The Committee on Transportation was called to order at 1:40 p.m., on Tuesday, March 16, 1999. Chairwoman Vonne Chowning presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, 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.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mrs. Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall, Vice Chairwoman

Mr. Douglas Bache

Mr. John Carpenter

Mrs. Barbara Cegavske

Mr. Jerry Claborn

Mr. Tom Collins

Mr. Don Gustavson

Mrs. Kathy McClain

Mr. Dennis Nolan

Mr. David Parks

Ms. Bonnie Parnell

Mr. Kelly Thomas

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblywoman Ellen Koivisto, District 14

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Ray Masayko, Mayor, Carson City

Jon Plank, Representative, Ward 2, Board of Supervisors, Carson City and Chairman, Carson City Regional Transportation Commission

Larry Osborne, Executive Vice President,

Carson City Chamber of Commerce

Mary Walker, Owner, Walker and Associates

John Berkich, City Manager, Carson City

Russ Benzler, Assistant Chief, Bureau of Enforcement,

Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety

John Sande, Representing,

Nevada Federated Automobile Dealers Association

Bob Crowell, Representing, Nevada Judges Association

Judge Ed Johnson, Justice of the Peace, Dayton Township

Robey Willis, President, Nevada Judges Association

Lucille Lusk, Representing, Nevada Concerned Citizens

Diana Mathieson, Management Analyst, Drivers License Division,

Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety

Assemblywoman Parnell, District 40, testified in support of A.B. 270. The Carson City Board of Supervisors and the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) would like to ensure greater civic participation concerning regional transportation matters by enlarging the commission membership from the current three member boards to five members. The Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) specified the Carson City RTC would be composed of two county supervisors and one citizen at large. A.B. 270 would increase the number of citizen representation to three and provide the chair of the commission would be a member of the Board of Supervisors.

Mrs. Chowning wondered why Carson City required a five member commission when other areas with larger populations had the three member commission as per NRS.

Ray Masayko, Mayor, Carson City, explained, as Assemblywoman Parnell indicated the bill would expand the RTC membership to five. The reason behind the request was because of the issues and challenges of a three member commission. Other areas of the state allowed for elected officials to serve as members of the RTC; however, the Carson City consolidated municipality had only one set of elected officials, the Board of Supervisors. Carson City had demonstrated its citizens were interested and involved in local government as evidenced from the 36 boards and commissions on which their citizens sat, which was the reason behind the request. He informed the committee members Carson City would be classified as a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) with a population exceeding 50,000 after the 2000 census. The addition of two citizens would provide both the RTC and Board of Supervisors additional citizen perspective on the transit needs of the area for the next century.

Mr. Masayko remarked the city recognized the uniqueness proposed for the composition of the RTC but felt it would serve the residents of Carson City much better. Many residents had suggested the expansion of the RTC to allow for additional citizen representation. The issue had been considered by the Board of Supervisors during the transition period after the 1998 election and received unanimous consent from all board members past and present. The Board of Supervisors wanted to assure the accountability of the RTC to the voters, thus the chair of the commission would be required to be an elected member of the Board of Supervisors. The appointed terms would be for 2 years with two terms expiring on December 31 of even years and three terms expiring on December 31 of odd years. The RTC would see expanded issues and duties after Carson City was designated an MPO and increasing the citizen members would ensure their participation.

Mrs. Chowning explained her question dealt with section 1, subsections 1 and 2 of the bill, which stated a county over 100,000 was represented by a 5 member commission and a city within the county was represented by a 3 member commission.

Jon Plank, Representative, Ward 2, Board of Supervisors, Carson City and Chairman of Carson City Regional Transportation Commission, felt the RTC would better serve the area with the addition of two more citizens on the commission. Part of the uniqueness of Carson City was the rapid growth of the surrounding counties making Carson City a major transit area between them. The road needs of the area were thus more intense than other rural cities with large populations, so the commission required greater diversity.

Mrs. Chowning asked if there was a fiscal note attached to the bill. Mr. Masayko explained those appointed to the RTC served without compensation so it would be a simple matter of adding two more chairs to the table.

Assemblyman Bache wondered if Carson City had the same problem the public utilities commission had that if two members were together, it could be considered a violation of the open meeting law. By expanding the RTC to five members the problem would be eliminated. Mr. Masayko confirmed Assemblyman Bache and added they did not want to use that as one of the motivating factors, but it was definitely a problem. He continued, Carson City was the most urbanized county government in Nevada since the county was only 150 square miles in total land area with only 50 square miles suitable for development and a population exceeding 50,000. The Federal Transit Agencies recognized an entity as an MPO after the population reached 50,000, which would be confirmed after the next census. Those were the reasons the city wanted the expansion of the RTC.

Mrs. Chowning thanked Mayor Masayko for housing the legislature and hoped they did not create any additional burdens on the city. Mr. Masayko remarked the legislators were welcome visitors which the city was pleased to have in residence.

Mrs. Chowning also complimented the city on the development and improvements made in conjunction with the state since the 1997 session.

Larry Osborne, Executive Vice President, Carson City Chamber of Commerce remarked the chamber was a private, nonprofit organization with a little over 1,000 local business and professional members. They were in support of A.B. 270 having encouraged the city to expand private sector participation for several years. The problems with a three member RTC were pointed out by Assemblyman Bache, and if the bill passed, the Chamber of Commerce would work to encourage citizens to apply for the new seats.

Mary Walker, Owner, Walker and Associates, expressed support for the legislation for the reasons previously stated. She added traffic was a key problem which consistently came out as one of the highest issues on public surveys. She felt the Board of Supervisors was being very proactive by setting a structure for greater public input. Accountability of the commission was assured since the Board of Supervisors approved the budget requests.

John Berkich, City Manager, Carson City announced support for A.B. 270 and thanked the committee for their consideration.

Assemblyman Nolan disclosed he worked for American Transit Corporation, which contracted with municipal transit operations nationwide and the bill would not affect him or his company any differently than it would anybody else. He felt it was a great bill for the community.

Assemblyman Gustavson disclosed he was a former 18 year resident of Carson City and had witnessed the growth of the area. He felt the bill was a good piece of legislation because it did get the citizens more involved.

Assemblyman Parks disclosed he was no longer employed by the Clark County RTC and the bill would not affect him.

Assemblyman Collins disclosed he was former chairman of the Citizens Advisory Committee for the Clark County RTC, but the bill would not affect him.

ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED DO PASS ON A.B. 270.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

Mrs. Chowning closed the hearing on A.B. 270 and opened the hearing on A.B. 271.

Russ Benzler, Assistant Chief, Bureau of Enforcement, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV & PS) testified the department requested the bill to create certain statutory safeguards for customers and businesses involved in vehicle consignment sales. Vehicle consignment fraud and abuse had caused substantial losses over the past 4 years for Nevada consumers, vehicle owners, and businesses. In general the losses had occurred as a result of a small percentage of businesses selling consigned vehicles which failed to pay for the vehicle or pay the vehicle owner, because the proceeds of the sale were diverted to either business or personal expenses. In other cases the vehicle owners, while not suffering a direct financial loss, were surprised to find the consigned vehicles were being routinely operated by business employees for personal reasons during the period of consignment.

Mr. Benzler continued while the circumstances of each fraud or abuse might vary slightly from case to case, all shared two common elements. The first was a commingling of sale proceeds with business expenses or operating funds. The second element was weak or nonexistent terms of a consignment contract. A.B. 271 was written to address both problems by formally spelling out the rights and responsibilities of the parties involved in a consignment transaction. The bill provided five definitions for both contract sales and consignment contracts.

1. It clearly established what must be provided in the consignment contract.

2. Required funds from each consignment sale be placed in a separate account, which was similar to the auto broker legislation of the 1995 session.

3. Prohibited the proceeds of a sale from being commingled with any other business fund and provided penalties for any misappropriation of those funds.

4. Set definite time frames for notifying consignors a sale had taken place.

5. Prohibited operating a consigned vehicle unless the owner had granted express written consent to do so.

Mr. Bache wondered if the bill applied only when both the consignor and the consignee were Nevada residents. Mr. Benzler noted A.B. 271 would only apply to Nevada dealers and residents.

Mrs. Chowning asked if section 6, subsection 5 should read the vehicle may not be operated by the consignee, an employee or agent of the consignee, or a prospective buyer, as stated in subsection 6. She felt if the terms were spelled out in one section of the bill, they should be spelled out in all sections of the bill. Mr. Benzler agreed the language should be spelled out in subsection 5 as it was in subsection 6.

Mrs. Chowning stated the bill required amended language in subsection 5 to read as it did in subsection 6. Mr. Benzler remarked she was correct.

Mrs. Chowning wondered how large the problem was in Nevada. Mr. Benzler replied in the past 4 years $1 to $1.75 million was lost. There were only a small percentage of businesses involved, but the losses were too great to continue allowing the abuses to continue.

Mrs. Chowning called attention to the fiscal note for both local governments and the state and wondered what the costs associated with the bill would be. Mr. Benzler responded DMV & PS showed there would be no fiscal impact.

Mrs. Chowning inquired if the addition of the statute would require more of the department’s time to enforce the new law. Mr. Benzler relayed the bill would set up safeguards which would take less time to investigate than the current process.

Mr. Collins wondered if there was a reason the sales revenue was to be placed in a bank or savings account while credit unions and title companies were excluded. Mr. Benzler explained much of the language had been taken from the broker statutes.

Mr. Collins asked if statutes required the businesses to be licensed and bonded. Mr. Benzler answered absolutely all were licensed and bonded.

Mr. Collins felt an easier solution to the problem would be to raise the company’s bonds rather than pass the legislation. Mr. Benzler mentioned there had been no consensus in the industry or the legislature to do that in the past.

Mr. Collins indicated the issues appeared to be the same as with the mortgage companies. To ensure that companies with little or no funding were responsible businesses, they were required to be bonded heavily in order to be in business.

Mrs. Chowning commented by tightening the language to ensure consumer protection from fraud, the current bill addressed the same type of problem with auto brokers. So A.B. 271 was an attempt to achieve the same results as the auto broker statutes had. Mr. Benzler responded the bill was an attempt to enact similar statutes that were put in place for the auto brokers. Since the statutes had been in place for auto brokers the department had received very few complaints of consumer fraud. The same should be true for A.B. 271 since the requirements for a consignment sale would be spelled out in advance and all parties would go into the sale knowing the law.

Mr. Gustavson pondered since the dollar amount of the fraud was given, if a percentage of consignment dealers could also be given so the committee would know how many dealers with which the state was having a problem. Mr. Benzler explained there was a problem with less than 1 percent of dealers.

Mr. Gustavson remarked the problem did not appear to be great enough to require legislation. The intent behind the bill was valid, that all parties would know what they were getting into, but he did not feel it required statute since the problem lay with less than 1 percent of consignment dealers. Mr. Benzler exclaimed the issue should be laid out in statute because of the dollar amount of the problems involved.

Mrs. Chowning noted since the businesses were currently required to be licensed, there was no increase in fees recommended. Mr. Benzler stated she was correct.

Mr. Carpenter mentioned the definition of consignment in section 3 of the bill appeared too broad and could affect friends selling cars for other friends. He wanted clarification on whether that was the intent of the legislation or not. Mr. Benzler explained the intent of the legislation was not to stop someone from having a friend sell their car for them. The same problems could arise if the friend were to pocket the money; however, the intent was to only regulate consignment dealers.

Mr. Carpenter felt language should be added to specify who would be affected by the bill.

Mrs. Chowning thought the issue was covered in the legislation since the dealers had to be licensed. An individual would not advertise or represent themselves as a business and therefore would not be covered. Mr. Benzler indicated the definition of consignment used was from a dictionary and could be misinterpreted to affect individuals as well as licensed businesses.

Mrs. Chowning commented the committee was not interested in regulating individuals who sold their friend’s car for compensation, only those people who were licensed as consignment dealers. The committee would work to clarify the language for Assemblyman Carpenter.

Mr. Nolan articulated the language could similar to: "anyone who was licensed or held themselves out in the business of selling or consigning cars."

Mrs. Chowning noted if the intent of the committee was clear they could vote on the bill knowing the specific language would be presented at a later meeting.

Mr. Carpenter called attention to page 2, line 12 of the bill which discussed the term of consignment contracts. He remarked some problems could be solved if a specific termination date was required on the contract.

Mrs. Chowning explained a termination date was one of the five elements of contract law.

Mr. Carpenter wondered why there was a 3-day notification period allowed after a car was sold. He felt the consignment dealer should notify the vehicle owner as soon as the car was sold. Mr. Benzler indicated they wanted to establish a reasonable time period for notification. There was hope the business would notify the owner immediately, but felt 3 days was a reasonable period.

Mrs. Chowning mentioned the 3 day notification period was consistent with the 3-day right of rescission, which stated purchasers had an opportunity to return a car within 3 days after purchase. She remarked there was precedence for the 3 day rule and did not feel there was a problem with the language.

John Sande, Representing, Nevada Federated Automobile Dealers Association (NFADA) informed the committee they supported the legislation.

Mr. Carpenter voiced restitution should be paid for any amount embezzled. Judges should not be restricted, as the bill stated, to require restitution after $250, but should be allowed to require those who embezzle any amount to pay restitution. He suggested judges might feel the same and would want the ability to determine judgements without statutory requirements.

Mrs. Chowning questioned what the difference in penalty was for those who embezzled less than $250 and why the language was required. Mr. Benzler explained the difference was a misdemeanor and a felony. Any amount under $250 was classified as a misdemeanor and above $250 was a felony.

Mrs. Chowning remarked the language in section 8(b) did not state as such. Mr. Benzler remarked the provision in section 8(b) was added for any other offense committed other than diverting funds.

Mrs. Chowning commented NRS 205.300 stipulated in similar language a misdemeanor would be for violations under $250 and the same section of statute stated a felony was for violations over $250. Mr. Benzler relayed the section of statute dealt with embezzlement. The language after NRS 205.300 could be stricken and the committee could simply state: "in addition to any other penalty, the business would be required to pay restitution."

Mrs. Chowning clarified there were three amendments. The first was on page 3, section 6, subsection 5, language would be added after the words "may not be operated by" consistent with language in subsection 6, which stated " consignee, an employee or agent of a consignee, or perspective buyer." The second amendment was on page 4, lines 1 and 2, the words "if the amount embezzled by the person is $250 or more the court shall" would be deleted so that no matter what amount was embezzled the court could order restitution. The third amendment was on page 1, section 3, language would be added to clarify the legislation would only apply to those businesses who were licensed to sell consigned vehicles.

ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 271 WITH THE THREE AMENDMENTS MENTIONED BY CHAIRWOMAN CHOWNING.

ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mrs. Cegavske indicated she would rather vote on the bill after the amendments had been drafted in case the language was too drastic.

Mr. Nolan announced he was willing, as the maker of the motion, to have the bill returned to the committee after the amendments had been drafted but felt the amendments were conceptually simple and did not foresee there being any problems with the language.

Mrs. Chowning explained the committee would vote on the bill and if there was a problem with the amended language they would again review the bill.

THE MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYMEN CEGAVSKE AND GUSTAVSON VOTING NO.

Mrs. Chowning closed the hearing on A.B. 271 and opened the hearing on A.B. 272.

Bob Crowell, Representing, Nevada Judges Association declared the intent of A.B. 272 was to change the penalty for driving without mandatory liability insurance from a civil fine to a misdemeanor. The bill would also allow flexibility for judges to set the fines.

Judge Ed Johnson, Justice of the Peace, Dayton Township, testified the Nevada Judges Association requested the bill because there were people driving without insurance who had been to court three or four times for the same violation and the maximum penalty judges could impose was a $1,000 fine. The judges requested the penalty be changed to a misdemeanor so they had the discretion to impose a jail sentence if necessary since some offenders would pay the fine and continue to drive without insurance. The change from a civil fine to a misdemeanor would make the charge consistent with other violations, such as failing to stop at a stop sign which was a misdemeanor.

Judge Robey Willis, President, Nevada Judges Association reiterated Judge Johnson’s comments the legislation was for repeat offenders. The violation of no insurance was a much more serious penalty than a stop sign violation or a violation for no registration. If someone did not have any registration they should paid a fine and get their registration. If someone did not have insurance they could get into an accident and hurt someone else. The judges were only able to fine the person $1,000 and could require restitution, but the offenders could leave the state before payment was complete. He explained there was a young man who had been before him five times on the no insurance violation and had over $3,000 in fines, but continued to drive with no insurance. The bill was written for those repeat offenders who continued to appear before the courts without concern of the monetary fine.

Mrs. Cegavske announced she understood what the Nevada Judges Association was trying to accomplish but had heard problems of people who could not afford the insurance. She knew of people who could not afford to pay the premiums and wondered how those people would be handled. She did not think they should be jailed. Judge Johnson explained there was a certain amount of latitude in the statute but did require in order to drive a car in the State of Nevada there was a mandatory insurance requirement. A judge could suspend some of the fine, based upon what the statute allowed, and require the offender to provide proof of insurance to the court for a 12 month period, but those were not the people the judges wanted to address with the misdemeanor penalty.

Mrs. Chowning asked why section 4 of the bill allowed for the reduction of the $1,000 fine when the judges were asking for the penalty to be increased to a misdemeanor. She understood suspending the balance of the fine if the offender was able to show proof of insurance but was unclear why the judges wanted the ability to reduce the fine as well. Judge Johnson responded the ability to reduce the fine was more for leverage than anything else, much like the ability to impose a jail sentence. The bill would allow more discretion areas to impose different penalties for different offenders.

Assemblywoman McClain questioned the rationale behind changing "must" to "may" in section 3. Judge Johnson reiterated it was a discretionary tool for the judge. Mr. Crowell relayed without the change a judge would be required to reduce the $1,000 fine to $100 on a first violation. The new language allowed the judge to reduce the fine to $100 for any violation if the person brought in proof of insurance by the time of sentencing.

Mrs. McClain thought the original language was better since someone might miss an insurance payment and would not realize their insurance had lapsed until they went to renew their registration. By maintaining the $100 fine for a first time offense the threat of punishment would remain, but would be reasonable. Judge Willis declared they did not have a problem leaving the law the way it currently read.

Mrs. Chowning confirmed the $100 fine for a first offense would remain and if someone brought in evidence of insurance by the time of sentencing the fine could be reduced to $100. Judge Willis noted she was correct.

Mr. Collins indicated the Assembly Committee on Judiciary had problems in the past with judges wanting complete discretion in terms of sentences and fines. He observed the intent of the bill appeared to be to have the misdemeanor penalty and the other issues, such as $100 fine for a first time offense, seemed to be secondary. Mr. Crowell commented Assemblyman Collins was correct. Judges would like discretion on any case they heard, but knew that was not possible. All the Nevada Judges Association wanted in A.B. 272 was the misdemeanor penalty.

Lucille Lusk, representing Nevada Concerned Citizens stated the main problem the group had with the bill had been addressed by Assemblywoman McClain and since the intent of the committee seemed to be to retain the current statute, their concerns were somewhat alleviated. The other problem they had with the bill was having a misdemeanor conviction on a first time offense. She knew of one instance that took 3 months to straighten out someone’s insurance policy. The person had paid the premium and had no intention of driving without insurance, but the bill, if passed, would have placed a misdemeanor conviction on their record. She mentioned the committee could amend the bill to allow for a distinction between repeat offenders and first time offenders to allow for the possibility of an error. She remarked her son had borrowed a car from her and held his own insurance on it until he returned the car to her. He had cancelled the insurance the day he returned the car while she did not reinstate her insurance until a few days after since she did not know the insurance had lapsed. Therefore for a brief period of time, insurance on her car had been without anyone realizing and a first time offense could have become a misdemeanor conviction.

Mrs. Chowning requested Judge Johnson come forward to address Ms. Lusk’s concerns about the language of the bill. It appeared to her if the person brought in proof of insurance by the time of sentencing there should not be a heavy fine or a misdemeanor conviction.

Judge Johnson explained if someone brought in proof of insurance, which stated the insurance was in effect at the time the citation was issued, the charges would be dismissed. If someone did not have insurance at the time of the citation because of an oversight and had to plead guilty to the charge but had insurance by the time they went to court, the judge could suspend the sentence for a year, requiring them to show proof of the insurance for that year. Most insurance companies allowed a 30-day grace period, but there were always exceptions. He reiterated the intent behind the legislation was to allow a stiffer penalty for repeat offenders and not legally bind those "who overlooked their insurance for a week."

Mrs. Chowning noted the committee had worked in conjunction with the insurance companies during the 1997 session to tighten the verification process and make the statute very clear so there would not be any confusion.

Ms. Lusk explained her concerns were not with those people who simply did not have their insurance papers on them, but with those whose insurance had lapsed because of an oversight or dispute. She wondered if, even with a suspended sentence, the misdemeanor conviction would remain on the person’s record. Judge Johnson explained the misdemeanor conviction would remain on the person’s record, but the driving without insurance would also remain on the person’s DMV & PS record regardless of the outcome in court.

Mr. Collins clarified when someone was cited for driving without insurance there was generally another violation involved. Judges had the discretion to dismiss the insurance violation at the time of appearance if the person was able to show proof of insurance when they went to court. Judge Johnson claimed judges did not have the discretion to dismiss misdemeanor charges unless the district attorney’s office filed a motion to do so. The courts were unable to dismiss a charge unless there was no violation of the law. If the person did not have insurance at the time of the citation, the court could either convict the person or send the case to trial.

Mrs. Chowning indicated there would not be a vote on the bill until the language from the 1997 session was in front of the committee. The intent of the bill appeared to be to fine repeat offenders and charge them with a misdemeanor.

Mrs. Chowning recessed the committee at 3:00 p.m. She called the committee back to order at 3:10 to begin a work session on A.B. 157.

Assemblywoman Ellen Koivisto, District 14 offered the committee a list of proposed amendments (Exhibit C), which dealt with issues discussed when the bill was originally heard by the committee. She began by addressing concerns raised by Assemblyman Collins about the Boy Scouts and youth sports’ teams. The policy of the Boy Scouts was, "Trucks may not be used for transporting passengers except in the cab" (Exhibit C). A letter from Tim Carpenter, a soccer coach from Las Vegas, stated, "To be perfectly honest not only would I never allow my team to ride in the back of my truck, I can’t imagine any educated parent who would. The safety concerns are just too overwhelming." (Exhibit C).

Mrs. Chowning expressed appreciation to Assemblywoman Koivisto for addressing the concerns of committee members.

Mrs. Koivisto continued with the proposed amendments. The first amendment was located in section 1 of the bill. The proposed amendment would add the language "not designed or intended for the use of passengers" to line 7 of the bill. The second amendment on page 1, lines 11 and 12, flatbed trucks were added to the exclusion list in response to concerns raised in the last hearing.

Mrs. Chowning requested Assemblywoman Koivisto read the proposed language so the committee would be clear. Mrs. Koivisto read, "including without limitation, within the bed of a pickup truck or flatbed truck or within a camper shell or slide-in camper."

Mrs. Koivisto continued with the amendments. The third amendment would change the age in section 2 from 16 years of age to 18 years of age. The fourth amendment was proposed because of concerns voiced by Assemblywoman McClain and developed with the assistance of Assemblyman Parks. It was located in section 2, subsection (b) of the bill and added unincorporated towns with populations over 10,000. Subsection (c) was added to section 2, for the fifth amendment, which addressed Assemblyman Carpenter’s concerns on agriculture and ranching. She requested his assistance in determining a population cap so that the counties to be affected by the legislation would only be the larger, urban areas.

Mr. Carpenter declared he was unclear how to determine the population cap since the numbers would change after the census was completed in 2000.

Mr. Bache indicated if the counties the committee wanted the bill to impact were Clark, Washoe, and Carson City Counties then the cap could be set at 50,000. During the last census, Carson City County was under 45,000, Clark County was around 400,000 and Washoe County was between 100,000 and 400,000. He recalled, during the 1997 session, he attempted to pass a bill with a population cap, but was told he could not do so because the penalty for the violation was a misdemeanor.

Mrs. Chowning mentioned the bill before the committee carried a monetary fine and was not classified as a misdemeanor.

Mrs. McClain felt the issue of a population cap did not need to be addressed since the bill stated urban areas, defined as incorporated cities over 10,000. Since that language was already in the bill, the only areas affected would be the three larger counties.

Mr. Collins expressed since freeways were included in the bill those in smaller urban areas would be able to ride in the back of pick up trucks on city roads to deliver papers.

Mrs. Koivisto returned to the discussion of the proposed amendments, explaining the next amendment was to change the penalty for riding in the back of a pickup truck or flatbed truck to a fine of not less than $35 nor more than $100. Additionally, the penalty for violating the statute by riding in a truck with a camper shell or slide-in camper would be a fine of $25.

Mrs. Cegavske asked if there were seats and seat belts in a truck with a camper shell, would people be able to ride in those. Mrs. Koivisto stated the testimony from the Safe Kids program was the after market improvements had not been adequately tested and should not be used for children.

Mrs. Cegavske wondered if there were any vehicles which came from the factory with the seats installed. Mrs. Koivisto felt if the truck came from the factory with seats in the bed it would not be considered a pickup truck, but mentioned there was language in the bill that should cover the issue.

Mr. Parks noted there was a reference to a pickup truck on line 15 of the bill and felt the language should be consistent throughout the bill with regard to mentioning pickup trucks, flatbed trucks, camper shells, and slide-in campers.

Mrs. Chowning mentioned all suggestions should be placed in written form so the committee could address the concerns during another work session.

Mr. Bache expressed the proposed community service hours required should have been placed in section 3 and not in section 4, where the language was currently. Mrs. Koivisto explained the language for the primary and secondary offenses was taken from the seat belt law.

Mr. Collins expressed a speed limit should be added to the language. He knew of other states which placed a 25 miles per hour to 35 miles per hour speed limit on trucks.

Mrs. Chowning closed the work session on A.B. 157 and opened the work session on A.B. 186.

Ms. Marton observed the bill was discussed on March 11, 1999, where the committee debated the language concerning good moral character.

Dana Mathieson, Management Analyst, Drivers License Division, DMV & PS stated the department was proposing an amendment that stated the director of the department should adopt regulations to carry out the provisions of the bill. The regulations would include the criteria for denial of a license and the criteria for the revocation of a license. The amendment would also use information from state and federal records to determine the moral character and qualifications of an applicant. The final portion of the amendment would require the department to issue a temporary license to an applicant who had submitted an application and paid the required fee pending receipt of the records from the Nevada Criminal Repository and the report from the Federal Bureau of Investigations. The department was requesting "good moral character" be removed from the language of the bill.

Mrs. Chowning explained the committee would reschedule the bill for another work session and adjourned the meeting at 3:35 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Jennifer Batchelder,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman

DATE: