MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Transportation

 

Seventy-First Session

March 29, 2001

 

 

The Committee on Transportationwas called to order at 1:30 p.m., on Thursday, March 29, 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

Ms.                     Debbie Smith

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

Mr.                     Tom Collins, excused

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley, Assembly District 8

Assemblyman David Parks, Assembly District 41

Assemblyman Lynn Hettrick, Assembly District 39

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Assembly District 31

Assemblyman Doug Bache, Assembly District 11

Assemblywoman Ellen Koivisto, Assembly District 14

 

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Paul Mouritsen, Committee Policy Analyst

Linda Lee Nary, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Crystal Peron, concerned citizen, Las Vegas

Russ Benzler, Administrator for the Compliance Enforcement Division, DMV

Bryan Gresh, representing the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTCSN)

Jacob Snow, General Manager, Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada

Fred Hillerby, Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County

Bernie Kaufman, Nevada Car Rental Association

Jim Parsons, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles

Ginny Lewis, Motor Vehicles Deputy Director

Scott Craigie, representing the Tahoe Reno Industrial Center

Stan Olsen, Lieutenant, Las Vegas Police Department

Lisa Foster, American Automobile Association (AAA)

 

Assembly Bill 320:  Revises certain provisions regarding motor vehicles. (BDR 43-1096)

 

Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley, representing Assembly District 8, described the bill as an important consumer protection measure, which accomplished two things:  1) helped assure that a victim of car sales fraud or breach of contract would have some compensation, and 2) preserved for one year important original documents that might be needed to prove a case in court.  The bill changed the dealer bond law to remove the retail value of the car as the victim’s recoverable amount.  A.B. 320 also required the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to retain original titles and secure powers of attorney for one year.  Odometer fraud was better proven from the original documents than from a microfilmed copy.

 

Ms. Buckley proposed two amendments.  The first was to eliminate the need to keep registrations, which have no original signatures.  The second amendment stated the bond must cover the principal place of business and all branches operated, and, for additional businesses operated under a different name, there must be a separate bond for each.

 

In summary, Ms. Buckley reiterated that A.B. 320 was an important consumer protection measure to help victims of odometer fraud prove their case and to help victims of fraud recover their damages.

 

Assemblyman Lee, referring to the line “place of business operated under a different name,” wondered if this meant another dealership or any type business.  Ms. Buckley stated that was existing law and only applied to a dealer who owned another car lot. 

 

Crystal Peron testified from Las Vegas in support of A.B. 320.  Her testimony (Exhibit C) was of her personal experience in purchasing a used car in Clark County and consequently being a victim of fraud.  Her attorney discovered she had been sold a rebuild of two cars —one had come from Florida, branded as “unrebuildable.”  The car had a “rebuilt vehicle” title from Vermont.  The odometer disclosure showed the mileage on the odometer was not the actual mileage.  Ms. Peron continued in this vein, finally stating that she had spent all her savings to purchase what she thought would be a safe vehicle for transporting her child, but what she got was a “rebuilt wreck” with no title and no possibility of selling it.  Nevada law limited recovery to the value of the car.  She wished to see the Nevada law changed to protect the poor people from “shadier used-car dealers.” 

 

Chairwoman Chowning thanked Ms. Peron for having courage to speak out and have her voice be heard in the legislature.  She said existing law, as she read it, indicated the dealer must have a $5,000 bond in place, so would that not have covered the cost of Ms. Peron’s vehicle?  Ms. Peron said it would have but she had not known the vehicle was salvaged.  She was told it was “clean and clear title” and safe for her baby.  The case was still in litigation.

 

Ms. Chowning thanked her again and assured her that the committee would do whatever they could to help eliminate these frauds.

 

Ms. Buckley stated that bonds of $50,000 and $5,000 were both modified by existing law, which stated that the amount of judgment could not exceed the retail value of the vehicle.  There was no compensation for associated costs of resolving the problem. 

 

Assemblyman Carpenter remarked to Ms. Buckley, even though the DMV kept the certificate of ownership, in this case there probably was not one.  Ms. Buckley replied that in many cases, something was signed, specifically the odometer disclosure.  The original was better than a photocopy under the “best evidence” rule.  Mr. Carpenter then wondered whether the bill should state some signed document should be given the customer.  Under federal law, Ms. Buckley replied, there must be an odometer disclosure signature on the title or on a secure power of attorney, which was filed with the DMV.  A dealer was not required to disclose if a car had been in a wreck, in a flood or rebuilt.  Mr. Carpenter asked about the breach of contract, etc., and whether the attorney fees were recoverable.  Assemblywoman Buckley stated on breach of contract, a person would only recover those fees if it was set forth in the contract.  Under deceptive trade practices, in current law, a victim could seek the attorney fees. 

 

Assemblywoman Cegavske asked, regarding the salvage records the DMV kept, were they just Nevada’s salvaged cars or were they from other states?  Ms. Buckley replied that all the states were supposed to mark salvaged cars, but “title washing” occurs from state to state.  This was a real problem and, nationally, a group of attorneys was trying to change this. 

 

Russ Benzler, Administrator for the Compliance Enforcement Division, DMV, gave his support to the bill.  He also believed further work could be done to assist Ms. Peron in resolving her problem.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 320.

 

            ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

 

Assembly Bill 460:  Revises provisions governing payment, remission and distribution of fees collected by short-term lessors of passenger cars. (BDR 43-589)

 

Assemblyman David Parks, representing Assembly District 41, presented A.B. 460, which he had originally sponsored as A.B. 403 of the Seventieth Session.  The bill as adopted in 1993 was in violation of Article 10 of the Nevada Constitution, which stated that revenues generated from a tax may not go to a nongovernmental use.  His testimony was based on data included in Exhibit D.  The taxes were remitted only once per year, and the car rental agencies retained two-thirds of the amount collected.  This included any amounts related to registering a vehicle.  Las Vegas car rental rates were very competitive with those across the country.

 

A.B. 403 of the Seventieth Session had had a hearing in 1999 and was indefinitely postponed.  A.B. 460 was very similar except it detailed the transmittal of the revenue on a monthly basis.  Sections of the current bill dealt with the collection and payment of the revenue to the Department of Taxation.  A provision allowed the short-term lessor to keep 1.25 percent to cover the cost of collecting.  One-third of the collected funds would be deposited in the state General Fund, one-third into the State Highway Fund and one-third into an intergovernmental fund for distribution to local governments. 

 

The amount of revenue generated for the local governments the first year was estimated to be approximately $7.5 million.  Registration, titles and documentation fees became a cost of doing business, as it was prior to 1993. 

 

Bryan Gresh, representing the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTCSN), declared “strong support for A.B. 460.”  Mr. Gresh presented the RTCSN General Manager, Jacob Snow, who testified in Las Vegas.  Mr. Snow informed the committee that the Citizens Area Transit bus system in Las Vegas was recently ranked as the most cost effective in the country according to the National Transit Databases of the Federal Transit Administration.  Over 48 percent of the operating costs were recovered through fare boxes.  However, since 1997 no new services had been provided in this rapidly growing community because the funding sources were “maxed out.”  To maintain service levels, fares were raised in 2000.  Revenues increased but ridership decreased. 

 

Mr. Snow stated he was testifying in support of A.B. 460 because of a need to find additional revenue sources.  The RTCSN proposed to utilize some of the revenues created from this bill to increase service on the routes that served the largest number of high schools and middle schools. 

 

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall asked about the cost of the recent decision to change the logos on the buses.  Mr. Snow assured the committee that this was revenue neutral.  The RTCSN had received feedback that the color scheme of the buses was not as safe as it could be.  The buses were being painted as ordered new or repainted as regular maintenance about every three years.  Assemblywoman Cegavske thanked Mr. Snow for including the school children in his proposal for additional service.

 

Fred Hillerby, representing the Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County, also supported A.B. 460.  It made good public policy, he said, to take tax revenue generated from transportation and reinvest it in transportation.  Washoe County planned to use the revenues in providing transportation services to senior citizens. 

 

Carole Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayers Association, spoke in opposition to A.B. 460.  Her argument against sending the revenues to local governments was that there were too many entities vying for it; not every county would get an amount that would “mean anything.”  Keep the revenues as a state revenue source for the State Highway Fund, she said.  This had an impact on Nevada car renters; could an exemption for them be considered?  Also, at the very least, if the bill was passed, the revenue should be phased in, not imposed as of July 1, 2001, because the rental agencies had already budgeted these monies in their income.

 

Assemblyman Lee understood that Clark and Washoe were the biggest recipients and many counties would not receive much.  Ms. Vilardo restated that there was much competition between the governmental entities for tax money.  When money was needed, these governmental entities’ coffers were raided.  This should not be a split revenue source.

 

Mr. Carpenter felt the locals needed the help due to their limited source for funds.  The state received all the diesel tax.  Ms. Vilardo said there had been no way to locally distribute the diesel tax. 

 

In Las Vegas, Bernie Kaufman of the Nevada Car Rental Association, supported this bill in 1993, to put the smaller rental agencies on the same level as the larger.  He opposed A.B. 460.  He pointed out that the taxes/fees for car rentals were getting high:  this 6 percent surcharge, 7.25 percent sales tax, and 10 percent airport fee or 8 percent off-airport fee. 

 

Assemblywoman McClain asked what the rationale was behind the 2 percent fee rather than just the four percent in 1993.  Mr. Kaufman replied they had originally wanted the full six percent but the state wanted money for the Highway Fund.

 

Mr. Parks commented the 1993 bill had intended to help the smaller companies be more competitive.  However, what happened was that all companies, large and small, got the break so the goal was never achieved.  Regarding the effective date and/or creating exemptions for Nevada residents, Mr. Parks declared himself willing to ACCEPT amendments. 

 

A letter from Ed Allison, on behalf of Avis, Alamo and National, in strong opposition to A.B. 460, was distributed (Exhibit E).

 

Chairwoman Chowning closed the hearing on A.B. 460 and opened the work session.

 

Assembly Bill 6:  Provides for issuance of endorsements to holders of noncommercial licenses to tow certain vehicles. (BDR 43-292)

 

Paul Mouritsen, Committee Policy Analyst, introduced the bill and proposed amendment as disclosed in the work session document (Exhibit F).  Assemblyman Lynn Hettrick, representing Assembly District 39, explained the intent behind the bill—to permit the towing of any combination of vehicles with a gross weight of 26,001 pounds not exceeding 70 feet in length, by a non-commercial driver with a Class A license.  A “sunset” had been put on this by request of the Department of Motor Vehicles, so that they could then have it in their regulations where it could easily be changed should federal law require.

 

Jim Parsons, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles, would like this to roll back into regulation.  If a regulation was adopted and presented to the Legislative Commission, the “sunset” could happen then.  Ms. Chowning said it would be best if they agreed to a date but one no later than July 1, 2003.  Mr. Hettrick agreed and suggested perhaps it could say “when adopted in regulations or no later than July 1, 2003.” 

 

Assemblyman Carpenter sought clarification.  A regular driver’s license permitted the holder to drive a combination of vehicles not exceeding 70 feet in length, or 26,000 pounds or more, with some provisions.  It seemed to him this was a large rig.  Mr. Parsons responded that the classification, Class A non-commercial, still required the Class A exam without the physical or the airbrake portion, unless airbrakes were used.  Mr. Hettrick and Mr. Carpenter engaged in discussion in which Mr. Carpenter was concerned there would be many more drivers towing multiple trailers, whereas Mr. Hettrick contended this law was written for a specific situation and few drivers would be willing to take the Class A commercial license exam. 

 

Ms. Chowning asked if Mr. Parsons would be willing to lower the 26,000 pounds.  He replied that he and Mr. Hettrick had discussed this and determined the 26,000 would keep his constituent within the legal window.  But, did it need to say “26,000 or more,” Ms. Chowning inquired.  As the statutory classification break was at 26,001, Ms. Chowning recommended it read “with a gross weight rating of a maximum of 26,001 pounds.” 

 

Assemblyman Nolan questioned the wording “any combination of vehicles not exceeding 70 feet in length,” wondering if that could be “a vehicle” up to 70 feet without the commercial license.  Mr. Hettrick said this happens constantly—guys going to the lake with a travel trailer and a boat trailer.  Nevada did not have a classification to cover them.  This bill made them legal.  Mr. Nolan pictured a 40-foot motor home with another 30-foot vehicle in tow.  Mr. Hettrick said A.B. 6 covered three vehicles under 70 feet, not two.

 

            ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS             A.B. 6.

 

Ms. Chowning reviewed the amendment and stated it removed the “or more” to make the weight a maximum of 26,001 pounds, and it added a “sunset” stating “when adopted in regulation but no later than July 1, 2003.”

 

            ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED.

 

Assemblyman Gustavson felt the wording should state “not to exceed 26,001” as the existing law states for other vehicles.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

 Assembly Bill 113:  Provides for issuance of special license plates for support of rodeos. (BDR 43-1005)

 

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, representing Assembly District 31, said he had no objections to Assemblywoman de Braga dealing with the Nevada High School Rodeo Association (NHSRA).  However, he believed the Reno Rodeo Foundation (RRF) wished to remain in the bill exactly as before. 

 

First Chairwoman Chowning requested a motion to rescind the action they formerly took because they had not understood the intent of the sponsor (Exhibit F).

 

            ASSEMBLYWOMAN MCCLAIN MOVED TO RESCIND PREVIOUS ACTION ON A.B. 113.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Mr. Anderson was then invited to phrase the amendment as he wished it.  He believed Ms. de Braga wished to say, “The Nevada High School Rodeo Association or its successor may grant a portion of its proceeds they respectively receive pursuant to this section to one or more high school rodeo associations established the same for the support of those associations.”  Paul Mouritsen, Committee Policy Analyst, read the revisions proposed by Ms. de Braga.  Ms. Chowning then read the amendment:  ”The Nevada High School Rodeo Association or its successor may grant a portion of the proceeds it respectively receives pursuant to this subsection to one or more high school rodeo associations.”  Mr. Anderson felt it was Ms. de Braga’s intent that the sole scholarship granting organization would be the Nevada High School Rodeo Association.  He was in agreement with this for the Reno Rodeo Foundation.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN LEE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 113.

 

            ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED.

 

Mr. Carpenter asked if Mr. Anderson wanted to say the Reno Rodeo Foundation or its successor could also grant a portion of the proceeds to the NHSRA.  Mr. Anderson believed what would happen would be the Reno Rodeo Foundation would receive 50 percent of the proceeds distributed from the state and the Nevada High School Rodeo Association would receive 50 percent of the proceeds and the NHSRA could grant their dollars to local high school rodeo associations. 

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Assembly Bill 246:  Revises provisions regarding registration of motor vehicle by new resident of this state. (BDR 43-213)

 

Paul Mouritsen, Committee Policy Analyst, stated the amendment required each driver to register their vehicles before receiving their driver’s license or to execute an affidavit showing they had no vehicle in the state.  Assemblywoman Cegavske asked, by deleting the line with the 30-day requirement, were they saying they did not need to obtain a license unless they were registering their vehicle?  Ms. McClain suggested that the 30 days could be left in, but the registration was still required before the driver’s license would be issued.  Assemblywoman Smith questioned the need to have the 30-days included here since it was already required for the driver’s license.

 

Ginny Lewis, Motor Vehicles Deputy Director, quoted the current law as saying a new resident must obtain a driver’s license and register any vehicle within 30 days.  Ms. Lewis concurred with Assemblywoman McClain; many people do attempt to get the driver’s license first and wait to register the vehicle.  If people could not register their vehicles at that time, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) could flag their record at the end of 30 days if no vehicle was registered by then.  Ms. McClain said that the driver’s license was the only “hook” to snag these people and force them to register.  She felt very strongly that if Nevada lost $17 million in revenues in 1996, it was easily losing $30 million today.  Assemblyman Nolan agreed with Ms. McClain but asked about the person who claimed to have no vehicle.  Ms. Lewis believed the bill included the affidavit a customer signed saying they had no vehicle. 

 

Mr. Carpenter stated that what Ms. Lewis proposed made good sense to him, especially in areas where the smog check was necessary.  Some people were not financially prepared in that first month to have the smog test, pay the registration and obtain the license.  It was better public relations for the DMV to offer the 30-day period.  Assemblyman Gustavson felt he could not support the bill because it penalized the poor and discouraged people from moving to Nevada. 

 

Assemblywoman McClain acquiesced to the 30 days but requested a follow-up at the end of that period.  Chairwoman Chowning closed the work session on A.B. 246 and asked the sponsor to work with DMV and bring the amendment back for a second look. 

 

Assembly Concurrent Resolution 6:  Urges Department of Transportation to place construction of State Route 567 and connecting Interstate 80 Interchange on Department’s report of projects for construction and maintenance of highways. (BDR R-763)

 

Scott Craigie, representing the Tahoe Reno Industrial Center, said members of the committee had been concerned about the language of the resolution, which was intended to draw attention to the economic development value of the Tahoe Reno Industrial Center (TRIC). The amendment (Exhibit G) removed all references to State Route 567 and added components that upheld the value of the economic development contribution this made to rural counties.  The only remaining reference to State Route 567 and the Interstate 80 Interchange indicated that developers were working with the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) on both and would be donating the right-of-way for the construction.  The resulting economic benefits would reach into Lyon County and Carson City.  

 

Chairwoman Chowning summarized that, instead of asking NDOT to consider this project in any order of priority, A.C.R. 6 now commended the good work and benefit to the area it brought.  Furthermore, it proclaimed that this legislature, the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, Speaker Emeritus Joe Dini, and Senator Amodei praised the people involved for their vision. 

 

Mr. Claborn asked whether NDOT would be the overseer.  Mr. Craigie affirmed it would be overseen by NDOT but there would be requirements for private contribution.  The developers spent millions of dollars building roads within the center.  Mr. Claborn was concerned that private money brought a different situation for construction people as regards the Davis-Bacon Act.  Mr. Craigie understood to the extent that NDOT was involved, that portion would be under the prevailing rate, law and the Davis-Bacon Act. 

 

Chairwoman Chowning proposed an amendment to the resolution —deletion of the congratulations to the sponsors of the bill.  Mr. Craigie accepted this. 

 

            ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.C.R. 6.

 

            ASSEMBLYWOMAN MCCLAIN SECONDED.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

 

 Assembly Bill 229:  Authorizes department of motor vehicles and public safety to design, prepare and issue special license plates upon request in certain circumstances. (BDR 43-55)

 

Assemblyman Doug Bache, Assembly District 11, spoke of the proposed amendment to A.B. 229, which changed “2000” to “1000” signatures over a two-year period for bill drafting, and deleted certain sections.  If the number of registered vehicles with the special plate fell below 250, there would be one year to raise that number or the plate would be retired.  Mr. Bache also proposed to delete two license plates, which expired in 1999, from the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS).

 

Paul Mouritsen responded to the latter saying that those sections (NRS 482.3791 and NRS 482.3794) had already been repealed automatically.  Mr. Bache had no problem with that.  Assemblyman Nolan asked Mr. Bache if he had “run the amendments by DMV?”  Mr. Bache had not.  Mr. Nolan suggested the removal of the subjective language “a large growing number of special license plates have been approved for issuance in the state threatens to interfere with the ability of law enforcement officers,” and so on.  Chairwoman Chowning supported Mr. Nolan’s suggestion. 

 

Stan Olsen, Las Vegas Police Department, speaking for the department, said that the special plates were confusing and misleading and they could not support them.  Assemblyman Nolan thought for the most part law enforcement supported them.  Mr. Olsen responded that the Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP) did a different type of law enforcement than a metropolitan agency.  From the NHP perspective, by glancing at a plate it was easier to get some identification; a victim’s recollection of the plate could not even identify the state. 

 

Returning to the bill’s amendment, Ms. Chowning noted all sections regarding DMV had been removed, and Section 6 required DMV to notify the holders of the plates and the sponsoring agency when there were fewer than 250 plates issued.  Assemblyman Carpenter stated his concern was for the plates issued for veterans.  Mr. Bache replied those did not have the 250 requirement so they were not affected. 

 

At this point, Chairwoman Chowning dismissed herself to testify at another committee.  Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall chaired the remainder of the meeting.

 

Assemblywoman Cegavske pointed out throughout Section 6 there were references to Section 3, which was deleted.  Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall asked Mr. Mouritsen to address the issue and perhaps draft a clean amendment.  Mr. Mouritsen said originally Section 6 was intended to apply only to those plates issued by DMV but this changed the intent of that to apply to those issued by the legislature.  Mr. Bache admitted he might have misread his language in the beginning.  Originally, his intent was that it applied to all license plates that had a minimum requirement of the 250. 

 

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall, based on Ms. Cegavske’s point and Mr. Mouritsen’s concern, sent the bill back to committee for a clean draft.  The hearing on A.B. 229 was closed.

                       

Assembly Bill 383:  Prohibits driver of motor vehicle from permitting person to ride upon or within certain portions of motor vehicles under certain circumstances. (BDR 43-150)

 

Assemblywoman Ellen Koivisto, Assembly District 14, invited Lisa Foster from the American Automobile Association to answer some questions that had previously been posed by some members of the committee.  She stated that 25 states had similar laws to A.B. 383.  Each state had some type of exemption.  Claims involving passengers in a truck bed would probably be handled no differently.  Regarding camper shells, she claimed that in some collisions, especially non-rollovers, a camper shell might help.  But in a rollover, it might exacerbate the injuries because it could fragment.  Assemblyman Gustavson was more concerned about slide-in campers.  Ms. Foster did not believe there were studies or data for those types of accidents.  Ms. Koivisto pointed out that in order to be charged for having kids unsecured in the camper shell, a person must have been stopped for some other traffic violation. 

 

Assemblyman Carpenter’s concern was also for camper shells, since many grandpas take their kids on fishing trips.  It would not make a difference to him if camper shells were exempted.  Ms. Koivisto was willing to remove the camper shell restriction; it was an exemption that many states had.  Ms. Cegavske requested clarification as to whether adults in the bed of trucks were addressed.  Ms. Koivisto said that had been discussed but not incorporated into the bill.  They would be legal unless they were under age 18. 

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 383 AMENDING TO REMOVE THE CAMPER SHELL.

 

            ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE SECONDED.

 

During discussion, Mr. Nolan understood the amendment to remove the camper shell or slide-in camper.  Mr. Mouritsen felt that he understood the concept and could work with the Legal Division to draft the amendment.  Assemblywoman Smith applauded the bill.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THE MEMBERS PRESENT.

 

Assembly Bill 242:  Revises requirements for licenses for certain instructors for schools for training drivers. (BDR 43-1173)

 

A.B. 242 was not heard due to the absence of its sponsor Chairwoman Chowning.

 

Vice Chairwoman Ohrenschall closed the meeting at 4:45 p.m.

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Linda Lee Nary

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman

 

 

DATE: