MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION Sixty-eighth Session May 16, 1995 The Committee on Transportation was called to order at 1:15 p.m., on Tuesday, May 16, 1995, Chairman Thomas Batten presiding in Room 119 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Thomas Batten, Chairman Mrs. Vonne Chowning, Chairman Mr. David Allard, Vice Chairman Mr. David Goldwater, Vice Chairman Mr. John Carpenter Mrs. Marcia de Braga Ms. Genie Ohrenschall Mr. Dennis Nolan Ms. Patricia Tripple COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Bernie Anderson, Excused GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblyman Thomas W. Fettic, Assembly District 40 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Mouritsen, Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: See Exhibit B A work session was opened. A work session document was distributed (Exhibit C). ASSEMBLY BILL 425 - Requires suspension of driver's licenses of persons who are in arrears in payment for support of children. Assemblyman Thomas Fettic, Assembly District 40, stated he was at the work session to respond to any questions on A.B. 425. The bill deals with the suspension and/or restriction of a driver's license for parents who are chronically in arrears on child support or who refuse to pay child support. He introduced Mr. Ben Graham. Assemblyman Chowning proposed an amendment to Page 3, Subsection 3, (C). She reminded the committee the parent needed to be able to visit the child. She explained Mr. Fettic agreed to the proposed amendment. Child and Family Services, Welfare Division, agreed also. The amendment would say "visitation rights pursuant to court order". As part of the restricted use of the driver's license, this provision would allow the person to visit their children, pursuant to the court order. Mr. Ben Graham, Clark County District Attorney's Office, District Attorney's Association, offered his assistance in questioning on the bill. He felt safeguards had been worked out dealing with people's ability to earn a living, seek medical treatment and see their child or children will not be interfered with. This should become a useful tool in areas of chronic, wilful nonpayment of child support. Mrs. Chowning asked if Mr. Graham was going to discuss the proposed amendments (Exhibit D). She wondered why, in number one, the Welfare Division of the Department of Human Resources is deleted and district attorney or other public agency is inserted. Mr. Graham said the Welfare Division has the primary responsibility for overseeing child support collection. Many young children are being supported by tax dollars with welfare grants. They contract with district attorney's offices in various counties. Instead of being listed as the Department of Human Resources, collection is placed with the district attorney or other public agencies, Welfare might seek restitution themselves. Even though the division is given the ultimate responsibility, they contract down to the district attorney's office. Mrs. Chowning asked if Welfare agreed with the language. Mr. Graham explained the Welfare Division drafted the language. Chairman Batten noted the committee had the opportunity to review the amendments in the last committee meeting. He asked Mrs. Chowning to explain the other new amendment. Mrs. Chowning explained the amendment would be on Page 3, Section 3, of the bill, adding visitation rights pursuant to court order to the uses allowed to the restricted driver's license. ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN MOOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 425. ASSEMBLYMAN CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. A work session was opened on Assembly Bill 397. ASSEMBLY BILL 397 - Requires that certain vehicles purchased by a public body comply with average fuel economy standards established by Federal Government. Assemblyman David Goldwater, Assembly District 10, stated a subcommittee had been appointed to work on A.B. 397. The recommendation of the subcommittee was to gut the bill as written. Mr. Goldwater said the scope of the bill was too broad. The subcommittee wished to find a way to achieve the original objectives of the bill. The bill's scope was limited to only the state and when the state purchases a vehicle it must meet some degree of efficiency. The goal of the bill was to allow the state to conform to energy standards and to focus on environmentalism and conservation of energy. Instead of taking a giant step in this direction, the subcommittee decided to take a small step. He referred the committee to recommended amendments discussed at a prior meeting. Additional amendments were requested by Dave McNeil, Nevada Department of Business and Industry, Nevada State Energy Office. Mr. Goldwater discussed the amendments. He noted the second proposed amendment was not acceptable. The subcommittee recommended amend and do pass on A.B. 397. He noted an additional amendment was suggested by the Energy Office limiting the scope of the bill to passenger vehicles only. It was not recommended to the committee because it went against the spirit of the bill. Currently exemptions exist if required. Mrs. Chowning asked if there would be an impact on the state purchasing department because of higher vehicle cost due to the changed standards. Mr. Goldwater stated there would probably not be. Mrs. Chowning asked if more rigid cost measures would be implemented and asked if state purchasing would be mandated to find vehicles which are the most fuel efficient. Mr. Goldwater said the idea is to prevent people from going out and purchasing the biggest, fastest vehicle available. Mr. Dave McNeil, Energy Program Specialist, Nevada State Energy Office, introduced Kathy Pruitt, vehicle buyer, Division of Purchasing, State of Nevada. He stated he and Ms. Pruitt had worked extensively with the various implementation issues in A.B. 397. He concurred with Mr. Goldwater's statements regarding the proposed amendment. Mr. McNeil distributed a proposed amendment to Assembly Amendment Number 309 to A.B. 397 (Exhibit E) as enumerated previously by Mr. Goldwater. Mr. Goldwater stated the amendments were to eliminate the standards established by the federal government and to insert the words "accumulative net" after the first word in existing Subsection 3 (c) and others as discussed in (Exhibit E). The subcommittee did not feel number 2 of Mr. McNeil's proposed amendments necessary. Mr. McNeil stated the existing recommendations have eliminated the reference to passenger vehicles since the Division of Purchasing has the authority to set whatever exemptions they feel are appropriate. Regarding the third recommendation in (Exhibit E), Subsections 3 C and D, he said these primarily deal with proposed reporting requirements of the Division of Purchasing back to the legislature at the beginning of each session. These were recommendations for the intent of the reporting requirements as worked out between the State Energy Office, Division of Purchasing and the Governor's Office. ASSEMBLYMAN CHOWNING MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 397. ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION. Assemblyman Allard asked if there was certainty it would not cost state purchasing any more for vehicles. Mr. Goldwater stated it was a factor when vehicles were purchased but was not the sole measure of what was purchased. Ms. Kathy Pruitt, Department of Administration, Purchasing Division, Vehicle Buyer, believed this would have an impact on the state. All requisitions will have to be reviewed. She did not believe passenger cars would be a problem. However, there are many different combinations of trucks. The Chevrolet Caprice is usually purchased for six passenger requirements because it is less expensive than the other "Big Three" automakers. This year Dodge Intrepids were purchased, which met the fuel economy, but the Caprice does not. Regarding trucks, Ms. Pruitt explained each agency has its own needs. Usually specifications are delivered and a requisition is issued. A bid is constructed to obtain the lowest price to meet their specifications. Adding the fuel economy factor will impact the agencies having certain needs. She did not feel it would be a problem to guide agencies to purchase more fuel efficient engines. Some backlash is anticipated, however from agencies who will not like being told what to buy. Mr. Allard asked if Ms. Pruitt anticipated a fiscal impact in vehicle prices and in the time to be more involved in the purchasing of the vehicles. Ms. Pruitt replied affirmatively noting an agency could have their needs met with a compact truck, but there may be no truck in the size range meeting the fuel economy standards. The agency may want the small truck with a bigger engine which does not meet the fuel economy standards. The agency will then go up to a half ton truck to get the engine in that class which will cost more. Mr. Allard said the amendment states "the chief may prescribe by regulation under which he will grant an exemption from the provisions of Subsection 1". He asked if Ms. Pruitt felt more time would be necessary for policing. Ms. Pruitt answered affirmatively. She stated she had discussed the issue with the current purchasing administrator, Tom Tatro. He indicated Purchasing may not be in a position to determine what will meet an agency's needs. Mr. Tatro suggested the possibility of forming a committee to determine what the exemptions should be and review the requisitions. A bottleneck could be created by the arrival of new vehicles each model year. These vehicles, 300 to 400 per model year, arrive in October or November. Mr. Allard wondered if the bill needed to be referred to Ways and Means. He also wondered if a letter of intent to the agencies would facilitate the issue. Mr. Goldwater noted he felt state agencies, like everyone, had a hard time changing. He did not understand the logic of how the price of vehicles purchased would be increased. Mr. McNeil said the State Energy Office is sensitive to not increasing the administrative burden on any state agency. Also the Energy Office is sensitive to the adverse fiscal impact as a result of the bill's requirements. The intent of the Energy Office, regarding the type of exemption adopted by the Purchasing Division, considers the life cycle cost applied to vehicle procurement. This will go beyond the present situation where initial vehicle cost is considered by low bid, to considering the fuel economy of various vehicles. He advocated the Division of Purchasing consider two different comparably equipped vehicles by bid as well as the estimated cost of fuel consumed over a 80,000 mileage interval, which has been determined to be the life cycle of a vehicle purchased or leased. Based on the 80,000 miles if the reduced cost to purchase one vehicle is significantly less than the total cost of the fuel savings resulting by purchasing a more efficient vehicle, the Division of Energy has no problem with allowing the continued purchase of a vehicle not quite as fuel efficient. This would not result in a negative fiscal impact. Mr. Allard agreed with the policy issue and intent of the bill. He reserved the right to address his fiscal concerns in Ways and Means. Chairman Batten announced the bill would be voted on. If it passed out of committee it would be rereferred to Ways and Means. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. A work session was opened on A.B. 421. ASSEMBLY BILL 421 - Revises provisions relating to taxation of liquefied petroleum gas. Assemblyman Tripple discussed the subcommittee meeting on A.B. 421. She noted it was well attended. Referring to Line 5, Ms. Tripple explained 6.7 cents tax per gallon for liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) was being charged for all who buy it and not just to one entity. To be equitable between LPG and compressed natural gas (CNG) the committee recommended the tax rate be 9 cents per gallon for CNG. Ms. Tripple explained the formula used to achieve this comparable rate is very complicated due to different expansion coefficients and other items. It was the decision of the subcommittee that other forms of gas taxation could be addressed as needed. The subcommittee recommended to amend and do pass with changes on Section 1, Line 1, Section 1, Line 7 to delete 23 cents and insert 9 cents. Mr. Goldwater asked how one is taxed in a gaseous state and one is taxed in a liquid state. Ms. Tripple stated this supposedly takes care of that. She also noted Assemblyman Ohrenschall and Assemblyman Batten were members of the subcommittee. Mr. Richard Bend, Reagent International, explained his business was ethanol suppliers to Nevada. He requested comparable treatment for ethanol but only during the times when ethanol is not otherwise mandated. During the winter months ethanol is blended in Washoe and Clark Counties extensively in order to combat carbon monoxide. It has helped reduce the carbon monoxide emissions by as much as twenty five percent. During the summer there is no incentive or mandate. It is felt Nevada is going to get the "short shrift" during reformulated gasoline because reformulated gasoline that contains oxygenates and lower amounts of toxins will be sold in areas such as Los Angeles, Chicago and Dallas where it is required by federal law. There is no such requirement in Nevada. An incentive is being requested of the legislature so these types of fuels, reformulated gasolines, can be consumed. General Motors just announced, beginning with the 1997 model year, they will be manufacturing all light duty pickup trucks to run on gasoline, ethanol or any combination thereof. This is a significant breakthrough in the use of alternative fuels. It is being attempted to get an ethanol infrastructure developed in the state so the state can take advantage of this clean fuel. Ms. Helen Foley, Reagent International and Western Ethanol, explained when most people want to do something to clean up the air, it is very difficult. During the mandated months most people do not realize the gas contains approximately ten percent ethanol. This has aided in a significant cleanup of the air in southern Nevada and Washoe County. During the months where no mandate exists, it is difficult to find ethanol or a cleaner burning fuel. Ms. Foley and those she represents feel there should be some type of incentive for the distributors to sell this type of fuel and for consumers to purchase it. The fiscal impact would be approximately $242,000 annually. Although southern Nevada is not designated as a problem area during the summer months, it does not mean less carbon monoxide is being deposited in the air. It means without the weather inversions and other weather conditions the problem is less crucial. The committee was urged to include ethanol in their considerations. A proposed amendment was submitted for committee consideration (Exhibit F). Assemblyman Ohrenschall asked if the fiscal impact discussed took into account that during the mandated months the tax break is not being asked for. Ms. Foley stated it would only be during the summer months when not mandated by air pollution authorities. ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 421 WITH THE AMENDMENTS RECOMMENDED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE. ASSEMBLYMAN ALLARD SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. On the second amendment, Subsection C, the rate of nine cents during the mandated months and remaining at twenty-three cents during the nonmandated months, a motion was called for by Chairman Batten. No motion was received by the chair. Ms. Ohrenschall asked the committee to consider submitting a bill draft request to allow for telephonic verification of the existence of auto insurance for committee introduction. ASSEMBLYMAN ALLARD MOVED FOR COMMITTEE REQUEST FOR A BILL DRAFT FOR TELEPHONIC VERIFICATION OF AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE. ASSEMBLYMAN CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. The hearing was opened on Assembly Bill 103. ASSEMBLY BILL 103 - Makes various changes relating to regulation of taxicabs in certain counties. Mr. Sven Nilsson, Driver, Yellow Cab Company, Las Vegas, Nevada, and Advisory Director, Professional Drivers Association, testified in support of A.B. 103 from prepared remarks (Exhibit G). Discussing Section 1 of A. B. 103, Mr. Nilsson stated the most important aspect is to consolidate the penalty statutes for cab drivers into one uniform statute. The problem with penalty statutes in three different places is a driver cited for a similar offense, while having previous offenses, could receive widely different punishment. If taxi drivers A and B each had one prior violation on his twelve month record, with driver A being cited for not having a driver's license in his possession, and driver B for refusing an orderly passenger, then if both drivers are cited for assuring taxi meter is engaged, then driver A is fined twice as much as driver B. This is because both his violations fall under the same penalty statute. Mr. Nilsson encouraged consolidation of penalty statutes under one section. The Taxi Cab Authority's opinion on this issue is "if it is not broken, do not fix it". Current penalty statutes give the Taxicab Authority a great deal of leeway. They can take any local or state law and fine the driver under N.R.S. 706.885 to the maximum of $500 for a first offense or revoke or suspend his license for a first offense. This is for violation of any city or state law. Mr. Nilsson felt this was too broad. Other more specific penalty statutes referring to cab driver violations do not allow this. The proposed statute also allows the Taxicab Authority the ability to revoke or suspend a driver's permit or impose the maximum fine for the commission of any felony or gross misdemeanor. Discussing Section 2, Subsection 5, Mr. Nilsson noted he had been attending the Taxicab Authority hearings for several years. He is not allowed to speak except to testify if called by one of the sides. For an average fine of $32, cabdrivers make all sorts of procedural mistakes. Often they do not understand the difference between an administrative hearing and a regular courtroom proceeding. The Taxicab Authority can and often brings in affidavits from out of state witnesses. The cabdriver is not allowed to cross-examine these people. The cabdrivers are unaware of the procedural requirements to gain similar rights, such as submitting interrogatories, never having been informed by the Taxicab Authority. Fourteen percent of drivers appearing in the hearings are found not guilty, even though they felt they had a strong enough case to take to a hearing. They often lose a day's pay to attend the hearing. The cases do not have great legal significance due to the low fines. The maximum action the Authority can take is to pull a driver's license. The request is for drivers to be represented by a non-attorney, approved by the Taxicab Authority. It is being requested that the Authority publish a brochure describing the rights of drivers in hearings. It was noted the Authority does publish limited information. Mr. Nilsson discussed grievance hearings. In Subsection 8 it is requested all fines collected pursuant to the section be deposited with the state treasurer instead of the Taxicab Authority Fund because drivers do not like the feeling they are being fined and the Authority keeps the money. They are the judge, jury and get the profits. Mr. Nilsson stated he did not think the Authority was opposed to this. Section 3 regards requirements for a driver to prohibit smoking in his taxicab, to be able to accept any lawful gratuity which is given, offered or promised to him while on duty. The Authority had not expressed an opinion on this issue. The cab driver is not to mislead or divert passengers from one establishment or another because they get a kickback. It is desired this be illegal but not enforced in the manner so drivers are prevented from accepting a tip from a tour director, who is paying for his party, or from any particular person who wishes to tip him in a lawful manner. The Professional Drivers Association does not want drivers to be required to be on duty more than ten hours in an eighteen hour period. The Drivers Association wishes to amend the bill as explained in (Exhibit H). Many drivers want to work longer hours when the company offers the opportunity. Some drivers, however, are not that capable. Mr. Nilsson referred the committee to (Exhibit I) noting it contained a copy of the federal Department of Transportation (DOT) law stating a truck driver may not work more than ten hours following eight consecutive hours off duty. DOT has an ongoing study on the effects of fatigue and on the effects of hours of service. A report was issued in 1978, with another expected later this year, excerpts of which are included in (Exhibit I). The conclusion states there is a deterioration of service after six hours in bus drivers and after seven hours with truck drivers. Mr. Nilsson proceeded to discuss proposed amendments contained in (Exhibit H). In (Exhibit H), Section 3, Subsection 5, the Taxicab Authority administrator shall not adopt any regulation and a certificate holder shall not establish any rule or regulation which requires a driver to remit to a certificate holder or to the taxicab authority any amount registered on his taxi meter he has not collected from a person hiring his taxicab. If passengers do not pay their fare, some companies expect the driver to pay the fare out of his own pocket. Some companies, however, excuse the fares on a regular basis. At Yellow Cab a limitation exists whereby when the fare goes beyond $20, the driver may require a deposit before the trip. It is felt the company should be responsible for "runs" and not the cabdriver. Some companies require the drivers to only report the "run" to the police and have their log sheet signed by a police officer. (Exhibit H), Section 5, asks that one member of the Taxicab Authority board is or has been a driver for at least five years in the county within the jurisdiction of the Taxicab Authority. The board sometimes makes decisions without the input of taxi drivers. The decisions are made with no knowledge of the impact the decisions could make for the cabdrivers. Mr. Nilsson indicated the drivers may be willing to compromise on this measure as long as they have some assured input on questions before the board. Appeals processes were discussed. The appeal process is felt to be hopeless because the Authority does not listen. Section 6 deals with subpoena issuance. (Exhibit H), Section 7, Subsection 1, requests the wording "general public" replace "customers of taxicabs". Originally "general public" was in the law. "General public" has been found by a district court to include the welfare of cabdriver. It is desired the Taxicab Authority consider the welfare of cabdriver in making allocations because this is something which affects the welfare of cabdriver. In December, 1988, the Taxicab Authority over allocated. Many drivers left the industry. Section 9 is a rewording to facilitate the current situation. Section 10 streamlines the language of the two-way radio system. It is archaic to insist a certificate holder shall have each cab equipped with a two way mobile radio when this is the age of cellular telephone communication. Computer communication systems, global positioning systems, automatic vehicle locater systems all exist. The wording should be as stated in (Exhibit H), Page 5, Section 10. Subsection 11, Number 3, deals with unit numbers of cabs. Law enforcement likes to find drivers in trouble. This can be done more easily with a large number on top of the cab. Section 12, Subsections 15 and 16 deal with mechanical aspects of the cabs including safety belts being in clean and operable condition. Section 14 corrects wording making it clearer and preventing misinterpretation. Section 15 deals with a driver not taking a longer route to a destination unless authorized by the passenger. Section 16 is similar to proposed rewording the Taxicab Authority has proposed dealing with refusal provisions. OSHA statistics show a cabdriver is forty times more likely to be killed on the job than the general public. Section 17 alters wording regarding taximeters. Section 18 ties in with other sections. Section 19 seeks an exemption for cabdriver from wearing seatbelts while on duty. Mr. Nilsson noted this seems like a shocking request at first. However, in the case of cabdrivers in Clark County, approximately twelve drivers have been killed in violence in the last twenty years. None have been killed in traffic accidents in twenty years. The trips taken by cabdrivers are short. No statistics are kept by the Taxicab Authority on injuries incurred by cabdrivers due to accidents but statistics are kept on deaths. Drivers are encouraged to wear their seat belts at every opportunity. However, drivers should have a choice so when faced with the situation of someone in the cab, his sense of civic responsibility does not force him to keep his seatbelt on. He referred the committee to statements from cabdrivers, contained in (Exhibit I), involved in violent situations where they have been hurt or have been able to escape from the situations because they were or were not wearing a seat belt. Statutes in New York, California, and Manitoba, Canada, were provided in which exemptions are granted to cabdrivers for not wearing their seat belts. This is common in Canada, as well as passengers being required to wear seat belts. Mr. Frank Batchelor, Yellow Cab Driver, Las Vegas, testified in favor of A.B. 103. Mr. Jim Anania, Las Vegas, testified in favor of A.B. 103. He encouraged passage of no smoking in taxis, the length of shift provision, and suggested including a forty hour work week. As a condition of employment in Las Vegas all cab companies require drivers to work a minimum of fifty to sixty hours or more. He referred to this requirement as "the borderline of sweatshop working environment". He felt it a sad commentary that in 1995 a group of workers had to come before a legislative body to request to work only forty hours per week. Drivers fight a work reduction quota called the "average". Drivers get fired for not producing enough money per shift. This "average" makes drivers drive aggressively, dangerously and illegally. Mr. Anania felt the company has a right to expect a certain amount of production from its drivers provided it is calculated in a fair and reasonable manner. Mr. William W. Morris, Attorney, Ace, Union, Vegas Western, North Las Vegas and Virgin Valley Cab Companies, testified in opposition to A.B. 103, from prepared remarks (Exhibit J). Mr. Ed Atkins, Investigator, State of Nevada Taxicab Authority, testified in opposition to A.B. 103. He stated he had been involved in taxicab regulation for twenty five years. He spoke from prepared remarks (Exhibit K). He referred the committee to a packet of information (Exhibit L). Chairman Batten announced the hearing on A.B. 103 would be reconvened on May 23, 1995, at 1:15 p.m. The meeting will be teleconferenced if the room in Carson City is available. Mrs. Chowning stated it was regrettable everyone was unable to make their statements. She thanked everyone for their interest. There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 3:23 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Barbara Prudic Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Thomas Batten, Chairman Assemblyman Vonne Chowning, Chairman Assembly Committee on Transportation May 16, 1995 Page