December 2004

Study ofAllocation of Limousines

Legislative Counsel Bureau

Bulletin No.05-4

LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION’S SUBCOMMITTEE TO STUDY THE ALLOCATION OF LIMOUSINES

Bulletin No. 05-4

December 2004

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Summary of Recommendations........................................................................ iii Report to the 73rd Session of the Nevada Legislature ...............................................1 I. Introduction .......................................................................................1

A. Requirements of A.B. 518 ............................................................1 B. Review of Previous Legislation ......................................................2

II. Overview of Subcommittee Meetings ........................................................3

A. November 24, 2003 ....................................................................3 B. April 5, 2004 ............................................................................4 C. April 15, 2004...........................................................................4

III. Major Reports to the Subcommittee ..........................................................4

A. Independent Study on Allocation System ...........................................5

B. Budgetary Needs for Regulation .....................................................5

C. Limousine Regulation in Other Jurisdictions.......................................6 IV. Findings and Recommendations ...............................................................6

A. Allocation and Budgetary Needs .....................................................6

B. Other Recommendations...............................................................7 V. Legislative Commission and TSA Actions ..................................................7 VI. Appendices ........................................................................................9

Appendix A Assembly Bill 518 .................................................................... 11

ii

Appendix B Summary of Study Requirements and Deadlines ................................ 23

Appendix C

Report on Independent Study of Appropriateness of Allocation Scheme (Dr. Schwer report) .................................................................. 27

Appendix D

TSA Report on Significant Areas of Enforcement and Other Activities .... 45

Appendix E Fiscal Staff Comparison of TSA and TA Budgets and Revenue Sources ... 51

Appendix F

TSA Report on Budgetary Needs and Minimum Requirements .............. 57

Appendix G Report on Limousine Regulation in Other Jurisdictions (memo only)....... 73

Appendix H

Revised Minimum Requirements from TSA ..................................... 79 Appendix I Letter Concerning Reconsideration ................................................ 83

iii

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION’S SUBCOMMITTEE TO STUDY THE ALLOCATION OF LIMOUSINES (A.B. 518)

The Subcommittee finds that legitimate concerns and problems exist between the operations of limousines and taxicabs in Clark County which include incidents of price gouging, staging of limousines, uncertificated and uninsured operators, and other regulatory violations. The Subcommittee further finds that an allocation system is appropriate for the issuance of certificates of public convenience and necessity for limousines operated in a county whose population is 400,000 or more. In accordance with Section 11 of A.B. 518, the Subcommittee advises the Legislative Commission to provide to the Transportation Services Authority (TSA) its recommendation that the TSA should establish by regulation a system of allocations for carriers holding certificates for charter service by limousine as defined by NAC 706.036. The Subcommittee also finds that the budgetary needs of the TSA are not being met at a level that ensures optimum regulation of limousines, and that limousine operators could support reasonable, additional regulatory fees for the administration of an allocation system. The Subcommittee, therefore, recommends that the Legislative Commission should have legislation drafted to increase the annual limousine license fee to $600. The Subcommittee further recommends that the Legislative Commission should: RECOMMENDATION NO. 1 – Advise the TSA to work with the Executive Budget Office and the Fiscal Analysis Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau to identify an appropriate funding source in the amount of $50,000, for the TSA to conduct a study to establish the criteria for an allocation system for the regulation of limousines in a county whose population is 400,000 or more. If any such funding is through an appropriation, the appropriation shall be made contingent upon repayment of that amount, if the annual limousine license fee increase is approved by the 2005 Legislature. RECOMMENDATION NO. 2 – Advise the TSA to adopt regulations to maintain the current allocation system under Section 9 of A.B. 518, and encourage the TSA to use the time between July 1, 2004, and the beginning of the 2005 Session of the Nevada Legislature to conduct the criteria study and develop regulations to fully implement an allocation system if and when the annual limousine license fee is increased. RECOMMENDATION NO. 3 – Have legislation drafted to clarify that the annual limousine license fee in NRS 706.465 applies to a charter service by limousine as defined by NAC 706.036.

iv

NOTE: At its meeting on May 24, 2004, the Legislative Commission voted not to accept the recommendations of the Subcommittee. At its subsequent meeting on August 25, 2004, the Legislative Commission considered, but did not approve a motion to reconsider this action.

1

REPORT TO THE 73RD SESSION OF THE NEVADA LEGISLATURE BY THE LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION’S SUBCOMMITTEE TO STUDY

THE ALLOCATION OF LIMOUSINES

I. INTRODUCTION The 2003 Nevada Legislature adopted Assembly Bill 518 (Chapter 488, Statutes of Nevada, 2003) which, in Section 10 of the bill, required the Legislative Commission to direct a study of issues relating to the allocation of limousines. A copy of A.B. 518 is in Appendix A. At its meeting on September 24, 2003, the Legislative Commission appointed a subcommittee consisting of the following eight legislators to conduct the study and report its findings to the Legislative Commission, the Transportation Services Authority (TSA) and the 2005 Legislature: Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chair Senator Maggie Carlton Senator Warren B. Hardy Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr. Assemblyman Walter Andonov Assemblyman Bob Beers Assemblyman Jerry D. Claborn Assemblyman Harry Mortenson Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) staff services for the study were provided by Brian L. Davie, Legislative Services Officer, Administrative Division; Scott G. Wasserman, Chief Deputy Legislative Counsel, Legal Division; Joyce Garrett, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division; and Melisa Aguon, Secretary/IS Support Specialist, Administrative Division. This report summarizes and provides a review of the topics considered and acted upon by the Subcommittee relating to the allocation of limousines. In this document, the Subcommittee has attempted to present its findings and recommendations in a concise form. All supporting documents and minutes of meetings are on file with the Research Library of the LCB. A. Requirements of A.B. 518 Section 10 of A.B. 518 provided that the study must consider the appropriateness of an allocation system, the budgetary needs and effects of regulation, and other issues concerning the regulation of limousines. Appendix B contains a “Summary of Study

2

Requirements and Deadlines” prepared by staff of the Subcommittee to highlight the requirements and time constraints of the study. Section 9 of A.B. 518 established a general moratorium, with limited exceptions, on increases in the number of limousines to be operated under certificates of public convenience and necessity by the TSA in Clark County from June 1, 2003, through July 1, 2004. The moratorium was intended to allow time for the study to be conducted, and deadlines were established in the bill for actions resulting from the study. Those deadlines are summarized in Appendix B. B. Review of Previous Legislation The Nevada Legislature has been considering issues relating to the allocation of limousines since at least the 1999 Session.

1999 Session Senate Bill 491 in 1999 was a major bill concerning the regulation of taxicabs, limousines and motor carriers in Nevada. Among other things, the bill would have combined the TSA and Taxicab Authority in Clark County for the regulation of taxicabs and limousines. The measure would have imposed an annual fee of $500 per limousine. In addition, it would have provided for an annual increase in the allocation of taxis and limousines based on the percentage increase in the number of passengers arriving at airports in the county plus the percentage increase in the population of the county. The bill was amended and passed by the Senate Committee on Transportation and the Senate Committee on Finance, but it died on the Secretary’s Desk in the Senate.

2001 Session Two bills in the 2001 Session of the Nevada Legislature—S.B. 270 and S.B. 576—included provisions on the allocation of limousines. Senate Bill 270 was an enforcement measure for the TSA which included vehicle safety requirements and standards for limousine drivers, along with an annual fee of $350 per limousine. It also would have required the TSA to adopt regulations by July 1, 2002, establishing a system of allocating the number of limousines allowed to operate in Clark County. The bill was amended and passed by the Senate Committee on Transportation, but it lost in the Senate when it did not receive the required two-thirds majority vote. Senate Bill 576 was a comprehensive bill relating to motor carriers that included the limousine driver standards and the annual $350 limousine fee. It also would have authorized the TSA to prescribe a system of allocation for limousines in Clark County. The TSA would have been required to consider the needs of customers, the effects of the allocation on other regulated carriers of passengers, such as taxicabs, and the increase in population, airline passengers, occupied hotel rooms, and number of

3

customers. The TSA would have been required to set aside a portion of the allocation for new limousine companies entering the market, and increases would have been required to be divided equally among regulated companies. This bill passed the Senate and Assembly in different forms, but no further action was taken in the First Conference Committee before the session ended.

2003 Session In the 2003 Session, the Senate and Assembly Transportation Committees spent considerable time on Senate Bill 192 which was an enforcement and public safety measure relating to the TSA and the regulation of fully regulated carriers. It would have imposed an annual limousine fee of up to $200 (beginning on July 1, 2004) and included provisions and fees for drivers’ permits and other regulatory requirements. This bill passed the Senate but, following several hearings and amendments in the Assembly Committee on Transportation, it did not receive sufficient votes for passage on the floor of the Assembly. Attention then was focused on Assembly Bill 518 which established a $100 annual limousine license fee, enhanced the enforcement authority of the TSA, established the moratorium on limousine applications, and provided for the allocation study. The measure passed the Assembly, was amended and passed in the Senate, and adopted by both houses upon approval of the First Conference Committee report.

II. OVERVIEW OF SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS

The Legislative Commission’s Subcommittee to Study the Allocation of Limousines held three hearings to receive information and testimony, review study reports, and conduct a work session to determine its recommendations. Since the issue focused on the allocation of limousines in Clark County, all of the meetings were held in Las Vegas. A. November 24, 2003 At its first meeting, the Subcommittee received testimony from representatives of the TSA concerning its role in regulating limousines. In addition, the Administrator of the Taxicab Authority furnished information about the allocation system for taxicabs and highlighted problem areas between the operations of taxicabs and limousines. A representative of the limousine industry discussed the allocation and regulation issue, and the industry’s willingness to finance an independent study. The Subcommittee approved a gift, which was paid for and contracted for by the limousine industry, of a limited, independent study by the Center for Business and Economic Research at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), on whether an

4

allocation system for limousines in Clark County is appropriate. The Subcommittee directed that a provision be included that the contract price (approximated to be $20,000) be paid in advance to ensure preservation of the independent judgment and conclusions of the study. The Subcommittee also requested LCB staff to work with the Fiscal Analysis Division and TSA personnel on the budgetary aspects of the study and other issues relating to the regulation of limousines. B. April 5, 2004 The Subcommittee allowed time for research activities and met in early April to receive information and study reports. The Director of the Center for Business & Economic Research at UNLV presented the results of an independent study on the economic status of the limousine industry and concluded that an allocation system for the regulation of limousines in Clark County would be appropriate. A copy of that study is in Appendix C. The TSA presented updated information on disciplinary actions and enforcement activities of the agency (see Appendix D). The TSA also responded to questions on its budgetary needs for optimum regulation of limousines, as well as its minimum requirements (see Appendix F). The LCB Fiscal staff provided a comparison of funding sources and the budgets of the TSA and Taxicab Authority (see Appendix E). Subcommittee staff also provided information on the regulation of limousines in other jurisdictions (see Appendix G). Representatives of the limousine industry furnished public comment on the information presented and other aspects of the limousine business. C. April 15, 2004 In the Subcommittee’s final meeting, representatives of the TSA clarified the minimum funding requirements for enforcing an allocation system (see Appendix H), and several members of the limousine industry testified in favor of an allocation system and increasing the annual limousine licensing fee. The Subcommittee then conducted its work session.

III. MAJOR REPORTS TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE Section 10 of A.B. 518 provided specific direction to the Subcommittee to consider: (1) whether an allocation system is appropriate for the regulation of limousines in Clark County; (2) whether the budgetary needs of the TSA were sufficient for optimum regulation of limousines; and (3) any other issues deemed appropriate regarding the

5

regulation of limousines. Studies were conducted to assist the Subcommittee in its consideration of these issues. A. Independent Study on Allocation System The Center for Business and Economic Research at UNLV conducted a study for the Subcommittee on the appropriateness of an allocation scheme for limousines in Clark County. Representatives of the limousine industry in the State contracted and paid for the study in advance to ensure the independent nature of the study. Due to cost considerations, the Subcommittee limited the scope of the study to the issue of whether an allocation system is appropriate. The complete study report—dated April 3, 2004, and authored by Dr. R. Keith Schwer and Khalid Kisswani—is provided in Appendix C. The report reviewed reasons for regulating ground transportation and limousine services, and for using an allocation scheme for limousine service in Las Vegas. It then examined the financial status of the southern Nevada limousine industry, highlighted changes in TSA charter certifications over the past 18 months, and discussed possible concerns that might arise with an allocation scheme for ground transportation in Las Vegas. The study concluded that:

The current regulatory scheme for limousines without allocation resulted in wider swings in the number of vehicles and weaker economic performance than would have been expected with an allocation scheme. Regulation, whether with an allocation system or not, runs the risks of inefficiencies, misplaced incentives, and the lack of and transparency. In short, the expansion of the regulatory environment to include an allocation scheme has inherent weakness; but, these weaknesses aside, allocation seems to offer a better solution than the current arrangement, even if flawed. (p. 14)

B. Budgetary Needs for Regulation The Subcommittee directed LCB staff to work with TSA personnel on the issue of whether the budgetary needs of the TSA are being met at a level that will ensure the optimum regulation of limousines. Following a meeting and discussion, the TSA submitted a report to the Subcommittee, dated March 19, 2004, in response to questions posed by LCB staff concerning its budgetary needs under a possible allocation system. That report is found in Appendix F. The TSA report reviewed the agency’s considerations for the “optimum” regulation of limousines and summarized its patrol and enforcement activities, conduct of background investigations, and responsibilities to ensure compliance with existing

6

statutes and regulations. The report then reviewed various issues that would need to be addressed for implementation of an allocation system, and provided an estimate of revenue required to fund “optimum” regulation of limousines which totaled about $1.43 million. The TSA subsequently revised its estimates and provided minimum requirements for an allocation system that totaled $467,507 (see Appendix H). The TSA indicated this amount could be funded with an additional $500 annual fee on limousines, increasing the total annual limousine license fee to $600. C. Limousine Regulation in Other Jurisdictions The Subcommittee recognized the unique nature of the limousine and taxicab industries in southern Nevada, and asked LCB staff to develop information concerning the regulation of limousines in other jurisdictions. Staff reviewed various Internet sites and consulted with the national Taxicab, Limousine & Paratransit Association (TLPA). Appendix G contains a memorandum that summarizes the information and documents provided by the TLPA. This review indicated that the Subcommittee’s consideration of an allocation system for the regulation of limousines apparently was unique at this point among other jurisdictions around the country.

IV. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS At its work session, the Subcommittee further reviewed the minimum budgetary needs of the TSA for an allocation system for limousines. In addition, several representatives of the limousine industry testified in favor of an allocation system and the proposed increased annual license fee to support its enforcement. Some concerns were expressed about the effects of an allocation system on new and more efficient limousine operators, and the possibility of dealing with the current problems through more and better enforcement of the existing requirements. A. Allocation and Budgetary Needs The Subcommittee found that legitimate concerns and problems exist between the operations of limousines and taxicabs in Clark County which include incidents of price gouging, staging of limousines, uncertificated and uninsured operators, and other regulatory violations. The Subcommittee further found that an allocation system is appropriate for the issuance of certificates of public convenience and necessity for limousines operated in a county whose population is 400,000 or more. In accordance with Section 11 of A.B. 518, the Subcommittee advised the Legislative Commission to provide to the TSA its recommendation that the TSA should establish

7

by regulation a system of allocations for carriers holding certificates for charter service by limousine as defined by Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 706.036. The Subcommittee also found that the budgetary needs of the TSA are not being met at a level that ensures optimum regulation of limousines, and that limousine operators could support reasonable, additional regulatory fees for the administration of an allocation system. The Subcommittee, therefore, recommended that the Legislative Commission should have legislation drafted to increase the annual limousine license fee to $600. B. Other Recommendations The Subcommittee recognized that the TSA would not be able to implement and enforce an allocation system until it had the funding in place to hire the required administrative and enforcement personnel. A transition period would be necessary to conduct a study to establish the criteria for an allocation system, and to promulgate appropriate regulations. Therefore, the Subcommittee further recommended that the Legislative Commission should: Recommendation No. 1 – Advise the TSA to work with the Executive Budget Office and the Fiscal Analysis Division of the LCB to identify an appropriate funding source in the amount of $50,000, for the TSA to conduct a study to establish the criteria for an allocation system for the regulation of limousines in a county whose population is 400,000 or more. If any such funding is through an appropriation, the appropriation shall be made contingent upon repayment of that amount, if the annual limousine license fee increase is approved by the 2005 Legislature. Recommendation No. 2 – Advise the TSA to adopt regulations to maintain the current allocation system under Section 9 of A.B. 518, and encourage the TSA to use the time between July 1, 2004, and the beginning of the 2005 Session of the Nevada Legislature to conduct the criteria study and develop regulations to fully implement an allocation system if and when the annual limousine license fee is increased. Recommendation No. 3 – Have legislation drafted to clarify that the annual limousine license fee in NRS 706.465 applies to a charter service by limousine as defined by NAC 706.036.

V. LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION AND TSA ACTIONS Section 10 of A.B. 518 required the Legislative Commission, through its Subcommittee, to submit the final results of its study to the TSA on or before

8

April 30, 2004. That report was submitted to the TSA on April 21, 2004. It included the Subcommittee’s summary of recommendations and a copy of the report prepared by Dr. Schwer. Section 11 of A.B. 518 required the Legislative Commission to provide the TSA with its recommendation, on or before May 28, 2004, as to whether the TSA should establish by regulation a system of allocations for limousines. At its meeting on May 24, 2004, following extensive discussion, the Legislative Commission, by a vote of seven to five, acted not to accept the recommendations of the Subcommittee and recommended that the TSA not establish a system of allocations for limousines. Concerns were expressed about whether an allocation system was the appropriate response to the problems, that enhanced regulatory enforcement could better respond to the issues, that an allocation system would have negative effects on the free market system for limousines, and that it would adversely affect new and more efficiently operated limousine companies. Subsection 2 of Section 11 of A.B. 518 required the TSA to consider the recommendation of the Legislative Commission and allowed the TSA to adopt regulations establishing a system of allocations for limousines under its determination based upon the information gathered during the study. Subsection 3 of Section 11 of A.B. 518 required the TSA to publicly announce, on or before June 15, 2004, whether it would establish by regulation a system of allocations for limousines. In the meantime, efforts were undertaken to reconsider the action of the Legislative Commission. That reconsideration would not take place until after the June 15 deadline. A letter was provided to the TSA on June 9, 2004, from the Director of the LCB on behalf of the Chairman of the Legislative Commission explaining the possible reconsideration action. A copy of that letter is at Appendix I. At its meeting on June 15, 2004, the TSA therefore approved moving forward with temporary regulations to maintain the current allocation system contingent upon the Legislative Commission approving its Subcommittee’s recommendations, funds being made available to hire a consultant to develop an allocation system, and legislative authorization during the 2005 Session for an increase in the annual limousine license fee. At its subsequent meeting on August 25, 2004, the Legislative Commission, by a vote of six to six, did not approve a motion to reconsider its previous action. The Legislative Commission, therefore, let stand its previous decision not to recommend an allocation system for limousines. Based on this action, the TSA subsequently terminated its activities toward establishing an allocation system for limousines.

VI. Appendices

Appendix A Assembly Bill 518..............................................................................11 Appendix B Summary of Study Requirements and Deadlines .........................................23 Appendix C Report on Independent Study of Appropriateness of Allocation Scheme (Dr. Schwer report)............................................................................27 Appendix D TSA Report on Significant Areas of Enforcement and Other Activities..............45 Appendix E Fiscal Staff Comparison of TSA and TA Budgets and Revenue Sources .............51 Appendix F TSA Report on Budgetary Needs and Minimum Requirements........................57 Appendix G Report on Limousine Regulation in Other Jurisdictions (memo only) ................73 Appendix H Revised Minimum Requirements from TSA ..............................................79 Appendix I Letter Concerning Reconsideration .........................................................83

9

10

APPENDIX A

Assembly Bill 518

11

12

Assembly Bill No. 518–Committee on Transportation

CHAPTER..........

AN ACT relating to transportation; imposing certain fees for the operation of livery and traditional limousines; prohibiting certain motor carriers from engaging in certain types of misleading advertising; providing for the impoundment of certain vehicles under certain circumstances; making various changes regarding the filing of certain applications; making various changes regarding the disposition of money paid for the special license plate for veterans; temporarily prohibiting the Transportation Services Authority from accepting certain applications relating to certificates of public convenience and necessity for the operation of limousines; temporarily prohibiting fully regulated carriers from increasing the number of limousines which they operate; directing the Legislative Commission to conduct a study of issues relating to the allocation of limousines; authorizing the Transportation Services Authority under certain circumstances to adopt regulations providing for a system of allocations for limousines; providing penalties; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.

WHEREAS, In Southern Nevada an excessive number of limousines may negatively affect the integrity and viability of the limousine industry and may negatively affect the taxi industry, as well as cause conflict between taxi and limousine drivers and companies which could negatively impact the tourism industries; now, therefore

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEMBLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Chapter 706 of NRS is hereby amended by adding thereto the provisions set forth as sections 2 and 3 of this act. Sec. 2. 1. An operator of a limousine shall, beginning on July 1, 2003, and on July 1 of each year thereafter, pay to the Authority a fee of $100 for each limousine that the Authority has authorized the operator to operate. 2. As used in this section, “limousine” includes: (a) A livery limousine; and (b) A traditional limousine. Sec. 3. 1. It is unlawful for any person to advertise services for which a certificate of public convenience and necessity or a contract carrier’s permit is required pursuant to NRS 706.011 to 706.791, inclusive, and sections 2 and 3 of this act, unless the person has been issued such a certificate or permit.

13

– 2 –

2. If, after notice and a hearing, the Authority determines that a person has engaged in advertising in a manner that violates the provisions of this section, the Authority may, in addition to any penalty, punishment or disciplinary action authorized by the provisions of NRS 706.011 to 706.791, inclusive, and sections 2 and 3 of this act, issue an order to the person to cease and desist the unlawful advertising and to: (a) Cause any telephone number included in the advertising, other than a telephone number to a provider of paging services, to be disconnected. (b) Request the provider of paging services to change the number of any beeper which is included in the advertising or disconnect the paging services to such a beeper, and to inform the provider of paging services that the request is made pursuant to this section. 3. If a person fails to comply with paragraph (a) of subsection 2 within 5 days after the date that he receives an order pursuant to subsection 2, the Authority may request the Commission to order the appropriate provider of telephone service to disconnect any telephone number included in the advertisement, except for a telephone number to a provider of paging services. If a person fails to comply with paragraph (b) of subsection 2 within 5 days after the date he receives an order pursuant to subsection 2, the Authority may request the provider of paging services to switch the beeper number or disconnect the paging services provided to the person, whichever the provider deems appropriate. 4. If the provider of paging services receives a request from a person pursuant to subsection 2 or a request from the Authority pursuant to subsection 3, it shall: (a) Disconnect the paging service to the person; or (b) Switch the beeper number of the paging service provided to the person. If the provider of paging services elects to switch the number pursuant to paragraph (b), the provider shall not forward or offer to forward the paging calls from the previous number, or provide or offer to provide a recorded message that includes the new beeper number. 5. As used in this section: (a) “Advertising” includes, but is not limited to, the issuance of any sign, card or device, or the permitting or allowing of any sign or marking on a motor vehicle, in any building, structure, newspaper, magazine or airway transmission, on the Internet or in any directory under the listing of “fully regulated carrier” with or without any limiting qualifications.

14

– 3 –

(b) “Beeper” means a portable electronic device which is used to page the person carrying it by emitting an audible or a vibrating signal when the device receives a special radio signal. (c) “Provider of paging services” means an entity, other than a public utility, that provides paging service to a beeper. (d) “Provider of telephone service” has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 707.355. Sec. 4. NRS 706.011 is hereby amended to read as follows: 706.011 As used in NRS 706.011 to 706.791, inclusive, and sections 2 and 3 of this act, unless the context otherwise requires, the words and terms defined in NRS 706.013 to 706.146, inclusive, have the meanings ascribed to them in those sections. Sec. 5. NRS 706.391 is hereby amended to read as follows: 706.391 1. Upon the filing of an application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to operate as a common motor carrier , other than an operator of a tow car, or an application for modification of such a certificate, the Authority shall fix a time and place for a hearing [thereon.] on the application. 2. The Authority shall [issue such a] grant the certificate or modification if it finds that: (a) The applicant is financially and operationally fit, willing and able to perform the services of a common motor carrier [;] and that the operation of, and the provision of such services by, the applicant as a common motor carrier will foster sound economic conditions within the applicable industry; (b) The proposed operation or the proposed modification will be consistent with the legislative policies set forth in NRS 706.151; (c) The granting of the certificate or modification will not unreasonably and adversely affect other carriers operating in the territory for which the certificate or modification is sought; [and] (d) The proposed [service] operation or the proposed modification will benefit and protect the safety and convenience of the traveling and shipping public and the motor carrier business in this state [.] ; (e) The proposed operation, or service under the proposed modification, will be provided on a continuous basis; (f) The market identified by the applicant as the market which the applicant intends to serve will support the proposed operation or proposed modification; and (g) The applicant has paid all fees and costs related to the application. 3. The Authority shall not find that the potential creation of competition in a territory which may be caused by the granting of [a certificate,] the certificate or modification, by itself, will unreasonably and adversely affect other carriers operating in the territory for the purposes of paragraph (c) of subsection 2.

15

– 4 –

4. [An] In determining whether the applicant is fit to perform the services of a common motor carrier pursuant to paragraph (a) of subsection 2, the Authority shall consider whether the applicant has violated any provision of this chapter or any regulations adopted pursuant thereto. 5. The applicant for [such a certificate has] the certificate or modification: (a) Has the burden of proving to the Authority that the proposed operation will meet the requirements of subsection 2 [. 5.] ; and (b) Must pay the amounts billed to the applicant by the Authority for the costs incurred by the Authority in conducting any investigation regarding the applicant and the application. 6. The Authority may issue or modify a certificate of public convenience and necessity to operate as a common motor carrier, or issue or modify it for: (a) The exercise of the privilege sought. (b) The partial exercise of the privilege sought. [6.] 7. The Authority may attach to the certificate such terms and conditions as, in its judgment, the public interest may require. [7.] 8. The Authority may dispense with the hearing on the application if, upon the expiration of the time fixed in the notice thereof, no petition to intervene has been filed on behalf of any person who has filed a protest against the granting of the certificate [.] or modification. Sec. 6. NRS 706.756 is hereby amended to read as follows: 706.756 1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, any person who: (a) Operates a vehicle or causes it to be operated in any carriage to which the provisions of NRS 706.011 to 706.861, inclusive, and sections 2 and 3 of this act, apply without first obtaining a certificate, permit or license, or in violation of the terms thereof; (b) Fails to make any return or report required by the provisions of NRS 706.011 to 706.861, inclusive, and sections 2 and 3 of this act, or by the Authority or the Department pursuant to the provisions of NRS 706.011 to 706.861, inclusive [;] , and sections 2 and 3 of this act; (c) Violates, or procures, aids or abets the violating of, any provision of NRS 706.011 to 706.861, inclusive [;] , and sections 2 and 3 of this act; (d) Fails to obey any order, decision or regulation of the Authority or the Department; (e) Procures, aids or abets any person in his failure to obey such an order, decision or regulation of the Authority or the Department; (f) Advertises, solicits, proffers bids or otherwise holds himself out to perform transportation as a common or contract carrier in

16

– 5 –

violation of any of the provisions of NRS 706.011 to 706.861, inclusive [;] , and sections 2 and 3 of this act; (g) Advertises as providing: (1) The services of a fully regulated carrier; or (2) Towing services, without including the number of his certificate of public convenience and necessity or contract carrier’s permit in each advertisement; (h) Knowingly offers, gives, solicits or accepts any rebate, concession or discrimination in violation of the provisions of this chapter; (i) Knowingly, willfully and fraudulently seeks to evade or defeat the purposes of this chapter; (j) Operates or causes to be operated a vehicle which does not have the proper identifying device; (k) Displays or causes or permits to be displayed a certificate, permit, license or identifying device, knowing it to be fictitious or to have been cancelled, revoked, suspended or altered; (l) Lends or knowingly permits the use of by one not entitled thereto any certificate, permit, license or identifying device issued to the person so lending or permitting the use thereof; or (m) Refuses or fails to surrender to the Authority or Department any certificate, permit, license or identifying device which has been suspended, cancelled or revoked pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $1,000, or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 6 months, or by both fine and imprisonment. 2. [A person convicted of a misdemeanor for a] Any person who, in violation of the provisions of NRS 706.386 , operates as a fully regulated common motor carrier without first obtaining a certificate of public convenience and necessity or any person who, in violation of the provisions of 706.421 , operates as a contract motor carrier without first obtaining a permit is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished: (a) For [the] a first offense [,] within a period of 12 consecutive months, by a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $1,000 . [;] In addition to the fine, the person may be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 6 months. (b) For a second offense within a period of 12 consecutive months and for each subsequent offense [,] that is committed within a period of 12 consecutive months of any prior offense under this subsection, by a fine of $1,000 . [; or

17

– 6 –

(c) For any offense,] In addition to the fine, the person may be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 6 months . [, or by both the prescribed fine and imprisonment.] 3. Any person who , in violation of the provisions of NRS 706.386, operates or permits the operation of a vehicle in passenger service without first obtaining a certificate of public convenience and necessity [issued pursuant to NRS 706.391] is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. 4. If a law enforcement officer witnesses a violation of [this subsection, he] any provision of subsection 2 or 3, the law enforcement officer may cause the vehicle to be towed immediately from the scene [. 4.] and impounded in accordance with NRS 706.476. 5. The fines provided in this section are mandatory and must not be reduced under any circumstances by the court. [5.] 6. Any bail allowed must not be less than the appropriate fine provided for by this section. Sec. 7. NRS 417.145 is hereby amended to read as follows: 417.145 1. The Veterans’ Home Account is hereby established in the State General Fund. 2. Money received by the Executive Director or the Deputy Executive Director from: (a) Payments by the Department of Veterans Affairs for veterans who receive care in a veterans’ home; (b) Other payments for medical care and services; (c) Appropriations made by the Legislature for veterans’ homes; and (d) Except as otherwise provided in subsection 7, gifts of money and proceeds derived from the sale of gifts of personal property he is authorized to accept for the use of veterans’ homes, if the use of such gifts has not been restricted by the donor, must be deposited with the State Treasurer for credit to the Veterans’ Home Account. 3. Interest and income must not be computed on the money in the Veterans’ Home Account. 4. The Veterans’ Home Account must be administered by the Executive Director, with the advice of the Deputy Executive Director and the Nevada Veterans’ Services Commission, and the money deposited in the Veterans’ Home Account may only be expended for: (a) The operation of veterans’ homes; (b) A program or service related to a veterans’ home; (c) The solicitation of other sources of money to fund a veterans’ home; and (d) The purpose of informing the public about issues concerning the establishment and uses of a veterans’ home.

18

– 7 –

5. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 7, gifts of personal property which the Executive Director or the Deputy Executive Director is authorized to receive for the use of veterans’ homes: (a) May be sold or exchanged if the sale or exchange is approved by the State Board of Examiners; or (b) May be used in kind if the gifts are not appropriate for conversion to money. 6. All money in the Veterans’ Home Account must be paid out on claims approved by the Executive Director as other claims against the State are paid. 7. The Gift Account for Veterans’ Homes is hereby established in the State General Fund. The Executive Director or the Deputy Executive Director shall use gifts of money or personal property that he is authorized to accept and which the donor has restricted to one or more uses at a veterans’ home, only in the manner designated by the donor. Gifts of money that the Executive Director or Deputy Executive Director is authorized to accept and which the donor has restricted to one or more uses at a veterans’ home must be deposited with the State Treasurer for credit to the Gift Account for Veterans’ Homes. The interest and income earned on the money in the Gift Account for Veterans’ Homes, after deducting any applicable charges, must be credited to the Gift Account for Veterans’ Homes. Any money remaining in the Gift Account for Veterans’ Homes at the end of each fiscal year does not lapse to the State General Fund, but must be carried forward into the next fiscal year. 8. The Executive Director shall, on or before August 1 of each year, prepare and submit to the Interim Finance Committee a report detailing the expenditures made from the Gift Account for Veterans’ Homes that are attributable to the money deposited in that account pursuant to subsection 2 of NRS 482.3764. Sec. 8. NRS 482.3764 is hereby amended to read as follows: 482.3764 1. Before the Department issues to any person, pursuant to NRS 482.3763: (a) An initial set of special license plates, it shall: (1) Collect a special fee for a veterans’ home in the amount of $25; and (2) Affix a decal to each plate if requested by an applicant who meets the requirements set forth in NRS 482.37635. (b) An annual renewal sticker, it shall: (1) Collect a special fee for a veterans’ home in the amount of $20; and (2) Affix a decal to each plate if requested by an applicant who meets the requirements set forth in NRS 482.37635. 2. The Department shall deposit [any money] the first $100,000 collected pursuant to this section each year with the State

19

– 8 –

Treasurer for credit to the [Veterans’ Home Account.] Gift Account for Veteran’s Homes, established by subsection 7 of NRS 417.145. Thereafter, any additional amount collected pursuant to this section during the year must be deposited in the State General Fund. Sec. 9. 1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, for the period beginning on June 1, 2003, and ending on July 1, 2004, the Transportation Services Authority shall not accept the submission or filing of any application for the modification of a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued to a fully regulated carrier of passengers for the operation of a livery or traditional limousine if the application for modification is to increase the number of limousines to be operated pursuant to the certificate of public convenience and necessity in a county whose population is 400,000 or more. 2. The Transportation Services Authority: (a) Shall first publicly notice and then process, in the order in which it was received, each application for any new or modified certificate of public convenience and necessity that is received by the Authority before June 1, 2003. (b) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, during the period beginning on June 1, 2003, and ending on July 1, 2004, shall accept the submission and filing of applications for a new certificate of public convenience and necessity for the operation of a livery or traditional limousine in a county whose population is 400,000 or more. Applications submitted and filed as described in this paragraph must be processed in the ordinary course of business and without undue delay. The Authority shall not, during that period: (1) Accept the submission and filing of more than one application by any one applicant. (2) Approve the operation of more than two livery or traditional limousines per each such application. 3. An unlimited certificate of public convenience and necessity for the operation of a livery or traditional limousine issued to a fully regulated carrier of passengers by the Transportation Services Authority is void and revoked for the period from June 1, 2003, to July 1, 2004, to the extent that the carrier has not, before June 1, 2003, registered in this state each authorized limousine covered by the certificate of public convenience and necessity. 4. As used in this section: (a) “Fully regulated carrier” has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 706.072. (b) “Livery limousine” means a motor vehicle that is engaged in the general transportation of persons for compensation and not operated on a regular schedule or over regular routes and:

20

– 9 –

(1) Was a light truck, as that term is defined in 49 C.F.R. § 523.5, at the time of its manufacture; or (2) Was originally manufactured as having a capacity of 9 or more persons but less than 16 persons, including the driver. The term does not include a limousine for which the operator is not required to obtain a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the Transportation Services Authority. (c) “Traditional limousine” means a motor vehicle that is engaged in the general transportation of persons for compensation and not operated on a regular schedule or over regular routes and: (1) Was a passenger automobile, as that term is defined in 49 C.F.R. § 523.4, at the time of its manufacture and was later modified to increase its length; or (2) Has a capacity of less than nine persons, including the driver. Sec. 10. 1. The Legislative Commission shall direct a study of issues relating to the allocation of limousines. 2. The study must consider: (a) Whether an allocation system is appropriate for the issuance of certificates of public convenience and necessity for limousines operated in a county whose population is 400,000 or more; (b) Whether the budgetary needs of the Transportation Services Authority are being met at a level that will ensure optimum regulation of limousines, combined with an assessment of the probable effect on operators of any additional regulatory fees; and (c) Such other issues regarding the regulation of limousines as the Commission deems appropriate. 3. The Commission may apply for any available grants and accept gifts, grants or donations to assist the Commission in conducting the study. 4. The Commission may contract with or enter into an agreement with a public or private agency that has the experience necessary to conduct a study of the type described in subsection 2. 5. The Commission shall, on or before April 30, 2004, submit the final results of the study to the Transportation Services Authority. The Commission shall submit a report of the results of the study and any recommendations for legislation to the 73rd Session of the Nevada Legislature. Sec. 11. 1. On or before May 28, 2004, the Legislative Commission shall, based upon information gathered during the study described in section 10 of this act, provide to the Transportation Services Authority the recommendation of the Commission as to whether the Authority should establish by regulation a system of allocations for limousines.

21

– 10 –

2. The Authority shall consider the recommendation of the Commission and if the Authority determines, based upon information gathered during the study, that it would be advisable to establish a system of allocations for limousines, the Authority may, except as otherwise provided in subsection 3, adopt regulations in accordance with chapter 233B of NRS establishing a system of allocations for limousines. If established, such a system must set forth the number of limousines that may be operated by a person who holds a certificate of public convenience and necessity for the operation of a livery or traditional limousine, as applicable. 3. On or before June 15, 2004, the Authority shall publicly announce whether it will establish by regulation a system of allocations for limousines. 4. As used in this section: (a) “Livery limousine” has the meaning ascribed to it in section 9 of this act. (b) “Traditional limousine” has the meaning ascribed to it in section 9 of this act. Sec. 12. The provisions of this act do not limit, prohibit, restrict or otherwise affect the consideration of or processing of any application for: 1. A new certificate of public convenience and necessity; or 2. The modification of a certificate of public convenience and necessity, that is filed with or submitted to the Transportation Services Authority before June 1, 2003. Sec. 13. 1. This section, sections 1 to 6, inclusive, and 9 to 12, inclusive, of this act become effective upon passage and approval. 2. Sections 7 and 8 of this act become effective on July 1, 2005.

20 ~~~~~ 03

22

APPENDIX B

Summary of Study Requirements and Deadlines

23

24

SUMMARY OF STUDY REQUIREMENTS AND DEADLINES FOR THE LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION’S SUBCOMMITTEE

TO STUDY THE ALLOCATION OF LIMOUSINES (Sections 10 and 11, Assembly Bill 518, Chapter 488, Statutes of Nevada 2003)

STUDY REQUIREMENTS The study of the issues relating to the allocation of limousines must consider:

(a) Whether an allocation system is appropriate for the issuance of certificates of public convenience and necessity for limousines operated in Clark County;

(b) Whether the budgetary needs of the Transportation Services Authority (TSA) are being met at a level that will ensure optimum regulation of limousines, combined with an assessment of the probable effect on operators of any additional regulatory fees; and

(c) Such other issues regarding the regulation of limousines as deemed appropriate. In summary, the study must consider the appropriateness of an allocation system, the budgetary needs and effects of regulation, and other issues concerning the regulation of limousines. The Subcommittee may apply for any available grants and accept gifts, grants or donations to assist in conducting the study. It also may contract or enter into an agreement with a public or private agency that has the necessary experience to conduct the described study. DEADLINES (on or before) April 30, 2004 -- The Legislative Commission shall submit the final results of the study to the TSA. (Report the results and legislative recommendations to the 73rd Session.) May 28, 2004 -- The Legislative Commission shall, based on the study information, provide to the TSA its recommendation as to whether the TSA should establish by regulation a system of allocations for limousines. June 15, 2004 -- The TSA shall publicly announce whether it will establish by regulation a system of allocations for limousines. Prepared by: Brian Davie, Legislative Services Officer Legislative Counsel Bureau November 20, 2003

25

26

APPENDIX C

Report on Independent Study of Appropriateness of Allocation Scheme (Dr. Schwer report)

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

APPENDIX D

TSA Report on Significant Areas of Enforcement and Other Activities

45

46

47

48

49

50

APPENDIX E

Fiscal Staff Comparison of TSA and TA Budgets and Revenue Sources

51

52

Joyce Garrett, Program Analyst - 4/2/2004 Page 1 of 2

Presentation to Subcommittee to Study the Allocation of Limousines (AB 518)

Transportation Services Authority and Taxicab Authority

2003-05 Biennium Budget Overview Statutory Authority

• Transportation Services Authority • NRS Chapter 706 – Motor Carriers • NRS Chapter 712 – Storage of Household Goods and Effects

• Taxicab Authority • NRS Chapter 706 – Motor Carriers, Sections 881-885

Funding Sources

• Transportation Services Authority • Balance Forward Cash (8%) • Highway Fund Appropriation (78%) • Fines (7%) • Fees (7%) • Funding Sources Approved by the 2003 Legislature

o Limousine Annual License Fee (GL 3604) – A.B. 518 established a $100 annual fee for each limousine authorized by the TSA to operate in Nevada.

o Fine Authority (GL 4157) – Additional revenue authority approved by the 2003 Legislature upon the passage of A.B. 518 for impoundment of all fully regulated carriers: (limos, household goods carriers, tour buses and tow cars) (maximum fine per impounded vehicle is $10,000). Prior to the passage of A.B. 518, impound authority was limited to only limousines.

• Taxicab Authority • Balance Forward Cash (8%) • Fines (2%) • Fees and Assessments (90%) • Taxicab Trip Charge (GL 3832) $.05 increase approved by the

2003 Legislature - S.B. 288 increased the trip charge assessment from $.15 to $.20 on every taxicab trip in Clark County.

53

Joyce Garrett, Program Analyst - 4/2/2004 Page 2 of 2

Expenditure Authority • Expenditure Categories in Common (personnel, travel, operating,

equipment) • Unique Major Expenditure Categories

• Transportation Services Authority Fines Account (B/A 3923) o Enforcement Activities (Category 10) (Fine revenue is restricted

to support enforcement staff in carrying out the provisions of NRS Chapter 706.)

• Taxicab Authority o Transfer to the Division of Aging Services (Category 10)

The Senior Ride Program subsidized by the Taxicab Authority provides half-fare taxicab rides to qualified older Americans and the permanently disabled in Clark County.

54

TSA Admin. TSA FinesTotal

TSA Revenue TaxicabB/A 3922 B/A 3923 B/A 3922+3923 B/A 4130

GL 2511 BALANCE FORWARD CASH n/a 262,341$ 262,341$ 610,583$ 2507 HIGHWAY FUND APPROPRIATION 2,187,419$ n/a 2,187,419 n/a3315 REGULATORY ASSESSMENTS FROM CLARK COUNTY n/a n/a n/a 71,232 3601 VAN POOL LICENSES AND FEES 1,060 n/a 1,060 n/a3604 LIMOUSINE ANNUAL LICENSE - NEW REVENUE SOURCE 115,000 n/a 115,000 n/a3607 TAXICAB LICENSES (OUTSIDE CLARK COUNTY) 32,250 n/a 32,250 n/a3608 TOW TRUCK LICENSES 24,186 n/a 24,186 n/a3610 TAXICAB CERTIFICATES n/a n/a n/a 173,060 3655 HOUSEHOLD GOOD WAREHOUSE PERMITS 1,300 n/a 1,300 n/a3656 TAXICAB DRIVER PERMITS n/a n/a n/a 127,306 3717 TAXICAB APPLICATION FEES 20,680 n/a 20,680 1,800 3818 PHOTOCOPY SERVICE CHARGE 4,509 n/a 4,509 1,345 3832 TAXICAB TRIP CHARGE n/a n/a n/a 4,400,000 4157 FINES n/a 191,000 191,000 119,693 4326 TREASURER'S INTEREST n/a n/a n/a 47,862 4355 REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES 4,752 n/a 4,752 n/a

TOTAL 2,391,156$ 453,341$ 2,844,497$ 5,552,881$

TSA Admin. TSA FinesTotal TSA Expenditures Taxicab

B/A 3922 B/A 3923 B/A 3922+3923 B/A 4130Cat. 01 PERSONNEL SERVICES $ 1,724,221 $ 31,562 $ 1,755,783 3,832,098$

02 OUT OF STATE TRAVEL 1,157 n/a 1,157 n/a 03 IN STATE TRAVEL 10,516 n/a 10,516 6,656 04 OPERATING 174,591 286 174,877 269,093 05 EQUIPMENT 1,417 52,140 53,557 188,049 10 ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES (TSA) n/a 143,804 143,804 n/a 10 TRANSFER TO AGING (Taxicab) n/a n/a n/a 378,218 16 VEHICLE OPERATION 494 n/a 494 n/a 26 INFORMATION SERVICES 18,616 16,483 35,099 64,946 30 TRAINING 1,356 n/a 1,356 8,043 59 UTILITIES 158 n/a 158 n/a 80 B&I COST ALLOCATION 46,290 n/a 46,290 92,064 86 RESERVE n/a 208,596 208,596 531,064 87 PURCHASING ASSESSMENT 686 470 1,156 1,783 88 SWCAP 43,904 n/a 43,904 72,792 89 AG COST ALLOCATION 367,750 n/a 367,750 108,075

TOTAL 2,391,156$ 453,341$ 2,844,497$ 5,552,881$ Source: Legislatively Approved Budgets and Office of the State Controller - Budget Status Report

TRANSPORTATION SERVICES AUTHORITY AND TAXICAB AUTHORITY

Revenue

Expenditures

LEGISLATIVELY APPROVED BUDGETSFiscal Year 2003-04

55

TSA Admin. TSA FinesTotal

TSA Revenue TaxicabB/A 3922 B/A 3923 B/A 3922+3923 B/A 4130

GL 2511 BALANCE FORWARD CASH n/a 179,936$ 179,936$ 235,919$ 2507 HIGHWAY FUND APPROPRIATION 2,136,959$ n/a 2,136,959 n/a3315 REGULATORY ASSESSMENTS FROM CLARK COUNTY n/a n/a n/a 71,232 3601 VAN POOL LICENSES AND FEES 1,060 n/a 1,060 n/a3604 LIMOUSINE ANNUAL LICENSE - NEW REVENUE SOURCE 120,000 n/a 120,000 n/a3607 TAXICAB LICENSES (OUTSIDE CLARK COUNTY) 32,250 n/a 32,250 n/a3608 TOW TRUCK LICENSES 24,186 n/a 24,186 n/a3610 TAXICAB CERTIFICATES n/a n/a n/a 173,060 3655 HOUSEHOLD GOOD WAREHOUSE PERMITS 1,300 n/a 1,300 n/a3656 TAXICAB DRIVER PERMITS n/a n/a n/a 127,306 3717 TAXICAB APPLICATION FEES 20,680 n/a 20,680 1,800 3818 PHOTOCOPY SERVICE CHARGE 4,509 n/a 4,509 1,345 3832 TAXICAB TRIP CHARGE n/a n/a n/a 4,600,000 4157 FINES n/a 181,000 181,000 119,693 4326 TREASURER'S INTEREST n/a n/a n/a 47,862 4355 REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES 4,752 n/a 4,752 n/a

TOTAL 2,345,696$ 360,936$ 2,706,632$ 5,378,217$

TSA Admin. TSA FinesTotal TSA Expenditures Taxicab

B/A 3922 B/A 3923 B/A 3922+3923 B/A 4130Cat. 01 PERSONNEL SERVICES $ 1,837,208 $ 34,362 1,871,570 3,954,455$

02 OUT OF STATE TRAVEL 1,157 n/a 1,157 n/a 03 IN STATE TRAVEL 13,180 n/a 13,180 1,251 04 OPERATING 173,096 319 173,415 271,745 05 EQUIPMENT - 28,670 28,670 76,085 10 ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES (TSA) n/a 119,637 119,637 n/a 10 TRANSFER TO AGING (Taxicab) n/a n/a n/a 378,218 16 VEHICLE OPERATION 494 n/a 494 n/a 26 INFORMATION SERVICES 19,634 22,490 42,124 42,371 30 TRAINING 1,356 n/a 1,356 8,043 59 UTILITIES 158 n/a 158 n/a 80 B&I COST ALLOCATION 47,188 n/a 47,188 93,851 86 RESERVE n/a 154,988 154,988 358,290 87 PURCHASING ASSESSMENT 686 470 1,156 1,783 88 SWCAP 43,904 n/a 43,904 72,792 89 AG COST ALLOCATION 207,635 n/a 207,635 119,333

TOTAL 2,345,696$ 360,936$ 2,706,632$ 5,378,217$ Source: Legislatively Approved Budgets and Office of the State Controller - Budget Status Report

TRANSPORTATION SERVICES AUTHORITY AND TAXICAB AUTHORITY

Revenue

Expenditures

LEGISLATIVELY APPROVED BUDGETSFiscal Year 2004-05

56

APPENDIX F

TSA Report on Budgetary Needs and Minimum Requirements

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

APPENDIX G

Report on Limousine Regulation in Other Jurisdictions (memo only)

73

74

75

76

77

78

APPENDIX H

Revised Minimum Requirements from TSA

79

80

81

82

APPENDIX I

Letter Concerning Reconsideration

83

84

85

86