MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION Sixty-eighth Session April 27, 1995 The Senate Committee on Transportation was called to order by Chairman William R. O'Donnell, at 2:40 p.m., on Thursday, April 27, 1995, in Room 119 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator William R. O'Donnell, Chairman Senator Maurice Washington, Vice Chairman Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen Senator Jon C. Porter Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr. Senator Raymond C. Shaffer Senator O. C. Lee GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblywoman Gene Wines Segerblom STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Don O. Williams, Chief Principal Research Analyst Diane Rea, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Ernie Valentine, Self Larry Stout, Assistant Chief, Registration Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS) Kurt Weinrich, P.E., Director, Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) Stephanie Tyler, Lobbyist, Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) of Washoe County Ray Chenowith, Nellis Cab Company, Las Vegas, Nevada William W. Morris, Attorney at Law Bob Crowell, Gray Line Tours of Southern Nevada Barry Perea, President and General Manager, Gray Line Tours of Southern Nevada Scott Keller, President, K-T Services, Las Vegas Thomas Fronapfel, Assistant Director for Planning, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) Bruce Arkell, Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Coordinator, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) Stephen Smith, Vice President, Frontier Tours David V. Lippincott, President, Sierra Nevada Stage Line Larry Bell, Whittlesea Bell Entities in Las Vegas Glen Nevin, Former Chairman of the Senate Committee on Transportation Senator O'Donnell opened the hearing on SENATE BILL (S.B.) 340. SENATE BILL 340: Revises provisions relating to disclosure of odometer reading upon transfer of ownership of motor vehicle. (BDR 43-1327) Ernie Valentine, Self, stated: This S.B. 340 was drafted at my request by Senator Jacobsen. This does nothing more than forces the state to do what the federal government has done on the federal odometer, is all. They say that when the ownership of a vehicle, and the title is not present; you should use a power of attorney. They set forth, in the federal law, the exact wording of the power of attorney and the exact form that it should be printed. The only part of it that is really concerned with the state would be line 7 and 8 on the back page. That is the one that said, `The department may charge a fee not to exceed 50 cents for each form it provides.' I just am a great believer that the industry should pay their own bills, and that is the reason for this particular piece of legislature. Senator O'Donnell asked if the industry should pay their own bills? Mr. Valentine nodded "Yes." Larry Stout, Assistant Chief, Registration Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS) testified: The department supports this bill. It is a federal requirement that we have a secured power of attorney, and the department is complying. Those forms have been designed in accordance with the federal standards and have been ordered, and will be available shortly. That part is not a problem. It is nice to see a bill that pays for our forms, so we certainly support that. There is a potential conflict with S.B. 119, which has been previously heard by this committee and simply adopts the federal policy of power regarding odometer laws. Should [S.B.] 119 be adopted, it would repeal Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 484.6066 which is referenced in line 23. Should both bills pass, legal staff of LCB [Legislative Counsel Bureau] would have to reconcile that difference, but that should not be a problem. Other than that, the department has no problems with the bill. SENATE BILL 119: Revises provisions relating to disclosure of odometer reading of motor vehicle and certain other information when ownership of motor vehicle is transferred. (BDR 43-1317) Senator O'Donnell asked if DMV&PS charges $5 for a lost or stolen or misplaced ...? Mr. Stout replied that DMV&PS does. This 50 cents covers the cost of the designing and printing of a secure power of attorney. There is a fiscal note that has been submitted to LCB. It has not been included in the budget. Senator O'Donnell stated that the staff did not get a copy of the fiscal note. Senator O'Donnell asked for any further testimony on S.B. 340 and closed the hearing on that bill. Senator O'Donnell opened the hearing on S.B. 349. SENATE BILL 349: Requires regional transportation commission in certain counties to develop transportation plans and programs in compliance with federal law. (BDR 32-1953) Kurt Weinrich, P.E., Director, Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) testified (Exhibit C) and submitted a letter from Jan Laverty Jones, Mayor of the City of Las Vegas (Exhibit D) in support of the bill. Also provided is a letter in support of S.B. 349 from Iris Bletsch, Mayor, City of Boulder City (Exhibit E). Assemblywoman Gene Wines Segerblom, District No. 22, stated: I support passage of S.B. 349 because it would enable the RTC to provide transportation services not currently provided by either public or private providers. Such services have been requested by some of my constituents in both Boulder City and Henderson. Some of these residents have informed me that private passenger carriers, including taxi cabs, airport shuttles and charter buses do not adequately serve their needs. Some, but not all of Boulder City and Henderson residents, now have access to CAT [Citizens Area Transit] fixed routes, but this is not responsive to that half of Boulder City residents who participated in the 1992 survey, who said they only wanted to make trips within town. Demand responsive shuttle buses would meet this demand. I also know that RTC, whose policy is to contract competitively for all the public transit services it provides, will involve the private sector in any such new services. Senator Porter stated that he wanted to speak in favor of this bill. There are some transportation problems. He said there is not a current system that is readily available for the citizens of the areas being addressed. There is a strong need for some transportation that cannot be supplied by the private sector at this time. Mr. Weinrich stated that Assemblyman Richard Perkins of District 23 cannot attend the hearing today; however, has he asked that his written testimony be presented to the committee (Exhibit F). Senator O'Donnell asked Mr. Weinrich to explain section 2, subsection 1, A through F, and explain what RTC wants to do. Mr. Weinrich responded: Section 1 deals with chapter 373 of the NRS, which is the motor vehicle fuel tax law. The language in italics proposes to change or modify the state law so that the process of developing the Regional Transportation Plan and the Transportation Improvement Program, that is mandated in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), is adequately recognized. Some of the features of ISTEA that Congress has required of metropolitan areas and of the states, particularly to the area of capital investment decisions, would be addressed there. This would seem to be more of a housekeeping measure in terms of our enabling statute since, in the last 4 years, the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) has worked very closely with us, and we understand with the Washoe RTC, in accommodating the local transportation planning process, so that everyone can comply with the ISTEA. We are becoming concerned, however, in terms of the statements being made by the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] and by the Federal Highway Administration [FHA] in terms of our planning process; needing to get into implementing some of the plans that we have had on the books for some time. In terms of the subsections, until we get to ... basically, all of section 1 deals with that issue of conforming the RTC's mandated planning process with what we are doing under the ISTEA mandates. Section 2, which amends chapter 377A of the NRS; this is the sales tax law for transportation. There are some technical terms being changed. The word `handicapped' being changed to `persons with disabilities' to be consistent with Americans With Disabilities Act. Recognizing, also, in line 42, programs to reduce or manage automobile traffic. This is a direct mandate from ISTEA to the RTC and to the state department of transportation under the Clean Air Act. Line 43, `Other transportation services requested by the general public'; that is what Assemblywoman Segerblom and Mayor Bletsch and Mayor Jones had addressed in their letters and testimony. I think the last sentence is to simply conform that any ... require the RTC services, that it actually sponsors and provides on the street ... would have been included and described in the planning process leading up to that service provision. Senator O'Donnell stated that lines 42 and 43 seem broad. He asked what Mr. Weinrich envisions happening? Mr. Weinrich replied: Giving the example of Boulder City, if the bill were passed, then we can go back to the city council of Boulder City and to the residents there, and begin designing and crafting some kind of system response to their need. Right now, we are told by our council that we cannot even design a shuttle bus system for the general public that might be command responsive because we are not, and able to perform that function under the law. Once we have gone through the planning process, and designed a system, then it would be a determination made in consultation between the city council in that case, and the RTC as to what kind of system to provide, whether or not it is economically viable and what it would look like. Then we would go into a decision to implement such a system, and if that is the decision of the commission, we would procure service providers to actually provide that service. The commission adopted in 1990 is one of its very first policies concerning its transit program; that it would contract out all of its public transit services using the private sector to the maximum possible through a competitive process. This has been encouraged by the federal government as well. Senator O'Donnell asked if RTC would contract out to a private company to do a shuttle service? Mr. Weinrich stated that it will be either a private or public entity. There is no restriction under the federal rules as to who might compete for such a contract. The Fixed-Route System and the Parent-Transit System for the disabled and seniors, were competitively procured with a private sector. He said there has been a private common carrier of passengers, regulated by the Public Service Commission (PCS) of Nevada, who basically served the Strip. However, in the 1980s, citizens came forward demanding more transit service throughout the communities. The private entity could not expand itself and still remain within the PSC's rules governing them, and provide any new services. The services provided by the CAT are in response to the people on Question 10 in November 1990, that included the one-quarter percent sales tax, enabled by S.B. 112 of the Sixty-sixth Session. That provided the local revenue to subsidize the cost of expanding the system to the entire community. SENATE BILL 112 of the Sixty-seventh Session: Authorizes local taxes to improve transportation. (BDR 20-721) Senator O'Donnell asked why RTC will contract out for something that is private, if after S.B. 112 of the Sixty-seventh Session passed, giving the one-quarter percent for RTC to provide the service for the whole community? Mr. Weinrich replied prior to that point, the private sector could not finance the expansion into areas where each route could pay for itself. The PSC could not force a private company to expand into areas that cannot pay for themselves. He said, under the Clean Air Act Amendment of 1990, Clark County has been determined by the federal government to be in non-attainment for carbon monoxide and for particulate matter; they must do everything possible under that federal law to reduce auto traffic. Failure to expand transit service will have a direct effect on the ability of the state to receive any federal transportation funds under the Clean Air Act Amendment. Senator Porter asked why Mr. Weinrich has asked for the changing of page 2, line 8, from "3 years" to "2 years?" Mr. Weinrich explained that the federal requirement is for the Transportation Improvement Program to be a 3-year period. It was miscounted since the early part of the sentence says "the next following year." That is year one, so there are only 2 additional years needed. He said this change complies with ISTEA. Stephanie Tyler, Lobbyist, Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) of Washoe County, testified that the commission supports the language in terms of providing some further flexibility for the RTC. She stated that they are currently negotiating a piece of legislation that will offer some specific alternatives for the Washoe County RTC regarding "Dial A Ride" services. They are looking at cuts in service, but support this bill. Senator Washington asked if the same demands that have come about in southern Nevada have come to Washoe County? Ms. Tyler replied that RTC has had numerous requests for more flexibility. That is what the "Dial A Ride" will cover, by extending the current routes. Senator Washington asked if Washoe County also goes to the private sector for bids to meet the requests or demands? Ms. Tyler replied that they are looking at "on-call operations" for non-fixed routes; non-fixed scheduled services for the general public provided through a common motor carrier. It has to be done privately. Senator Washington asked for comments concerning line 42, page 2; is this all inclusive language, or is it too broad? Ms. Tyler replied she is not in a position to be advising the committee, but it is all encompassing language. Senator O'Donnell asked how this bill will help RTC solve any problems? Ms. Tyler stated that this bill will create flexibility. RTC's intent is to contract with private motor carriers, rather than have a 50-passenger bus running routes that do not have that many customers; with a "Dial A Ride" to service those areas, and take them to the transit system site. Senator Porter asked Mr. Weinrich if the taxi cabs and other transportation are given a certificate of authority for a designated area, or is their license for anywhere in the county? Mr. Weinrich stated that the other parts of chapters 373 and 377A of the NRS provide that the RTC service district is co- terminus with Clark County. Their responsibilities are on the highway side, as well as on the transit side, and are throughout Clark County. Senator O'Donnell asked about the taxi companies? Ray Chenowith, Nellis Cab Company, Las Vegas, Nevada, testified the certificate to each cab company outlines the area that they can operate in. The cab operators, at this time, are operating at full capacity. The operators cannot handle the requests that they have for service. He said the taxicab authority, the people, and other state agencies that determine how many cabs should be on the street, have determined that this is all the cabs they are going to allow. If a call comes in from Boulder City, they do not have a cab to send to Boulder City for the RTC or for anybody else. He said the RTC has never once appeared before the taxicab authority in support of any applications to get more cabs. He said he wishes they would, the operators could use their help. William W. Morris, Attorney at Law, Representing five cab companies in Las Vegas, the owner of which, Mr. Freehas, is here today, stated: As Ray Chenowith points out, the problem with the taxicab operation in Las Vegas is the limitation on the certification. A-North Las Vegas Cab, one of the companies owned by Mr. Freehas, can only pick up in North Las Vegas. They can drop off anyplace in the county, but cannot pick up at the airport, cannot pick up in the City of Las Vegas, cannot pick up in Boulder City, nor Mesquite. Mr. Freehas has created a new cab company in Mesquite, and there are limitations on that authority, too. They can pick up in approximately a 50 mile radius of Mesquite, Bunkerville, Overton, and drop off in Las Vegas, but they cannot pick up in Las Vegas and take them back into Mesquite or other municipalities. The long-term solution, which I do not know if it can be addressed this session, but should be addressed; is complete uniformity of all of the 12 certificates that are issued in Clark County, permitting every cab company down there to serve every community. That would alleviate a lot of problems. Bob Crowell, Gray Line Tours of Southern Nevada, testified: I have also been asked by Daryl Capurro of the Nevada Motor Transport Association, to give a `me too' upon the conclusion of Mr. Perea's testimony, since he is in another meeting today. Mr. Perea will address Gray Lines' concerns with respect to this particular bill, and those concerns will primarily focus around that area that you were just talking about. Subsection f on page 2, is reported to allow a RTC throughout the State of Nevada and in any county with a population in excess of 100,000, to provide other transportation services as requested by the general public. He asked for consideration of the committee for a proposed amendment (Exhibit G). Barry Perea, President and General Manager, Gray Line Tours of Southern Nevada, testified: Our sister company used to be Las Vegas Transit System, which was the private transit system in Clark County prior to the CAT coming into existence. We have a good deal of concern over the broad language of letting the CAT system or the RTC get into any service that the general public asks for. Mr. Perea stated that his company has no problem with any part of the bill other than that language. They endorse the public transit and the use of any vehicle that has multi-passenger usage, to help with the pollution and the traffic problem that is in southern Nevada. He said the bill says there will be public hearings. The "Approval of a Transit Terminal Transfer Site Study" was put on a consent agenda. "The consent agenda is all items marked with an asterisk which are considered by RTC to be routine and may be acted upon in one motion; however, the commission may discuss any context item individually if requested by a commission member or a citizen when the consent agenda is considered for approval." That is a safeguard for that consent agenda's scenario. He said, as a member of the general public, it would not have given you a matter for concern. Because he used to operate a transit system, he was curious about how RTC was going to do these transit terminals. Mr. Perea said he went through the study. It shows different terminals in different parts of the city; placed so that buses came from a different part of the community; people can get off one bus and get onto another and go where they want to go. Within this document, there are some requests for things to be approved that were startling. He covered the features the report is going to allow for the CAT service, and stated that is not what the people had voted for. The CAT is being allowed to solicit passengers at the airport, in the provisions of the report. He said all the carriers met with the staff at the airport and they were supposed to meet again. They have not done that and this bill has come out without the taxpayer's support. He said Gray Lines does encourage the use of mass transit, but they do not believe the people of Clark County voted for the CAT system to compete with private enterprise the way the Transit Terminal Site study recommends (Exhibit H). Senator Porter asked if the provision, as far as servicing the outer areas, will be in direct competition with Gray Line, or is it the inner city that is a problem? Mr. Perea stated that if it encompass going from Las Vegas to Mesquite, taking passengers off the Strip to those casinos, yes. There is nothing in the bill that prohibits that. Right now, there is nothing to prohibit the CAT system from setting up routes within Boulder City to provide the transportation needed to go to the shopping centers. Mr. Crowell added that the federal definition of mass transportation means "transportation by bus or rail or other conveyance either public or privately owned, which provides to the general public a special service, but not including school buses or charter or sight-seeing services on a regular or continuing basis." That is more limited than what is seen in the bill. Senator Washington asked if there is a conflict with the RTC providing transportation from the Nugget to Mackie Stadium? Mr. Perea stated that he does not know how they are doing it. That amounts to a charter. It is not a regular operation. Senator Porter asked if smaller vehicles could be used to provide service under existing statutes in the Boulder City area? Mr. Weinrich replied that within any community in Clark County, RTC can operate a fixed-route, fixed-schedule service. The difficulty is that the requests indicated that the people wanted local trips within Boulder City. They did not want a fixed- route system. He stated that they want to be transported from curb to curb (Exhibit I). Mr. Weinrich said that the study Mr. Perea has referred to was reviewed by the commission, a technical advisory committee and a citizens advisory committee in public meetings. None of the committee members raised any concern about the airport service. The commission advised that the report be reviewed and revised, so that there will not be any type of competition between the taxicabs or the certificated carriers and the RTC for tourist passengers. He said the priority is to work with the private industries. Senator O'Donnell asked if the CAT system is not allowed to take tourists? Mr. Weinrich replied that the commission adopted a direction, that in implementing passenger facilities throughout the system, the areas outside of the airport are to be dealt with first. He said the report Mr. Perea presented to the committee, is not an instrument by which CAT will go into direct competition with the carriers at the airport. There is access by the CAT to the airport, and for the para-transit service to the airport, because there are many people who work at the airport and need transportation to and from work. He said that the Strip routes of the CAT are not losing money. They operate between 103 and 106 percent. The fare-box exceeds the operating costs by either 3 or 6 percent. Senator O'Donnell asked if Mr. Weinrich has seen the report (Exhibit J), which shows the Strip Operations for CAT in 1994 and All Routes for CAT (Exhibit K) for 1992 and 1995? Mr. Weinrich replied that he has not seen the reports, and could provide the financial statements of the RTC which show all of the routes' actual expenses. Mr. Perea stated that the reports are compiled from the CAT statistics by route. The statistics reflect those numbers on the reports. Mr. Weinrich stated that CAT has monthly reports that are given to the public as to the expenses and revenues of each route. He will provide a complete set of the financial reports to the committee. Senator Porter asked if Mr. Weinrich has considered any other language for this bill? Mr. Weinrich replied the commission would be prepared to make a number of commitments; one obviously is to deal with the question of access to the tourists along the Strip, at casino doors and at the airport. It is not the commission's intent to compete for the tourist traveler. The commission's concern is for those people who are not being served by the private sector. He said that something could be crafted to find whether the private sector is providing service. Mr. Weinrich mentioned the charter service. He said the federal law does provide some mechanisms by which services can be provided by a public entity, if there are no private providers willing and able to provide that service. Senator O'Donnell stated that the Strip route is not profitable, the other routes are not going to be either. The Strip route subsidizes the other routes. He asked if Laughlin is going to be a loser, how much are we going to lose? How much is it going to cost the public to provide the service? Senator O'Donnell said the problem with the bill is; if we are able to work this together with the individuals who are willing to accommodate transportation, the committee may be able to allocate some of the S.B. 112 of the Sixty-seventh Session dollars, in order to facilitate that and solve the problem a lot cheaper and serve the public. Mr. Weinrich replied that he believes there can be an accommodation to deal with that fine balance. He reemphasized that RTC is under a Clean Air Mandate. No federal dollar can come into the entire State of Nevada if one of its two non- attainment areas continues to be a non-attainment. That means the entire state's federal funding gets held up. That act says we must reduce the number of cars on the streets. Senator O'Donnell replied that concerning non-attainment areas, Las Vegas will be one for a long time. The language in the bill is extremely broad. The industry is willing to work with RTC. He said that he is concerned that the RTC has no idea how the Transit Authority (TA) works. Scott Keller, President, K-T Services, Las Vegas, stated that he echos the comments made. The language is broad. His operation has 125 vehicles in Las Vegas with a $30 million investment. He stated that some of the facts that are being brought before the committee are just not right. Thomas Fronapfel, Assistant Director for Planning, Nevada Department of Transportation voiced the department's opposition (Exhibit L). Mr. Weinrich stated that Mr. Fronapfel is correct. The RTC was designated by the Governor by the previous transportation law. RTC's legal counsel advices him that the existing language in chapter 373 of the NRS no longer comports with the language derived through that designation by the Governor, the new ISTEA, or the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. He said that rather than attempt to change the federal law, advice of counsel is to conform chapter 373 of the NRS to ISTEA. Existing language in chapter 373 of the NRS makes the obligation of the RTC, in the planning arena, whether he is` the MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization) or not. RTC's legal counsel and the regional counsels of both the FTA and the FHA, have proposed a new agreement under ISTEA that is different from the 1983 agreement. He said the RTC had proposed a new agreement to the NDOT last July. RTC has not heard from NDOT about the new agreement. Since the new agreement is not in place, the Nevada Division Office of the Federal Highway Administration, the planning process may run into certification problems this year. He said RTC will certainly welcome the agreement with NDOT. Mr. Fronapfel stated Bruce Arkell, Metropolitan Planning Organization Coordinator (MPO) for the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), has been working on the interlocal agreement with Mr. Weinrich's staff as well as with other entities in Clark County. NDOT has put together approximately 6 drafts of an agreement that have been circulated to the various entities. He said the agreement Mr. Weinrich is speaking of is not consistent with the agreement the other entities have looked at. He asked Mr. Arkell to address that issue. Bruce Arkell, Metropolitan Planning Organizational (MPO) Coordinator, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), testified the RTC proposed an agreement a couple of years ago which mirrors a lot of the language in the ISTEA act. The department had some concerns about some of the language. NDOT prepared a draft agreement and gave it to the RTC in January 1994. That agreement has gone through 6 revisions. He said within a month or so, it will be ready for execution. Mr. Weinrich stated it is his understanding that the legal counsel did not recommend the response they had received. The existing language in chapter 373 of the NRS conflicts with ISTEA and whatever they come up with for the new program. They need to reduce the amount of language in chapter 373 of the NRS regarding MPO to avoid conflicts. He said that the ISTEA runs until September 30, 1997. Congress is going to begin hearings on re-authorization of that act. This process will be repeated next year and the year after. Senator Porter stated that the language to provide service to the people not being serviced presently is a problem. He said he is disturbed about section 1. The letters he has received implies that section 1 is a housekeeping matter. Now the committee is hearing that there is a conflict with ISTEA and RTC with NDOT. This committee is not in a position to be in the middle of these disagreements. He said the two groups should get together and resolve section 1, which is more than a housekeeping matter. Mr. Fronapfel stated it might be wise for NDOT to work out the agreement that Mr. Arkell referenced as essentially ready to go, and get that in place. That will take care of the ISTEA language. On the statutory issue, it might be best to wait and see what the new ISTEA requirements specify in 1997. Mr. Weinrich stated that RTC's counsel advises him that there are conflicts in the existing statute of Nevada with the responsibilities of the MPO and ISTEA. The advice from the RTC's counsel is to make sure there is not a conflict between state and federal law. Senator O'Donnell stated his intent is to meet at night next week to wrap up some issues. He asked that the two entities come up with some kind of compromise that everyone can live with, as well as the industry, to participate in a subcommittee meeting where these problems can be worked out. Stephen Smith, Vice President, Frontier Tours, gave his testimony in favor of this bill (Exhibit M) with the exception of page 2, line 43, and urged for an amendment of that portion of the bill. David V. Lippincott, President, Sierra Nevada Stage Line, testified in favor of the bill (Exhibit N) with exception of line 43 which creates unfair competition. Larry Bell, Whittlesea Bell Entities in Las Vegas (Whittlesea Blue Cab, Bell Trans and Henderson Taxi, Whittlesea Checker Taxi in Reno, Bell Limousine and Airport Minibuses), testified the issue of no taxi's in Boulder City will be considered if the need is definitely there. He stated that his companies concur with the concerns over line 43 of the bill. Mr. Morris gave his testimony (Exhibit O) with a 30-page document concerning pollution (Exhibit P) and (Exhibit Q) showing the number of vehicles registered in Clark County. Senator O'Donnell asked Mr. Weinrich if there is a possibility of using S.B. 112 of the Sixty-seventh Session funds to contract with the existing cab companies and bus lines to accommodate the public for transportation in these rural areas? Mr. Weinrich stated that for a fixed-route/fixed-schedule, yes. He also stated that anything other than those fixed-routes and schedules, RTC has no authority on because of chapters 373 and 377A of the NRS (other than for disabled and senior citizens.) He said that under the Federal ISTEA, both the state and the MPO must characterize all trips being made within the urbanized area. If that is not part of the RTC plan, all federal dollars can be held up. Mr. Morris stated that the RTC did get full cooperation from the taxi authority. All the companies file their trips with the taxi authority. Glen Nevin, Former Chairman of the Senate Committee on Transportation, stated that along with representing Whittlesea, he represents Baker Drake Taxi. They also have deep concerns with section 2f. They would like to be involved in the subcommittee. Senator O'Donnell closed the hearing on S.B. 349. Senator O'Donnell adjourned the meeting at 4:50 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Diane C. Rea, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator William R. O'Donnell, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Transportation April 27, 1995 Page