MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Transportation
Seventy-second Session
May 22, 2003
The Senate Committee on Transportation was called to order by Chairman Raymond C. Shaffer, at 1:36 p.m., on Thursday, May 22, 2003, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer, Chairman
Senator Dennis Nolan, Vice Chairman
Senator Mark Amodei
Senator Warren B. Hardy II
Senator Terry Care
Senator Maggie Carlton
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Michael Schneider (Excused)
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Marsheilah Lyons, Committee Policy Analyst
Sherry Rodriguez, Committee Secretary
Chairman Shaffer:
We are going to open the work session with Assembly Bill (A.B.) 267. Is the committee ready to make a motion?
ASSEMBLY BILL 267 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions relating to certain fees and surcharges charged and collected in regard to vehicles leased for short term. (BDR 43-961)
SENATOR CARLTON MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 267.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED. (SENATORS NOLAN AND SCHNEIDER WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Shaffer:
We are going to have discussion only on A.B. 518. We are not going to take any action on this bill today. Ms. Lyons will go over some possible amendments with us to see if the bill is workable.
ASSEMBLY BILL 518 (2nd Reprint): Temporarily prohibits increase in number of limousines in operation and directs legislative study of issues relating to allocation of limousines. (BDR S-1102)
Marsheilah Lyons, Committee Policy Analyst:
There are two proposed mock-ups for A.B. 518 (Exhibit C and Exhibit D). Proposal one (Exhibit C) removes the final “Whereas” provision, page 1, lines 15 through 18. That provision gives the impression a study has already been completed and the market saturation determined. Amendment two, section 1, subsection 2, lines 13 through 16 (Exhibit C), requires the Transportation Services Authority (TSA) to accept the submission or filing of all applications for new and modified certificates prior to July 31, 2003. This provides an opportunity for the current 19 applicants, 12 for new certificates, and 7 for modified certificates, to have their applications reviewed, approved, or disapproved. According to the TSA, the 19 requests submitted, if all are approved as submitted, would authorize an additional 190 limousines. Currently, there are 840 limousines in southern Nevada.
The third amendment, section 2, subsection 1, paragraph (a), lines 3 through 18 (Exhibit C), requires the committee that is to conduct the study to be appointed by the Legislative Commission. The committee must include four Legislators, two of whom would be the chairpersons of the committees on Transportation from the Senate and Assembly. Currently, there are no Legislators on the committee. The Legislative Commission will fill the additional Legislative appointments as they deem appropriate. Additionally, the committee would contain one representative from the limousine industry appointed by the Legislative Commission, with input from the industry representatives, and one nonvoting staff member from the TSA.
The fourth amendment, section 2, subsection 4 (Exhibit C), would limit the number of meetings to four from the current eight that are budgeted.
The fifth amendment, section 2, subsection 5, line 36 (Exhibit C), would require the report resulting from the study be submitted to the TSA in addition to the Legislative Commission.
Lastly, section 2, subsection 8 (Exhibit C), authorizes the establishment of an allocation system, if the study warrants it, on or before February 15, 2005. In addition, it requires the system of allocation to consider the number of certain limousines registered in Nevada.
Chairman Shaffer:
I think July 31, 2003, is too far out. I would suggest we take the bill back to its original date of passage and approval.
Senator Hardy:
Senator Care, do you see any constitutional problems, or interference with commerce-type situations?
Senator Care:
I am not sure about that. I believe in section 2, subsection 8 (Exhibit C), it says, “If the study warrants the establishment … .“ It goes on to address the allocation system. There is an argument that it is a matter of public policy. Obviously the State has an interest in how cabs are regulated. No one would dispute that.
In the second sentence I understand it to say, “In addition to the information provided by the Study Committee, the allocation system must reflect the number of traditional and livery limousines registered in Nevada by each certificated carrier … .” To me, that means the number of limousines you have is a percentage of the entire limousine fleet in southern Nevada. I do not know how a company just starting up would ever be able to break into this industry, or how an established company could better themselves by increasing the number of limousines it has been allocated. I am uncomfortable with the “Whereas.”
Regarding the study mentioned in section 2, subsection 8 (Exhibit C), this means there would be a permanent system in place. If one company has 13 percent of the limousines, another company has 8 percent, another one at 12 percent, and so on and so forth, there would never be any fluctuation, at least that is the way I understand this.
Ms. Lyons:
I spoke with Ms. Avants of the TSA. She indicated that with any allocation system, they must include room in the formula for new companies. The formula was not explained, but the example was given that if 100 limousines were warranted, based on looking at the need in the area, 10 percent of those may possibly be set aside for a new company that might be coming in. The rest would be divvied up among those companies that already exist that may have requested additional limousines.
Senator Hardy:
Theoretically we could always be a little behind demand if no new companies want to come into this industry. We would perpetually be behind the demand.
Senator Care:
I have read, on at least one occasion in the papers, at the Mandalay Bay Hotel and Casino there were fisticuffs between taxicab and limousine drivers. I do not think anyone would doubt there is some friction going on between limousine and taxicab drivers. I do not know if this committee has had enough testimony or documents presented before it to agree with the recitals in the preamble of the bill itself. Was there a bill for the Legislature to come up with an allocation system?
Chairman Shaffer:
Was that during this session?
Ms. Lyons:
No. It was last session.
Senator Care:
The question is, what is the proper entity to do that allocation? Should it be the Legislature or the TSA?
Senator Nolan:
I have some historical perspective for when we try to allocate different fleets that provide franchise services or other types of services. We have experienced in the ambulance business, and also within the taxicab industry, when there was some allocation, quite often competitive companies have the opportunity to bid on and purchase out their competitors, leaving them standing as an independent entity. In effect, monopolizing portions of the market. They actually own the competition. They are established as an independent company when in fact they have the same owners. Historically we have tried to get around that a couple of times in different businesses, but we keep running into the same thing. There might be some constitutional blocks. There are certain parts of competition, or private industry that you cannot legislate.
Chairman Shaffer:
That is the case with the towing industry. There are some large corporations buying up towing companies around town.
Senator Carlton:
I had some concerns with the word divert in previous testimony. I would hate to see this turn into that type of situation. We have been down that road before. The problem we had, referring to doormen, I think that can be addressed through regulation. I know doormen have lost their jobs over this and I understand where the gentlemen are coming from. But, I believe there are regulations. The TSA has excellent inspectors that go out and do stings. I would be afraid that something like that would turn into another divert and sting situation. I do not feel we want to go down that road right now. This is the part that bothers me.
Chairman Shaffer:
I am going to ask Ms. Lyons to proceed with the explanation of her research and see if there is anything else the committee would like to comment on.
Ms. Lyons:
The second proposal (Exhibit D) includes all provisions that are addressed in proposal one (Exhibit C), with the exception of some revisions to the second amendment. This proposal contains the same membership as indicated in proposal one (Exhibit C), but requires the committee to enter into an agreement with the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) to conduct the study. This measure also authorizes the committee to receive certain funding necessary to conduct the study. This proposal came about as a result of discussion with the TSA in which they indicated such a study was already being done through the UNLV School of Business. However, the study was on hold as necessary data was being gathered, and adequate funding became available.
Chairman Shaffer:
We are saying if we do a study, put the study at the UNLV School of Business, and have them conduct a study and then report back to the Legislators. The Legislators can make a recommendation based on the information received from the UNLV School of Business. That is another option we have, as far as the study is concerned.
Senator Hardy:
My concern is not the details of the study. I have a problem putting a moratorium on this industry while we study it. I understand the problem and the concerns. I believe we ought to look at it and, if what is occurring out there is actually occurring, then we should address the situation. We need to either regulate the limousine industry or deregulate the taxicab industry. My philosophy would be to deregulate the taxicab industry, but the industry indicates that is not what they want to do. I am not sure it would make sense, or if it is even legal for the Legislature to do or say, “We assume there is a problem so we are going to shut you down while we find out.”
We still have plenty of time on this bill. It is an exempt bill. I am willing to talk to the proponents of A.B. 518 in more detail to try and find a solution.
Chairman Shaffer:
We can hold this bill until next Wednesday.
Senator Hardy:
The idea of a moratorium really goes against the purpose of my philosophy.
Chairman Shaffer:
It probably goes against everyone’s philosophy if you believe in the free enterprise system. There are indications this is a big problem without some way of gathering information substantiating the “Whereas” we have in this bill. Before we go off the deep end, I would like to know more about it.
Senator Hardy:
I am not sure we need a study. When you look at every “Whereas” in here, they have already made up their minds. I am not sure there is not already ample evidence for us to make a decision to just go forward with a solution on this.
Chairman Shaffer:
Do you think we should create an allotment program?
Senator Hardy:
We still have a few days to work that.
Chairman Shaffer:
I would like to have everyone come back on Tuesday, May 27, 2003. If we discover something before then, and think we have something good, we will hold bar on the Senate Floor.
Senator Hardy:
I will talk with some of the proponents of A.B. 518.
Chairman Shaffer:
If you decide you do not like this bill and want to throw it out, that is exactly what we will do. Ms. Lyons would like to make a clarifying statement.
Ms. Lyons:
Regarding the first proposal (Exhibit C), if the committee decides to pursue that study with the commission conducting the study, it would need to be done through Legislative Affairs. There are only three studies allotted to each house. I was notified that two studies have already been determined. There is only one slot left for a study and there are several studies vying for that same spot. There is no guarantee this would be the study approved for that third slot.
Chairman Shaffer:
That means if we are going to entertain passing this legislation, we are going to need a backup position. If there is no commission available, then we take the next step backwards.
Until we hear more suggestions, or come to a consensus on this issue, we are going to take a couple of days to think on it. The proponents that you need to talk to are Michael Sullivan and Gary Milliken. These are the two people I have talked to concerning this bill. They seem to have a pulse of what the industry wants in the South, and also what the TSA is looking for. We have to see if we can live with that and if our constituents can live with that. Are we doing the best thing for Nevada when we come out with a piece of legislation like this? It could be very damaging to a lot of people.
Senator Hardy:
Chairman Shaffer, I have one other issue before we adjourn. I know we still have next week to finish up things. On Senate Bill 117, which was the off-road vehicle registration, the committee discussed having a letter sent to the Department of Taxation asking them to look into vehicle registration issues. I would like to have something like that put together for this. I just want to keep that in front of the committee. I would like the committee to look at that letter before it goes out.
SENATE BILL 117: Provides for registration and titling of off-road vehicles. (BDR 43-187)
Chairman Shaffer:
If there are no other comments or suggestions, we will adjourn this afternoon’s hearing at 2:01 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Sherry Rodriguez,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer, Chairman
DATE: