MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Transportation
Seventy-Second Session
May 6, 2003
The Committee on Transportationwas called to order at 1:48 p.m., on Tuesday, May 6, 2003. Chairwoman Vonne Chowning presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada, and via simultaneous videoconference, in Room 4401 of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
Note: These minutes are compiled in the modified verbatim style. Bracketed material indicates language used to clarify and further describe testimony. Actions of the Committee are presented in the traditional legislative style.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mrs. Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall, Vice Chairwoman
Mr. Kelvin Atkinson
Mr. John C. Carpenter
Mr. Jerry D. Claborn
Mr. Tom Collins
Mr. Pete Goicoechea
Mr. Don Gustavson
Mr. Ron Knecht
Mr. Mark Manendo
Mr. John Oceguera
Mr. Rod Sherer
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Marji Paslov Thomas, Committee Policy Analyst
Kim Morgan, Committee Counsel
Nancy Elder, Recording Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Kevin Tice, Lieutenant, Nevada Highway Patrol, representing the Nevada Department of Highway Safety
Carl Johnson, Sergeant, Nevada Highway Patrol
Daryl Capurro, Legislative Advocate, Nevada Motor Transport Association, Inc.
Mike Lawson, Chief, Traffic Information Division, Nevada Department of Transportation
Ronald Levine, Legislative Advocate, Nevada Motor Transport Association, Inc.
Bill Gregory, Legislative Advocate, Enterprise Rent-A-Car
Kevin Smith, Enterprise Rent-A-Car
Sandra Avants, Chairwoman, Transportation Services Authority
Bruce Breslow, Commissioner, Transportation Services Authority
Al Puliz, Owner, Puliz Moving and Storage Company
Barry Jones, Owner, Carson Valley Movers
George Keele, Counsel, Carson Valley Movers
Merritt Wiley, General Sales Manager, Valley North American, Reno
Mike Sullivan, Legislative Advocate, Whittlesea/Bell Transportation
Gary Milliken, Legislative Advocate, Yellow-Checker-Star Transportation
Robert Campbell, Legislative Advocate, On Demand Sedan, and Ambassador Limousine
Patrick Fagan, Legislative Advocate, K-T Contract Services, Grayline Tour of Southern Nevada, and Nevada Charter
Bob Fairman, Sunshine Taxi
John Sande, Legislative Advocate, Nevada Franchised Auto Dealers Association
Fred Hillerby, Legislative Advocate, Recreational Vehicle Industry Association
Kimberly Maxson Rushton, Commissioner, Transportation Services Authority
Chairwoman Chowning:
The Assembly Committee on Transportation will come to order. [The secretary called roll. The Chairwoman advised to mark latecomers present as they arrived.] We are going to take the bills out of order. We’ll start with S.B. 478.
Senate Bill 478: Authorizes Department of Public Safety to adopt certain regulations relating to motor carriers. (BDR 58-524)
Kevin Tice, Lieutenant, Nevada Highway Patrol, representing the Nevada Department of Highway Safety:
[Introduced himself.] Senate Bill 478 is a bill that cleans up some language left over as a result of last session, which divided the Department of Public Safety and the Department of Motor Vehicles into two departments and authorized our department to adopt regulations with regard to motor carriers. C.F.R. (Code of Federal Regulations) Chapter 49 specifically amends language in some of our NRS (Nevada Revised Statutes) Chapter 706.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Since the Department of Motor Vehicles regulates the motor carrier division, does this change that in any way or does it continue to keep that separation?
Lt. Kevin Tice:
My understanding is it maintains that separation and authorizes the Department of Public Safety to adopt regulations with regard to motor carriers as required. Some of the federal grant relationships specifically require that we adopt federal regulations. Currently we do not have the authority to do that, because of that separation of departments. We’ve recently had to do that vicariously through TSA (Transportation Services Authority). We’re hoping to change this language to regain that authorization.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Is someone here from the Department of Motor Vehicles to speak to this as well? No?
Carl Johnson, Sergeant, Nevada Highway Patrol:
[Introduced himself.] I’m here to support what Lieutenant Tice is saying and to answer any questions.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
On Section 5, page 4, the bill specifies “any police officer.” Could someone from the Department of Motor Vehicles request the sheriff, a highway patrolman, or any other traffic officer to assist in the arrests without further compensation under this chapter? Who would have that authority? Just a phone call from Carson City and you would stop a unit or pick it up?
Lt. Kevin Tice:
They currently have the authority to enforce the laws of the state including Chapter 706. It has to do with adopting federal regulations and attaching them to NRS 706, the regulation of motor carrier laws, and federal regulations, so it enhances the enforcement authority of all police agencies in the state.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
It says, “When requested by an authorized agent.” Who would that agent be, or how would you make contact? That’s on lines 12 and 13 of Section 5, page 4.
Lt. Kevin Tice:
That language has always been there, and I don’t have a specific answer to the question, other than an agent is any certified law enforcement officer representative of the department.
Chairwoman Chowning:
In these times of homeland security issues, I think this would simply be enabling to help everyone, whether local or state, enforce the duties and the laws that each has jurisdiction over.
Daryl Capurro, Legislative Advocate, Nevada Motor Transport Association, Inc.:
[Introduced himself.] One important part is in Section 4, page 4. Right now the Department of Public Safety has the responsibility, through the Highway Patrol, for the adoption. They are the agency personnel particularly responsible for hazardous materials, regulations and movement. Without this change, which should have been picked up last session but wasn’t, when considering the split, the Department would not be able to regulate directly as far as the hazardous materials are concerned. It’s extremely important.
Chairwoman Chowning:
You think that they’re going to work together because this says the Department of Motor Vehicles or the Department of Public Safety?
Daryl Capurro:
Yes, that is correct. They work together on several different issues, particularly with respect to citations on dyed fuels that are turned over to the auditors within the Department of Motor Vehicles. It is an extremely important relationship between the two agencies.
Chairwoman Chowning:
I’m especially anxious because of the bill that we passed out of this Committee regarding motor carriers and the dyed fuel. You and everyone else were satisfied. Do you think that partnership will continue?
Daryl Capurro:
Yes. If you recall, in A.B. 521, it does have both agencies responsible for dyed fuel enforcement. It’s my opinion that they are interested in working together. We’ll know by next session how that works.
[The Chairwoman noted the Highway Patrol representatives present were nodding their heads in agreement. There was no further testimony.]
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 478.
ASSEMBLYMAN SHERER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairwoman Chowning:
The next bill is S.B. 481.
Senate Bill 481: Establishes provisions relating to maximum load weights per tire and minimum number of tires per axle for vehicles allowed to operate on public highways of this state. (BDR 43-544)
Mike Lawson, Chief, Traffic Information Division, Nevada Department of Transportation:
[Introduced himself.] Senate Bill 481 is intended to prohibit vehicles from operating with 2 tires per axle on axles that are manufactured and intended for use with 4 tires per axle. Specifically, the bill is intended to require each axle, except for steering axles and axles that weigh less than 10,000 pounds, to have at least four tires if the tire widths are less than 14 inches. In addition, the maximum weight per tire may not exceed 600 pounds per inch for the steering axle and 500 pounds per inch for all other axles. The purpose of the bill is to reduce premature pavement damage, fatigue, and rutting caused by heavy vehicles operating with 2 tires per axle rather than the traditional industry standard of 4 tires per axle.
In addition to the pavement issues, there are highway safety issues. Excessive loads on 2-tired axles cause tire failure and an increase in breaking distance. Also, even moderate pavement rutting poses an extreme risk to all vehicular traffic. NDOT (Nevada Department of Transportation) first became aware of the problems associated with commercial vehicles removing two of the four tires from axles when State Route 305, south of Battle Mountain, suffered extreme rutting in a six-month period in the late 1980s. A $12 million emergency contract was necessary to repair the damage, and route restrictions were imposed on all rig combination vehicles. Most recently, we changed the nonreducible, over-dimensional permit regulations in the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) to ensure that the language in Senate Bill 481 already applies to the heaviest of commercial vehicles. S.B. 481 merely extends the law to the majority of commercial vehicles that are not regulated by NAC.
[Mr. Lawson displayed some pictures depicting the severe pavement rutting on State Route 305 and further explained the damage to the highway.]
Chairwoman Chowning:
Twelve million dollars is a lot of money to pay when we would not have had to.
Mike Lawson:
At present, we have no way to regulate over-dimensional vehicles.
Chairwoman Chowning:
A concern to me is the inability to regulate the hauling of high-level nuclear waste by trucks. Hopefully that will never come. With trucks that are approximately 225 feet long and – I can’t remember how wide – but the weight is obviously going to be an issue as well. Would this be a beginning step, perhaps, to address that grave concern as well?
Mike Lawson:
Yes, we’ve already dealt with that in the Nevada Administrative Code just recently. It’s exactly the same language that’s contained in this bill. We’ll regulate those over-dimensional vehicles.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
On the first page, on lines 12 and 13, it says “each axle has at least four tires if the tire width of each tire on the axle is less than or equal to 14 inches.” What does that mean?
Mike Lawson:
Currently the traditional standard is an 11-inch tire on commercial vehicles. Except for the steering axle, they typically have 4 tires per axle. This language means that, if the tire width is less than 14 inches on any tire, there has to be 4 tires per axle unless it’s the steering axle. If the tire width is greater than 14 inches, you can get away with 2 tires per axle. That accommodates the super singles. Those, then, become regulated by the pounds-per-inch of width.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
When all of this was occurring north of Austin, I called the Highway Department and told them what was happening. They never did anything. A couple of years ago the same thing was happening north of Elko, where they were hauling ore. Finally NDOT got on them and made them put two tires on the axle because they were only running with one. Would this axle requirement of less than or equal to 14 inches give them another “out” so they wouldn’t have to put four tires on?
Mike Lawson:
I was the person you spoke to at NDOT. We did indeed encourage them to put the tires back on those axles, because we have the authority to put route restrictions on. That was the leverage we used. To answer your question more specifically, this does not allow them to get an “out” because of the way those axles are built. With this legislation, they would be restricted to the axle loads at 500 pounds-per-inch. If they went with a 16-inch super wide, they’d still only get 16,000 pounds on that axle instead of 20,000.
So we are going to preserve the pavement through either requiring them to have 4 tires per axle, or to reduce the load on the 2-tired axles regardless of the width of them. The investment it would take to retrofit those vehicles to accommodate super singles is not worth their time. It’s just not cost-effective. This legislation would prevent that situation from occurring on vehicles less than 70 feet long. The vehicles that you were concerned about were over 70 feet, and we have dealt with that through the Nevada Administrative Code already.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
As long as this takes care of those situations, I think we’re alright, but they’re always trying to find a way to ruin our roads.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Is the reason they use two instead of four tires a question of economics? It just costs a lot less for them to ride the truck on the road?
Mike Lawson:
Yes, that’s exactly what it is. You hear people talk about an 18-wheeler, which is a 5-axle truck with 4 tires on 4 of those axles. By removing 4 of those tires, it becomes a 10-wheeler. They have four fewer tires to buy so the maintenance costs go down. The costs are then allocated back to the taxpayer in terms of pavement infrastructure preservation.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Their gain is our loss.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
You’re saying that before this amendment, technically, you could go with a single axle and the super singles to 17,500 pounds or more?
Mike Lawson:
Yes, you could go to 20,000 pounds. Under this law, a 16-inch super single would be limited to 16,000. Under current Nevada law, that 4,000 pounds is free, and severe pavement damage is associated with it.
Chairwoman Chowning:
What is the fiscal note? Only Clark County reported that the cost would be an additional $10,000 to $20,000 annually. No other entity reported anything.
Ronald Levine, Legislative Advocate, Nevada Motor Transport Association, Inc.:
[Introduced himself.] We agree that this is of minimum cost to the industry, and, when you consider the safety and preservation of the highways, it’s a worthwhile bill. It gives some teeth for enforcement. Nevada Motor Transport Association supports the bill.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
In some of these cases, moisture or frost coming out of the ground has a big impact on the damage that’s occurring to these highways. Yet we see frost limits put on very few highways in Nevada. Do you think that’s an issue, or could you respond to that?
Ronald Levine:
If I’m correct, during the frost season, the Highway Department does restrict over-weights to over-dimensional over-weights on certain highways in the state. It doesn’t go through the whole state, obviously, because Clark County doesn’t have that problem. But there are restrictions between the months of November and through April on certain highways because of frost and ice.
Chairwoman Chowning:
We’ll close the hearing on Senate Bill 481. I’ll accept a motion.
ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 481.
ASSEMBLYMAN KNECHT SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Collins:
Did you clarify that the 14-inch tire was the width or the rim size?
Chairwoman Chowning:
The answer was width.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairwoman Chowning:
The next bill is Senate Bill 482.
Senate Bill 482: Provides that certain leases of motor vehicles or trailers do not constitute sales or create security interests under certain circumstances. (BDR 43-1043)
Bill Gregory, Legislative Advocate, Enterprise Rent-A-Car:
[Introduced himself and Kevin Smith.] This is a short bill. It deals with the issues of business and fleet-type leases called “Track Leasing” and bankruptcy.
Kevin Smith, Enterprise Rent-A-Car:
This bill deals with track leasing, which is terminal, rental-adjustment clause leasing. It’s business-to-business leasing. It’s not between individuals and car dealerships; it’s strictly business-to-business. It deals with who is the legal owner of the vehicle specifically during times of bankruptcy. It treats these vehicles as true leases and not security interest or sales. If the company goes into bankruptcy, the lessor maintains the ownership of the vehicle and can get the vehicle back. In that case, if there were equity in the vehicles at the time of bankruptcy, they would dispose of the vehicles and give the equity back to the bankruptcy court as a way to deal with it. The vehicles themselves do not belong to the lessee; they belong to the lessor.
Chairwoman Chowning:
You are the only company that has brought this bill forward. Can you tell us what problems have arisen that caused you to bring forth this piece of legislation?
Kevin Smith:
Nevada is one of the five remaining states that has not passed this legislation. The bankruptcy courts have been working on this for a number of years trying to get all the states to have consistent laws throughout the country on how to deal with track leasing. Other state bankruptcy courts have determined that, because a track lease allows for adjustment of the rental clause at the end of the term, the lessee has a security interest in the vehicle. The bankruptcy court could then take the vehicles, sell them, use the profits from the sale of those vehicles to satisfy the other debts, and the lessor is simply out the vehicles.
[Kevin Smith continues.] We want to clarify that these are true leases in the same way as a closed-end lease. Often, this is called an open-end lease versus a closed-end lease, which is what most dealerships do. Both are leases. We are not the only company that does these. Ford Motor Company has a track lease. General Motors has a track lease. They do them as well as all the major fleet leases. There are approximately 5 million cars in the United States right now on this form of lease.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
Does this have anything to do with when you get to the end of the lease; you get a chance to buy the vehicle if you want? Would this have any effect on that?
Kevin Smith:
No, it would not. This is simply business-to-business. It would have nothing to do with individual leases and the right to purchase out the lease at the end of term.
Chairwoman Chowning:
It seems to be pretty straightforward. The Chair will accept a motion.
ASSEMBLYMAN ATKINSON MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 482.
ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairwoman Chowning:
We’ll open the hearing for the second time on Senate Bill 192.
Senate Bill 192 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes to provisions governing certain motor carriers and drivers. (BDR 58-537)
Sandra Avants, Chairwoman, Transportation Services Authority:
[Introduced herself.] When we were here last week you asked that we provide data requests for you and on three occasions we’ve provided them to your Committee. I think everyone on your Committee has received a copy. If you like, we could expand on any questions that you have. I know there are several people here today who have both testimony and amendments.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Does everyone on the Committee have the volumes of information? One thing that still is not clear was something that came up after the hearing. I wish you could clarify for the members of the Committee, on page 2, Section 5, line 27 and line 28, “a fully regulated carrier shall pay to the authority a fee of not more than $200 per year for each vehicle.” There have been some questions raised as to which companies are going to be assessed this fee, because the bill has been presented as a limousine regulation bill. That’s the way it was two years ago. This year it has still been presented primarily as a regulation of limousine bills.
However, we have been told that the Authority wants to do a more thorough job of regulating the household goods movers, so we understand that limousines and the household good movers will be required to pay $200 per year. There are two other means of conveyance, buses and nonemergency medical vehicles, that are also going to be assessed, and the Committee members were unaware that they were in this bill. I want to bring those forward. Could you please make it crystal clear, if possible? Every time we ask a question, there seems to be more that come up.
Sandra Avants:
As you are aware, on S.B. 192, the printed version, under summary, it indicates that the bill is to make “various changes to provisions governing certain motor carriers and drivers.” I apologize if there is an industry that we regulate that you were unaware of and that a fee would be assessed to them because they are fully regulated. You are correct. It is traditional limousines, livery limousines, household goods movers, charter intrastate buses, intrastate tour, sightseeing and per capita, and the nonemergency medical vehicles.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Can you tell us what kind of companies are nonemergency medical?
Sandra Avants:
We have a very small number of nonemergency medical companies. I think there are only three with a maximum of 35 vehicles throughout the state. It is a nonambulance, but they serve the medical industry either in insurance companies or facilities.
Chairwoman Chowning:
That’s about 35. The budget is built on approximately 160 vehicles at $200 each. Those 160 include all 4 of these definitions.
Sandra Avants:
Our budget, at $200 per vehicle, is built on 1,000 vehicles. Approximately 835 are traditional livery limousines. The number 1,000 is based on historical records. It might be more, and it might be less, but we built the budget using a round number of 1,000 vehicles. Yes, the NEMTs (nonemergency medical transports) would be part of that number.
Chairwoman Chowning:
So that’s approximately 160.
Sandra Avants:
Right, 160 of a different type of vehicle. I misspoke when I said intrastate charter buses. They’re not fully regulated, so they will not be paying the $200.
Chairwoman Chowning:
That was my understanding that there would be three types of vehicles: the household goods movers, the rest of the buses that aren’t charter buses, and the nonemergency medical vehicles. Those three comprise the approximate 160 vehicles with the $200 fee. Tell me about an airport shuttle. Would that be covered by this?
Sandra Avants:
Yes, the airport shuttles – we call them per capitas – are covered. Frequently some of the charter buses are used in dual service. If they’re not being chartered, they may be at the airport. If the airport doesn’t need them, they might be chartered. In conversations with several bus companies, we’ve reached an agreement that, during the workshop process, we will define those vehicles to their benefit so that anything that is dual purpose will not be paying a $200 fee if it is generally used not per capita. I think they will have representation here to indicate their support.
Chairwoman Chowning:
We have a letter of opposition, but perhaps that has been clarified, so I’ll wait. We won’t address this until we hear their testimony. No one wants to convey the message that members of the industry are implementing fees without knowledge and, hopefully, without uniform agreement. The Governor certainly doesn’t agree with that, and I don’t think anyone on the Committee does.
Sandra Avants:
You’ll hear testimony today from the moving industry also that they’ve had conversations with us, and they realize there will be workshops, and our bill does say up to $200. There will be an opportunity to work with them to make sure that dual-purpose moving vehicles are not also assessed this fee improperly. I think they’re in agreement.
Chairwoman Chowning:
You said up to $200, but isn’t the budget built on $200?
Sandra Avants:
Absolutely. But, as we’re talking, we believe there could be fewer of one type of vehicle and more of another type. We believe the 1,000 vehicles multiplied by $200 is a number that will support the budget and not be less or more. Until May 15, when we will receive our first annual financial statements with this new requirement to divulge the number and type of vehicles and how they’re being used, we’ve had to rely on very old historical information. We think it will all compute properly.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Regarding the background check, again we’ve had a lot of feedback that says that the companies do that on their own, especially the bus companies, because they are chartered buses, and they do both types of service. Is it still necessary for those drivers to have to pay a $50 per year fee for this check because it would be duplicative in many cases?
Sandra Avants:
It’s the belief of the Authority and the three of us sitting here today that it’s a public safety issue. Even though the companies do a cursory background check, they’re not doing the criminal background check with fingerprints. We think if you are going to be transporting people, it should be a requirement. We’re not asking for this for any of the household goods movers or the towing industry. Obviously it’s only those that we fully regulate.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Have you clarified in the bill that it does not? To whom would this apply? To the limousine drivers, the bus drivers, and the nonemergency medical drivers?
Sandra Avants:
Yes, and also taxis. As you know, we only regulate taxis outside of Clark County.
Assemblyman Collins:
Did you address the switching around of drivers? Is this going to be an annual permit or are drivers going to have to change and reapply every time they jump out of a limo into a cab? Also, I believe Clark County Taxi Authority already requires a background check in Clark County. I remember drivers applying for jobs had to get background checks. Do you want to add it outside of Clark County for taxis?
My other concern is drivers driving a cab when the limousine business is slow and then driving a limo when it’s busy. How are you going to address going back and forth, either from company to company or just within the same company driving different vehicles?
Sandra Avants:
At our last hearing, I had an occasion to speak with the acting administrator of the Taxicab Authority. We’ll have no problem whatsoever working out an arrangement. It’s not in the bill, but I will testify that he said reciprocity would be good. We think it’s good. With regard to when someone moves from one company to another, I think the Taxicab Authority requires a $10 fee in their new bill. It was $5 in their old one. That would be something we would have to consider. It’s not a whole new process.
Assemblyman Collins:
Would that have to be addressed in here, a renewal or a transfer versus the $50 every time? [Received confirmation.] So that would be an amendment to this bill? [Received confirmation.]
[Chairwoman Chowning reminded guests that proposed amendments should be in writing.]
Sandra Avants:
In response to Assemblyman Collins, this is a new process for us. Rather than trying to do an amendment and worrying about $5 or $10 transfer fees, I think we will just go ahead with what we have and do any transfer that’s required without a fee, at least for the first biennium.
Bruce Breslow, Commissioner, Transportation Services Authority:
I’m based in northern Nevada, and I handle most of the cases, except in Clark County. Our intention was that, for companies that provide taxi or limo service, drivers could do either as long as they have a card. We’re not trying to issue a separate card for when you’re in your taxi and a separate one for in your limo. If you change companies, that card is good for a year as a driver. Right now, for instance, the drivers have to get permits from the City of Sparks, from the City of Reno, and also from Washoe County. This is a one-stop shop that alleviates the driver having to go several places. If they have a card and had a background check, they’re permitted to drive a taxi or a limousine. There’s no intention to make them run back and forth to get additional permitting.
Assemblyman Collins:
I just wanted to make sure it was stated that way in the law. The other question I have is on page 4, number 4. If they admit they’re not in compliance, you’re not going to give them a card. So why would they admit they’re not in compliance with child support payments?
Sandra Avants:
I think you are aware that an LCB (Legislative Counsel Bureau) requirement was placed in our bill. It is maximum protection of children from parents who refuse or fail to keep up their payments for child support. The assumption is you cannot make a living and spend the money in any way you wish while you have children who have not received child support. We will do everything we can to respond to any court order, document, or any knowledge that we have.
Chairwoman Chowning:
That is a very serious matter, and we have passed bills out of this Committee in the past as well. We appreciate everyone trying to help in the effort to collect child support.
Assemblyman Gustavson:
Many of you know that I have been involved in this industry in the past. For the record, I am not now nor have I been in the recent past involved with this industry, so this bill would not affect me in any way, shape, or form at the present time. I will be participating in the discussion and voting on the bill.
Al Puliz, Owner, Puliz Moving and Storage Company:
[Introduced himself.] I would like to provide a few historical facts because I don’t recognize any person here who was around 45 years ago when I started in Nevada in the moving business. When we entered Nevada, we needed to obtain a certificate to operate in household goods moving. We purchased a certificate and had it approved at that time by the Public Utilities Commission [PUC]. There were a limited number of movers within the area, and we had few, if any, who were not certificated to operate household goods in the state. We’ve gone from the PUC to the Transportation Services Authority.
We have heard all kinds of apologies for not being able to regulate our industry. Twenty years ago they told us they did not have enough money to buy tires for their inspectors’ automobiles so they couldn’t do any enforcement. True story. Some years after that they said, “Well, we don’t have any police powers. How can we do anything?” We later made sure that they got police powers. You would never see an ad in a telephone book about moving from a company that did not have the authority to move. Look in your local telephone book today. I’ve gone to the telephone company over the years and said, “That is an illegal carrier,” and they say, “So what? We’ll take the revenue.” They look at it as one of the most profitable industries in our country.
[Al Puliz continues.] We need some type of enforcement. Always they have said they were understaffed. A number of years ago they started issuing citations to these illegals movers. The movers laughed at them; they didn’t pay them. The inspectors were quite frustrated. We need some type of enforcement to protect those of us in the industry who are working legally.
In the past I have seen some Commissioners who actually favored illegal movers. Why? Simply because, down south particularly, there are a lot of apartment houses, and they would like to protect their people by getting cheap moves on weekends. We, in the industry, have overtime for moves on weekends. I think that’s tough on people, but it’s tough for us, because we pay our men overtime and provide all kinds of benefits. We need more money in order to give good moves to people.
You hear a lot of stories. There are states that have deregulated: Florida, Arizona, and New York. It is just impossible to believe what these illegals have done to the general public. We need some meat in our regulations. If we don’t put any meat in it, why not deregulate? Forget it, because that’s what we have now. We have no regulation in my judgment, and I say that with some experience. We have no regulation. It’s beautiful in print, but it doesn’t mean a thing.
I look for this Committee to look into those things and to protect our public. There are situations that people don’t realize. If you use an illegal mover who gets hurt on your property, who is liable? You, the homeowner, will be liable. People don’t know that. They have no idea. There are so many other problems. Are the movers paying for workmen’s compensation? Do they pay them under the table with cash? These are issues in our industry, so we look to you people to help us. I believe that the new commissioners have some ideas. We would like to work with them.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Do you agree with the charge, the fees of $200 per vehicle and the background checks, the $50 per year for the drivers? Do you agree with the fines, which would range from $500 for the first offense to $2,500 for failure to submit an annual report? Do you agree with fining? Do you agree with the impounding of the vehicles?
Al Puliz:
Yes, if we have some enforcement to go along with it, and if it’s done equitably. In our industry, we could use the same truck for four or five different services. How do you determine on an intrastate move when they do intrastate or interstate freight and various other kinds of services? It would be a problem, and I think the Commission is aware of that problem. It has to be done equitably, or we are naturally against it.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Could someone in the industry come forward regarding this? I asked Mr. Kimball this morning in Ways and Means Committee regarding the impounding. What part of the vehicle would be impounded if it were a dual or two pieces of equipment?
Bruce Breslow:
It is our intention, as with the passage of every new law, to have a workshop with the industry. The workshops are to find the best way to do this with our NACs. There’s no intention to charge $200 on every vehicle that the Puliz Moving and Storage Company has. It is just the vehicles that do the intrastate moves. That means you live in Nevada, and you move to another point in Nevada. We’ll develop a system with the industry through workshops to be able to apportion it properly so that no one is charged improperly.
We’re also not trying to charge a fee for anything but the part of the truck that’s the motor. There’s not the intention to charge a fee if there’s a bunch of trailers. That is something that we have historically done with the various industries. We plan to have a workshop with the moving industry, the tow truck industry, the taxi industry, and the limousine industry. Workshops are the best way to implement this. They’re public workshops for members of the public and the industry, north and south. Also I want to point out that we’re not doing background checks and driver permits for the household goods industry, just for the industries that carry people.
Chairwoman Chowning:
This applies to limousines, buses, nonemergency medical vehicles, and taxis, and you said the portion to be impounded would be the motorized part.
Bruce Breslow:
We would never impound a vehicle while somebody’s goods are still in it. There’s a sting operation where they have to be able to prove that there is an illegal move, at the conclusion, when they interview the participant. If a citation were ordered, at that point the enforcement staff would impound the vehicle and call a tow truck. It would then be towed to a protected lot, and they would have to go through the hearing process to get the vehicle back.
That is the meat and teeth to try to stop the illegal operators. In the past, they have either paid their fines, which can range anywhere from $50 to $10,000 for numerous violations, or they ignored the fines. It’s a very cumbersome 2‑year to 5-year process to be able to attach their personal wages or their personal belongings through the court system. This year we finally were able to do that with one company that had been doing exactly what Mr. Puliz described. This would give us some teeth to be able to impound the actual vehicles.
Barry Jones, Owner, Carson Valley Movers:
[Introduced himself. Provided written testimony (Exhibit C).] I have invited my attorney, George Keele, to help make my presentation. I have been dealing with Bruce Breslow and the other TSA members to try to make this the best bill for the public’s interests. I am in favor of S.B. 192; however, there is one issue I would like to see addressed in the bill.
The general public, by and large, does not know that household goods movers are required by Nevada law to be fully regulated carriers, as that term is defined in NRS 706.072. Consequently, members of the general public continue to put at risk their most valuable possessions, including priceless heirlooms, expensive electronic equipment, antiques, and other perishable commodities by placing them in the hands of illegal carriers.
For this reason, I think it is vitally important for the Transportation Services Authority to be authorized by this Legislature to create and administer a public awareness campaign. I understand that dollars are short, especially this year, but the TSA should be able to work with the Department of Business and Industry to create public service announcements for radio and television, many of which will run free on those stations. Perhaps they can get the phone book to include a warning in bold type that only companies properly certificated by the TSA are authorized to transport household goods in the state of Nevada and that anyone using any other moving service is doing so at great risk.
I understand that if S.B. 192 is defeated, there will be no fees collected whatsoever. However, if S.B. 192 created a mechanism, even through an additional mill assessment on us authorized carriers, to fund a portion of the public service announcements, the well-being of the traveling and shipping public in Nevada would be greatly enhanced. Therefore, I am willing to support a bill that would phase in funding to the 15 percent level of the overall TSA budget over a period of perhaps five years, 3 percent at a time.
[Barry Jones continues.] My concern is that the TSA be able to enforce this law. From what I am told and have experienced, there are not enough enforcement officers in northern Nevada. It is vital that one more position be added to the north and that the Attorney General’s office work with the TSA to make sure the law can and will be enforced. It would also be nice if the two offices, north and south, of the TSA could work together, as needed, by sending manpower either way.
My interest in this bill is for my business and the public. I believe this is a nationwide problem, and, perhaps, Nevada could set a precedent for the country. The statutes state that certificated movers must be fit, willing, and able to meet the public convenience and necessity. An illegal mover does not meet those requirements and appears to ignore the law. I should not have to pick up the pieces when a customer contacts me regarding a bad move by explaining the difference between a certificated mover and a loading-and-unloading service. This should be a fact known by the general public.
My business also suffers lost revenue to certificated movers in many ways. For example, their advertising in the phone book often states that they are cheaper because they don’t charge from port to port. This allows them to offer a lower price because they don’t follow any tariff or set rules like we do. This legislation should be designed to help crack down on these illegal operators and help the public make an informed choice.
I have one additional suggestion for inclusion in this bill. It is that “yellow pages” directories are required to separate full-service, or properly certificated, fully regulated household goods carriers from loading-and-unloading services. In other words, it would be a misdemeanor, punishable by a severe fine, for any certificated mover or loading service to advertise in the area of the yellow pages reserved for properly certificated household goods movers. It may be well to impose misdemeanor liability on the “yellow pages” operators as well, for any willful violation of the law.
I urge the passage of S.B. 192 with the amendments to which I have testified. Thank you for all your hard work.
Chairwoman Chowning:
The amendments you are proposing are?
George Keele, Counsel, Carson Valley Movers:
[Introduced himself.] Mr. Jones has just contacted me in the last 14 hours with respect to this matter. As the Chair undoubtedly knows, he’s on a limited budget and has asked me to join him. I have complied and would ask permission to submit the written text of the proposed amendments within the next 24 hours.
Chairwoman Chowning:
That would be fine.
George Keele:
I was with Barry Jones at the time that he sought to obtain a certificate of public conveyance and necessity as a full-service, household goods mover. Because of the difficulty he had of entry into the market 15 years ago, he was limited to operating point-to-point in the Carson Valley area of Douglas County. Ultimately, he fought his way into all of Douglas County, and then all of Douglas County and parts of Carson City, Lyon County, and Storey County. Eventually he got portions of Washoe County, and, ultimately, with the advent of substantial deregulation, he was able to provide full-service moving operations interstate and intrastate throughout the state of Nevada. He has truly worked his way up from the bottom, and I believe he is a reputable carrier.
Twenty-eight years ago this month I was appointed Deputy Attorney General to serve at the Public Service Commission, which, at that time, had plenty of authority over transportation and utilities. I lived through several eras of deregulation including the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 signed by Jimmy Carter, at which time we finally ceased regulating airline hops between Portland and Seattle, and Los Angeles and Phoenix, when they had intrastate legs between Reno and Las Vegas. I have also seen the delightful deregulation of dirt haulers and gravel haulers in the state of Nevada.
When the Legislature decided to retain jurisdiction and to designate certain carriers as fully regulated carriers and including carriers of passengers, and carriers like Mr. Jones, carriers of household goods, there were some nay sayers and people who said, “Why hang on to this vestige of carrier regulation? Why not simply deregulate across the board?” I think it has become apparent to many, if not to most, that there are opportunities for abuses that are significant in these two areas.
[George Keele continues.] Mr. Breslow has just testified that the TSA must focus its energies in areas that are of greatest significance and, of course, that has to do with people and the potential harm that people will experience if they are not properly transported by public carriers. Mr. Breslow indicated they are not able to provide the same level of service to household goods movers as they are to passenger carriers. I think that’s unfortunate, but it certainly is understandable under these circumstances. We intend no criticism whatsoever of the TSA because we feel that they have done an outstanding job in their regulation efforts, especially with their limited budget.
I would like to mention four areas that we would like to address in our proposed amendments.
· Unlawful driving
· Unlawful advertising
· Certification of people recently convicted of violations of NRS [Nevada Revised Statutes] 706.756
· Inadequate public awareness of the dangers of using illegal transportation services
Regarding unlawful driving, NRS 706.351 states it is unlawful for any person other than those specifically enumerated in that section to receive “any pass, frank, free or reduced rates for transportation.” Therefore, driving a U-Haul or a Ryder or other rental truck or vehicle for another person free is a misdemeanor and punishable by the fines that are set forth in the statute.
Unlawful advertising by noncertificated carriers, under NRS 706.756 (1)(g), can be amended to read that any person who “advertises or permits advertising as providing the services of a fully regulated carrier,” et cetera, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Regarding certification of people who have recently been convicted of violating provisions of NRS 706, the suggested text amendment would be to NRS 706.391 (2)(e), which would be added to the statute and would read as follows: “The applicant, for a period of 5 years preceding the filing of the application, has not been convicted of any violation of Section 706.756 of NRS.” That would simply be that the members of the Transportation Services Authority would be authorized to issue a certificate of public convenience and necessity provided that the applicant for a particular season had not been convicted of a violation of any provision of NRS Chapter 706.
Finally, regarding inadequate public awareness of the dangers of using illegal transportation services, we would propose to add 706.1516(2)(e) to the generic section describing the appropriate uses of the TSA regulatory fund. Subsections (b) and (c) already arguably cover that but this would be much better in our opinion to state specifically that “15 percent of the administrative budget of the authority shall be dedicated to public education and public awareness of the importance of the exclusive use of permitted and certificated motor carriers and the dangers of hiring illegal, common and contract carriers of passengers and property.” This 15 percent shall be phased in as follows: 3 percent during fiscal year 2004-05, and so forth, for the next 5 years. As Mr. Jones testified, if that were in the form of a mill assessment on the carriers, that would certainly be acceptable to Carson Valley Movers.
Chairwoman Chowning:
In our last hearing the Transportation Services Authority stated they were in agreement to do some consumer protection advertising. Are you proposing the 15 percent of their entire budget?
George Keele:
No, we’re proposing 15 percent of that portion of the administrative budget that heretofore was focused on two areas in particular. NRS 706.1516 (2)(b) already authorizes expenditures for “participating in all proceedings relevant to the jurisdiction of the authority.” Arguably there are funds already budgeted for that purpose. Subsection (2)(c) states, “Audits, inspections, investigations, publication of notices, reports, and retaining consultants connected with that maintenance and participation.”
Mr. Breslow has indicated to us independently that he and the other commissioners will expend every effort to take advantage of the public service opportunities that are available. We accept that for the time being. If we can wait until the next biennial session of the Legislature, that would be satisfactory with Mr. Jones. We would like to introduce the thought of some increased imposts on the carriers themselves, because I think all of them, to the last carrier, are willing to finance this effort themselves through their own revenues and not to impose a single dime of additional impost on the citizens of the state of Nevada.
Chairwoman Chowning:
That’s very admirable. I would appreciate it if you could propose that in writing and perhaps the attorney for the TSA could talk with you as well so that these things could be clarified. We have the section of statute in the bill, but the other section is over in the bookcase so we weren’t able to go along as quickly as you presented it. Obviously the good business people of the state of Nevada are here. The others are not, and we want to address them. In 15 years you’ve accomplished a lot.
Merritt Wiley, General Sales Manager, Valley North American, Reno:
[Introduced himself and spoke from prepared testimony (Exhibit D).] We are local agents for North American Van Lines. Our organization has been operating in Nevada since 1966, with current ownership since 1983. We are a fully regulated and fully certificated carrier of household goods and provide relocation services to business, the military, and the general public.
Our company invests heavily in quality employee programs, training, drug and alcohol testing, vehicle maintenance, insurance, Nevada economic development efforts, community projects, student sports programs, and charity, just to mention a few. Every worldwide North American Van Lines’ agent is bound to the high standards that TSA regulates within Nevada. Illegal, unregulated carriers disrespect our friends, neighbors, family members, local businesses, and laws on a regular basis. Furthermore, they rarely reinvest in our communities like the regulated carriers do.
With present budgetary and regulatory restrictions, the hardworking individuals at TSA are unable to perform functions that prevent our state from being exploited by unscrupulous carriers. Impound authority is a critical beginning, but only a beginning, and it must be complemented with qualified staff in sufficient numbers to adequately enforce the provisions of S.B. 192 and existing regulations.
Valley North American has firsthand knowledge of the backlogged conditions at TSA. These delays work against lawful carriers and their employees. On the other hand, they work very much in favor of the illegal carriers. A refocusing of efforts, by carrier type, is essential.
Valley North American fully supports the passage of S.B. 192, with one exception. We would like the term “vehicle” changed to read “motor vehicle, as defined by NRS 482.075” in Section 5, paragraph 1.
My notes and regulatory citations are included in Exhibit D. The reference to “vehicle” is very ambiguous, and, when carriers are asked to submit applications, they are also told that their trailers are, for example, regulated. This goes back to what you’ve said earlier about the $200. It’s very unclear.
Chairwoman Chowning:
I don’t see any problem with that. Actually I ran into that with my auto repair legislation and “motor vehicle” had to be identified or further clarified. But other than that, you’re in support of the bill?
Merritt Wiley:
Yes, I am.
Mike Sullivan, Legislative Advocate, Whittlesea/Bell Transportation:
[Introduced himself.] We support S.B. 192. We also would like to propose a friendly amendment (Exhibit E), in Section 21, that we have discussed with the TSA and have agreed upon. The last time we heard this bill, Chairman Soderberg talked about how these regulations are good. They give the TSA more teeth than when he was there. We think this amendment will go a long way toward that as well.
We testified before about the dire economic condition of the limousine industry in Las Vegas. We feel this amendment would give the TSA the ability to look at other factors when they’re making their decisions on new companies and additions to companies. This would give them the ability to look at the industry and ask if it is needed at this time, or give them the ability to look at economic conditions more than they currently are able to.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Committee members, this almost leads into part of the study on the allocation of limos that has already passed out of this Committee and passed out of Ways and Means and was amended on the Floor today, so it will probably be on General File tomorrow in the Assembly.
Would this be a means of an ongoing monitoring of the economic conditions of the industry? That sounds like it is a good measure.
Gary Milliken, Legislative Advocate, Yellow-Checker-Star Transportation:
[Introduced himself.] We are in support of S.B. 192, and we also support the proposed amendment.
Chairwoman Chowning:
The study is only for Clark County. Do you think that this provision should be for the entire state?
Mike Sullivan:
My company has taxicabs in Reno. I believe we would support this for the entire state. I also want to add that, of the 835 limousines that TSA regulates, I think, between our three companies, we represent a very large portion of that number who support S.B. 192.
Chairwoman Chowning:
It would be interesting to know how much of that percentage. Probably 800 of the 835? That is important to know, because I want to make clear that if at all possible, the one portion that is not represented here is the nonemergency medical vehicles. For anybody who is listening, I would like the Committee to have some feedback from that portion of the industry. We do not like to approve a fee without feedback.
Robert Campbell, Legislative Advocate, On Demand Sedan, Ambassador Limousine:
[Introduced himself.] We also support S.B. 192.
Patrick Fagan, Legislative Advocate, K-T Contract Services, Grayline Tours of Southern Nevada, and Nevada Charter:
[Introduced himself.] The companies I represent provide over-the-road bus transportation service. There are provisions in this bill, as you have noted, that will require licensing of drivers of fully regulated carriers, as well as the occurrence of a fee that will be applied to these carriers up to the amount of $200. It is important to understand there is an exemption under the law with respect to bus carriers that provide charter service.
Quite frankly, all of our vehicles are involved at various times in providing charter service. Therefore, there is a concern that we may see vehicles that are assessed fees under this statute that are providing service in a crossover manner. Sometimes they are in charter service, which is not a regulated or nonregulated carrier under the statute, while at other times you will see regulated per capita services provided. These companies currently own approximately 250 vehicles that provide service in the state of Nevada. We have 500 employees. Of those 500 employees, 325 are drivers. The exposure here is not insignificant.
I had discussed this issue before the meeting today with members of the Transportation Services Authority. We’ve been advised that there will be a rulemaking workshop that will be undertaken. This is very important to us. Without a rulemaking that will clarify some apportionment of this cost burden appropriately and lawfully, we clearly cannot support this bill. Based on the representations that we’ve heard, we’re willing to work with the TSA, engage them in the rulemaking process and clarify this. The charter crossover will apply to the $200 fee that’s proposed under this bill as well as the $50 fee that’s proposed for the licensing of drivers.
To reiterate, the vehicles are in charter service and the drivers of the vehicles are likewise in charter service. Clearly those services and the hours put in by those drivers are not going to be regulated by the TSA to the extent that they are charter services. We are closing the loop with respect to your comments. We represent buses, and buses are defined under the statute as vehicles in excess of a livery limousine. We’re talking about vehicles that are designated as 28-passenger or 48-passenger vehicles.
Chairwoman Chowning:
The TSA has stated on record that they are going to address that in their regulations, but we can also issue a letter of intent from this Committee, if you would like to work with us in addressing that. The TSA is nodding affirmatively to that as well, to clarify that for everyone. Perhaps that would be a positive step.
Patrick Fagan:
We agree to that offer. It would clarify the administration of these fees, and how they will apply. I want to thank the TSA for taking the time to discuss this matter with us. We will work with you on the letter of intent that you outlined.
Chairwoman Chowning:
This is a big piece of legislation. It is a full, encompassing bill, and it’s much better to get problems solved up front than to go two years down the road and have a lot of unhappy people. We don’t want that.
Bob Fairman, Sunshine Taxi:
[Introduced himself.] Last Tuesday the TSA and I met regarding S.B. 192 and made some changes (Exhibit F). In Section 6 (2)(b), it says “or if the applicant is a resident of a bordering state, resides within 50 miles of the state border, can have a valid California driver’s license or Utah driver’s license or a physical from that state,” and you can see they approved that, and we don’t have any problem with that at all since they made the changes.
Also in Section 10 (a) they made the same changes. We would accept S.B. 192 with those changes. We thank the TSA for their help with it.
Chairwoman Chowning:
This is Sunshine Taxi?
Bob Fairman:
Yes, they work at South Lake Tahoe. They have 35 cabs they run up there. They have trouble getting employment from Stateline, because most of their employees are over on the California side. It would benefit the people in Mesquite who have trouble getting employees over on that side, too.
Chairwoman Chowning:
It would probably apply in Laughlin as well. Would someone testify from the TSA just to indicate whether you are in agreement with the amendments that have been proposed?
Kimberly Maxson Rushton, Commissioner, Transportation Services Authority:
[Introduced herself.] We have met with the various speakers this past week. We have no objections to the amendments as proposed. We do have one concern that has to do with a portion of our budget. We are allocating a portion of our budget to pay for public service announcements. In the most recent Las Vegas Sprint Yellow Pages (Exhibit G), we have a heading underneath the title of “Movers” that clearly states that the TSA regulates household goods movers and that people who advertise without being licensed are acting illegally and without the authority of the TSA. Additionally, we provide a worksheet, which I am happy to disseminate, Exhibit H, that provides tips for intrastate household goods movers. This is important. Not only do we disseminate it to all parties who call us and make a request for such information about household goods movers, but we also regularly release this to the local news channels.
In my previous career, I worked in the area of consumer protection. I have spoken to Tim Hay, the Consumer Advocate, about this. He agrees this is a matter of importance to disseminate more information. He has agreed to speak to Attorney General Sandoval and to look into this issue in terms of disseminating information.
We will continue with our efforts to notify the local news stations as to exactly what the concern is with illegal household goods movers so that members of our community like Mr. Jones and Mr. Puliz are not negatively affected. They are contributing members to our state. They are very good businessmen and very good entrepreneurs whom we want to continue to see act and participate in our economy. The illegal movers are absolutely the ones we do not want out there.
We agree with the comments that notifying the public and public service announcements are important, but to allocate a percentage of our budget is an extreme. As you know, we are operating on a shoestring. That’s why we are here before you with an increase in fees, so budgeting for those public service announcements might interfere with our ability to conduct day-to-day operations. However, we will make the commitment now that we will continue to alert the public in every way possible, and we will work with the Attorney General’s office, the Consumer Advocate, the Bureau of Consumer Affairs, as well as business and industry, to ensure that citizens are aware of what illegal movers do and the detriment that they cause to our community.
Chairwoman Chowning:
We appreciate the background that you bring to the agency. I think it will be very positive for consumer protection. I will leave it up to Mr. Keele to submit that as part of his amendment. I thank the TSA for submitting the citations, (Exhibit I). Mr. Collins, as well as others, requested this. The only thing that I would still like to know is what the breakout is for north to south. I would like to thank everyone for coming forward with comments and for working together with the TSA in a spirit of cooperation. We appreciate your doing that, because, otherwise, we’re just not going to get meaningful legislation passed. We will not take a vote on this bill today. Everyone needs some review time.
George Keele:
Mr. Jones, on behalf of Carson Valley Movers, has authorized me to indicate that he will withdraw, at this time, his final amendment pertaining to the percentage of revenues. He appreciates the goodwill of the members of the Transportation Services Authority and their representation that they will undertake a special effort in enforcement over this next two years.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Remember that’s exactly what this is. This is a two-year trial, so there will be performance indicators. There will be lots of questions and watchful eyes over the next two years. Then the TSA will go on the record again stating what their accomplishments have been, and the industry will be reviewing those as well.
Assemblyman Gustavson:
I have a question for Commissioner Breslow. I noticed there is an open position in the Reno area. I was curious how long that has been open and whether the Governor’s hiring freeze is going to have any effect on filling that position because we need the enforcement up here.
Assemblyman Collins:
I wanted to ask if you were going to consider the amendment that changed from vehicle to motor vehicle? I think we should as it excludes commercial coaches. Is that what that would take out?
Chairwoman Chowning:
That would further clarify that. We will work on that in our work session.
Assemblyman Collins:
We need to look at both those definitions before we decide.
[The Transportation Services Authority provided Exhibit J, a memo from Keith Sakelhide, and Exhibit K, Definition of Terms.]
Chairwoman Chowning:
We are closing the hearing on S.B. 192. We will go into work session, (Exhibit L), and begin with Senate Bill 355.
Senate Bill 355 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes concerning franchises for vehicles. (BDR 43-1238)
Marji Paslov Thomas, Committee Policy Analyst:
Senate Bill 355 extends, under circumstances involving the sale of a new vehicle, the coverage of certain provisions relating to franchises for motor vehicles to include recreational vehicles designed to be mounted upon or drawn by a motor vehicle. In addition to other changes, the measure removes the limited definition of “new vehicle” in the law governing the compensation owed to a dealer upon the termination or discontinuance of a franchise.
There are some proposed conceptual amendments by John Sande [Nevada Franchised Auto Dealers Association] under Tab B. The first one is to remove the definition of a new vehicle. That’s listed on page 2, Section 5.5. That would be deleting lines 17-25.
The second proposed amendment is to require that a manufacturer purchase back a new vehicle if delivered to the dealer during the 18-month period prior to the effective date of the termination or refusal to continue to franchise. Also, if the vehicle is registered, it immediately becomes a used car and is not subject to the purchase by a manufacturer in event of a franchise termination. That amendment would be on page 3, Section 11 (1)(a), lines 19-22.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Would you gentlemen please state, for the record, if you were in agreement with this amendment?
John Sande, Legislative Advocate, Nevada Franchised Auto Dealers Association:
[Introduced himself.] At the hearing on this matter there was some concern expressed, and afterwards there was a lot of concern, by certain RV [recreational vehicle] manufacturers with the 2,500-mile provision that we put into the bill on the Senate side primarily to try to make the definition of new vehicle consistent throughout NRS Chapter 482. We realize that, to get consensus, we would have to change that, so I was working with Mr. Fred Hillerby. Basically we came up with the concept that, if any vehicle, in the event of a franchise termination, has been delivered within an 18-month period prior to the effective date of the termination or of the refusal to continue the franchise, then it will be deemed to be a new vehicle and subject to repurchase by the manufacturer unless it has been damaged, materially altered, or if it has been registered, in which case it would automatically become a -new vehicle.
Fred Hillerby, Legislative Advocate, Recreational Vehicle Industry Association:
[Introduced himself.] Yes, we support the amendment that Mr. Sande has put together. I would just add the one caveat that probably, in two years, we will be back. I have worked with Mr. Sande and Mr. Wayne Frediani (Nevada Franchised Auto Dealers Association) regarding some distinctions between automobiles and recreational vehicles, particularly those you pull. We will take that up in two years.
Chairwoman Chowning:
Some people from out-of-state issued their concerns, and we appreciate these being addressed. The Chair will accept a motion.
ASSEMBLYMAN KNECHT MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 355.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Claborn was absent for the vote.)
Chairwoman Chowning:
We will look at S.B. 322 next.
Senate Bill 322 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions relating to self-insurance for taxicabs regulated by Taxicab Authority. (BDR 58-1157)
Marji Paslov Thomas:
Senate Bill 322 removes the provision that allows taxicabs regulated by the Taxicab Authority to self-insure for only the first $50,000, combined single limit per accident, of the coverage required under the insurance provisions governing such taxicabs. The bill allows such taxicabs to self-insure for the full amount of the insurance coverage required for taxicabs regulated by the Taxicab Authority.
There are no proposed amendments, but I would like to point out that the Committee asked Gary Milliken to provide information on the type of insurance that would be required on the taxi. Mr. Milliken responded by explaining that each taxi contains the same proof of insurance as any other vehicle and the materials are maintained within each vehicle.
Gary Milliken, Legislative Advocate, Yellow-Checker-Star Transportation:
[Reintroduced himself.] As I mentioned at the first hearing, presently we can self-insure for buses, for limousines, and for every vehicle except taxicabs. The changes in this bill would simply allow us to self-insure for taxicabs as we do for all the other vehicles that we have. Regarding the question concerning proof of insurance, we carry proof of insurance in the vehicle the same as in any other vehicle. We list right now with whom we are insured.
Chairwoman Chowning:
We appreciate the clarification. The Chair will accept a motion.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 322.
ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Claborn was absent for the vote.)
Chairwoman Chowning:
Let’s take Senate Bill 288.
Senate Bill 288: Increases fees for compensable trips of taxicabs and driver’s permit to operate taxicab. (BDR 58-1251)
There are no proposed amendments. This increases the 15 cents per trip to 20 cents per trip and the cost for the driver to pay $40 for the first year for the original permit and $10 for a renewal, going up from $20 to $40 and $5 to $10. We had the testimony before. There was no opposition. The Chair will accept a motion.
ASSEMBLYMAN GOICOECHEA MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 288.
ASSEMBLYMAN SHERER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON VOTED NO.
Assemblyman Gustavson:
I have an objection to the fees that were included in the bill. That is my only objection.
Chairwoman Chowning:
The meeting is adjourned [at 3:38 p.m.].
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Sharee Gebhardt
Transcribing Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman
DATE: