more than one occasion, there has been an issue of the Governor not replacing a member of the NTA Board immediately, and the NTA Board is a five-member board.  One interpretation of the statute is that a board member could no longer serve after the expiration of his second three-year term and prior to appointment of his replacement.  If that interpretation were to prevail, and more than one board member’s term expired at the same time, we would not be able to have a quorum.  Therefore, this bill seeks to allow the exception, which is already in NRS under the General Boards and Commissions section, to apply to the NTA board.  The NRS exception states that board members will remain on the board until replaced.  We are not attempting to extend the board members’ terms; we just do not want to try to operate with fewer than three board members.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

On page 2, what happens there on line 39 through 41?

 

Joseph Dahlia:

We are adding NRS Section 706.8849, over which we have regulatory authority, to allow us to deposit any fines collected under that authority back into our fund.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Is that built into your budget as well?

 

Rick Boxer:

Yes, Ma’am, it is.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

One last part in the bill is page 3, line 10.

 

Joseph Dahlia:

I’ve been with the agency for 13 years.  We have been operating for 13 years with only $1,000.  With the increase in taxicabs and illegal limousines, we work hand-in-hand with the TSA.  Our investigators go out weekly, and we do covert operations, where we take rides from people who are not authorized to transport in this state.  When we take the ride, we utilize the money to pay for the ride.  Then we make arrests and impound the vehicles.  We also use this money when conducting investigations related to narcotics, prostitution, and buying back property that was left in a taxicab.  Instead of turning in the property, as required, occasionally a driver will sell property left in the cab.  We use the money mostly for covert operations.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

You need this increase to continue with your sting operations. 

 

Joseph Dahlia:

Yes, Ma’am.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Is that built into your budget?

 

Rick Boxer:

Yes, it is.

 

Assemblyman Gustavson:

On the NRS numbers, are these different funds?

 

Joseph Dahlia:

Are you referring to NRS 706.8848 and 706.8849?

 

Assemblyman Gustavson:

Yes.

 

Joseph Dahlia:

Those refer to the different sections of the statutes from which the NTA derives its authority.  There are different laws, rules, regulations, and violations that a driver may make.  When a driver does commit a violation, he’s issued a citation, or even arrested for it, and would be brought before an administrative hearing.  Any fines imposed during the administrative hearing would revert to our funds.

 

Assemblyman Gustavson:

These fines would then revert to the fund and not to the General Fund?

 

Ann Elworth:

These funds currently go directly into the NTA general fund.  This LCB change was to clarify those sections that would be paid directly to the fund, rather than to give blanket authorization for all NTA fines to go there.  My understanding is that, if a section of the statute is added, where it says “inclusive,” they don’t want it to automatically revert to the TSA fund.  It is not a change in direction for any money currently being received, just a specific listing of limitations on those sections.

 

Assemblyman Gustavson:

How much money is in the fund now that did not revert to the General Fund?

 

Rick Boxer:

In our reserves?

 

Assemblyman Gustavson:

Yes.

 

Rick Boxer:

Roughly, $200,000.

 

Assemblyman Gustavson:

Are you looking for more?

 

Rick Boxer:

We are looking for operating costs.  Yes, sir.

 

Assemblyman Gustavson:

Thank you.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Are there any other questions?  There are none.  Thank you very much.

 

[Chairwoman Chowning continues.]  We won’t take action on these today.  We want to look at the rest of the material that will be presented us, and we will vote in our next work session.

 

Committee members, was there anyone else who wished to be shown as voting either in support or against S.B. 237?  Mr. Claborn?

 

Assemblyman Claborn:

Yes, I’m sorry I was outside the room.  I want to go on record supporting S.B. 237 with a “yes” vote.

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Please, show Mr. Claborn voting in support of S.B. 237.  Mr. Carpenter?

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

I vote “aye.”

 

Chairwoman Chowning:

Please show Mr. Carpenter as voting in support of S.B. 237, and that is a unanimous vote, with the exception of Mr. Knecht who was absent.

 

[Bob Fairman presented written comments on S.B. 192 (Exhibit I), but did not have an opportunity to speak.]

 

There is no further business, so we are adjourned [at 3:57 p.m.].

 

 

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

JoAnn Aldrich

Transcribing Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

                       

Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman

 

DATE: