MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Transportation
Seventy-second Session
April 3, 2003
The Senate Committee on Transportation was called to order by Chairman Raymond C. Shaffer, at 2:44 p.m., on Thursday, April 3, 2003, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer, Chairman
Senator Dennis Nolan, Vice Chairman
Senator Mark Amodei
Senator Warren B. Hardy II
Senator Michael Schneider
Senator Terry Care
Senator Maggie Carlton
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Marsheilah Lyons, Committee Policy Analyst
Sherry Rodriguez, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Sandra Lee Avants, Chairman, Transportation Services Authority, Las Vegas
Bruce Breslow, Commissioner, Transportation Services Authority, Sparks
Gary E. Milliken, Lobbyist, Yellow-Checker-Star Cab Company
Barry Jones, Carson Valley Movers
Herb Tobin, Western Cab, Las Vegas
Joe Dahlia, Acting Administrator, Compliance/Enforcement Investigator, Taxicab Authority, Department of Business and Industry, Las Vegas
Karen Winchell, Motor Carrier Program Manager, Compliance Enforcement Division, Department of Motor Vehicles,
Clark Whitney, Manager, Quality Towing, Las Vegas
Cathie Olendorff, Corporate Counsel, Yellow-Checker-Star Cab Company
Brent Bell, Whittlesea Bell Transportation
James Gomes, Lobbyist, Ambassador Limousine/Nellis Cab, and On Demand Sedan/Desert Cab
Ann Elworth, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Taxicab Authority, Department of Business and Industry
Chairman Shaffer:
We will now call the meeting to order. Before we address Senate Bill (S.B.) 192, Senator Hardy would like to address the committee and the audience.
SENATE BILL 192: Makes various changes to provisions governing certain motor carriers and drivers. (BDR 58-537)
Senator Hardy:
I want to disclose that one of the individuals testifying today is a client of a business my father owns; I am a shareholder in that business. We consult with them on local government issues. This will not impact them any more than it would anyone else. I will be voting and participating, so I wanted to disclose that information.
Sandra Lee Avants, Chairman, Transportation Services Authority (TSA), Las Vegas:
I have presented this committee with an amendment to S.B. 192 (Exhibit C). There are three parts in the bill we feel are significant and would impact the public and State. In section 5, paragraph 1, we originally asked for $350 per vehicle for fully-regulated vehicles. It has been determined with the current economic times and stress on the industry since the tragedy of September 11, 2001, the industry would not be able to pay $350 per vehicle. The amendment changes the $350 fee to $200 per vehicle. The fee has never been charged in Nevada for limousines, movers, and per capita vehicles, which are tour operators, shuttles, special service vehicles, and nonemergency vehicles.
Section 6 requires criminal background checks, which has not been done before outside of the northern vicinity. The request for criminal background checks is a result of concerns people have had regarding limousine drivers outside of the northern and rural areas, who drive these vehicles, and on whom there never has been a criminal check. You do not know who is driving that vehicle. We believe this is a service to the public.
Another section we consider very essential and helpful to our enforcement activities is section 28. This section gives us impound authority for regulated and company vehicles. There have been reports in the national news about movers holding people’s equipment and property hostage, overcharging customers, and damaging property. There is no recourse. We would like to use this as a tool for enforcement. If someone is operating illegally, we will impound the vehicle.
There are many pages in this bill added by the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB). Sections 31 through 36 refer to the Taxicab Authority (TA). The LCB put that in and consider it conforming language. The TA is here to address that language.
Chairman Shaffer:
Are there any questions from the committee?
Senator Carlton:
When you talk about regulating different carriers, where does your authority start and stop? Is it at the State line? Are you basically involved in what happens within the boundaries of the State?
Ms. Avants:
Yes, intrastate.
Senator Carlton:
Some of the things you just mentioned I believe are interstate, or did I say it wrong?
Ms. Avants:
No, interstate is outside of Nevada, either coming into the State or leaving it.
Senator Carlton:
If we are talking about carriers mentioned in your opening statement, how do you plan on doing this if your authority is only within the boundaries of our State?
Ms. Avants:
This bill only addresses intrastate activity. If it is an interstate trip, it is not something we regulate and it would not apply.
Senator Care:
I need to be clear on exactly what vehicles we would be bringing under your jurisdiction. I do not want to do anything that stifles competition or prohibits an entrepreneur from getting into the fleet business. My question is what vehicles are we talking about?
Ms. Avants:
This bill is not asking to regulate anyone we are not already regulating. Fully‑regulated carriers are limousines, household goods moving vehicles, per capita vehicles, and taxicabs.
Chairman Shaffer:
No buses?
Ms. Avants:
Not unless they are an intrastate tour, shuttle, a special service operator, or a nonemergency medical transport vehicle.
Bruce Breslow, Commissioner, Transportation Services Authority, Sparks:
The bus industry was basically deregulated. There are only specific areas of the bus industry we can regulate. Ms. Avants mentioned specific parts of the bus industry. They are not fully-regulated carriers. The background checks we are seeking are only for taxi and limousine drivers.
The right to impound vehicles is an issue directed at illegal movers of household goods. There are only six in northern Nevada that are legal; the others you see in the phone book are not legal operators. There is no protection for the public when their goods are missing or broken. If the movers agree to do a move for $200 then charge the customer another $300 before they will unload things off their truck, there is nothing we can do. We have not been able to enforce the laws because we have not had the teeth to do so. There is a process we have used requiring the attorney general to go to court to obtain a lien against someone’s personal property. It takes a long time because we have not been able to impound the illegal trucks.
In Las Vegas there are hundreds of illegal movers of household goods. We have not been able to protect the public from them. We have conducted a lot of public service announcements informing the public to use a fully-regulated carrier in order to be protected.
This bill is not to add more regulation, or change existing law. It is just to enable us to do background checks, and to issue a permit to limousine and taxicab drivers Statewide. This bill will also give us the impound authority for household goods movers operating illegally.
Chairman Shaffer:
Are there any questions or comments from the committee?
Senator Carlton:
I went through the bill and noticed the physician’s certificate is still required. We might want to discuss that to get something on the record. Is your authority to fine still in this bill wherein some code of conduct issues are just going to be fined but never disciplined?
Mr. Breslow:
It was a schedule of fines. They are not in this bill.
Senator Carlton:
So, you will not be fining drivers on a code of conduct scheme?
Ms. Avants:
The fining of a driver is very limited. A fine would be for not following the tariff prescribed and filed with the company they work for and the Transportation Services Authority (TSA), or for soliciting. Those are the only two areas where fines to drivers apply. We removed anything that pertains to driver behavior through our amendment.
Senator Carlton:
After hearing the soliciting part of this in the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee meetings, we may need to go into that again just to get a few things on the record.
Ms. Avants:
Another issue I am sure you looked at is gratuities or kickbacks. Presently, in TSA law, there is no law against accepting a gratuity, commission, or kickback for delivering someone. You just may not divert them from another property. Soliciting concerns not only soliciting, a gratuity, but also concerns not soliciting the ride or getting a person to enter your vehicle, which tends to be onerous and difficult for customers.
Senator Carlton:
If we could address the physician’s certificate I would appreciate it.
Ms. Avants:
The code of federal regulations has been adopted by the TSA for the same reason the TA adopted it previously. It is considered to be a good basis in law and has also been upheld. We do not just look at the physician’s statement. We look at drug testing and all other requirements of federal law for carriers.
Mr. Breslow:
In the northern part of the State where we regulate taxicabs, there have been drivers without their medical certificates. We have explained to the drivers why they need to have them. We tell them when a member of the public gets in the cab, we need to make sure the driver can see, hear, and the driver is not diseased to the point of affecting the health of his or her passenger. It is strictly a safety issue.
Chairman Shaffer:
Are there any more comments or questions from the committee?
Senator Care:
Section 6, subsection 3, the language begins, “A member or the Deputy of the Authority may refuse …” That is discretionary. Then it lists all the items that could lead to a decision to refuse. I am wondering what the standards might be and why, in some cases a person might be refused, and in another case a person would get the permit. In section 6, subsection 4, … convicted of an offense involving moral turpitude. You do not see that language much anymore, but it is still around on occasion. I am wondering what is contemplated in subsection 4, “moral turpitude, but also with discretion.” How would you exercise that discretion in refusing a permit?
Ms. Avants:
As you know, this is new language for us, and a new adaptation. I can talk about how it is used at the Taxicab Authority. The administrator would look at the background brought forth through a criminal background check. For certain crimes you would not want an individual with that background to be transporting passengers, children, or families. It would involve anything to do with a sexual offense or the sale of drugs.
You asked about the authority of the administrator or deputy commissioner. Frequently, we uncover a past crime of someone determined to be a felony that had occurred within the past 5 years. If the crime happened within the last 5 years, the deputy commissioner would not approve a permit. The individual could appeal the decision of denial to the board.
If it is one of moral turpitude, it might be concerning a person who was 19 years old at the time, and committed an illegal act while drunk with their college buddies. You get the case and review the background. It is an act of moral turpitude, but it is something you can understand. Maybe the individual is now 30 years old and has not committed an illegal act since they were 19 years old. This is where the deputy commissioner would have some leeway. Anytime a deputy commissioner denies a person, they may appeal to the full commission.
Chairman Shaffer:
Is there anyone else wishing to support this bill?
Gary E. Milliken, Lobbyist, Yellow-Checker-Star Cab Company:
We worked with the TSA on this and we are in favor of the bill. There are other cab companies here who are also in favor.
Barry Jones, Carson Valley Movers:
I am in favor of this bill. I would like to see enforcement done. We need more enforcement as far as manpower. Enforcement on the illegal movers concerns me. I would also like to see more public awareness. If we are regulated and continue to be regulated, the public needs to know how we are regulated. I heard customers say they had a poor experience with a local move. They did not know they were not supposed to hire the person with the U-Haul who advertises in the paper. They need to know who is regulated and who is not. Those are big issues with me. If you are going to have a law, you need to enforce it. I think the TSA needs money for manpower to enforce the laws we are talking about today.
Senator Carlton:
In the amendment you presented to us (Exhibit C), under number 2, you say that section 11 should be deleted. Is that because it is a repetitive section? I have concerns we are deleting your authority to adopt regulations governing the conduct.
Ms. Avants:
It would appear somewhere concerning solicitation, also with regard to following tariffs or rules that govern a company by whom they are employed, and nothing else. The reason it was removed is 2 years ago, a $350 fee would have purchased more employees for the agency, and enabled the agency to look at the conduct of drivers. It is similar to the TA. A lot of the wording originates from this. Even with a reduction in the amount of money we are hoping to receive to conduct criminal backgrounds and license the drivers, we determined it would be impossible to do the criminal background checks with the current level of staff.
Mr. Jones stated he would like to see the public because more aware of what a legal company is required to do and why they are the best choice. We have conducted some public announcements, and we are going to do more public safety announcements in the future. Mr. Jones said he thought the law should be enforced. That is what this bill does, if we can get the impound authority. If you only give us the impound authority and not anything else, that would make us happy because we would be able to do a much better job in protecting the public.
Senator Carlton:
Under 3 and 4 of your proposed amendment (Exhibit C), being able to charge for the investigations and recoup your costs, are there any guidelines on the investigation and your ability to draw up regulations allowing you to initiate the investigation? Could you literally investigate someone out of business if there were constant complaints?
Ms. Avants:
This means the TA will never charge an individual with citations or complaints. We are talking about new applicants. We have an applicant who has businesses based in New York City and Los Angeles. This would only allow recouping the costs of an investigator and related expense to go to New York City and Los Angeles to prepare for an application hearing. When this bill was previously presented, it required us to have the authority to charge for hearings. Commissioner Breslow and I are adamantly opposed to that and we have removed it.
Senator Carlton:
I just wanted to make that clear.
Herb Tobin, Western Cab, Las Vegas:
I am in favor of this bill.
Joe Dahlia, Acting Administrator, Compliance/Enforcement Investigator, Taxicab Authority, Department of Business and Industry, Las Vegas:
We support this bill with one exception in section 33. This section precludes my agency from being able to impound vehicles illegally operated in Clark County. We would ask that the wording remain the same.
Chairman Shaffer:
Instead of taking out ”passenger vehicle in passenger service”?
Mr. Dahlia:
No sir, they struck out “as a taxicab, limousine or other passenger vehicle in passenger service.”
Chairman Shaffer:
Okay. Is there anyone here that opposes that?
Ms. Avants:
No, we agree.
Karen Winchell, Motor Carrier Program Manager, Compliance Enforcement Division, Department of Motor Vehicles:
Senate Bill 192 will allow the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to assess an administrative fine for a violation of chapter 706 of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). Working in partnership with the Nevada Highway Patrol, the DMV performs audits on those carriers cited for being overweight or without current credentials. Currently, the DMV is only able to assess a cost of a trip permit or the amount of licensing fees. Upon passage of this bill, the DMV will have the authority to assess an administrative fine of $1000 in addition to any other amount due.
Chairman Shaffer:
Is there anyone wishing to testify in opposition to this bill?
Clark Whitney, Manager, Quality Towing, Las Vegas:
I cannot say I definitely oppose S.B. 192. I am recommending a change or an addition. I have a proposed amendment (Exhibit D) to be inserted at page 9, line 12, item 6. I have also included a copy of Title 49 United States Code Annotated document (Exhibit E).
The reason this was done is there is no incentive for them to stay within this law and within the regulations. I am proposing this amendment to give them real incentive to only enforce laws that truly fall within their scope of authority, and to protect towing companies and the general public who are regulated by the TSA. I represent the following tow truck companies: Action Towing, AM PM Towing, B & E Auto Towing, City Wide Towing, Custom Towing, D & D Towing, Keystone Towing, Milne Towing, Quality Towing, SST Towing, Stateline Towing, Sunrise Towing, and Valley Wide Towing.
Senator Nolan:
Mr. Whitney, have you had the opportunity to run this by the TSA prior to presenting it here?
Mr. Whitney:
No.
Senator Nolan:
I understand the organizations you represent feel the TSA has been expanding their scope of authority and may be doing some things beyond their statutory authority. Could you give us an example of that?
Mr. Whitney:
Over the last few years, the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) has changed. I have come forward many times with concerns, but I have been politely turned aside. They continue to do it their way. This is why I did not think it would be of any use to give this amendment and information to the TSA. I have given it to them many times in the past.
Senator Nolan:
Procedurally, we will need to provide the TSA with a copy of it (Exhibit D). The bill before us has been submitted by the TSA. We can amend it anyway we want. Generally speaking, when we take a hostile amendment on a bill, we try to find a way the sponsors of the bill will accept the proposed amendment.
Mr. Whitney:
I would like to talk to them about it and work it out. I am very amiable to the idea. They have not been rude or unfriendly toward me. They appear to listen to what I have to say, but they totally disagree. That is why I have submitted a hostile amendment.
Here are some examples for you, Senator Nolan. I have talked to other tow companies in three cases. There is a procedure in the NRS that addresses cleaning up the litter of old abandoned cars in the State. They are to be picked up and taken care of by wrecking and towing companies. The procedure entails the use of a junker certificate. For example, a car is towed off someone’s property or off public land. The towing company may try to obtain a junker certificate. They notify the DMV by fax that they have a junker to be removed. The DMV then checks to see if it is registered, licensed, or if there are any ownership documents. If it is abandoned and there is no registration, they come and do a physical inspection of the vehicle and appraise it. The DMV has to appraise these vehicles for less than $200 for them to issue a junker certificate. The vehicle can then go to the wrecking yard. It can no longer have a title or be retitled by a salvage yard.
Three people have specifically told me they received citations from the TSA because they received junker certificates from the DMV, and its regulations. The TSA said you have a junker, but you did not attempt to notify the owner within 15 days. The law says you must notify the owner within 15 days unless you are picking up a junker. TSA does not understand that. They maintain NAC says you must notify the owner. Whether you are getting a junker or not, it does not matter. They are stepping out of their bounds.
Chairman Shaffer:
If I asked Ms. Avants to accept your amendment, would you get angry?
Mr. Whitney:
No.
Ms. Avants:
We will accept his amendment. This is a pretty common amendment within laws. It is a little wordy and not quite right.
Chairman Shaffer:
Our legal department will put it right.
Ms. Avants:
In defense of the employees of the TSA, we are familiar with this gentleman. He is a good businessman and has participated in our workshops. Recently he had several citations. I can certainly understand his disdain for regulations. We believe we have excellent employees and well-trained investigators. I am a new chairman and have a different style. My style is to be forthright, to answer every question, and address every problem.
Commissioners and chairmen serve as hearing officers throughout the United States. This was started many years ago. It was determined that regulated industries had to have hearings and opportunity. It is not uncommon. We are only one of 18 divisions under the Department of Business and Industry. We keep the regulator, policy setter, hearing officer, and administrative people separate from enforcement. That is why there are many things of which I am not aware. If Mr. Whitney is concerned that a law is being adapted, or has any concerns with the attitude of any employee, I would like him to bring that forth. I assure you it will be addressed.
Mr. Whitney:
I appreciate that and I will communicate with you. I believe you have an opinion from the attorney general that I feel is wrong. I would like you to look at this amendment and see what you think.
Ms. Avants:
I will definitely do that. I think Commissioner Breslow, who has conducted many tow citation hearings and workshops, has some comments he would like to make.
Mr. Breslow:
I support this amendment. I have worked with Mr. Whitney on many occasions and find him to be more knowledgeable about tow laws than most attorneys he could hire. We reviewed the regulations, and had a docket to look at the tow industry. We held public meetings and heard comments from the tow industry and the public. We have adopted some changes.
This year we took a look at our entire set of regulations, not just the tow industry, and did the same thing again with hearings. Each time Mr. Whitney and other members of the tow industry participated. We have to follow rules and regulations of the federal government and the State. The attorney general dictates the parameters we must work within. If we ignore what the attorney general says, we are personally liable for any decision that does not follow what we have been told.
When we hold hearings, I hear the cases because Commissioner Avants has disclosed she has a relative that works for the company. Commissioner Christiansen said he had a brother that own less than 2 percent in a particular business. I believe Paul Christiansen is your uncle, Mr. Whitney. Is that correct? I am concerned because you did not disclose that information.
Mr. Whitney:
Yes.
Mr. Breslow:
Neither Mr. Christiansen nor Mr. Whitney has ever disclosed that fact publicly. As of today, Mr. Christiansen is no longer the chairman of the TSA. I have to think the reason this was a surprise today has something to do with that. Certainly if we would have worked with him, we would have found out. We do support this, but this is a surprise attack on the agency. It is a surprise for me because I consider Mr. Whitney one of the top business people in this State. We will continue to work with him.
Chairman Shaffer:
I am sure Mr. Whitney is going to work within the scope of the law. I am sure he will give you the chance to work this out.
Mr. Whitney:
I assure you that my uncle’s position has nothing to do with what I have done today. I want that on the record. I am disappointed you would think that.
Senator Hardy:
That was a very unfair shot. The legislative process is an open process whereby anyone can come here and express concerns with a bill, or express concerns pertaining to the legislation process. They should not have to sit here and have accusations of impropriety levied against them at the witness table. I am unhappy this occurred here today. I want that on the record. I think that was an unfair shot.
Chairman Shaffer:
We are not going to take action on this bill today because some of our members have unanswered questions. We should be able to get those questions answered within the next 24 hours and then we will move on this bill.
Mr. A. R. (Bob) Fairman of No Stress Express did not testify but asked that his prepared document (Exhibit F) be entered into the record. If there is no further testimony on S.B. 192, we will take testimony on S.B. 288.
SENATE BILL 288: Increases fees for compensable trips of taxicabs and driver’s permit to operate taxicab. (BDR 58-1251)
Mr. Dahlia:
I have a document for the committee to review (Exhibit G). The Taxicab Authority in Clark County is totally self-funded by the taxicab industry. The agency has not been before the board and has not requested any type of a rate increase or increase in trip charges since 1987. Since September 11, 2001 the taxicab industry in Clark County has taken a major hit in its business. In 2001 our projected trips fell by 1,000,000. In 2002 projected trips fell by 650,000. For over 2 years the agency has lost $242,0000 in revenue. No one could foresee the fiscal impact September 11, 2001 would have on our agency. In 2001 we had $1,400,000 in reserve. Due to operating costs we are now down to $200,000 in our reserve.
The industry has begun to slowly rebound. Since the war in Iraq, no one knows exactly what is going to happen. The taxicab industry in Clark County is in competition with the limousine industry. I come before you today asking for a 5‑cent increase on trip charges. Without the increase my agency will lose 19 percent of our staff and that means 11 of 60 people will be laid off.
What is important to the community and me is we subsidize the Senior Right Program in Clark County. Since 1980, we have been contributing $278,000 annually to subsidize seniors and physically challenged people. If S.B. 288 is passed, we will increase that contribution to $378,000 annually. Without the passage of S.B. 288, we will lose all of our peace officers at McCarran International Airport.
Senate Bill 288 will also allow us to recoup a small amount of the money it costs to process a new applicant. We are asking that the fee for a new applicant increase from $20 to $40, and the renewal fee to increase from $5 to $10. We have 4,577 taxicab permits. Each year drivers come before us to renew their permits. Each year they are required to bring in health card documentation. I have three ladies who handle the transactions pertaining to these 4,577 permits. They handle roughly 650 transactions each week. If S.B. 288 does not go through, I have to lay off one of the employees.
We are charged by NRS to conduct quarterly safety inspections of all taxicabs. There are between 2000 and 2300 taxicabs on the road right now. I have five employees that only conduct inspections. If S.B. 288 does not go through I lose one of them as well.
If S.B. 288 passes, we are also asking for additional staffing. I am asking for two additional dispatch security officer positions. We have implemented our own dispatch system. We find this better serves the community and public. When there is a problem, the dispatch security officer can get in touch with this agency directly. Our response time is usually under 30 minutes. We are able to track our responses, the complaints, and how we resolved each one.
We are also asking for one more management analyst. The idea behind the management analyst is they can assist in auditing cab companies and in budget preparation.
I have 23 investigators and 7 officers responsible for patrolling Clark County. Thirty percent of my vehicle fleet has over 80,000 miles on them; some have more than 110,000 miles. If S.B. 288 does not pass, I am going to be putting police officers on the streets in potentially unsafe vehicles. We try to follow the same guidelines as the Nevada Highway Patrol.
In 1991 this agency received a National Award of Excellence from the Department of Transportation. In 1999 the American Society of Industry recognized us for our outstanding efforts in making the taxicab industry safe. Other large metropolitan agencies come to us and are using the Taxicab Authority of the Department of Business and Industry, as a guideline to their agency.
Chairman Shaffer:
Ms. Carol Sala, Administrator for the Division for Aging Services, did not testify, but asked that her prepared testimony (Exhibit H) be entered into the record. If there is no additional testimony on S.B. 288, I will accept a motion.
SENATOR CARE MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 288.
SENATOR CARLTON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman Shaffer:
We will now open the hearing on S.B. 322.
SENATE BILL 322: Revises provisions relating to self-insurance for taxicabs regulated by Taxicab Authority. (BDR 58-1157)
Mr. Milliken:
I have an amendment (Exhibit I) for your review. We had originally asked that subsection 4 of the bill be deleted entirely. Only the last two lines should be deleted. The line should say, “A certificate holder to whom the Department of Motor Vehicles has issued a certificate of self-insurance may self-insure.” That should remain in the bill.
At the present time we can self-insure for limousines, buses, or any other vehicles we have. For taxicabs we can only self-insure up to $50,000. Anything beyond $50,000 we have to reinsure. This bill would simply allow us to self‑insure for all vehicles we have.
Chairman Shaffer:
It sounds very simple to me.
Cathie Olendorff, Corporate Counsel, Yellow-Checker-Star Cab Company:
I echo what Mr. Milliken has said. I would also like to point out that northern Nevada can self-insure taxicabs because they are under the regulation of the Transportation Services Authority. It is really at odds with the regulation in Clark County.
Brent Bell, Whittlesea Bell Transportation:
We operate Whittlesea Blue Cab and Henderson Taxi. We also support this bill.
Mr. Milliken:
Chairman Shaffer, this bill has no time line on it. We would like to have this made effective upon passage and approval.
James Gomes, Lobbyist, Ambassador Limousine/Nellis Cab, and On Demand Sedan/Desert Cab:
We also support this bill.
Chairman Shaffer:
If there is no additional testimony on S.B. 322, I will accept a motion.
SENATOR HARDY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 322 WITH THE AMENDMENTS MR. MILLIKEN ARTICULATED INCLUDING THE PASSAGE AND APPROVAL TIME LINE.
SENATOR AMODEI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR CARLTON WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Shaffer:
We will now open the hearing on S.B. 476.
SENATE BILL 476: Makes various changes relating to regulation of taxicabs. (BDR 58-538)
Mr. Dahlia:
This bill is a house-cleaning bill with regard to NRS 706.8818 and NRS 706.8842. It changes some wording and outlines the terms for board members. It addresses the required qualifications for an applicant to obtain a taxicab permit. It directs fees collected in conjunction with fines into the fund to help defray our operating costs. This bill seeks authority to increase our investigative undercover fees from $1000 to $2000. It also changes wording to conform to the federal motor carrier regulations.
Ann Elworth, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Taxicab Authority, Department of Business and Industry:
I would like to address the change in section 1. There is an inconsistency between NRS 706.8818 and NRS 232A.020. Currently NRS 706.8818 states that no member of the Taxicab Authority Board may serve for longer than 6 years. This became an issue when terms had expired, but no new board members had been appointed.
We had two board members whose terms ended but no replacement appointees had been made. If we had followed the letter of the law in that instance, we would have had a three-member board and a difficult time establishing a quorum. This bill will allow for board members to sit until new appointees replace them.
Senator Hardy:
What is the current term?
Ms. Elworth:
The current term is 3 years, with one reappointment allowed, for a total of 6 years.
Senator Hardy:
This is just codifying in law what is current practice?
Ms. Elworth:
Not necessarily. We felt this would make the terms of the Taxicab Authority Board members consistent with those of other board members. Their appointment would not automatically expire at the end of 6 years, which is how it currently reads. It would not expire until someone was appointed to fill that position, so we would not have vacant positions after 6 years.
Senator Hardy:
In the back of the bill, section 2, subsection 6, where we are changing the amount that can be in petty cash, when was that last adjusted?
Mr. Dahlia:
It has been $1000 for the 13 years I have been with this agency.
Chairman Shaffer:
If there is no additional testimony on S.B. 476, I will accept a motion.
SENATOR HARDY MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 476.
SENATOR SCHNEIDER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR CARLTON WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Senator Hardy:
Chairman Shaffer, will you accept a motion on S.B. 192?
Chairman Shaffer:
Yes, we will take a motion at this time.
SENATOR HARDY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 192 WITH THE AMENDMENTS THAT WERE PROVIDED BY THE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES AUTHORITY, AND THE AMENDMENT PROVIDED BY MR. WHITNEY.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR CARLTON ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Shaffer:
Thank you all for coming to testify today. If there is no further business, this meeting is now adjourned at 4:17 p.m.
Sherry Rodriguez,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer, Chairman
DATE: