MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Transportation
Seventy-First Session
May 10, 2001
The Committee on Transportationwas called to order at 1:30 p.m., on Thursday, May 10, 2001. 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 Chairman
Mr. John Carpenter
Ms. Barbara Cegavske
Mr. Jerry Claborn
Mr. Don Gustavson
Mr. John J. Lee
Ms. Kathy McClain
Mr. Dennis Nolan
Mr. John Oceguera
Mrs. Debbie Smith
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Tom Collins, excused
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Paul Mouritsen, Committee Policy Analyst
Geri Mosey, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Richard Kirkland, Director of the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS)
Virginia Lewis, Deputy Director of Motor Vehicles
Daryl Capurro, Nevada Transport Association
John Madole, Nevada Chapter, Associated General Contractors (AGC)
Gary Wolfe, Nevada Highway Patrol Association
Micheline Fairbank, Senior Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau Research Division
Pat Zamora, Clark County School District
Barbara Byington, Douglas County Assessor
Rusty McAllister, Professional Fire Fighters of Nevada
Jim Nadeau, Captain, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office
Chris Ferrari, Representing Regional Emergency Medical Services Authority (REMSA)
Russ Benzler, Administrator, Compliance Enforcement Division, DMV&PS
Dana Mathiesen, Administrator, Central Services and Records Division, DMV&PS
Rhonda Bavaro, Business Programs Manager, DMV&PS
Donna West, Field Services Administrator, DMV&PS
Brian Hutchins, Attorney General’s Office, council to the Department of Transportation (NDOT)
Susan Martinovich, Assistant Director, Department of Transportation
Bill Gregory, Schwartz Investment Partnership
John Vergiels, Nevada General Insurance
Jim Werbeckes, Farmers Insurance Group
Bob Crowell, Nevada Trial Lawyers
Senate Bill 481: Provides for reorganization of department of motor vehicles and public safety into two departments. (BDR 43-1107)
Richard Kirkland, Director of the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS), testified S.B. 481 resulted from the Governor’s Fundamental Review. That committee recommended separate Motor Vehicles and Public Safety agencies, two dissimilar agencies. The law required that a law enforcement officer managed public safety, and those officers had no experience in the motor vehicle issues, which were complicated, technical and quite different from public safety. With the need to focus on Public Safety, there was little time and few resources to provide the DMV section the leadership it required.
Chairwoman Chowning asked Mr. Kirkland to review the history of the department: when was it two and when did it become one? Virginia Lewis, Deputy Director of Motor Vehicles, thought it was during the 1993 Legislative Session when Parole and Probation and the Office of Emergency Management joined the Motor Vehicles.
Mr. Kirkland continued, the original proposal, costing approximately $400,000, was reduced. A Director for the Department of Motor Vehicles was the only new position requested, funded by the elimination of an unfilled auditor position. The proposal provided a funding mechanism that cost $50,000 biennially less than if the split did not occur (Exhibit C). The Administrative Services Division (ASD) would be split from the Director’s Office with 20 employees assigned to Public Safety and 44 assigned to Motor Vehicles. The ASD chief would be assigned to Motor Vehicles, while the assistant chief would be assigned to Public Safety.
A DMV&PS separation reduced the annual cost allocation from the General Fund by about $102,000 in FY2002 and $69,000 in FY2003 and saved $139,947 biennially through the vacant Auditor III position, creating a total biennial savings of $310,849. Total funding needed for the Director of Motor Vehicles position was $130,446, including benefits, in the first year, and $129,497 in the second year for a total of $260,000 for the biennium.
The purpose of the split was to create public service delivery improvements in both departments. Extensive research, testimony and evidence presented to the Governor’s committee resulted in the recommendation of the split so that both agencies could focus on individual and unique goals and objectives.
Chairwoman Chowning asked Mr. Kirkland to explain the additions to S.B. 481 and the elimination of the 22 percent cap. Virginia Lewis stated that in drafting the bill, the Legislative Counsel Bureau used the existing statute and divided DMV and PS wherever they were mentioned, which made S.B. 481 a physically large bill. The functions had not changed. An amendment that passed out of Senate repealed the requirement on the 22 percent funding limitation. The motor vehicle budgets were restricted in the operating budget to 22 percent of the revenue that was collected and distributed to the Highway Fund. This limitation had been in place since the 1950s. Due to the rapid growth in Nevada, a budget was submitted to the Governor that exceeded the 22 percent. The Governor agreed it was time to address the issue so S.B. 481 and A.B. 611 both requested removing the cap.
Chairwoman Chowning submitted that the revised budget was within $100,000 of the 22 percent. Mr. Kirkland felt they were close, but he would not see the actual figures, which were prepared by the Legislative Counsel Bureau analysts, until the budget closed. DMV generated all the funding it needed to pay for its budget, so it was not a matter of lack of funds but rather being “frozen” with the 22 percent prohibition. This issue did not result from the Governor’s review.
Assemblyman Carpenter inquired how far beyond the 22 percent the original budget was. Ms. Lewis replied that for FY2002 the budget was $660,000 over in the first year and $813,000 for the second year. After the split, the overages were $100,000 and $214,000. Mr. Kirkland stated the Governor believed this was an opportunity to change a 50-year-old restriction.
Chairwoman Chowning returned to Section 12 of S.B. 481. Ms. Lewis had stated the Committee for Public Safety Telecommunications Operators already existed, but Ms. Chowning had not heard of it. Mr. Kirkland affirmed that statutorily the authority existed (NRS 481.105), but there was no committee. With the split, that statute would be repealed and added back to the proper agency.
Daryl Capurro, representing the Nevada Transport Association, was neutral on S.B. 481 but a few things concerned him. Commercial enforcement in the Highway Patrol, which did weight enforcement as well as oversight of the provisions of the international registration plan and the international fuel tax agreement, worked together with Motor Vehicles auditors. A separation of the department would widen the communications gap. Continuity was a problem, Mr. Capurro said, because in 2000 there were five different commercial coordinators, and the department and the Highway Patrol were understaffed. Commercial enforcement was a specialized field—CVSA inspections, dyed fuel, safety regulations—and the problems encountered before the separation would be exacerbated. According to Mr. Capurro, commercial enforcement officers were regularly detailed for traffic duties, particularly in southern Nevada. He met with John Drew, the former Department Director, who provided him with the re-organization chart presented to the Fundamental Review Committee on January 13, 2000, and told him that commercial enforcement had an equal status as traffic. Mr. Capurro requested the re-organization chart as presented at the Senate hearing, but he did not receive it. He was handed a copy at that point.
Mr. Capurro did not oppose the split but suggested a Legislative Oversight Committee to study the split over the next two years, and some stakeholders should be part of that committee. Mr. Capurro had no opinion on the 22 percent issue.
S.B. 56 created a Transportation Oversight Committee, Ms. Chowning related.
John Madole, representing the Nevada Chapter, Associated General Contractors, opposed the elimination of the 22 percent cap. DMV&PS generated revenue for the State Highway Fund. The cap imposed fiscal discipline. Assemblywoman McClain said that A.B. 246 was amended on the Floor to eliminate the refunds. “There’s like a $1 million projected loss to the Highway Fund that we can save, not lose.”
Gary Wolfe, representing the Nevada Highway Patrol Association, favored the split. However, he explained some history of the absorption of commercial enforcement into the Highway Patrol. Troopers left in alarming rates due to the salary problem and the priority was traffic control. There were no commercial enforcement personnel in southern Nevada. Mr. Wolfe said the legislature should fill the rank and file of the Highway Patrol so that commercial enforcement could continue.
Mr. Kirkland commented on the “legitimate concerns” raised by Mr. Capurro and Mr. Madole. The organizational structure for the Highway Patrol had not been created. Only two things would change: the Director’s Office and the Administrative Services Division. Mr. Kirkland said, “No aspect of the Highway Patrol or any other organization of the 19 organizations that exist in DMV and Public Safety are changing.” The Highway Patrol lacked 46 troopers in southern Nevada because the Clark County agencies hired them. There were vacant captain and lieutenant positions, but replacing them required removing a trooper from the street. Mr. Kirkland stated that he, and possibly the Governor, did not care about the 22 percent. But, to deal with the 100,000 additional transactions every month, money was needed.
Chairwoman Chowning supported the excellent and innovative plans that DMV&PS brought to legislation. If passed, those bills translated to fewer people in the DMV offices. New positions recommended by the Governor were filled. More would be approved with the new budget. Internet registration was quick and efficient; 90,000 people had used it. The Genesis System required a bit longer to process a command due to its greater functionality.
Chairwoman Chowning closed the hearing on S.B. 481.
Senate Bill 520: Authorizes optional registration of vehicles for 2-year period and makes various changes in provisions governing imposition and procedure distribution of governmental services tax. (BDR 43-1171)
Virginia Lewis stated that S.B. 520 allowed optional registration of vehicles for a two-year period. A decal for one year would be sent initially with the decal for the second year sent automatically. Before the second decal was sent, a database search verified the vehicle passed any required smog test and checked for bad debt or sanctions on the registration. The annual decal also eliminated confusion for law enforcement. It was difficult to know how many people would pay the two-year registration.
Micheline Fairbank, Senior Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau Research Division, worked on the second part of S.B. 520, which simplified the governmental services tax calculation. Under current statute, the manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP) was multiplied by the depreciation rate of the vehicle, multiplied by 35 percent, and multiplied by 4 percent, the governmental services tax. The proposal removed the 35 percent assessment rate and multiplied the MSRP by the depreciation rate, multiplied by governmental services tax of 1.4 percent (35 percent of 4 percent). This made it easier for the consumer to determine the tax but did not change the actual tax amount.
The tax exemptions for widows, orphaned children, blind persons, veterans, disabled veterans and their surviving spouses were adjusted accordingly. Assemblyman Lee asked why two years was selected and not three, four or six. Ms. Lewis stated they had only considered two years as others states did, but if the public response was good, this might be expanded.
Assemblywoman McClain asked whether the revenue from the government services tax would be distributed to the local governments as it was received or if a part would be saved and sent the next year. Ms. Lewis believed S.B. 520 provided for the annual distribution of funds.
Pat Zamora, Clark County School District, testified the district received the funds on an annual basis.
Barbara Byington, Douglas County Assessor, stated S.B. 520 addressed the exemptions but these, by statute, were for one year. Ms. Lewis believed they could issue a refund the second year.
Chairwoman Chowning closed the hearing on S.B. 520.
ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 520.
ASSEMBLYMAN LEE SECONDED.
THE MOTION CARRIED BY THOSE PRESENT.
Senate Bill 521: Revises provisions concerning use of siren by emergency vehicle. (BDR 43-1474)
Gary Wolfe, representing the Nevada Highway Patrol Association, supported S.B. 521 because it removed liability from the troopers. Some people failed to hear the siren until the trooper was directly behind them and then stopped their cars in front of the emergency vehicle.
Rusty McAllister, Professional Fire Fighters of Nevada, testified in support of S.B. 521, which allowed the driver of an emergency vehicle to operate the vehicle’s warning lamps without sounding the siren if the conditions were safe. It was more permissive, stating “may sound the siren” rather than “shall sound the siren,” thereby reducing the number of sirens heard late at night when there was little traffic. Some emergency vehicles in residential neighborhoods ran their lamps without the audible siren in order not to disturb sleeping residents, but this was against the existing statutes.
Assemblyman Lee asked if there was a time period that could be established for the use of the siren. Mr. McAllister stated that on major streets lights and sirens were used day and night. In a residential neighborhood, the firemen often turned off the audible because it kept kids from running to the fire engine. The siren was also turned off in apartment complexes where the trucks traveled slowly over speed bumps.
Assemblyman Lee was under the impression that emergency vehicles were permitted to run without sound in certain covert operations. Captain Jim Nadeau, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, believed S.B. 521 benefited emergency response in many ways, including response to a situation in which the siren was not advantageous to the police officer who preferred his arrival was less announced. Mr. Nadeau stated that at 50 to 55 miles per hour an emergency vehicle was “traveling at a speed that’s greater than what your siren’s going to reach out.” Often car audio systems were so loud that drivers and passengers did not hear a siren. The police had a responsibility to drive safely and appropriately. In addition, the overhead lamps were “significantly less noticeable than they are today.”
Chris Ferrari, representing REMSA, supported S.B. 521.
Assemblyman Nolan expressed that S.B. 521 codified procedures that have been practiced for about 20 years. Mr. Nolan stated that when an accident occurred with an emergency vehicle there were significant liability issues. Each agency would create policies to establish the safest driving practices for their operators under emergency situations. Chairwoman Chowning pointed out the state had a number of night-workers who slept during the daytime hours and would not be helped by the dusk-to-dawn provision. In response to Assemblyman Lee’s question whether “emergency vehicle” was defined in law, Mr. Mouritsen, the Committee Policy Analyst, said the term “authorized emergency vehicle” was defined in NRS 484.017 as a “vehicle permitted to depart from certain traffic laws when equipped and operated in a manner provided by law.”
ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN MOTIONED TO DO PASS S.B. 521.
ASSEMBLYMAN OCEGUERA SECONDED.
THE MOTION CARRIED BY THOSE PRESENT.
Senate Bill 523: Makes various changes relating to licensing and registration of motor vehicles, drivers and instructors. (BDR 43-511)
Virginia Lewis, Deputy Director of Motor Vehicles, provided a handout (Exhibit D) to explain the sections of the S.B. 523.
Chairwoman Chowning asked to whom the department currently released photographs but Ms. Lewis stated that the current technology did not provide for the retention of the photographs. Digitized licensing in 2002 would store that image in a database. The department wanted to restrict its release. Ms. Lewis was uncertain if a private investigator could receive the image.
Chairwoman Chowning asked about the temporary placard as changed in Sections 5 through 8. Russ Benzler. Administrator, Compliance Enforcement Division, DMV&PS, stated that the placard would be issued for 30 days. In response to another question from Ms. Chowning, Ms. Lewis replied that Nevada had reciprocity with other states for the exchange of driver’s license information, but the compacts were changing and DMV&PS wanted to address the changes through regulation rather than through statutes. Dana Mathiesen, Administrator, Central Services and Records Division, DMV&PS, further clarified that the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators prepared the compacts using information provided by the states. Meetings were held to attempt to revise and combine the driver’s license compact and the nonresident violators compact. The combined compact should be in effect before the next legislative session; therefore the department wanted the ability to adopt its provisions when it was finalized. There were a number of benefits in the new compact for the customers and for the states.
Referring to Section 11, Ms. Chowning asked whether the driving instructors were concerned about the fingerprinting. Ms. Lewis stated that the department adopted regulations that required a background investigation that included fingerprints. This was a requirement of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Section 11 placed it in statute. Section 16 was clarification that a background check was not necessary for renewal of a license to operate a driver training school.
Assemblyman Claborn inquired how a person obtained a certificate to train Class A drivers. Rhonda Bavaro, Business Programs Manager, DMV&PS, replied that the education requirements were not removed but the certificate would not be issued from the Department of Education. Application for the apprentice program required participation in the driver training class with a licensed instructor. Mr. Claborn wished to know how he could obtain a certified instructor for a program in southern Nevada. Donna West, Field Services Administrator, DMV&PS, stated that her office provided training for third party certifiers.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 523.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED.
THE MOTION CARRIED BY THOSE PRESENT.
Chairwoman Chowning opened the work session beginning with S.B. 219 (Exhibit E).
Senate Bill 219: Revises manner in which department of transportation is required to dispose of certain property. (BDR 35-476)
Brian Hutchins, Attorney General’s Office, counsel to the Department of Transportation (NDOT), reported the S.B. 219 in the first reprint provided another way for a previous property owner to repurchase the property from NDOT when they determined it was surplus. The amendment (Exhibits F-J) established provisions for the determination of “fair market value.” When the person with the prior right to purchase believed the appraisal did not represent fair market value, that person could object according to department procedures. After final determination of the value, the person had ten days to notify the department of intent to purchase. In the event the person did not purchase the property, it would go to auction.
Susan Martinovich, Assistant Director, Department of Transportation, further explained the procedure for disposing of excess real property. Unused property was usually surplused at the request of an individual who wished to purchase it. NDOT approved the property as surplus and provided notification through the newspapers. The previous property owner had 60 days in which to approach NDOT and request the excess property be sold back to him.
Chairwoman Chowning asked if Mr. Gregory felt the newspaper notification was sufficient for clients’ interests. Bill Gregory, representing Schwartz Investment Partnership, had no concern about that.
Chairwoman Chowning engaged in dialogue with Ms. Martinovich regarding the “procedures” the amendment mentioned but did not delineate. Ms. Chowning felt it was impossible to pass S.B. 219 without procedures in place, whereas Ms. Martinovich stated the department had procedures for every action it took and did not support putting procedures into statute. Procedures had been drafted and reviewed by the director and would be incorporated into the procedures [manual] upon approval of the Transportation Board of Directors. Mr. Hutchins affirmed that the department did have procedures and felt the amendment was adequate. Assemblyman Nolan suggested replacing the words “the person may object according department procedures” with “the person may object according to procedures which the department shall develop.”
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 219 WITH THE AMENDMENT PRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT CONTAINING THE EXTRA LANGUAGE MR. HUTCHINS ADDED.
ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN SECONDED.
THE MOTION CARRIED BY THOSE PRESENT.
Senate Bill 257: Provides for issuance of special license plates recognizing current or former service as volunteer fire fighter and revises provisions relating to special license plates indicating employment as current or former professional full-time salaried fire fighter. (BDR 43-505)
Paul Mouritsen, Committee Policy Analyst, stated that S.B. 257 provided for the issuance of special license plates to volunteer firemen and made changes to the current statutes for professional firemen (Exhibit K). An amendment (Exhibit L) provided by the Professional Firefighters of Nevada reinserted the word “professional” in front of “full-time salaried firefighter.” Another amendment, (Exhibit M) proposed by the Nevada Division of Forestry, would include state and federal fire organization firemen as eligible for the plates.
Chairwoman Chowning asked about the desire of the DMV&PS to have the existing plates “grandfathered” or recertified at renewal. Rusty McAllister, representing the Professional Firefighters of Nevada (PFN), told the committee he was previously unaware of the amendment from the Nevada Division of Forestry and the committee could ignore that amendment on his request (Exhibit N), but his other amendments to Section 5, permitted recertification by mail. The DMV&PS would work in cooperation with the PFN and the Nevada Fire Chiefs Association to eliminate ineligible plate-holders as their plates were renewed.
ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN MOTIONED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 257.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN MCCLAIN SECONDED.
THE MOTION CARRIED BY THOSE PRESENT.
Senate Bill 303: Makes various changes relating to insurance for motor vehicles. (BDR 43-109)
Mr. Mouritsen described S.B. 303, which made numerous changes to insurance for motor vehicles (Exhibit O). An amendment (Exhibit P) proposed by Farmers Insurance Group eliminated the provision that allowed an operator’s policy to be used to satisfy the requirements of Nevada’s mandatory insurance law. Only an owner’s policy would be accepted. Mr. Mouritsen believed there would be another amendment pertaining to the matching criteria used to verify insurance. Ms. Chowning asked if there was another amendment. She believed the addition of the words “not as the primary means of matching” would work. John Vergiels, representing Nevada General Insurance, told the committee they could work that out or perhaps Mr. Mouritsen could write something. Ms. Mathiesen recommended on page 5, lines 6 through 9, “the department shall not use the name of the owner of a motor vehicle as primary verification pursuant to subsection 1 to verify whether the motor vehicle is covered by a policy of liability insurance as required by subsection 2 of NRS 485.185.” This was accepted as a second amendment.
Ms. Mathiesen stated the elimination of the operator’s policy as proof of insurance prevented people who did not own a car from filing an “SR22” for reinstatement of their driving privileges. Jim Werbeckes, representing Farmers Insurance Group, did not believe that the SR22 would be affected since it would still be possible to purchase a named non-owner auto policy, which covered the financial responsibility to comply with the law.
Bob Crowell, representing Nevada Trial Lawyers, agreed with Mr. Werbeckes. Ms. Chowning asked the cost variance between the operator’s policy and the named non-owner policy. Mr. Werbeckes said they were the same price, but the operator’s policy did not cover a third party who drove the insured’s vehicle. Elimination of this policy decreased the number of uninsured accidents.
ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN MOTIONED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 303 WITH TWO AMENDMENTS.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN MCCLAIN SECONDED.
Assemblyman Carpenter felt that the effective date of July 1, 2001, was too soon. Mr. Claborn accepted the addition to his motion that the effective date for the repeal would be January 1, 2002. Assemblyman Gustavson felt the operator’s policy was important for persons who owned multiple vehicles.
THE MOTION CARRIED BY THOSE PRESENT. THE VOTE WAS 8 TO 1 WITH ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON OPPOSED.
Senate Bill 396: Makes various changes regarding traffic laws. (BDR 43-1219)
Mr. Mouritsen stated that S.B. 396 made changes in traffic laws regarding slow moving vehicles, traffic turnouts, daytime headlamp use, and the movement of heavy equipment during an emergency (Exhibit E). An amendment, proposed by Senator Titus, allowed a local government the option of using video cameras for the enforcement of traffic laws.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOTIONED TO DO PASS S.B. 396.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN MCCLAIN SECONDED.
THE MOTION CARRIED BY THOSE PRESENT.
Assemblyman Claborn stated his concern about the turnouts, asking if they were in the amendment or the original bill. When Ms. Chowning stated they were in the original bill, he changed his vote to no. Ms. Chowning read that where there were five or more vehicles formed in a line the person must turnout at the nearest place designated or wherever sufficient area for turnout permitted.
Assemblyman Carpenter questioned the section that stated large equipment could be moved to and from an emergency without a permit, but a permit would be issued after-the-fact. According to Mr. Capurro, the AGC requested the permission due to problems of getting equipment back once it was out. The permit created a chain of evidence that the operation was legal.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL RESCINDED THE FORMER MOTION AND MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 396.
Chairwoman Chowning read the new amendment:
Such an authorization may be given orally and may, if requested by a local law enforcement agency or public safety agency, include driving or moving the vehicle or combination of vehicles to and from the site of the emergency. If a person receives such an authorization, he shall on the next business day after receiving the authorization, obtain a special permit pursuant to Subsection 1.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN MCCLAIN SECONDED.
THE VOTE TO RESCIND THE ACTION WAS CARRIED BY THOSE PRESENT.
**********
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 396, WITH AN AMENDMENT THAT PLACED A PERIOD AFTER THE NUMBER 1 ON PAGE 3, LINE 9, AND DELETE THE REST OF LINE 9 AND LINE 10.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN MCCLAIN SECONDED.
THE MOTION FAILED. ASSEMBLYMAN OCEGUERA VOTED NAY AND ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN ABSTAINED.
**********
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 396, WITH AN AMENDMENT TO PLACE A PERIOD AFTER THE NUMBER 1 ON PAGE 3, LINE 9, AND DELETE THE REST OF LINE 9 AND LINE 10.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN MCCLAIN SECONDED.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
Chairwoman Chowning adjourned the meeting at 4:52 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Linda Lee Nary
Transcribing Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman
DATE: